MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School
Certificate for Approving the Dissertation
We hereby approve the Dissertation
of
Kimberly Kappler Hewitt
Candidate for the Degree:
Doctor of Philosophy
Director Lisa D. Weems
Reader Kathleen Knight-Abowitz
Reader Peter Magolda
Graduate School Representative Tammy Schwartz
ABSTRACT
HOW EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN WOMEN NEGOTIATE DISCOURSES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELF: A POSTSTRUCTURAL FEMINIST ANALYSIS
by Kimberly Kappler Hewitt
Situating my research within the theoretical framework of poststructural feminism, I pose the question, ―How do evangelical Christian women negotiate, appropriate, resist, and embrace the multiple and conflicting discourses through which they are constituted and constitute themselves?‖ To explore this question, I asked participants to create artifacts to address a prompt designed to explore their multiple and conflicting discourses. I also conducted two-part interviews with each participant. Using the methods of textual analysis and deconstruction, I concluded that each of the women moves—often uneasily—between the dominant discourse of complementarianism and the counter- discourse of egalitarianism. Each woman‘s views are complex, nuanced, and at times paradoxical. While each of the women remained committed to the discursive construct of headship at least symbolically, each of the women also employed multiple strategies to emasculate it. Further, all of the women rejected dominant and hegemonic readings of key biblical passages and used a variety of strategies to re-read and un-read the passages. While each participant invokes the language and claims of liberal feminism, especially within her professional discourse, most participants eschew the term ―feminist,‖ and all of them evince complex views on the discourse of feminism. These findings have implications for teacher education, K-12 public education, and the advancement of feminism.
HOW EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN WOMEN NEGOTIATEDISCOURSES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELF: A POSTSTRUCTURAL FEMINIST ANALYSIS
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Educational Leadership
by
Kimberly Kappler Hewitt
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio
2009
Dissertation Director: Lisa D. Weems
Reader: Kathleen Knight-Abowitz
Reader: Peter Magolda
Reader: Tammy Schwartz
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ...………………………………………………………………………... iii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: CHRISTIANS, CATHOLICS, AND CAPTIVATING—OH MY!.…………………………………………………... 1-25
CHAPTER 2 EVANGELICALISM: VIVID SWIRLS IN GLASS MARBLES……………………………………………………………….... 26-108
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY: CIRCULATING WHIPS OF WIND……..... 109-176
CHAPTER 4 INTRODUCING PARTICIPANTS: GENDERED SUBJECT POSITIONS……..……………………………………………. 177-217
CHAPTER 5 MAJOR THEMES: NAVIGATING EVANGELICAL GENDERED IDENTITY………………………….……………………... 218-248
CHAPTER 6 BITING ONE‘S THUMB AT THE BIBLE & USING THE ―F-WORD‖..………………………………………………….…….. 249-282
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ………………….…….. 283-316
THE LAST WORD …………………………………………………………...…. 317-318
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………...... 319-330
APPENDIX A IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW …….. 331-345
APPENDIX B INTERVIEW DATA …………………………………………... 346-356
ii
For Greg, for being you and for the “I love you” and “Hang in there…you can do it” sticky notes. For my daughter Mackenzie, for inspiring me. and For Mom and Dad, for believing in me as a wee tot to a Ph.D. candidate and all the points in between.
iii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION: CHRISTIANS, CATHOLICS, AND CAPTIVATING—OH MY!
Stumbling and Diving into a Dissertation
Perhaps research is as much serendipity as it is anything else. Cassandra—Cassie—called on an eventless, nameless day in late summer, 2005, to invite me to participate in a book study of Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman’s Soul, by John and Stasi Eldredge (2005), after the book had been mentioned at Crossover, the nondenominational Christian church that we both attended. Although I am a bibliophile at heart and love the way that book studies invite us to know each other more deeply, I was a little anxious about the content of the book. I tend to be of a different philosophy from those who write highly popular Christian books. Nonetheless, I agreed. I drove off to Barnes & Noble to purchase the book. After locating it in the Christian literature section of the bookstore and thinking, There’s a whole section for this stuff? I whipped open the flap of the book and read: Why do little girls love to dress up in twirling skirts? Why do they dream of a day their prince will come and together they will live in a great adventure? Because that is the heart God set within every woman. WHAT?!? It was at this point that I experienced a visceral, almost overwhelming desire to hurl the book as hard and as far from myself as I could. When the desire subsided, I read on: This book is an invitation to become that again, become the woman you truly are. Just as Cinderella was invited to the ball, God is inviting you to a great Romance with him. ―The eyes of his heart are ever upon you. The King is captivated by your beauty.‖ There is absolutely no way that I can read this book and not spontaneously combust, I thought. In a frenzy, I ran my finger along each spine in the Christian
1 literature section of Barnes & Noble. Nothing caught me as even remotely ―feminist.‖ I paused. Are feminism and Christianity mutually exclusive? I have carried this question within me for a long time, but being in the Christian literature section of the bookstore made the question immediate and threatening. I darted to the Women‘s Studies section of the bookstore. Again, I fingered each spine in the section and pulled out five books on the topic of feminism and religion. I negotiated with myself that if I bought four of these feminist books about religion that I might safely purchase the Captivating book without combusting. I did so, telling myself that I would give this Captivating book study a shot, and if I couldn‘t handle it, then I would excuse myself after the first session. Cassie would understand. The study group was led by Cassie and Wynne and included five other young, professional women besides me (Gretchen, Carly, Kelly, Sam, and Silvie). We were all friends, although some of us hadn‘t known each other long or well. I missed the first session of the book study (I was on my honeymoon), so at the beginning of the second session, I asked what everyone thought of the book so far. Several spoke up to say that they felt it was ―validating,‖ that the book communicated that it was ―okay to have these desires [for being romanced and pursued].‖ I could feel my body tense. Wynne asked me, ―What did you think?‖ For an infinitesimal second, I paused. It’s complete crap, I thought to myself, but I said instead, ―Well, I did not find the book validating or liberating. I feel that it‘s oppressive.‖ I went on a bit about why I felt that way. Then silence. I noticed that I was holding my breath. I don‘t remember exactly what Wynne said, but her comments respected and acknowledged mine and yet pushed on them as well as she made her own point. And then there opened up in that group at that session a space to question the book, to poke at it. Gretchen said that she felt a ―push and pull‖ with the book. Sam agreed. And we went on from there. The conversation was alive, rich, intelligent. I left Cassie‘s that night feeling exhilarated. I didn‘t necessarily like the book any better, but I fell more in love with these women, these Wonder Women, who wrap the group in strong arms of love that make a safe space to say what you want, to ask what you want, and to challenge each other in the best sense of the word. It was only much, much later that I wondered if
2 what I so valued and appreciated in these women—their acceptance, their openness, their kindness—was a function of their performance of the evangelical gendered ideology of the ideal woman. I had been planning on doing my dissertation on the ways in which evangelical1 Christian leaders construct ―female.‖ Issues of femaleness, religion, and identity had been marinating in my brain for years, and they crystallized on this topic in the early fall of 2005, in part because of the Captivating study. I wanted to analyze how evangelical Christian leaders construct ―Truth‖ about what it means to be a woman and what women are supposed to do and be. I wanted to deconstruct the work of radio preacher John MacArthur, whose radio ministry is heard on over 2000 stations worldwide and who said, ―the most damaging sexual harassment taking place today is the sexual harassment by feminists and their governmental allies against the role of motherhood and the role of the dependent wife. That‘s real sexual harassment with devastating results‖ (2005, pp. 6-7). I wanted to deconstruct the best-selling Captivating, and I was also going to deconstruct the ministry of a woman evangelical pastor. That was my plan. But, in the words of poet Robert Burns, ―The best laid schemes o‘ mice an‘ men/ Gang aft a-gley‖ (Allison, et al, 1983, p. 512). And my plans went awry in a most wonderfully disruptive and productive way. The ―gang aft a-gley‖ part happened during one of our Captivating study sessions. During this particular book study session, on October 13, 2005, I asked the others what they thought of a particular passage from Captivating, one that had seemed to suck all of the oxygen out of the room when I had read it earlier in the week: Woman is cursed with loneliness (relational heartache), with the urge to control (especially her man), and with the dominance of men (which is not how things were meant to be, and we are not saying it is good thing—it is the fruit of the fall and a sad fact of history). (p. 50)
1 In the first part of Chapter 2, I define—in detail—evangelical Christianity (also known as evangelicalism). For the sake of brevity, evangelicalism is generally a theologically (as well as socially and politically) conservative subset of Protestantism. ―Evangelicalism‖ is a noun that refers to this conservative Protestant discourse. ―Evangelical,‖ when used as a noun, refers to someone situated within the discourse of evangelicalism. ―Evangelical‖ can also be used as an adjective to refer to a church, book, or some other noun within the discourse of evangelicalism. ―Evangelism,‖ by contrast, is the act of proselytizing one‘s faith to another. While some authors (e.g. Hunter, 1987) capitalize ―evangelicalism‖ and its derivatives, I follow suite with the majority of authors whose works I‘ve read who do not. 3 When I asked the others what they thought of it, Cassie said that the passage ―sat funny‖ with her but she couldn‘t ―pinpoint why.‖ Sam said that she did not feel that ―men dominate.‖ Carly said that lots of people ―don‘t seem emotionally healthy,‖ and then the conversation drifted in another direction. I was floored. I had found the passage to be incendiary. To me it said that women are lonely and controlling and dominated by men because Biblical Eve ate the forbidden apple and then gave it to Adam. As such, loneliness, desire to control, and domination by men are the God-endorsed effects of Eve‘s actions. Woman is the responsible party for women‘s oppression. Further, the oppression of women is sanctioned by God. This passage screamed to me for a response. And then I had my first of two ―aha‖ moments. What is more interesting than the texts through which evangelical Christian leaders construct female is how evangelical Christian women respond to and make meaning of (or disregard) such constructions of female. I couldn‘t analyze discourse ―solely on the basis of analysis of texts without considering the diverse ways in which such texts may be interpreted and responded to‖ (Fairclough, 1995, p. 9). This moment was critical because for me it entirely shifted my focus from how evangelical Christian leaders construct female to how evangelical Christian women constitute themselves and are constituted by the multiple and conflicting discourses in their lives. Later in the same October 13th session, we were discussing the biblical imperative that a woman be submissive. Kelly asked, ―Is the man the leader in a relationship?‖ Cassie and Gretchen agreed, and Wynne stated that ―we‘re called to be submissive‖ by the bible.2 Sam explained that she saw a relationship as more equal, and Cassie clarified
2 A word on capitalization . . . Throughout this text, I have elected to capitalize some words within the Christian tradition but not others. While I attempt to explain my reasoning here, I recognize that there is an element of arbitrariness to my decisions. Following generally accepted rules for capitalizing proper nouns, I consistently capitalize Christian, Protestant, and Catholic. I consistently do not capitalize ―evangelicalism‖ and its derivatives. While this is not universally done, I am following the lead of the majority of the authors whose works I have read for this dissertation. Further, I choose not to capitalize ―evangelicalism‖ in order to emphasize the heterogeneity of the discourse and those to subscribe to it. Additionally, I do not capitalize ―bible,‖ even though some authors (and almost all Christians) do. I elect not to capitalize ―bible‖ because I often use the term not to refer specifically to a published book (and therefore a proper noun) but to refer to a general source of cultural tradition, wisdom, and Truth for a large body of people. I consistently capitalize God because of my own belief in a higher power and my respect for this higher power. 4 that she saw relationships as mostly equal but that ―when it comes down to it, the man decides.‖ Cassie explained that she saw the man as the ―tie breaker‖ when both people in the relationship (relationships were always framed by this group as being heterosexual) could not come to consensus on an important decision. Gretchen and Wynne agreed. Silvie said that she had long ago realized that women can do anything, so why in married relationships would men have more responsibility? She asked, ―Did God design me that way?‖ The conversation then moved from female/male roles in romantic relationships to the workplace. Here the conversation was still somewhat framed by how God designed men and women to be, and the group discussed how to make meaning of a situation wherein men and women did not seem to fit those roles in the workplace. On more than one occasion, Kelly lamented to the group that in her job she and one other manager—a man—shared responsibilities for a department. Kelly was affronted when she learned that even though she had more responsibility than her male counterpart, he was paid significantly more than she. Kelly asked if the hierarchy that places man over woman is God-designed. Gretchen and Cassie answered in the affirmative. Gretchen, Wynne, Silvie, and Sam all agreed that in the workplace, but not in marriage, it is okay for women to be positioned hierarchically above men. I learned a lot in the course of the book study (although I‘m not sure that I learned much of anything from the book itself). I learned that these women feel the push and pull of the multiple, overlapping, competing, inextricable, and incommensurate discourses through which they both constitute themselves and are constituted—those of their evangelical Christian faith, their professions, their families, their romantic relationships, their social circles, etc. This was my second ―aha‖: What is most intriguing to me is how these women wrestle with and massage the conflicting discourses of their lives. And thus I had a new focus for my dissertation research: How do evangelical Christian women negotiate, appropriate, resist, and embrace the multiple and conflicting discourses through which they are constituted and constitute themselves? I am interested in studying the ways in which these women navigate and negotiate the discourses through which they are constituted. Further, I am interested in exploring
5 the ways in which the women are both agentic and complicitous in challenging and reinforcing the spaces and constraints of their performance of female. Drawing on Michel Foucault, I want to explore with evangelical Christian women the ―way that we know what we know; where that information comes from; how it is produced and under what circumstances; whose interests it might serve; how it is possible to think differently‖ (as quoted in Mills, 2003, p. 66).
Socio-historical Context
As a reader, you may be asking yourself what this topic has to do with education generally and with curriculum more specifically. The answer to this question is neither simple nor succinct. Indeed, I believe that this question is best answered by considering the following anecdote.
A couple of years ago I agreed to serve as a substitute assistant teacher in the kindergarten classroom of Crossover Church’s Kids’ Club (Crossover’ version of Sunday school). I had carefully read through the day’s lesson plan and—with the other three volunteers assigned to the room—readied the sizable room for the onslaught of kindergarteners. There were boxes of “active” toys (balls, bowling pins, model plane, etc.) that lined one wall of the room and coloring pages and markers set on each of the tables in the room. As kids were filtering in, they were expected either to color at a table or play with the available toys until the lesson began. I seated myself at one of the tables and eagerly awaited the kids’ arrival. As students entered, they self-selected which activity they would partake of. A group of girls crowded at the table at which I sat, and we chatted as we colored. I noticed a couple of the girls surreptitiously looking over at the toys in the more “active” area of the room. I glanced over in the same direction and—for the first time—realized that the toys were being played with exclusively by boys and that the coloring table at which I sat was entirely populated by girls. The boys were jumping, playing loudly, and enjoying the
6 toys. I looked back at the girls whose glances I had followed. It seemed to me that they yearned to play with the toys but did not feel comfortable—or entitled, or allowed, or encouraged—to do so. I abandoned my own coloring sheet, went over to the toy box, and pulled out bowling pins and a ball. I began setting up the pins and noticed many pairs of little girl eyes watching me. I turned to them and asked if anyone wanted to join me in playing bowling. A number of the girls hopped up and joined in. Other girls remained at the table, diligently coloring. As a subset of the girls and I enjoyed our game of bowling, I noticed that some of the boys were now surreptitiously watching us. I invited them to join us as well, and two did. Some of the others seemed to throw suspicious—or disapproving—looks at us. Nonetheless, we continued our game until it was time for the lesson to begin.
The details of this anecdote are filtered by my memory of the event and the importance that I assigned to it. I have often wondered if the other volunteers in the room found this incident as interesting and compelling as I did and whether they would even remember it at all. The other adults in the room didn‘t give any indication that they found the gender segregation and self-assignments to be noteworthy, let alone problematic. I found the incident compelling because as the principal of a kindergarten building in a school district approximately 45 miles north of Crossover, I was struck by the clear gender self-segregation and the gender-based assignments to which the students gravitated. Clearly, the students were performing gender (Butler, 1999)—they were being ―female‖ and being ―male‖ as they believed they were supposed to. How fascinating that at such a young age they could perform these roles so successfully and without overt coaching. The incident flooded my mind, as an educator and curriculum director, with a thousand questions: Through what technologies (Foucault, 1977) of evangelical discourse were these students taught how to perform gender? Did these students perform gender the same way in their regular school setting? If so, what implications would this have for their regular school teachers and fellow students? If these students—so young
7 and new to the evangelical discourse—were so disciplined by it, what does this mean for people who achieve adulthood within the discourse? Just as my fellow volunteers seemed not to note the students‘ performance of gender, would other educators positioned within the evangelical discourse similarly condone—even actively teach and model—such traditional gender performances? What implications for gender construction does having an evangelical educator mean for students in public school settings and other training contexts? To what extent and in what ways does having an evangelical teacher/trainer impact instruction, classroom climate, and the construction of gender? How do evangelical educators navigate/reconcile their evangelical discourse with their discourses as professional educators/trainers? It is this last question that grounds and compels my research. I make several assumptions in the questions that I ask: I assume that the performance of gender by the kindergarteners in the anecdote is problematic. As a poststructural feminist, I believe that exposing and undermining oppressive and limiting gender construction is imperative. Also, by using the phrase ―educational discourses,‖ I imply that there is not one monolithic discourse of education. Rather, there are a multitude of educational discourses, not all of which play nicely with each other. The questions above also assume that gender is constructed differently within an evangelical discourse than in educational discourses. That remains to be seen. However, what is clear in the literature is that gender essentialism and gender-based roles are key elements of evangelical discourse (this will be examined and detailed in Chapter 2). On the other hand, there is an abundance of educational literature that explores and problematizes gender construction. There is literature about historical gender construction and inequity in education (Johansson, 2001) as well as contemporary gender bias in education (Sadker & Zittleman, 2005; Sadker, 1995). There is research that explores the ways in which men teachers perform gender (Francis, 2008) and the ways in which special populations (e.g. juvenile parolees) construct gender (Smith, 2001). There is literature on the role of school sports in constructing gender (Connell, 2008), on gender-biased assessment of undergraduates (Read, Francis, & Robinson, 2005), and the ways in which the youngest children construct gender through literature (Wharton, 2005).
8 Interestingly, there is no specific research on how evangelical teachers/trainers construct gender in their classrooms. This, however, is not my key pursuit. My research focuses on how female evangelical educators/trainers negotiate/reconcile multiple discourses, including educational discourses. If we can better understand how educators navigate and negotiate gender construction within/through multiple discourses, then we may ultimately be better positioned to understand how gender is constructed in the classroom. My study is positioned within poststructural feminist discourse. While I will go into poststructural feminism in great detail in Chapter 3 (Methodology) of this dissertation, I offer here a bit of an introduction. Before I do so, however, it is important for me to define my understanding of the term ―discourse.‖
Defining Discourse
The term ―discourse‖ is used frequently in the pages of this dissertation. I use it to refer to my own theoretical framework—or discourse—of poststructural feminism. I also use it to refer to the ―discourses‖ of evangelicalism. Additionally, I use it when speaking about the multiple ―discourses‖ in/through which my participants constitute themselves and are constituted. As such, it behooves me to take a moment to articulate my understanding of the term. Discourses "consist of competing ways of giving meaning to the world and of organizing social institutions and processes" (Weedon, 1997, p. 34). Essentially, our entire understanding of the world–of reality—and of ourselves is mitigated through discourses: Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. They constitute the "nature" of the body, unconscious and conscious mind and emotional life of the subjects which they govern. Neither the body nor thoughts and feelings have meaning outside of their discursive articulation... (Weedon, 1997, p. 105)
―Indeed, to know anything is to know in terms of discourse" (Sinclair & Monk, 2005, p. 339). Further, there is no single discourse; indeed, at all times multiple and varied
9 discourses coexist and compete with one another for dominance (Sinclair & Monk, 2005). The following section provides a brief overview of the discourse of poststructural feminism. The next chapter explores extensively the discourses of evangelicalism.
A Taste of Poststructural Feminism
Feminism itself is undeniably varied—there are many feminisms, and poststructuralism itself ―does not have a stable foundation that can ever be grasped once and for all. Its own conceptual apparatus is always open to examination‖ (Davies, 2000, p. 9). There is no set of core beliefs that feminist poststructuralists hold. It is perhaps more useful to think of poststructural feminism as a highly contentious and somewhat amorphous discourse that is used by a variety of researchers and writers, some of whom self-identify as feminist poststructuralists and others—like Judith Butler3—who eschew the term (Jackson, 2004, p. 688). That said, in this section I provide a brief overview of six key ideas of poststructural feminism that I draw upon for my research: the notion that ―truth‖ is local, partial, and contingent; the role of language in constituting reality; the notion that self/identity is discursively produced; the rejection of Cartesian dualisms; the rejection of essentialism; and the framing of power as local, ubiquitous, and amorphous. These ideas are inextricably connected and bleed into one another. These ―key ideas‖ are pieces of feminist poststructural discourse that most strongly inform my study. In providing this overview, I undoubtedly oversimplify; however, the Methodology section (Chapter 3) of this dissertation will provide a more robust discussion of the complexities of poststructural feminism.
3 Any study of poststructural feminism would be incomplete without inclusion of Judith Butler‘s work. Ironically, however, Butler does not self-identify as a feminist poststructuralist. The tension here is in trying to articulate the feminist poststructural discourse without a set of clearly defined, foundational beliefs (because feminist poststructuralists tend to reject the very notion of a unified, intact theory with clear foundational beliefs) and because some researchers and writers who articulate views associated with poststructural feminism do not identify themselves as such. My approach in this text is to identify and articulate those aspects of the discourse which most commonly appear in the literature. 10 Language Language is a focal point for feminist poststructuralists. Language does not merely describe reality, it constitutes reality (Richardson, 2000; Weedon, 1997). Feminist poststructuralists problematize the notion that there is an external, knowable reality to which we attach or fix signifiers, words that stand for something ―real‖ (Jackson, 2004; Weedon, 1997). Instead, it is through naming that we construct or make ―real‖ that which is named—we ―speak it into existence [italics added]‖ (Davies, 2000). This meaning-making and naming is done differently, by different peoples, for different ends, through discourses. Discourse refers to a way of using language to organize knowledge and reify ideas; it is a way of looking at the world, of making meaning that is made possible through the use of certain language in certain ways. ―These discourses consist of linguistic narratives not only about self and world but also about our social practices and institutional arrangements‖ (Beste, 2006, p. 7). Discourse is somewhat akin to culture but more inclusive and founded upon how language is used by social groups to construct reality and make meaning. For example, in evangelical discourse, ―headship‖ is the notion that a man is the head of a marriage and family and, as such, has ultimate authority over—and responsibility for—the marriage and family. For evangelical Christians, this is an undeniable, God-designed reality, and the idea that the husband (in a heterosexual married relationship) would make the decision to move the family to another state might be framed by evangelicals as responsible and loving male headship. For someone situated within a different discourse—say an egalitarian discourse—the unilateral decision of a husband to uproot and move the family may be framed as patriarchal and oppressive. The meanings one makes of things, the very ―realities‖ one sees, are functions of the discourses in which one is situated. As such, all knowledge and indeed reality is socially constructed through language.
Truth Because reality is a function of discourse and is socially constructed, feminist poststructuralists reject the notion of ―capital T‖ Truth, the idea that there is a grand
11 narrative or metanarrative—a knowable, consistent, unalterable, absolute Truth in the world for all people in all places for all times. Instead, feminist poststructuralists believe that Truth is a ―destructive illusion‖ (Olesen, 2005, p. 246) and argue that there is only ―small-t‖ truth that is local, partial, and contingent. Crucial to understanding the feminist poststructuralist‘s rejection of metanarratives is the role that language plays in feminist poststructural thought. Feminist poststructuralists view ―situated meaning as an effect of language‖ (Jackson, 2004, p. 674). Because meaning is always situated discursively, there can be no metanarrative that is separate from or free of situated meaning. Evangelicals, for example, believe in Truths that are absolute for all people, places, and times. They believe that there is one God, their God, who is made known to His people through His inerrant Word—the bible. Further, they believe that other cultures‘ and other times‘ conceptions of god(s)/deity(ies) are necessarily fallacious, for there is only one True God (theirs). Feminist poststructuralists take a very different approach. They reject absolutes and contextualize the only type of truth there can be—situated, partial, and contingent. I use, as an example, the linguistic construction of bathing. Today in middle-class America, daily bathing is constructed as necessary for health as well as freshness and cleanliness, and cleanliness is necessary to be considered competent and professionally appropriate. To be unwashed suggests that something is amiss—some type of emotional, mental, or personal challenge or crisis (e.g. depression, challenges of having a newborn, keeping vigil at a hospital for a sick relative, etc.) that keeps one from being able to bathe. In 16th century England, bathing was expected about twice annually. More frequently bathing was held suspect as it was believed to allow disease to more easily enter one‘s pores. Daily bathing was inconceivable. When I lived in England (1994- 1995), bathing was expected less than daily but more than weekly. A friend of mine quipped about the ―American obsession with bathing‖ and considered it superfluous and yet another example of American wastefulness. In these examples, what is true of bathing is entirely dependent on how it is constructed within a certain discursive context. It means different things in these different contexts, and thus what is true about bathing is dependent upon the context and
12 it true only for that particular context. Further, what ―bathing‖ means, linguistically, cannot be disentangled from what is true of it. There can be nothing about bathing that is absolutely true for all people, times, and places. The very concept of bathing is contingent upon context.
Subjectivity Just as reality and truth are discursively produced, so too is subjectivity. ―‘Subjectivity‘ is used to refer to the conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself and her ways of understanding her relation to the world‖ (Weedon, 1997, p. 32). Subjectivity as articulated and utilized by feminist poststructuralists is very different from the ―self‖ of humanist discourses, which ―presuppose an essence at the heart of the individual which is unique, fixed and coherent and which makes her what she is‖ (Weedon, 1997, p. 32). Instead of the notion of an unchanging self, feminist poststructuralists see subjectivity as fluid, shifting, becoming. Over time, the discourses that are available to a subject—and the discourses themselves—change and shift. As such, so too does one‘s subjectivity. Further, subjectivity is a paradoxical function of both constituting and being constituted through discourse: ―The process of subjectification, then, entails a tension between simultaneously becoming a speaking, agentic subject and the corequisite for this, being subjected to the meanings inherent in the discourses through which one becomes a subject‖ (Davies, 2000, p. 27). These complex ideas will be explicated more thoroughly in the Methodology (Chapter 3) section of this dissertation.
Rejection of Dualisms A fourth key idea from poststructural feminism upon which I draw for my dissertation is the rejection of Cartesian dualisms. Examples of such dualisms, alternatively known as binaries, include: male-female, man-woman, white-black, public- private, true-false, nonfiction-fiction, real-unreal, mind-body, inside-outside, sane-insane, rational-emotional, heterosexual-homosexual, good-evil, etc. Feminist poststructuralists
13 argue that such dualisms are inextricable from Western logic and are often hierarchical as opposed to horizontal: Western thought has always based itself on binary oppositions . . . Such oppositions are founded on repression, the relation between the two terms being one of hierarchical violence rather than equal partnership. The first term in each pair has been forcibly elevated over the second. (Aichele et al., 1995, p. 122). In the aforementioned examples, the first term, in much of Western discourse, is elevated over and positioned above the second. Hierarchicalism and patriarchy are embedded in these dualisms and inextricable from them. Feminist poststructural theory critiques Western logic‘s reliance on dualisms and problematizes hierarchicalism and patriarchy. Further, feminist poststructural theory subverts the notion of essentialism upon which such dualisms are based.
Rejection of Essentialism Rejection of essentialism is the rejection of the notion that things or concepts (e.g. woman, man, human, female, male, intelligence, progress, family, freedom, good, evil, etc.) have an ―a priori, natural, essential, or universal meaning or form‖ (Stacey, 1998, p. 114). The two passages below, both of which come from Captivating, demonstrate the authors‘ implicit commitment to essentialist beliefs about women and men: There is an essence that God has given to every woman. We share something deep and true, down in our hearts. (Eldredge & Eldredge, 2005, p. x)
So God endows Woman with certain qualities that are essential to relationship, qualities that speak of God. She is inviting. She is vulnerable. She is tender. She embodies mercy. She is also fierce and fiercely devoted. (Eldredge & Eldredge, 2005, p. 30) In the first passage, the authors make clear their belief that the essential and specific nature of women is God-designed and as such, all women share ―something deep and true.‖ These qualities—to the Eldredges—are a function of being woman, and all women therefore have them. In the second passage, the authors indicate that some of those God- endowed and shared qualities include being inviting, vulnerable, tender, merciful, fierce, and fiercely devoted. Poststructural feminism rejects the notion that there are necessary and sufficient characteristics of things that make them what they ―truly‖ are.
14 Poststructural feminism rejects a priori givens for discursively produced meanings and subjectivities.
Power A sixth key feminist poststructuralist idea upon which I draw for my project is the understanding that power is ubiquitous, multi-directional, and unstable; it ―operates within everyday relations between people and institutions‖ (Mills, 2003, p. 33). It is ―pervasive and invasive‖ (Aichele et al., 1995, p. 141). Poststructural feminism draws heavily upon Foucault‘s articulation of power and his belief that power is productive: ―Power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth‖ (Foucault, 1977, p. 194). Further, power ―compares, differentiates, hierarchizes, homogenizes, excludes. In short, it normalizes‖ (Foucault, 1977, p. 183). I will discuss feminist poststructural understandings of power more fully in the Methodology section (Chapter 3).
Researcher: My Cultural Self
. . . ―the cultural self‖ that all researchers take into their work ([Scheper-Hughes] 1992) is not a troublesome element to be eradicated or controlled, but a set of resources. Indeed, Susan Krieger (1991) early argued that utilization of the self was fundamental to qualitative work. If the researcher is sufficiently reflexive about her project, she can evoke these resources to guide gathering, creating, and interpreting her own behavior. (Olesen, 2005, p. 250-251)
Unlike positivist research, with its assumption that the researcher can and should be separate, detached, and neutral so that ―‘truth‘ can transcend opinion and personal bias‖ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 8), postpositivist studies such as mine require that the researcher be aware of her ―cultural self‖ and use that self-conscious awareness—that reflexivity—to guide and reflect upon her decisions regarding the framing of the research question, inviting participants into the study, gathering and analyzing data, and creating a research product that is as transparent as possible about her discursive positioning, her
15 assumptions, her biases, her decisions. The researcher is to make her ―cultural self‖ available to the project and to her reader. This research project is deeply personal to me, partly so because the participants are friends, and partly so because questions regarding the intersection of gender, religion, and identity have long been fomenting within me. Institutional religion has been a constitutive force throughout my life. I was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church when I was an infant. I attended Catholic elementary school and an all-girls Catholic high school in middle class suburbs of a sizable Midwestern city. I went through First Communion and was confirmed in 8th grade. As a family, my parents, brother, and I attended mass every Sunday; even when on vacation, my parents would find the nearest Catholic church and march us there. On occasions when no English-speaking Catholic church could be found, we would hear mass in Spanish. Growing up, my schoolmates, extended family members, and friends were mostly Catholic, with the exception of my neighborhood ―public school friends,‖ who were invariably worldlier than I. The fact that most of the people in my life were Catholic was less a function of design and more a function of logistics. My parents‘ coworkers and friends were not necessary Catholic, but because my brother and I generally spent time with friends from school and family members, we were generally around other Catholics most of the time. My memory of the intersection of gender, identity, and religion goes back to childhood. As a child, I noticed that women were not priests, bishops, or popes. And I learned that no matter how badly I wanted to be an alter boy, the imperative that the role be filled by a ―boy‖ precluded my participation. On the other hand, women could distribute communion and ―be readers‖ during the service. Women were also allowed to teach religion classes and be nuns, whom I learned were, somehow, all sort of married to Jesus. I couldn‘t figure out quite how that worked, but I do remember someone pointing out to me the ―wedding bands‖ on nuns‘ fingers. Among my extended family and Catholic friends, there seemed to be a general, if amorphous, understanding that the Church was ―way behind‖ on women‘s issues and that it would take a good, long time
16 before women were allowed to take on more leadership roles in the Church. I remember asking once why women couldn‘t be priests, and I was told that it was because in the bible none of the apostles were women. My current understanding of biblical history calls into question the veracity of that answer as well as its sufficiency. I started Vanderbilt University still a good Catholic girl, with a distorted, repressive view of sexuality and a guilt-based need to attend mass on Sundays. Sometimes, my friend Vicky would walk with me to the cathedral in Nashville. Vicky hadn‘t been raised Catholic, and I remember wondering what on earth made her want to attend Catholic mass with me. Catholics in general are not big proselytizers, and I myself was never one to proselytize; but, happy to have a buddy join me, I welcomed her company. During the second semester of my freshman year, I took a philosophy course taught by John Loche that made me fundamentally question—and ultimately reject—my Catholic faith. I wryly told friends, ―Twelve years of Catholic school weren‘t enough to destroy my Catholicism, but one good philosophy course was.‖ In essence, it seemed illogical to me that God would send a ―son‖ to be killed by humans in order to save humankind—God‘s creation—from sin. In reality, the philosophy course served as the first space (discursive alternative) in which I could critically question the assumptions, realities, and truths of my Catholic faith. In doing so, I found more reason to reject my Catholic faith than to confirm it. While I do not consider Catholicism to be my religion, it is still very much my culture. It was the culture of my childhood and is the culture of my extended family. For years afterward, I continued to be a theist (I believed in a God who is intimately involved in what she created), but I rejected formal religion. I considered myself spiritual but not religious. About six years ago, I began seeking a religious community in which I could feel at home with my beliefs, in which I could grow in my thinking about spiritual matters, and in which I wouldn‘t feel hypocritical (one of my big issues with organized religion). I attended a Unitarian-Universalist church and several non-denominational Protestant churches. The Unitarian-Universalist church seemed like
17 the best fit for me philosophically, but I couldn‘t quite feel comfortable there; I never moved beyond feeling like a visitor. In my late twenties, I began dating a man named David who was raised Baptist and who attended an evangelical church of the Vineyard denomination. Very early in our dating relationship, he invited me to church. At the time, it struck me as surprising that he invited me to church with him, especially given the short amount of time we had been dating. I now know that good evangelicals invite their friends, neighbors, coworkers, and dates to church so that they too can establish a ―personal relationship with Jesus.‖ I attended Vineyard a handful of times and was amazed at how incredibly different from Catholic church it was. There was a rock band performing, there was stadium seating in a darkened auditorium, there was a guy with a microphone who gave a ―message‖ dribbled with biblical and philosophical references alike, and there were ―series,‖ a set of weekend services, usually about four weeks long, on one theme or topic. I remember asking David once, ―How can you date me? According to your beliefs, because I don’t believe certain things, I‘m going to hell. How can you date someone who you know is going to hell?‖ While I was unconcerned about going to hell, I was concerned that David was hypocritical for dating me. David replied, ―I don‘t know what will happen with your soul. God decides that.‖ His answer rang empty to me, and our relationship was short-lived. Nonetheless, in retrospect, I credit David for introducing me to evangelical discourse. That introduction and practice was helpful, for about a year later I met Greg, whom I ultimately married. Greg, interestingly, had been a practicing evangelical since boyhood, but his family was not particularly religious. Greg attended Crossover church, a nondenominational evangelical church, and (like any dutiful evangelical) invited me to a service shortly after we began dating. I‘ve learned many things about the evangelical culture, one of which is the tendency of evangelicals to invite non-evangelicals to an evangelical service in hopes of showing the person Christ‘s love (and maybe making a convert of them). I agreed to attend a Crossover service with Greg. Crossover is self- consciously ―seeker friendly,‖ and Senior Pastor Brian Tome frequently describes
18 Crossover as being for ―people who have given up on religion but haven‘t given up on God.‖ That certainly seemed to describe me. Greg and I attended Crossover regularly early in our dating relationship, although our attendance and participation in church events has declined significantly over time. Early in my time at Crossover, I asked myself, ―Is there room for me here?‖ I wanted to know if someone with my set of theological and social beliefs, including my feminist and liberal social commitments, could ever be at home in this evangelical place. That question evolved into, ―Are feminism and Christianity mutually exclusive?‖ As I looked and read and learned more, out of that question came a quest: I wanted to reveal the hegemony4 and oppression implicit in the way that evangelical leaders construct female. This had led me to my earlier dissertation topic: How do contemporary evangelical Christian leaders construct female?‖ There is undoubtedly hegemony and oppression implicit in how some evangelical leaders construct female. What is more interesting and more complex are the ways in which evangelical women make meaning of and appropriate evangelical discourse in their lives and the ways in which the multiple and varied discourses through which they constitute themselves and are constituted intersect, contradict, overlap, and reinforce each other. Two key questions arise from this examination of my personal religious views: Am I an evangelical? Most decidedly, I am not. Am I a Christian? The answer to this question depends entirely upon the definition of Christian being used, and definitions of ―Christian‖ are many, diverse, and at times mutually exclusive: What is a Christian, anyway? Someone of European descent? A persecutor of Jews? Someone who votes for only the most conservative Republicans? At times all of these answers have seemed plausible. Some use these definitions to this day.
4 The term ―hegemony,‖ first used by theorist Antonio Gramsci, refers to the implicit and often taken-for- granted ways in which oppression and dominance are woven throughout the fabric of a culture or institution. Often, those oppressed through hegemony are not conscious of their oppression and are often complicitous in reinforcing and reproducing the hegemony that limits them. According to Leistyna, Woodrum, & Sherblom (1996), an analysis of hegemony is ―especially concerned with how the imposition of particular ideologies and forms of authority results in the reproduction of social and institutional practices through which dominant groups maintain not only their positions of privilege and control, but also the consensual support of other members of society‖ (p. 337). 19 In Christian circles the answers are no clearer. A Christian is sometimes said to be someone who has made a decision; sometimes, someone who belongs to a church; far too often, someone who confesses the right creeds. (Mattison, 2007, para. 4-5) Biblically, the term ―Christian‖ appears only three times in the New Testament: once derisively by a non-Christian (Acts 17:28), once almost synonymously with ―persecuted‖ (1 Peter 4:16), and once to refer to the disciples of Jesus (Acts 11:27). If we were to glean a definition from the use of ―Christian‖ in Acts 11:27, then a Christian could simply be someone who is a follower of Christ‘s teachings. If this is the definition of Christian, then I consider myself a Christian. Historically, in the early church, the Christians were a Jewish group in Palestine, led by James, who ―attended and supplied animal sacrifices at the Temple, celebrated the Jewish seasonal festivals, and regarded Jesus as a Prophet anointed by God, and not in any way divine. Beliefs such as the virgin birth, Trinity, priests, bishops, formal creeds, etc. were unknown to them‖ (Religious Tolerance.org, 2006, ―The primitive Christian movement,‖ para. 1). Yet early Christians often vilified Jews: Groups develop a sense of their own particularity by drawing lines in the sand and by highlighting distinctions between ―them‖ and ―us.‖ Without the capacity to establish and maintain well defined boundaries, the dominant culture will smother dissident voices and swallow alien bodies. (Leighton, 2006) Not only did early Christians struggle to define themselves vis-a-vis Jews, but they also struggled internally to create an identity as two groups of Christians—Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians—searched for common ground: Jewish Christians insisted that one could not be an authentic follower of the Jew, Jesus, without being Torah-observant. In contrast to this tradition of discipleship, Gentile Christians . . . claimed that membership in the body of Christ rested on fidelity to a christocentric pattern of life and did not necessitate compliance with the [Jewish] Law. (Leighton, 2006) As such, the cardinal doctrines—the key beliefs that demarcate Christians from nonchristians—have shifted and changed over time and vary among groups.
20 Many Christian denominations and parachurch5 groups hold to certain cardinal doctrines of Christianity. The Presbyterian Church of the United States of America (PCUSA), in 1910, articulated the following cardinal doctrines based upon the Westminster Confession: Inerrancy of Scripture Virgin birth Substitutionary atonement Bodily resurrection of Jesus Authenticity of miracles performed by Jesus (Religious Tolerance.org, 2007) By this list of cardinal doctrines, I am not a Christian. I do not believe that the bible is the inerrant Word of God, and I am skeptical of the other four doctrines. The Christian Research Institute, a conservative parachurch organization founded in 1960 by Dr. Walter Martin (CRI, 2007), identifies five ―essentials of Christianity‖: Authority of Scripture Trinity Man as physical and spiritual being created in God‘s image and who commits and suffers from sin Substitutionary atonement and second coming Church is God‘s ―ordained institution‖ (CRI, 2007) Again, by these cardinal doctrines, I am not a Christian. I believe that the church is a human institution that, as often as not, acts in ―unchristian‖ ways and is by no means ―God‘s ‗ordained institution,‘‖ and I am skeptical of the other four doctrines as well. In the broadest, most inclusive sense of the word Christian, I am a Christian in that I follow the teachings of Christ and believe in an ethic of love. However, as defined by most Protestant denominations and parachurch organizations, I am not a Christian. While I am skeptical of much of Christianity in general and evangelicalism in particular, I greatly respect and appreciate the women in this study. I consider them all friends. They are bright, professional women. They are committed to being good people and good Christians. They strive to grow in their relationships with God and with others. If I did not hold them in such high regard, this study would be superficial. It is because I respect and value these women as thinkers that I seek to understand how they make
5 A ―parachurch‖ organization is an extra-denominational religious group that has as its mission the promotion of Christian beliefs. Examples of parachurch organizations include Campus Crusade for Christ, Moral Majority, Promise Keepers, and Christian Coalition of America. 21 meaning of their evangelical discourse and how they massage that discourse to be workable with the other discourses of their lives. I‘ve spoken here at length about my religious background and orientation. I also want to introduce the reader to my development as a feminist. Like the word ―Christian,‖ the word feminist has many denotations (various ―feminisms‖ are discussed in Chapter 3). I was raised by my mom and dad in an egalitarian household. My parents shared power and decision-making equally. While I firmly believed as a young woman that women should have the same access to opportunities and pay as men and should not be discriminated against based on sex, I did not consider myself a feminist. On the contrary, back then ―feminist‖ had a negative connotation to me. A feminist was a militant, a radical, someone who was angry and who made outlandish claims, someone who was a man-hater. Looking back now, I‘m appalled at my ignorance, but I also marvel at the degree to which the discourses through which I understood the world had so successfully vilified feminists. When I studied at Vanderbilt University, I specifically avoided all Women‘s Studies courses. To me they represented the fringe, the radical. At the very same time, however, I was a climbing instructor for the university and loved the sense of empowerment as a woman that the role provided me. I considered myself outspoken, gutsy, strong-willed, an advocate of social justice, and a good leader. Yet I certainly would have eschewed the moniker ―feminist.‖ It was only during my doctoral studies that I learned that there are many feminisms and that there are numerous feminist discourses available to me. Over time, my views became most closely aligned to those of poststructural feminism. My studies of feminisms have made me more sensitive, more aware of discourses of gender, power, and patriarchy. I bring these sensitivities and awarenesses to my study. In the words of Donna Haraway, ―The detached eye of objective science is an ideological fiction‖ (2001, p. 157). The goal of this section has been to recognize and accept the impossibility of the notion of a detached, ―objective‖ researcher and to be transparent about my ―cultural self‖ as researcher, to share with the reader how my subjectivity impacts the question I frame, the participants I invite, the data that I collect,
22 the analysis I conduct, and the interpretations I make. I am inextricably involved in my data, and, as Bronwyn Davies argues, that is a necessary thing: Researchers are not separate from their data, nor should they be. The complexity of the movement and intersections amongst knowledge, power and subjectivity require the researcher to survey life from within itself [emphasis in the original]. Researchers come to know the lines of force that make up the social apparatus through being located in and on them, as those lines pull now in one direction and now in another, as they sediment, or break. (Davies, 2004, p. 5) It is my hope that my connection with my participants, my relationship with/against evangelicalism, and my passion for my topic will serve me well as I explore the ―intersections amongst knowledge, power and subjectivity.‖
A Word about Style
In Chapters 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7, I use an informal writing style that includes contractions and first person perspective. In these chapters my ―voice‖ as a writer is more apparent, and the writing style is more relaxed and fluid. Chapters 2 and 3, in contrast, offer a more formal, academic, ―stiff‖ writing style. I avoid contractions and first person perspective. The writing style is ―tighter‖ and more structured. My voice as a writer is not very obvious. The style that I have selected for each of my chapters reflects my reading of the discourse of academic writing in general and dissertation writing in particular. My reading of these discourses requires more formal—dare I say formulaic?—literary review and methodology chapters that demonstrate my knowledge of the research that has come before me and the theoretical framework that informs my own work, while writing on my specific project, data, and conclusions provides me with more poetic license to be creative and expressive in ways that best represent my own data and findings. I hope that I am proficiently performing the subject identity of academic writer and not transgressing discursive boundaries.
23 Looking Ahead
Using poststructural feminism to frame my study, and acknowledging my ―cultural self,‖ I seek to explore with my participants the intersection of gender, subjectivity, and evangelical Christianity. ―The subject is constituted by multiple and oftentimes contradictory subject positions inscribed within various historical and cultural discourses‖ (Weems, 2004, p. 226). This is the very thing that most fascinates (and confounds) me about my topic. How is it that these women make meaning of the contradiction—even the incommensurability—of the various discourses that constitute them? Aspects of the evangelical Christian discourse about what constitutes a good woman are antithetical to those of the professional discourses in which the women of the book study are all positioned (each is in a ―professional‖ field, including education, design, research, etc.). For example, the women all agree that, based on biblical Christian teaching, the man is the head of a household, although there is disagreement among them regarding what this means and how it is performed. Nonetheless, within the household, they all agree that they would be hierarchically subject to man. However, within their professional lives, each is positioned equal to and/or above some men. For most of the women, this is not problematic, and for one, the fact that she is equal to several other men in rank but significantly less than them in pay is a source of frustration and a sense of injustice. To me, this is an example of the ways in which the multiple discourses through which we are discursively produced can be contradictory. It is fascinating to me that for most of the women there is not a problem of contradiction here. For them, the difference in context (home versus work, private versus public) is a way of mediating these conflicting discourses. These are the types of issues that I explore through my dissertation study involving a subset of these women. In the following chapter, I explore the available literature on evangelicalism as well as research that explores the intersection of evangelicalism and gendered subjectivity. In Chapter 3, I provide a thorough discussion of the Methodology employed in this study, including an extensive discussion of poststructural feminism and my
24 methods. Chapters 4-6 provide analysis of textual and interview data. Chapter 7 summarizes my research findings and discusses the implications of the research.
25
CHAPTER 2
EVANGELICALISM: VIVID SWIRLS IN GLASS MARBLES
The study of American evangelicalism is fraught with difficulties over definitions and terminology. Definitions for "evangelical" are elusive, and the usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are so contextual (and even politicized) that they grow increasingly problematic. (Ingersoll, 2003, pp. 11-12)
In spite of their unique histories, doctrine, institutions, and internal diversity, evangelical, Pentecostal, and fundamentalist labels continue to be used interchangeably as equivalent descriptions of conservative Protestants who are uniformly antifeminist, anti-Communist, anti- abortion, anti-gay, and anti-big-government reactionaries. (Gallagher, 2003, p. 9)
The Scriptures (which are the standard by which I measure everything [emphasis in the original]) make it clear that men have been assigned the primary responsibility for the provision of authority in the home. (Dobson, 1982, p. 415)
Distinction, engagement, and conflict vis-à-vis outsiders constitutes a crucial element of what we might call the "cultural DNA" of American evangelicalism. (Smith, 1998, p. 121)
When I was a little girl, I had a Chinese Checkers game. The game is played with marbles, and whenever I would set up the game, I used to marvel at the unique swirls of stunning color in each marble. While all of the marbles were round, glass, and filled with spurts of various hues, their swirls were richly and singularly nuanced. When I think of the complexity and richness of evangelical subculture, I think of those marbles. Chapters 4 through 6 of this study, in closely examining the views, perspectives, and life choices of my participants, demonstrate this complexity and richness. This chapter, however, focuses mostly on the common characteristics of evangelicals. In the first section of this chapter, Evangelicals and Evangelical Discourse, I define evangelicalism and discuss general theological and social aspects of evangelical 26
discourse. In the second section of this chapter, Evangelicalism: A Brief History, I provide a basic historical overview of the development of contemporary evangelicalism. In the third section, Evangelicalism and Gendered Identity, I focus more specifically on gendered identity within evangelical discourse. In the last section, Research on Evangelical Gendered Identity, I provide an overview of recent studies on the intersection of evangelicalism and gendered identity.
Evangelicals and Evangelical Discourse
Evangelicalism is a complex discourse delineated by theological commitments and social beliefs. In this section, I begin by defining evangelicalism and identifying theological commitments and social beliefs that are common to many evangelicals. In doing so, I risk minimizing the rich diversity amongst evangelicals—their many-hued swirls. While in this section I do not devote much space to the differences amongst evangelicals, this entire study itself demonstrates in a microcosm the rich diversity and nuances within evangelicalism. As the quote from Ingersoll in this chapter‘s epigraph shows, defining evangelicalism is no simple task. Evangelicals in the United States are a diverse and decidedly heterogeneous group (Balmer, 2006b; Hunter, 1987; Smith, 2000; Stacey, 1998). Commonly though, evangelicals subscribe to ―a common set of beliefs, such as the authority of scripture, the efficacy of Christ‘s atonement on the cross, the necessity of a personal salvation experience, and the importance of evangelism and a transformed life‖ (Cochran, 2005, p. 7). While no definition of ―evangelical‖ and no delineation of commonly held beliefs are perfect, like a number of authors (Balmer; Hunter; Smith), I broadly refer to ―theologically conservative Protestants‖ as evangelicals. For this project, I borrow my specific definition of ―evangelical‖ from Hunter: ―Evangelicalism‖ … refers to the North American expression of theologically conservative Protestantism. As a term it is a broad umbrella encompassing a wide variety of religious and denominational traditions – from the Pietistic traditions to the Confessional traditions and from the Baptist traditions to the Anabaptist traditions. As used here, it is synonymous with Protestant orthodoxy and 27
conservative Protestantism and while not always synonymous with Fundamentalism it certainly would include it. That is (and let me be emphatic about this point), Fundamentalism is viewed here as a faction within Evangelicalism 6 and not as a movement distinct from Evangelicalism. (pp. 3-4) While some authors choose to distinguish fundamentalists from evangelicals (e.g. Cochran, 2005), I, like Hunter and Balmer, am considering fundamentalism to be a subset within evangelicalism. Fundamentalists, generally speaking, hold a "general suspicion of ‗worldliness‘‖ and are literalistic in their interpretation of the bible (Balmer, p. xv). In the early 20th century, fundamentalists "adopted a separatist outlook that prompted the formation of a religious subculture in which they could preserve the old-time evangelical religion as they understood it‖ (Hart, 2002, p. 20). Fundamentalists, generally speaking, see themselves as separate from mainline American culture, while the "average evangelical is thoroughly assimilated to American ways of life" (Hart, p. 5). Evangelicals (including fundamentalists) are a populous group. According to the Association of Religion Data Archives,7 data from The World Factbook (2005) indicates that 84.12% of Americans are Christians and, according to the Baylor Religion Survey (2005), 30.3% of Americans are evangelical Protestants.8 According to the same survey, evangelicals now outnumber their mainline Protestant9 counterparts, who represent 26.0% of the American population. Indeed, according to the Baylor study, evangelicals are now the largest religious group in the United States. Evangelicalism is the ―fastest growing variety of religious orientation in the United States‖ (Stacey, 1998, p. 140).
6 Although Smith capitalizes the terms ―Fundamentalist,‖ ―Evangelical,‖ and ―Evangelicalism,‖ most of the authors whose work I draw upon for this project do not (see, for example, Balmer, 2006b; Bartkowski, 2001; Brasher, 1998; Hart, 2002; Smith, 1998, 2000; etc.), and I have elected to follow their lead. 7 All data referenced in this paragraph, including data from The World Factbook (2005) and the Baylor Religion Survey (2005) were located through the Association of Religion Data Archives website at http://www.thearda.com. 8 Note that this statistic differs from Hart‘s claim that evangelicals account for 7% of the population (2002, p. 5). Different sources cite different statistics regarding the prevalence of evangelicalism in the Untied States. For example, Stacey (1998), drawing on several sources, estimates that evangelicals account for 18- 40% of the United States‘ adult population (pp. 139-140). 9 Mainline Protestants include Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Northern Baptists (Balmer, 2006c, p. 31). 28
Born-Again Conversion Experience A core—perhaps the core—belief that connects all evangelicals is the belief that a ―spiritual rebirth, a ‗born-again‘ experience (which they derive from John 3) during which one acknowledges personal sinfulness and Christ's atonement, is necessary for salvation‖ (Balmer, 2006b, p. xiv). Key to evangelical discourse is the idea that a person must choose to accept Christ as her personal savior, and, in doing so, is born again into a new life as a Christian and is thus saved. It is this conversion experience that is paramount for salvation. Evangelicals "stake the authenticity of Christian faith upon the conversion experience, not church membership‖ (Hart, 2002, p. 10). It is through the individual‘s choice to accept Christ that salvation occurs and not through church attendance or the authority of a church. For some evangelicals, the conversion experience occurs as an immediate, powerful life experience, and they can ―point to some sudden, instantaneous, datable experience of grace‖ (Balmer, 2006b, p. xiv). One of Stacey's (1998) participants described it this way: Probably it's the most beautiful experience you can have. -- It's a real experience; it's not an intellectual thing. Like I knew it had happened. … It‘s a rebirth. I don't know what other people feel when they are born again, but for me when I was going down the freeway, there was a voice talking to me; I mean something was talking to me. – The Lord talked to me. (p. 72) While many evangelicals can point to a specific moment as their conversion experience, this is not always the case. Another of Stacey's (1998) participants began attending an evangelical church with her daughter and husband (who describes his conversion experience above) and experienced what Stacey refers to as an "auto conversion" (p. 58); Pam, through her continued experiences with evangelical discourse, came by steps to accept it as her own. Some form of auto conversion may be common for many second- generation evangelicals, who are brought up through the evangelical discourse. It is "difficult to grasp the significance of any such conversion [experience]" (Balmer, 2006b, pp. 106-107), because it requires no profound change in thinking or behavior. Instead, for such people, conversion becomes a rite of passage (Balmer, 2006b, p. 106) and is often marked by a public pronouncement of commitment to Christ or by baptism.
29
Regardless of the form of conversion experience, a born-again Christian, in making a commitment to follow Christ, makes a commitment to living a Christlike life. A person's life after conversion therefore is expected to change (Brasher, 1998, p. 129), to become more Christlike. This has implications for a person‘s relationships, financial decisions, family life, work life, and leisure activities. In Stacey‘s ethnography (1998), the life of Al, the man whose conversion experience was described earlier, was universally seen by family and friends to have radically changed upon his conversion, as described by Cowles‘ stepdaughter: It's like night and day. He used to be a very grouchy, silent, hostile person. Now he's become a happy Christian, mellow, has feelings, loves everybody. It's like he sat down in a chair, fell asleep, woke up, and that was a different person. That's how fast he changed. (p. 96) While not everyone‘s life changes so dramatically after conversion, evangelicals do expect that accepting Christ implies change in personal behaviors.
Personal Relationship with Jesus The conversion experience marks the beginning of an evangelical‘s ―personal relationship with Jesus,‖ or ―personal walk with Christ,‖ which is a key understanding in evangelical discourse (Neal, 2006; Stacey, 1998). For evangelicals, Christ is not a distant deity but a part of their daily lives. According to the University of North Carolina‘s Religious Identity and Influence Survey, 97% of evangelicals claim a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" (Gallagher, 2003, p. 66). This relationship with Jesus influences all aspects of evangelicals‘ lives, including family life, work life, social life, and even ―topics not typically seen as religious, such as weight struggles, work troubles, or attitude problems‖ (Neal, p. 87). Christ's influence is expected to permeate through all parts of a person's life. The personal relationship to Christ is so intimate that some evangelicals and evangelical authors even refer to Jesus as a lover or bridegroom (see, for example, Stacey, p. 137 and Eldredge & Eldredge, 2005, pp. 111-127). One of Brasher‘s (1998) participants described it this way: It's emotional for me. It's like being with someone that you were totally, totally in love with and receiving that love back from them. In worship, relationship with the Lord goes far beyond that. It's beyond anything you can experience with a human being. Definitely. (p. 108) 30
Not all evangelicals are comfortable with this language. During the book study that inspired this project, Wynn expressed her discomfort with such "weird" and "foreign" languag, even though she holds her relationship with Jesus in high regard. While the use of the language of romance to describe a relationship with Jesus is not universal throughout evangelicalism, the expectation of developing one's personal relationship with Jesus is. Evangelicals utilize a number of strategies to do this. Many evangelicals establish a ―daily ‗quiet time,‘ a period of personal devotions characterized by reading the Bible, meditation, and prayer" (Balmer, 2006b, p. 4). Another strategy commonly used by evangelicals to grow in their relationship with Christ as well as with other believers is the ―small group,‖ alternately known as ―home church meetings‖ or ―discipleship groups,‖ which are ―increasingly popular in growing evangelical churches‖ (Ingersoll, 2003, p. 110). "Participation in small groups—whether bible study, fellowship, or prayer groups (see Wuthnow 1994)— emerged as a particularly important practice in dedicated church participation" (Smith, 1998, p. 35). Depending on the particular church, small groups can be single-sex or coed. Small groups can be an effective way for believers in large evangelical churches to feel less anonymous and more connected spiritually and socially to other evangelicals. One of Smith‘s male participants explained it this way: It's important not just to come on Sunday morning and hear the sermon but to be involved in a small group. It's important to gather and study Scripture. Also, as a church gets bigger, it's very hard to know everybody in a very close way. Small groups give us a chance to really be a part of the lives of these other folks, to know how to pray for each other. In my small group, if anyone has need, we can help. We also do social activities together, and our kids play together a lot. (pp. 35-36) In Griffith‘s (1997) study of Aglow, an all-women parachurch organization, small groups served as ―alternative communities that claim[ed] to provide not only (or even primarily) theological or doctrinal instruction but loving nurturance, diagnosis of women's particular ills, and guaranteed treatment" (p. 20). Griffith (1997) argues that the proliferation of small groups in evangelical communities parallels the ―small group movement‖ in broader society. She cites data from Wuthnow which indicates that ―40% of all American adults (as well as a significant 31
percentage of children and adolescents) are involved in small groups—some 75 million people‖ (p. 37). In Wuthnow‘s study, small groups included discussion groups, support groups, therapy groups bible study groups, and others. This is but one of the myriad ways in which evangelical culture parallels or co-ops aspects of the broader American culture. Another strategy that some evangelicals use to grow in their relationship with Christ is to participate in a parachurch organization, a "Christian group that disregards ordinary denominational boundaries" (Griffith, 1997, p. 31), such as Promise Keepers, Aglow, Concerned Women for America, Christians for Biblical Equality, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and Focus on the Family. Parachurch organizations are generally oriented towards a specific subgroup within evangelicalism (such as Promise Keepers, which is oriented towards husbands and fathers), a particular purpose (such as Concerned Women for America, which strives to counter what it sees as the nefarious effects of feminism), or a combination of the two (such as Aglow, which is a "‘network of praying women‘ working to evangelize the world" (Griffith, p. 33). In addition to strengthening one's personal relationship with Jesus through daily devotions and bible reading, small groups, and parachurch organizations, evangelicals also participate in a variety of other church-related activities beyond their regular worship services, including volunteer activities, choir practice, bible studies, social events, and prayer groups. According to Smith‘s data (1998), 79% of evangelicals participate in some type of church activity besides Sunday worship services at least several times a month (p. 34)—a greater percentage than is found any other Christian tradition, including mainline Protestants, theologically liberal Protestants, and Catholics (p. 33).
The Bible In addition to core beliefs in the necessity of conversion and the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus, evangelicals place great importance on the bible as ―God‘s revealed truth‖ (Cochran, 2005, p. 3) and as a ―practical guide to the conduct of everyday life‖ (Stacey, 1998, p. 140). Evangelicals look to the bible for universal, timeless Truths about God‘s will, God‘s divine order, and how to live a Christlike life.
32
For some evangelicals, study of the bible is "physically and psychically sustaining" (Brasher, 1998, p. 106), and there is an "almost mythical attachment to the Bible" (Balmer, 2006b, pp. 194-195) verging, according to detractors, on bibliolatry (p. 195). According to data in Gallagher (2003), 52% of evangelicals surveyed believe that the bible is ―literally true,‖ while 45% believe that the bible is ―true but not always literal‖ (pp. 66-67). Those who believe that the bible is literally true are referred to as ―literalists,‖ and those who believe that the bible is true (without error) but that it should not be taken literally are generally known as ―inerrantists.‖ Only 3.4% of evangelical respondents believe that the bible is ―true but with errors,‖ and none of the survey respondents claimed that the bible is merely a human document that is not God-inspired (pp. 66-67). Regardless of how evangelicals frame the nature of biblical Truth, there is always that "favorite evangelical redoubt, the ruse of selective literalism" (Balmer, 2006c, p. 8). Selective literalism refers to the practice—whether intentional or subconscious—among evangelicals of interpreting some parts of the bible as literally true and others as either culturally determine (and therefore irrelevant in today‘s society) or as metaphorical/figurative. For example, many evangelicals have "dismissed as culturally determined the New Testament proscriptions against divorce and women with uncovered heads" (Balmer, p. 9), but evangelicals hold tightly to the Biblical proscription against homosexuality. Some evangelicals believe that the Genesis narrative about the seven day creation of all is metaphorical, while others believe that it is literally true. In Webb‘s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals (2001), he uses a ―hermeneutic of cultural analysis‖ based on Biblical passages about slavery to extrapolate whether Biblical support of patriarchy and proscriptions against homosexuality are either culturally determined (and therefore dismissible in contemporary society) or whether they are timeless truths. Webb‘s goal is to answer the nagging question that plagues evangelicals with respect to a host of issues, ―Should I act counterculturally or paraculturally in my life?‖ (p. 22). Webb determines that "a component of a text may be culturally bound if Scripture modifies the original cultural norms in such a way that suggests further movement is possible and even advantageous in a subsequent culture" (p. 73). Webb refers to this as
33
"preliminary movement." "Absolute movement," on the other hand, defines components of the bible in which the "biblical author has pushed society so far and that is as far as it is supposed to go; further movement is not desired" (p. 73). Interestingly, Webb uses not only intrascriptural criteria (criteria based on Biblical analysis) but also extrascriptural criteria, and includes pragmatic cultural analysis as well as scientific and social scientific evidence. Ultimately, Webb determines that "much of the portrait of patriarchy within Scripture contains culturally bound components and is not uniformly transcultural in nature" (p. 248), but concludes that the prohibition against homosexuality is this ―transcultural in nature‖ and therefore holds true today. Webb's analysis is instructive in several ways. First, it shows that while some evangelicals indiscriminately utilize selective literalism, some evangelical elites (biblical scholars and theologians) attempt to apply rigorous hermeneutics to the understanding of biblical truth. Secondly, while many evangelicals hold true to the notion of sola scriptura, the idea that Scripture alone is the "source of faith and practice" (Gallagher, 2003, pp. 79-80), others like Webb also consider extrascriptural criteria in their analyses. Regardless of whether evangelicals emphasize the literal meaning of the bible, the bible‘s inerrancy, or have made the ―shift from inerrancy (the belief that the bible is inspired by God and is entirely without error) to hermeneutics (methods of potential interpretation)‖ (Cochran, 2005, p. 2), evangelicals often fail to recognize that ―there is no innocent reading of the bible, no reading that is not already ideological‖ (Aichele et al., 1995, p. 4). Indeed: Reading the Bible in the traditional scholarly manner has all too often meant reading it, whether deliberately or not, in ways that reify and ratify the status quo—providing warrant for the subjugation of women (whether in the church, the academy, or society at large), justifying colonialism and enslavement, rationalizing homophobia, or otherwise legitimizing the power of hegemonic classes of people.‖ (Aichele et al., p. 4) Most non-elite evangelicals, however, attend little to the hegemonic prejudice of selective literalism and hermeneutics as they generally look to the bible not as a "polysemous text capable of generating multiple contradictory readings" (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 14) but as straightforward instruction on how to live. Underlying this approach is the "assumption (which received explicit sanction in the philosophy of Common Sense
34
Realism in the 19th century) that the plainest, most evident reading of the text is the proper one" (Balmer, 2006b, p.24). Therefore, many evangelicals view making meaning of the bible as a simple, straightforward activity and not as a hegemonically and ideologically informed reading of a complex and abstruse text. That said, Balmer argues that "most evangelicals don't trust themselves to interpret the Bible, so they turn to others–local pastors, mendicant preachers and lecturers, authors of thousands of books, commentaries, and reference tools–for interpretive schemes" (p. 194). While looking to Scripture to guide daily living is a given for evangelicals, many evangelicals, like Webb, also go beyond the notion of sola scriptura when determining how God wants them to live. Many look not only to the bible but also to their own experiences in their personal relationships with Jesus as sources of authority for how to live. According to Gallagher‘s data (2003), 43.6% of evangelicals responded to the question, "How do you know how God wants you to live?" with the response, "In my heart through personal walk with God" (p. 67). Gallagher concludes: Combining feelings and belief, head knowledge and the heart, evangelicals look to the bible as their source of authority. Yet clearly, a commonsense approach to hermeneutics guides which aspects of the Bible evangelicals take literally and which they do not. (p. 81) Evangelicals also tend to see the bible as static and "utterly flawless in the original autographs (which, of course, are no longer available)" (Balmer, 2006b, p. 195). Nonetheless, evangelicals have access to and utilize a "bewildering array" (Balmer, p. 193) of versions of the bible, including the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard (NAS), the Living Bible, The Message, and more than 15 others (pp. 193-194). For most evangelicals, however, the bible is unproblematically God's direct Word to them.
Evangelizing While evangelicals‘ relationship with Christ is deeply personal, it is also something that they feel called to share with others, through evangelizing or proselytizing. ―Evangelical‖ literally means ―‘evangelizing nonbelievers‘ by exposing
35
non-Christians to the Gospel‖ (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 89).10 Proselytizing can take several forms, including inviting a nonbeliever to a church service, praying with/for a nonbeliever, and ―testifying‖ or ―witnessing,‖ which is to share the power and impact that a relationship with Jesus has had on the believer. One evangelical‘s testimonial recounts how Jesus physically healed her: I don't believe there is anyone who can understand what I suffered—except someone whose speech has been garbled, who has had double and triple vision, whose bladder has been uncontrollable and whose husband has asked for divorce. Such a person would know how I felt, before Jesus healed me. (Griffith, 1997, p. 80) Such testimonials have "instructive value" (Griffith, 1997, p. 17) for evangelicals as they try to save the unsaved, and often have a narrative pattern to them that disciplines believers as well. Writing about women in the parachurch organization Aglow, Griffith explains: Aglow women readily share their testimonies, created out of the experiences that give their lives instructive value and structured according to the conventions of the community. In many ways these oral narratives fit the genre of what Lawless has termed "spiritual life stories," flexible rather than perfected entities that contain "a pastiche of stories, many of them based on personal experience and traditional expectations at the same time." Such stories do not follow a fixed chronological order or give equal weight to all events in one's life; they constitute a series of segments constructed with an end in view, that of God's constant guidance and care and the storyteller's realization of her need to surrender to God's loving will. (1997, p. 17) Aglow women use their experiences to instruct others about surrendering to God‘s will. Griffiths notes that there are conventions to this genre inscribed by the Aglow community. There are unwritten rules and patterns to these stories that serve to fit the purpose of showing God's love, mercy, and power. Griffith found that these instructive life stories were "restricted to sustain the authority of the narrative itself, elicit correct attitudes and feelings, and produce disciplined religious selves" (p. 58). Often, non-Christians are led into the evangelical fold not through the profound influence of a stranger's testimony but through the influence of loved ones who are born-
10 More specifically, etymologically ―evangelical came into English and other modern languages through Latin from the Greek words for ‗good‘ and ‗messenger.‘ A compound form arose which meant ‗message of good news,‘ which is rendered in English as Gospel (from the Anglo-Saxon ‗godspell‘). Angel, which literally means ‗messenger,‘ share is etymology with ‗evangelical‘ [emphasis in the original]‖ (Williams, 1990, p. 166) 36
again Christians. One of my participants, Maggie, was raised Baptist, but after a long period of being nonreligious recommitted herself to Christ after a close friend invited her to attend an evangelical church. Evangelizing through friendship and family is not always a gentle and embraced process on the part of the evangelized. One of Stacey's (1998) participants "alternately feared and flirted with the domino effect Christian salvation seemed to be inflicting on her family" (p. 96) as she saw more and more of her relatives commit themselves to Christ. She felt like the "lone holdout and under a great deal of indirect pressure from her born-again relatives" (p. 97).
Individualism, Rationalism, and Enlightenment/Modernist Tensions Earlier in this section, sola scriptura was framed as the idea that Scripture alone serves as a guide on faith and on how to live one's life. Sola scriptura was also the Reformationist battle cry that Scripture alone, and not the Church, bears God‘s authority (Balmer, 2006c). This reliance on Scripture alone and on an individual's interpretation of it was counterhegemonic in the time of the Reformation, but is now a core belief of evangelicals. A hallmark of Protestants in general is the insistence on "interpreting the Bible for themselves,‖ (Balmer, 2006b, p. 24). Evangelicals believe that individuals can reason out the meaning of Scripture on their own (Cochran, 2005). Sola scriptura, in this way, supports the Enlightenment ideals of individualism and rationalism. Additionally, evangelicalism has been ―democratic in the way it has stressed individual agency in conversion, popular preaching, and a lack of respect for tradition, authority of the clergy, and institutional organization‖ (Cochran, p. 7). As such, evangelicalism has embraced Enlightenment ideals of individualism, democracy, and rationalism. There is a strange irony in the evangelical relationship to and disagreement with Enlightenment principles. As we just saw, evangelical discourse is informed by Enlightenment principles; however, religion was the focus of—and the inspiration for— the Enlightenment‘s attack on superstition and its counterdiscourse of ―faith in human reason and progress‖ (Bennett, 2007, p. 1). Further, the scientific revolution and its corollary that the ―world functions like a machine‖ (Hooker, 1996, p. 1) threatened Protestants‘ theistic beliefs in a caring, involved Creator. Indeed, Protestants today still
37
struggle against the Enlightenment/modernist privileging of scientific rationalism over religious beliefs. Of Protestant respondents to the National Opinion Research Center‘s General Social Survey11 (2004), 52.5% believed that the statement ―Human beings developed from earlier species of animals‖ is ―definitely not true,‖ and another 15.3% believe that it is ―probably not true.‖ Conservative Protestants, it seems, distinguish scientific teaching from biblical teaching and privilege the latter over the former. While evangelicals are still skeptical of scientific rationalism, they have also, ironically, co- opted its use to defend their beliefs: Evangelicals were under attack by rationalists—by Darwinism and the canons of the Enlightenment—at the turn of the century. Rather than continuing to insist on the importance of faith, however, evangelicals bought into a rationalistic epistemology entirely. As a consequence, the evangelical subculture today is peppered with groups organized to prove the existence of God, to supply evidence for miracles, proofs for the resurrection, and even to propagate something called "scientific creationism," which seeks to vindicate the Genesis account of creation. (Balmer, 2006b, p. 265) Thus evangelical discourse incorporates a complex dialectic between religious commitment to Biblical Truth and the Enlightenment/modernist discourse of scientific rationalism. Cochran argues that the ―emphasis on the ability of individual reason to correctly interpret the words of Scripture, without the assistance of an institutional church, shows that the modern ideals of individualism and rationality have made a greater impact on American evangelicalism in general" (2005, p. 187) than is often acknowledged. As an example of this complex dialectic, I turn to James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, leading evangelical writer, political powerhouse, and psychologist, who believes (as quoted in this chapter‘s epigraph) that the Scriptures are the ―standard by which I measure everything [emphasis in the original]‖ (Dobson, 1982, p. 415). Yet in the same tome from which this statement comes, Dr. Dobson Answers Your Questions, Dobson relies on scientific rationalism when he answers questions on a host of topics, including depression in women, homosexuality, and male and female uniqueness. In his
11 I accessed data from the 2004 General Social Survey through the Association of Religious Data Archives at http://www.thearda.com. 38
answers to these questions, he provides not religious or Scriptural explanations but rational explanations, and he sometimes references research. For example, in response to the question ―You‘ve mentioned some of the ways the sexes differ physiologically and concomitantly in emotional responses. Could you now describe some of the more subtle [emphasis in the original] ways males and females are unique?‖ Dobson argues that science has not yet begun to identify all the differences between males and females. He refers to—but does not cite—an observational study of sex-based behavior conducted on high school and college campuses. Dobson states that the researchers "observed that males and females even transported their books in different ways. The young men tended to carry them at their sides with their arms looped over the top. Women and girls, by contrast, usually cradled their books at their breasts in much the same way they would a baby" (1982, pp. 405-406). This example is illustrative in a number of ways. First, Dobson gives an example of gender differences based on his interpretation of social scientific evidence, framed through an Enlightenment/modernist discourse of scientific rationalism (as opposed to Scriptural exegesis). Second, it is important to note that Dobson does not reference, cite, or date the research that he is interpreting, which would be an expectation of scientific rationalist discourse. Third, it is telling that Dobson's interpretation of the research reinforces his essentialized beliefs on gender according to which God created women and men differently for different purposes (as do some of his other books, including What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women [1988], Love for a Lifetime: Building a Marriage that Will Go the Distance [2004], and Straight Talk to Men: Timeless Principles for Leading Your Family [2007]). Instead, his ideological beliefs—his evangelical discourse—inform his interpretation which claims that the way women and girls carry their books reflects their biological design to be mothers. Indeed, Dobson‘s use—or rather misuse—of social scientific research has been challenged. For example, in December of 2006, New York University professor Carol Gilligan wrote a letter to Dobson chastising him for ―twisting‖ her research in a Time Magazine column that he wrote about Mary Cheney's pregnancy with her lesbian partner,
39
entitled ―Two Mommies is One too Many‖ (2006), and rebuking him for manipulating research to support his opposition to child-rearing by gay couples: Dear Dr. Dobson: I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.
From what I understand, this is not the first time you have manipulated research in pursuit of your goals. This practice is not in the best interest of scientific inquiry, nor does bearing false witness serve your purpose of furthering morality and strengthening the family.
Finally, there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article. My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can't raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households.
I trust that this will be the last time my work is cited by Focus on the Family.
Sincerely,
Carol Gilligan, PhD, New York University, Professor (Derkacz, 2006)
Gilligan‘s letter not only censures Dobson for his "distorted" use of her own research to support his "discriminatory" conclusions, but also warns him that what he does is not in the "best interest of scientific inquiry." Because Dobson utilizes both scientific discourse and evangelical discourse to support his conclusions, Gilligan also reproves him for "bearing false witness." Gilligan rightly identifies the multiple discourses informing Dobson‘s writing, which reflects a larger tension within the evangelical discourse between Scriptural exegesis and scientific rationalism. Some might argue that Dobson's manipulation and misuse of scientific rationalism speciously supports and strengthens evangelical discourse, but Balmer (2006c) asserts that scientific support for religious beliefs (such as intelligent design) "implies that faith in God or in the reliability of the Scriptures is inadequate" (p.134). While it is clear that evangelical discourse evidences the complex dialectic between
40
reliance on the bible and scientific rationalism, it is unclear whether this dialectic strengthens or dissipates the power of evangelical discourse.
Dualisms Another element of Enlightenment thinking that has been co-opted by and is now inextricable from evangelical discourse is a Cartesian dualistic system of logic. Evangelical discourse is replete with dualisms, or binaries, such as Creator/creation, good/evil, saved/unsaved, sacred/secular, sacred/profane, light/darkness, us/them, spirit/body, and masculinity/femininity. Evangelicals hold a "generally dualistic view of the world" (Balmer, 2006b, p. 117). During his extensive research on evangelical subculture, Balmer was often asked, "Are you a Christian?" This question implies binaries identifying who is in/out, us/them, and saved/unsaved. Those who are ―in,‖ who are ―one of us,‖ ―one of the saved,‖ can be trusted: "It was, I decided long ago, just another way of asking, ‗Who are you? Can I trust you?‘‖ (p. 229). These binaries shore up boundaries that demarcate the evangelical discursive community. Binaries are technologies of power that not only construct boundaries but also repress. Binaries are never innocent. As pointed out in Chapter 1, binaries are not the juxtapositions of equals; rather, in each of these binaries, the former is superior to the latter. In all but the last of the binaries listed above, ―superior to,‖ for evangelicals, means not only ―above‖ or ―over‖ but also ―better than.‖ These binaries are a core part of the ontology of evangelical discourse. They represent an ordered, hierarchical universe headed by God the Father. For example, for evangelicals, the binary masculine/feminine is not an extrapolation of observed gender differences, but rather the articulation of God‘s divine design for the universe: Conservative Protestantism is grounded in an extremely dualistic ideology that emphasizes the gulf between the Creator and the creation. The creation itself is further divided into good and evil, light and darkness, saved and lost. For the conservative traditionalists, masculinity and femininity symbolically represent these cosmological polar opposites. Male and female are the earthly embodiment of the cosmological dualism. Sharp delineation between them replicates the order of the cosmos, and blurring the distinctions between them threatens the order itself. (Ingersoll, 2003, pp. 144-145)
41
For evangelicals, maleness and femaleness are not discursively produced, nor are they effects of socialization. Rather, these dualisms reflect God‘s design. As such, tampering with them is tampering with God‘s perfect design, and ―undermining the clear-cut divisions between masculinity and femininity is threatening because it undermines the very order of the universe itself‖ (Ingersoll, p. 29). Patriarchalism and hierarchicalism are embedded in evangelicalism‘s dualistic logic and as such have a profound impact on evangelical gendered identity, as we will see later in this chapter. Because the masculine/feminine binary and patriarchalism are inextricable from evangelical dualistic thinking, evangelicals strongly essentialize women and men, female and male. As we will see, essentialism has implications not only for gendered identity but also for gendered roles in home, church, and society. Because the duality of female and male is central to evangelicals‘ discursively produced ontology, this reality—of the essential differences between women and men—is taken for granted (Scholz, 2005, p. 91). Two other key evangelical binaries are sacred/secular and sacred/profane. The implications of these binaries are most easily seen in the evangelical concept of being ―in but not of the world.‖
In But Not of the World The paragraphs above on the tension between Protestantism's reaction against and assimilation of Enlightenment/modernist ideals bespeak a ubiquitous tension within evangelicalism of being ―in but not of the world.‖ Evangelicals believe that they should be culturally relevant and culturally connected while at the same time being separate from (and above) the dominant, secular culture. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, binaries are inherently hierarchical and hegemonic, and in the evangelical binaries of saved/unsaved, sacred/secular, and sacred/profane, the former in each binary is ideologically and morally superior to the latter. As such, it is paradoxical that evangelicals (the sacred) are to be connected to– but not of – the secular (the profane).
42
Evangelical discourse is rife with this dialectic both theoretically and in the practical lives and experiences of its adherents. For evangelicals "the impetus to participate and make their presence felt within the broader culture—to transform it for the kingdom of God—places evangelicals both distinctly outside the mainstream and firmly within it‖ (Gallagher, 2003, p. 5). Evangelicals‘ commitment to evangelizing for God and to building the Kingdom (of heaven) here on earth make it impossible for them to dismiss and withdraw from the secular world. Rather, it makes it imperative that they engage the secular world. Yet doing so reinforces the us/them and sacred/secular binaries that serve as boundaries between evangelicals and ―the world.‖ Evangelicals commonly refer to themselves as being "in but not of" the world (Bartkowski, 2001; Gallagher; Griffith, 1997; Neal, 2006). Evangelical identity is built upon the idea of being distinct from (and better than) secular society; ―congregations negotiate their sense of distinctiveness from a surrounding milieu—as they find a niche that it is ‗in but not of the world‘‖ (Bartkowski, p. 13). Evangelicals therefore uphold a delicate balance in which they ―simultaneously embrace and resist the world, while maintaining a sense of distinctive religious identity and mission‖ (Gallagher, p. 176). There is a tension for evangelicals between "conformity to and discomfort with American ways" (Hart, 2002, p. 6). Evangelicals borrow "extensively-if selectively-from the wider culture (Griffith, p. 20). For example, most evangelical churches play rock music during worship, many members wear informal, mainstream attire to services, and many pastors even conform to social norms of attractiveness (Stacey, 1998). Neal‘s (2006) study of evangelical women who read Christian romance fiction illustrates both how these women see reading inspirational fiction as a way of strengthening their evangelical identity against secularism and how evangelicalism has borrowed from and appropriated secular romance fiction: The women I interviewed situated their reading in opposition to the world's secular romance. … The us versus them, subculture versus the world attitude exhibited in this assessment reflects broader evangelical views about their relationship with the wider culture. (p. 76) For Neal's participants, it is acceptable to appropriate secular romance novels as the narrative basis for inspirational fiction, as long as inspirational fiction contains none of 43
the vile sexuality of secular romance (see pp. 77-78). In this sense, one can appropriate but not be seduced by that which is ―worldly.‖ Griffith‘s participants, members of Aglow, ―daily repudiate those metaphorical hands from the outside culture whom they feel … are pushing them down, coercing their obedience to social structures that, in their view, reward greed, dishonesty, and sheer ambition and scorn traditional Christian values along with those who believe in them‖ (1997, p. 16). The outside world is an omnipresent threat for evangelicals, but the degree of malice that society represents for evangelicals has waned over the last several decades: In the last several decades, however, and especially since the mid-1970s, as evangelicals began to emerge, albeit tentatively, from their self imposed exile, this suspicion of ―the world‖ has dissipated considerably. The antipathy toward the broader culture so characteristic of evangelicals in the twenties and thirties has gradually given way to ambivalence. Even as many evangelicals retain the old rhetoric of opposition to the world, they are eager to appropriate many of the world‘s standards of success. This explains, for instance, the proliferation of prosperity theology in evangelical circles, the doctrine that God eagerly bestows the accoutrements of middle-class materialism—automobiles, houses, furs, jewelry—upon the faithful. (Balmer, 2006b, p. 133) Here we see that even as suspicion of the secular world has dissipated and given way to ambivalence, evangelical discourse still retains the boundary-reinforcing rhetoric of opposition to the secular (profane) world. Indeed, according to Balmer, the very secular concepts of greed and ambition have been reappropriated by evangelicals as ―prosperity theology,‖ the idea that materialistic rewards are bestowed by God on the faithful. This is one example in which the boundaries between evangelical subculture and the secular world are both blurred and reinforced at the same time. They are blurred in the sense of embracing and appropriating larger society‘s consumeristic and materialistic proclivities, yet they are reinforced by re-appropriating these proclivities theologically, through ―prosperity theology.‖ Since evangelicals‘ suspicion of the world has dissipated, now ―the average evangelical is thoroughly assimilated to American ways of life‘ (Hart, 2002, p. 5), and the ―in but not of‖ boundary lines have become quite blurred: In fact, evangelicals are so well adapted to American norms that … the only way to tell they are different is when they talk about Christ or the Bible or when they refrain from alcohol or sexual innuendo. (Hart, pp. 5-6) Not only has it become more difficult to distinguish evangelicals from the unsaved, but evangelicals perhaps ―participate more than they may know in recreating and supporting 44
the very cultural norms they criticize‖ (Griffith, 1997, p. 16). For example,‖ prosperity theology‖ reinforces and propagates secular society‘s discourses of consumerism and materialism. Evangelicals ―reflect and refract American culture‖ (Griffith, p. 21). Nonetheless, evangelicalism retains some very distinctive discursive qualities, as seen in the paragraphs that follow.
Evangelical Dialect, Spiritual Warfare, and Spiritual Experiences One of the unique discursive qualities of evangelicalism is its "distinctively evangelical religious dialect‖ (Ingersoll, 2003, p. 13). Balmer's (2006b) "journey into the evangelical subculture in America" unearthed some quintessential evangelical phrases, including: "God is in control of your life." (p. 52) ―Leave them in the Lord's hands." (p. 53) "Do you mind if we pray with you?" (p. 289) "I just feel we're supposed to be here." (p. 55) Here are some additional well worn evangelical phrases: Godly Christian worldly women Get right with God. On fire for the Lord spiritual battle sold out for Jesus spiritual warfare fired up for the Lord It's a God thing. It‘s part of God‘s plan. filled up by the spirit I feel led to . . . Slain by the spirit Evangelical dialect is more than colorful phraseology and colloquialisms. Embedded in evangelical dialect are dualistic implications and ontological commitments. Those who speak evangelical dialect fluently are those who are on the "inside," those who are "one of us," one of the ―saved.‖ Evangelical dialect, in this sense, reinforces discursive boundaries. Common evangelical phrases also provide insights into ontological commitments. The phrase, "It's part of God's plan," illustrates evangelicals‘ belief in the purposefulness
45
and higher meaning of life events as well as the belief that God's divine plan includes all manner of experiences. The phrase, "It's a God thing," is often used to denote a fortuitous or serendipitous experience as a blessing from God and a function of God's will. Again, such colloquialisms point to evangelicals‘ theological and ontological belief that God's system incorporates everything. The phrase "get right with the Lord" refers to someone's need to reorient her life towards Jesus and to correct behaviors that are not consistent with the Christian lifestyle. Evangelicals tend to frame life events through evangelical dialect. For example, in Stacey‘s (1998) study, Al (whose conversion experience was described earlier) explained his wife‘s renewed commitment to their ―resurrected marriage‖ this way: ―‘Well, I think that she feels that God brought into her more love for me. God's power is the power of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit can fill you up‘‖ (p. 73). Al's use of the colloquialism "the Holy Spirit can fill you up" illustrates his understanding that the change in his wife's attitude towards him in their marriage is a function of her being filled with the Holy Spirit‘s love. Phraseology around the ―discourse of spiritual warfare‖ (Griffith, 1997, p. 196) is increasingly common in evangelical culture. Spiritual warfare requires evangelicals to "do battle against Satan‖ (p. 197) and all his denizens, including (alternately) liberalism, feminism, homosexuality, activist judges, abortion, worldliness, and general evil. Underlying the discourse of spiritual warfare is the evangelical belief that Satan and evil are concrete, active entities that attempt to subvert goodness and move people away from Christ. Further, it is the duty of Christians to wage active war against Satan. Beyond these theological beliefs, the discourse of spiritual warfare illustrates the masculinist tendency within evangelical discourse. Military imagery is ubiquitous within the discourse of spiritual warfare: Christians are sorted to be on the "front lines of the war," to be "soldiers in God's Army," to be a "prayer warrior." Spiritual warfare sometimes includes the spiritual experience of speaking in tongues, or glossolalia, which is one of the ―gifts of the spirit.‖ Spiritual warfare can be a ―loud and vigorous process, involving shouting—in tongues and in English—and dramatic bodily gestures‖ (Griffith, 1997, p. 193). Spiritual warfare can also include the
46
more mild acts of prayer, engaging in ministry, protesting abortion, pressuring the media, etc. Joyce Meyer‘s (1995) Battlefield of the Mind lays out the nature of Christians‘ war with Satan: ―We are in a war. … Our enemy, Satan, attempts to defeat us with strategy and deceit, through well-laid plans and deliberate deception‖ (p. 13). Meyer‘s book on spiritual warfare hit number one on the Publishers Weekly list in August of 2004 and was eighth on the list as recently as March of 2007. These statistics show the popularity and staying power of material on spiritual warfare. Glossolalia, or speaking in tongues, is not only a tool in the spiritual warfare arsenal but is considered to be a spiritual experience, a gift of the Spirit. Another type of spiritual experience is being addressed by God, as this participant in Griffith‘s (1997) study relates: ―God spoke to me in the shower, said to me, ‗Alone in the Pew,‘ and dropped this workshop in my lap‖ (p. 24). Exorcism is an additional type of spiritual experience, but it is highly controversial and uncommon (see Griffith, 1997, pp. 55-57 for a description of an exorcism; see also Smith, 1998, pp. 175-176 for a woman's testimony about her exorcism). Another, more common form of spiritual experience is being ―slain in the spirit‖ and can entail being thrown to the floor or being ―entranced or temporarily unconscious; others wail with anguish‖ (Griffith, p. 57). Not all evangelicals claim to have had a ―spiritual experience,‖ and such experiences (especially glossolalia and being slain by the spirit) are more common amongst the evangelical subgroups of Pentecostals and charismatics. Such spiritual experiences "serve as epistemological anchors sustaining [evangelicals‘] religious faith in even the most pluralistic and secular of situations" (Smith, 1998, p.173). While such spiritual experiences might seem fantastical to nonevangelicals, according to General Social Survey data, 29% of American respondents "maintain they had at least some time in their lives felt as though they were very close to a powerful, spiritual force that seemed to lift them out of themselves" (Smith, p. 173). As common as spiritual experiences may be, they are perhaps no more ubiquitous than the branding of evangelicalism through an extensive literary dynasty and consumerism.
47
Evangelical Discourse as Literary and Consumerist Dynasty Christian merchandise, as a multi-billion-dollar industry (Neal, 2006, p. 74), is not only a nod to the consumeristic influence of secular society, but also reinforces the us/them, saved/unsaved, sacred/secular binaries: The vision of infusing all of one's life with religious significance, from coffee mugs to greeting cards, can now for many evangelicals become a reality. While these goods belie the simplistic dichotomy of evangelical and secular, this binary nevertheless shapes how evangelicals assess the vast array of Christian products. For example, listeners expect the latest release from evangelical rock singer Rebecca St. James to provide great music and sound theology without sacrificing either. (Neal, p. 74) Manufacturers of Christian merchandise capitalize on the consumeristic bent of evangelicals, combining elements of the secular world (e.g. rock music) with evangelical discourse, helping evangelicals permeate all aspects of their lives with Christian messages. Balmer (2006b) presents an entire chapter on evangelical Thomas Kinkade‘s "crusade to turn the tide in the arts, restore dignity to the arts and, by extension, to the culture" (p. 316) through his paintings and merchandise. Kinkade's Lightpost Publishing house and warehouse sell, in addition to Kinkade paintings and prints, a host of other items, including suncatchers, bookmarks, vases, flower arrangements, a computer screensaver, a teapot, a collectible stein, a nightlight, note cards, a wastebasket/umbrella stand, a fountain, and Hallmark Christmas ornaments (p. 313). Kinkade has sold over ten million paintings (p. 316), which he believes are "messengers of God's love" and "tools that can inspire the heart to greater faith" (p. 312). His warehouse employs about 400 workers (p. 314). Publishing, however, is the evangelical megalith. Christian bookstores do several billion dollars worth of business annually (Balmer, 2006b, p. 199). Christian bookstores operate parallel to, and yet are distinct from, secular bookstores. Ingersoll (2003) notes the similarity amongst Christian bookstores as well as their wide array of products: Visiting these bookstores in several parts of the country, I was struck by their similarity … the sentimentally sweet feeling of the bookstores pervasive. Everyone is quite friendly and smiles and speaks in soft tones. Contemporary Christian worship music plays audibly throughout the store. … Despite the fact that these are nominally bookstores, less than half of the inventory actually
48
consists of books. In addition to things you might find in secular bookstores … these stores also carry T-shirts, sweatshirts, bumper stickers, jewelry, plaques, posters, and other artwork with which to decorate Christian homes with Bible verses. Home decorations, in a pseudo-Victorian style, such as throw blankets and specialty pillows, knickknacks, dried flower wreaths, candles, and the like fill the shelves and display space. (p. 120) A number of large evangelical churches now house their own "sentimentally sweet" bookstores bursting with a plethora of books and merchandise, as do the churches in Brasher‘s 1998 study (p. 132). Evangelical churches and bookstores are not the only carriers of evangelical literature. Numerous evangelical writers, including James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, and John MacArthur, are best-selling authors, and evangelical books have become so popular that the mainstream publishing industry has taken notice. "The mainstream publishing world has been taken by surprise by the grassroots success of evangelical Christian literature. An example is the best-selling success of the Left Behind series … [which] has sold 40 million copies, rivaling the Harry Potter series" (Scholz, 2005, p. 85). Increasingly, Christian literature is making its way from Christian bookstores to mainstream bookstores. Karen Holt of The Book Standard notes "how entwined the Christian religion and the mainstream book business have become" (2005). Christian and mainstream booksellers capitalize on how prolific evangelical authors are. For example, John MacArthur has published 130 books, several of which have been best-sellers, including The Gospel According to Jesus, The Second Coming, Ashamed of the Gospel, The MacArthur Study Bible, and Twelve Ordinary Men (Grace to You, 2005). All of the evangelical merchandise and books available in "sentimentally sweet" Christian bookstores and mainstream bookstores serve as technologies of power for reproducing and reinforcing evangelical discourse, which is, by nature of evangelical dualist logic, necessarily gendered. Ingersoll (2003) notes the "genderedness of gifts and books" that is much more prominent in Christian bookstores than in the larger culture (p. 122). The gendered and patriarchal nature of evangelical literature will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.
49
Literary pursuits and consumerism are not the only ways in which evangelicals make their voices heard throughout the broader culture. Evangelicals have become savvy and influential players on the political scene over the last few decades.
Evangelicalism and Politics
―Evangelicals are the most likely of all major American Christian groups to believe that religion is a public matter that should speak to social and political issues‖ (Smith, 2000, p 18). Evangelical leaders have great socio-political power in the contemporary United States. Their power influences who leads our country, how leaders lead, who serves as judges, which social issues are prominent, and what concerns enter into educational policy debates (e.g. the intelligent design debates, charter schools, school vouchers, prayer in schools, and character education). There are an estimated 70 million Evangelical Christians in contemporary America (Brokaw, 2005). In 2005, Time magazine listed and described the work of the ―25 Most Influential Evangelicals‖ in America. Among them were Luis Cortes, a Baptist minister ―with ties to Pres. George W. Bush‖ (Holt, 2005) and Michael Gerson, Bush‘s speechwriter. Also on the list were eight published authors. An October, 2005, Dateline (Brokaw) special focused on the growing socio- political power of the Religious Right (alternately known as the Christian Right or New Right) leaders and featured Ted Haggard, President of the National Association of Evangelicals, representing 45,000 churches. Haggard identified the evangelical political agenda, the top priority of which is leveraging influence toward ―getting rid of what many see as activist judges‖ (Brokaw, 2005). Another evangelical leader, James Dobson, sent letters to 1.2 million supporters, threatening to ―challenge six ‗red‘ and purple‘ state Democratic senators up for re-election in 2006 if they filibuster Bush‘s conservative judicial nominees‖ (Gilgoff, 2005). In time for the 2005 presidential election, Dobson initiated Focus on the Family Action, a ―fundraising and grass-roots organizing engine free of the political spending limits imposed on the nonprofit‖ Focus on the Family
50
(Gilgoff). Dobson writes that he created Focus on the Family Action by ―separating out of Focus on the Family those activities which constitute lobbying under the IRS code so that they can be expanded in scope‖ (Dobson, 2005). Dobson launched Focus on the Family Action in response to the ―nonstop, withering attack from social and political liberals that is tearing families apart, undermining marriage, belittling Christian values and endangering our children‖ (Dobson). According to Richard Viguerie, Dobson was the ―800-pound gorilla‖ of the 2005 elections (Gilgoff, 2005). Beyond endorsing Bush for re-election, Dobson was also able to: … write to hundreds of thousands of Focus constituents in states with tight Senate races with political advice, and to appear in ads to unseat then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota. Last fall, Dobson hosted huge ‗stand for family‘ rallies—widely seen as supportive of Republican candidates— in close Senate race states, while Focus helped distribute an eye-popping 8 million voting guides. (Gilgoff, 2005) Cortes, Gerson, Haggard, and Dobson are a few examples of the immense influence that Evangelical leadership has had on social and political issues. Their influence advances and reinforces evangelical discourse. Scholz laments this ―unfortunate but powerful alliance between the Christian Right and the current administration in the United States" (2005, p. 81). Although Jimmy Carter was a born-again Christian and Bill Clinton was a (mainline) Protestant, conservative Protestantism is generally associated with the Republican Party. This association is so strong that "Republicans have come to depend on religious-right voters as their most reliable constituency" (Balmer, 2006a, p. 42). Balmer (2006c) bewails so greatly his insistence that evangelicalism has been "hijacked by right-wing zealots who have distorted the Gospel of Jesus Christ" (p. ix) that he dedicates an entire tome to the topic, Thy Kingdom Come: An Evangelical’s Lament (2006c). In it, Balmer defines the Religious Right as a "movement of politically conservative evangelicals who, since the late 1970s, have sought to exert their influence in political, cultural, and legal matters" (p. xxvii), much to the detriment of both evangelicalism and the nation. Balmer decries the "abortion myth," the notion that the Religious Right sprang into existence as a mobilization against the 1973 Roe V. Wade decision. He also bemoans the Religious Right‘s perseveration on homosexuality as a
51
function of selective literalism. Much of the remainder of the book focuses on the Religious Right's impact on rhetoric involving public education and intelligent design. The intersection of evangelicalism, politics, and education is the subject of the next section. Before going on to the next section, I want to emphasize that while the Religious Right is closely associated with evangelicalism, and while some evangelicals might believe that it is "something akin to sin to vote for anyone who's not a Republican" (Balmer, 2006c, p. x), not all evangelicals lean to the political right, and by no means are evangelicals unanimously anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, antifeminist, and eager to remove "activist judges" from their benches. As I discussed in the opening paragraphs of this chapter, evangelicals are very diverse, and it would be fallacious, as the Gallagher (2003) quotation in the epigraph of this chapter suggests, to conflate evangelicals with those who are ―are uniformly antifeminist, anti-Communist, anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-big-government reactionaries‖ (p. 9).
The Intersection of Evangelicalism, Politics and Education Evangelical attempts to influence education often play out in the political realm and have coalesced around attempts to ―disestablish public education‖ (Lugg, 2000, p. 629) through support of school choice vouchers, homeschooling, and the Christian School Movement, and to re-Christianize public schools through support for intelligent design, attempts to infiltrate school boards, and instigating curricular challenges, amongst other strategies. Many evangelicals eschew public schools because they fail to reflect and promote an evangelical value system (Rose, 1989) and because they are seen as ―bastions of state- sponsored sin‖ (Lugg, 2000, p. 628). Some evangelical parents respond to this failure by homeschooling their children. In 2003, over one million children in the United States were homeschooled, and 72% of their parents identified the desire to provide moral and religious instruction as their reason for homeschooling (Balmer, 2006c, p. 90). Other evangelical parents who are disillusioned by public schools have joined the Christian School Movement, which is the "fastest growing sector of private education, representing
52
one of the most important mobilization efforts of Evangelicals to regain influence in our society" (Rose, 1989, p. 60) by increasing influence on socialization of the young. Private evangelical schools account for approximately 20% of total private school enrollment (p. 60). This trend is unlikely to abate. Robert Simonds, president of Citizens for Excellence in Education, promotes the Christian Right‘s Rescue 2010 plan, which seeks to have evangelicals remove their children from public schools by the year 2010: The Lord has counseled me, and an impressive array of those associated in ministry have confirmed God's leading, that CHRISTIANS MUST EXIT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS as soon as it is feasible and possible. The price in human loss, social depravity and the spiritual slaughter of our young Christian children is no longer acceptable (and certainly never was!). (Simonds, 2001) For Simonds, public schools are beyond salvation and the only option for Christians is to remove their children from public schools to either homeschool them or enroll them in private Christian schools. Instead of abandoning government-funded education altogether, other evangelicals have lobbied for school choice, particularly for tax-funded vouchers that can be used for private school enrollment (Balmer, 2006c). In 1995, the Ohio legislature passed and then-Governor George Voinovich signed into law a provision for a pilot voucher program for the city of Cleveland. Despite numerous court challenges to the program, in 2002, the United States Supreme Court—in a 5 to 4 decision—upheld the Cleveland school voucher program. Over 96% of the funds going to the voucher program have been used for enrollment in religious institutions (Balmer, 2006c, p. 78). According to a report by the nonprofit research institute Policy Matters Ohio, 33% of students using vouchers to attend private schools had already been enrolled in private schools, and vouchers were serving as a subsidy for parents who were already paying for private schools (Balmer, 2006c, p. 83). Evangelicals promote ―disestablish[ing] public education‖ through opting out— through homeschooling and the Christian School Movement—and through support of school choice. Some evangelical parents who remain involved in public education, as well as some powerful evangelical elites, seek to influence public education by promoting intelligent design. Intelligent design, which has been referred to as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" (Balmer, 2006c, p. 141), is "based on the notion that
53
creation is so ordered and complex that some designer, an intelligent designer, must perforce have initiated and superintended the process" (p. 121). Evangelical efforts to challenge theories of evolution have "evolved from Genesis to creationism to ‗scientific creationism‘ and now to intelligent design" (Balmer, 2006c, p. 122). Legal challenges to the teaching of evolution began in 1925 with the infamous Scopes ―monkey trial‖ which pitted William Jennings Bryan as prosecutor against Clarence Darrow, who defended high school science teacher and part-time football coach John Scopes for violating Tennessee‘s Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution. Although Bryan, in convicting Scopes, won the battle, evangelical anti- evolutionists lost the war "decisively in the larger courtroom of public opinion" (Balmer, p. 114), and Bryan was "widely ridiculed in the national press" (Bill of Rights in Action, 2006b).12 Nonetheless, the legal challenge to evolution and the promotion of creationism did not stop there, and a plethora of court cases followed: Indeed, the legal history of cases addressing the evolution-creationism controversy is extensive and benumbingly consistent, but the multiplicity of cases suggest the variety of ways in which conservatives have sought to insinuate creationism into public education. Courts have repeatedly refused to countenance creationism as anything but religious and therefore impermissible in public schools because it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. (Balmer, 2006c, p. 118) Regardless of the numerous court cases which have upheld evolution and rejected creationism, activist evangelicals have continued to use the courts as a battleground. Like so many weeds, the legal challenges continue. The most recent iteration of evangelical attacks against evolution and promotion of a biblically amenable theory of the origin of life has been in the form of intelligent design. The most visible intelligent design case was the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision. In 2004, the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania, voted to have teachers read a statement that evolution is not a fact and that intelligent design is a competing theory. Teachers refused to read the statement, and the school principal was forced to read the statement in class. A group of parents filed suit against the school board's mandate.
12 Upon appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, Scopes‘ conviction was overturned on a technicality. Interestingly, the Butler Act was not repealed until 1967. 54
During the six-week case, intelligent design was given an "exhaustive academic and legal examination," and "both sides presented numerous scientific experts, who testified on the underpinnings of evolution and intelligent design" (Bill of Rights in Action, 2006a, p. 8). U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones presided over the case and sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that intelligent design is not science and that the Board of Education was influenced by religious convictions and no "sincere secular purpose" (p. 9). After the trial ended, but before Judge Jones ruled, constituents in Dover elected to the school board candidates who oppose intelligent design. The new board, as such, will not appeal the decision. Although the decision is not binding beyond the Federal District of Pennsylvania over which Jones presides, "many experts think that the decision will deter other school districts from teaching intelligent design" (Bill of Rights in Action, p. 9). That said, evangelicals largely remain unconvinced of the veracity of evolutionary theory, as data that I cited earlier from the General Social Survey (2004) indicate that 67.8% of Protestants believe that evolution is ―probably not‖ or ―definitely not‖ true. Not all challenges by evangelicals to public education are so visible and contentious. Lugg (2000) describes two surreptitious strategies used by the Christian Right to impact education through political means. The first strategy is known as ―stealth politics‖ and involves an attempt by some evangelicals to surreptitiously impact education by ―infiltrating‖ government, primarily through attempts to elect conservative Christians to school boards that can impact educational policy on a local level. Citizens for Excellence in Education publish a book titled How to Elect Christians to Public Office which provides detailed instructions on how to win a seat on a local board of education (Lugg, 2000). The second strategy is known as the ―15% solution.‖ The 15% solution capitalizes refers to the recognition by conservative Christians that only 60% of eligible voters within the American population are actually registered to vote, and, of the 60%, only about half (30% of the eligible American population) actually vote. As such, many elections are decided by about 15% of the eligible electorate. The Christian Right capitalizes on low overall voter turn-out and exhorts or mobilizes Christians to vote in order to fill this 15% of the eligible electorate that can determine an election outcome. In
55
this manner, evangelicals can hold great power over local and state elections and can, through their elected candidates for legislative and executive as well as school board positions, influence public policy on education. Another strategy used by the Christian Right has been to assail the curricular and instructional materials used in schools. McCarthy (1993) reveals that evangelical groups are increasingly attacking not just individual books in school libraries but whole textbook series and instructional approaches. She gives examples of attacks on Harcourt‘s Impressions elementary reading anthology and the Lions-Quest drug prevention program, as well as Robert Marzano‘s Tactics for Thinking program, designed to develop students‘ critical and higher order thinking skills. Objects of attack also include course offerings, such as sociology, and outcomes-based education. Because the ―courts try to defer to local school boards, whether the boards are defending or restricting the curriculum,‖ (McCarthy, p. 57) evangelicals‘ efforts are often aimed at influencing, or as described above, ―infiltrating‖ local school boards. Citizens for Excellence in Education has produced and promoted ―Public School Awareness Kits‖ that teach parents how to influence local curricular change (McCarthy). While such conservative Christian groups describe their efforts as ―grassroots,‖ these efforts are often supported and influenced by national conservative Christian groups, such as Citizens for Excellence in Education and the National Association of Christian Educators. Further, McCarthy argues that school boards, teachers, and administrators may self-censor in an effort to avoid controversy from conservative Christian groups. In addition to legal challenges to evolution, stealth politics, the 15% solution, and challenges to curricular/instructional materials, other ―re-Christianization‖ strategies leveraged at public schools by the Christian Right include attempts to post the Ten Commandments in local schools, support for school prayer, removing or reducing sex education, and dismissing multiculturalism (Lugg, 2000). In Delaware, the Jewish- identified Dobrich family grew frustrated with Christian prayers at school events. After their daughter‘s graduation, at which a minister‘s prayer proclaimed that ―Jesus is the only way to the truth‖ (Banerjee, 2006), the Dobriches requested that the Indian River
56
district select prayers that are more inclusive and generic. The result was swift and profound: As news of [the Dobriches‘] request spread, many local Christians saw it as an effort to limit their free exercise of religion, residents said. Anger spilled on to talk radio, in letters to the editor and at school board meetings attended by hundreds of people carrying signs praising Jesus. (Banerjee, 2006) After receiving threats, the Dobriches moved and filed suit, contending that religion was pervasive in the school district and that ―children were given special privileges for being in Bible club, Bibles were distributed in 2003 at an elementary school, Christian prayer was routine at school functions and teachers evangelized‖ (Banerjee, 2006). Another example of recent re-Christianization efforts comes from Bridgeport, Virginia, where a school district is fighting to keep a painting of Jesus on display outside of the high school principal‘s office. The local Board of Education approved a motion to raise $150,000 in donations to underwrite the anticipated legal fees to defend the district‘s right to display the painting (Leaming, 2006). Not all evangelicals support the strategies described above to disestablish and to re-Christianize public schools. In fact, some evangelical public school teachers feel caught in a tension between their own constructivist educational beliefs and commitments and those of evangelicals who protest school curricula/materials. Lederhouse‘s (1997) case study of three evangelical teachers at an elementary school who espouse constructivist teaching philosophies reveals the struggles that these teachers face between their competing discourses of evangelicalism and constructivism. The study, using participant-observation and semi-structured interviews, focused on ―how personal faith influences the educational practice‖ (p. 184) of the teachers and the tensions these teachers feel between their evangelical commitments and their professional beliefs. Lederhouse argues that the study demonstrates that ―while living in two camps is at times difficult, it is possible to do‖ (p. 185). This study, interpretivist in nature, assumes that the women are living in and between two subcultures with somewhat conflicting philosophical commitments, and that the women‘s challenge is to navigate any conflict between the two subcultures. Two of the three educators, for example, had been involved in a textbook controversy. During the controversy, the women felt marginalized by their evangelical communities because of their status as teachers in the building as well as 57
because of their defense (or implicit condoning) of the school‘s use of the texts. What the study does not do is explore deeply the ways in which these teachers negotiate, resist, embrace, and accommodate available and competing discourses, which have multiple and competing versions of reality and truth. Navigating these tensions is not just about navigating social relations in multiple subcultures. Navigating these tensions is about constituting one‘s identity and sense of reality. While the Christian Right has been influential in attempts to disestablish and re- Christianize public schools, not all evangelicals support such efforts. Indeed, some evangelical public school teachers experience strong dissonance and discomfort between their competing discourses of evangelicalism and constructivism. In my study, I seek to explore the multiple and competing discourses of my participants, all of whom are evangelicals and who are—in one form or another—educators.
Conclusion The diversity among evangelicals is like the vivid swirls of color in glass marbles. While there are some elements that are common to evangelical discourse, there are also important differences and nuances. Generally speaking, evangelicals are born-again Christians who stress the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus and the significance of the bible for explicating timeless Truth and for serving as a guide to daily living. Evangelicals also seek to evangelize others, in the hope that others will accept Christ into their lives. The relationship between Enlightenment/modernist ideals of individualism and democracy are evidenced in evangelicalism, but the ideal of scientific rationalism is complex and contradictory; in some ways, evangelicals embrace scientific rationalism to support their views (e.g. Dobson‘s writing and ―scientific‖ arguments for intelligent design) and in other ways reject or eschew scientific rationalism (e.g. the contestation of evolutionary theory). Evangelicals believe in the dualistic nature of the world, which is part of God‘s design. The dualisms of us/them, sacred/secular, sacred/profane, man/woman and male/female are particularly powerful dualisms within evangelicalism and are an inextricable part of the evangelical ontology.
58
The dualisms of us/them, sacred/secular, sacred/profane, and saved/unsaved are particularly germane to the evangelical desire to be ―in but not of‖ the world. This mandate is complex, as evangelicals take up (and on) many aspects of the broader culture while still trying to maintain the dualistic boundaries between that which is evangelical and that which is secular. Part of the bounded world of evangelicals is the evangelical dialect, which is not merely about intriguing colloquialisms but illustrates and reinforces profound ontological commitments, such as the discourses of spiritual warfare and spiritual experiences. Evangelicals can boast a mighty consumeristic and literary dynasty, as evidenced in the financial success of evangelical publishing and merchandising. This dynasty is an example of the complexity of the relationship between evangelicalism and broader society, in the sense that the evangelical publishing and merchandise dynasty is successful to the degree that it distinguishes its products from secular products (and thereby reinforces evangelical boundaries); however, at the same time, the dynasty evidences the profound overlap between evangelical discourse and the secular discourses of consumerism and materialism. Evangelicals‘ power is also evidenced on the political scene, both through the impact of evangelicals on current elected officials and the ability of the Religious Right to mobilize vast numbers of evangelicals in support or opposition of candidates and issues. This political influence has also proven potent at the intersection of politics and education, where the Religious Right utilizes strategies designed to disestablish public education and to re-Christianize it. While the preceding pages focus mainly on the commonalities and consistencies within evangelical discourse, the differences, nuances, and complexities will become more evident in Chapters 4-6. Now that I have looked closely at contemporary evangelical discourse, I use the next section of this chapter, Evangelicalism: A Brief History, to outline how contemporary evangelicalism has evolved from earlier versions.
59
Evangelicalism: A Brief History
The earliest roots of contemporary evangelicalism stretch back to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation in Europe, which began in the early 16th century and propagated the concept of sola scriptura, the idea that the bible alone (and not the Church) is needed as the repository of God's Truth and salvation. The concept of sola scriptura is still significant in evangelical discourse, as we saw in the previous section of this chapter. Although contemporary American evangelicalism had its earliest roots in Europe, this section focuses primarily on the development of evangelicalism in the United States. I begin by providing an overview of the First and Second Great Awakenings, for these ―revivals and the denominations they spawned are the sources of evangelicalism‖ (Hardesty, 1995, p. 209). I then describe the rise of fundamentalism. Next I explore the amorphous growth of evangelicalism as a social and political force from post-World War II to today. By providing a brief history, I hope to contextualize evangelicalism as a discursive tradition.
First Great Awakening The First Great Awakening, which took place from the early 1730s to the late 1740s, emphasized individual piety and a personal, born-again conversation experience as necessary for salvation. The First and Second Great Awakenings were referred to as ―revivals,‖ a reference to the ―revitalization of a tradition, or set of values‖ (Lechner, 1990, p. 81), a return ―back to true religion‖ (p. 83). While in this sense the First Great Awakening was an act of looking backward, it was also forward-looking in two key ways. First—and somewhat ironically—the First Great Awakening had ―unintended, modernizing consequences‖ (Lechner, p. 78). Second, the First Great Awakening constructed an ―imaginary evangelical community‖ (Lambert, 1998, p. 79). While the nature of this ―imaginary evangelical community‖ may have changed during the intervening years, a thriving evangelical community exists today. Indeed, some of the pivotal theological commitments of the First Great Awakening (individual piety and the necessity of a personal salvation experience) are key characteristics of contemporary
60
evangelicalism. These two forward-looking elements of the First Great Awakening are the foci of the following paragraphs. The First Great Awakening had the unintended modernizing consequences of challenging established theological authority, pushing towards separation of church and state, promoting the use of mass communication, and furthering democratic principles.
Challenging Established Church Authority A key theme of the First Great Awakening was the importance of a born-again conversion experience for salvation, as promoted by revivalists like Jonathan Edwards, who spoke passionately about a personal conversion experience as the only thing that keeps us from being thrown into the pits of hell. Indeed, some of the key players involved in the First Great Awakening, including George Whitefield, Gilbert Tennent, and James Davenport, challenged established church authority by speaking out against ―unconverted‖ ministers—those preachers who had not experienced a personal born- again conversion (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2004; Lambert, 1998). George Whitefield, known as The Great Itinerant for his vast travels to preach throughout the New England and Middle Colonies, promoted individual, independent judgment as a means of identifying Truth and valued personal experience over scholarly theology (Lambert). Both this and the fact that he drew crowds of followers that transcended ―parish boundaries and clerical authority‖ (Lambert, p. 74) served as a challenge to established local church authority. The itinerants ―helped mold a new attitude toward authority, in which tradition became challenged by experience, and hierarchy by democracy‖ (Williams, 1990, p. 161). Similarly, in New England, one of the key geographic locales13 of the First Great Awakening, the New Light preachers of the revival emphasized an emotional, enthusiastic experience of Christ over the rational scholarship of the Old Light ministers, who disparagingly referred to the New Light ministers as ―enthusiasts‖ (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2004). The New Light preachers served as a challenge to the authority of the Old Light ministers.
13 The First Great Awakening occurred mostly in New England and the Middle Colonies and did not much affect the Southern Colonies and frontier areas (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2004). 61
Moving Towards Separation of Church and State In the first half of the 18th Century, a number of the colonies, including Connecticut, had an established, government-supported church. So great was the threat of the revivalists that in 1742, Connecticut passed a law against itinerants from outside of the colony (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2004). The revival transcended geographic and denominational boundaries and produced new churches that were separate from the established, government-supported churches. Additionally, the revival‘s ―very concern with personal piety set the community of true believers further apart from the state‖ (Lechner, 1990, p. 83). These changes thus moved the colonies inexorably towards ―disestablishment,‖ or the separation of church and state (Lechner, 1990). This is ironic, given that some contemporary Evangelicals argue against the separation of church and state and hearken back nostalgically to the mythical days when America was a Christian nation (Balmer, 2006c;).
Using Mass Communication Some scholars argue that the First Great Awakening served as the ―first major event in American history—as opposed to the history of the British Empire‖ (Williams, 1990, p. 161), a ―national event before the existence of a nation‖ (Lambert, 1998, p. 73). Itinerant preachers played a key role in reaching and communicating with vast populations of colonists; George Whitefield is generally credited with connecting local awakenings and ―fashioning them into an intercolonial movement‖ (Lambert, 1998, p. 73). While the itinerants traveled vast distances to preach to large crowds—Whitefield is reputed to have preached to crowds of up to 20,000 (Lambert, 1998, p. 77)—revivalists‘ voices were heard more widely and more frequently through the press and other publications. Whitefield utilized a mass communication ―‘print and preach‘ strategy that flooded the colonies with this printed sermons, journal, and letters‖ (Lambert, 1998, p. 74): Whitefield also exploited the expanding network of colonial newspapers, inserting third-person accounts of his revival services, including reports written by the 62
revivalist himself. . . through the expanding press, Whitefield discovered a more efficient means of delivering his message of new birth to a mass audience. (Lambert, p. 74) Use of media to communicate to a mass audience was a thoroughly modernizing effect of the First Great Awakening and produced the first major event in America‘s history.
Promoting Democratic Principles An educated, informed public is a prerequisite of a democracy, and the First Great Awakening promoted this democratic principle by using media to influence an increasingly literate and informed public. In addition to the revivalists‘ appeals to the public through media, revivalists also embodied the democratic principles of inclusivity and diversity. ―The religion of the Great Awakening was a rather democratic religion, to be practiced in a voluntary church accessible to all; membership thus became more inclusive‖ (Lechner, 1990, p. 83). In revivalist meetings, ―social distinctions were unobserved: rich and poor, men and women, black and white worshiped together without the direction of the ordained clergy,‖ and ―women‘s participation in evangelistic outreach, public prayer and teaching began to expand‖ (Gallagher, 2003, p. 27). Religious experience was ―less marked by older hierarchies of gender, class, and education‖ (Gallagher, 2003, p. 27). Beyond the modernizing influences of the First Great Awakening, the movement was forward-looking in the sense that it promoted the Evangelical ideals of a born-again conversion experience and personal piety, both of which figure prominently in contemporary Evangelicalism. Additionally, the First Great Awakening constructed an ―imaginary evangelical community‖ with a ―common language of the new birth that evangelicals employed everywhere to distinguish themselves‖ (Lambert, 1998, p. 79). Yet the movement was incredibly diverse, and revivalists were quite heterogeneous (Lechner, 1990). This dialectic between a common identity of ―Evangelical‖ shared by a diverse, heterogeneous group to distinguish itself dualistically from the Other (unsaved, non-Christian) is a hallmark of contemporary Evangelicalism as well.
Second Great Awakening
63
The Second Great Awakening took place in the early 19th Century in New England, Upstate New York, and the Cumberland Valley (Balmer, 2006b, p. 231). Fresh from the Revolution, the Second Great Awakening, which inherited the concept of sola scriptura from the Reformation and insistence on a conversion experience from the First Great Awakening, added to these the imperative to evangelize: By the time of independence, "evangelical" as a designation for Anglo-American Protestants had taken on a distinct though broad meaning. It did not refer to a specific new tradition or single denomination, but rather included a wide variety of established and emergent groups... All of these sorts and conditions of Protestants did not share a formal theology. … What they did share was a set of three emphases, however much they might quarrel about other issues. First was a commitment to the Bible as the sole source of revelation and religious authority -- the legacy of the Reformation. Second was an insistence on personal, emotional conversion as the hallmark of salvation—the fruit of the Great Awakening. Third was the "missionary imperative," the inexorable internal demand on the converted not to hide their lights under proverbial bushels, but to go out and share the good news with others who had not yet experienced its power. (Williams, 1990, pp. 166-167) These three discourses of sola scriptura, insistence on a born-again or conversion experience, and the imperative to evangelize remain strong in contemporary evangelism, as we saw in the previous section. The Second Great Awakening also saw the disestablishment of religion—the separation of church and state (Lechner, 1990). While disestablishment was enshrined in the Bill of Rights, it applied to the federal government and not the states. However, many states, starting with Virginia‘s precedent, ended establishment (Williams, 1990, p. 167). Massachusetts was the last hold-out and—after an involved court battle—ceded to disestablishment in 1833 (Williams, p. 176). Upon disestablishment, two new concepts in American religion developed: voluntaryism and denominationalism (Williams, 1990, p. 168). Because there were no longer state-sanctioned religions, all religious activity was ―conducted on a voluntary basis‖ (Williams, p. 168). Denominationalism refers to the various brands of Christianity that no longer had official privileged status and that now had to draw and retain members (Williams, p. 168). While the Second Great Awakening started in New England, its ―main arena was the expanding frontier‖ (Williams, 1990, p. 173). The New England arena, where 64
religious and political conservatism flourished, was primarily intellectual and technical in nature, with Jonathan Edwards and his followers attempting to reconcile Calvinist tradition with New Light revivalism (Williams, p. 169). The revival of the ―frontier‖ lands of the Cumberland Valley were another thing altogether. Revivalists on these fronts sought to tame ―some of the rowdiness of frontier life‖ (Balmer, 2006b, p. 231), of which there was plenty to be tamed: One in three brides was pregnant, according to some estimates. Alcohol consumption was prodigious and (literally) staggering, due in part to the cheap and plentiful supply of grain. Inebriation led to abuse of wives and children, neglected fields, and outright violence. Americans of the early republic drank on the average of five gallons of ninety-proof alcohol a year, more than triple today's consumption. Children and infants were given liquor, and drinking began with breakfast and continued before, during, and after meals. Water was thought to have no nutritional value; indeed, according to some wags, it was only good for navigation. (p. 231) The ―isolated, sensation-starved frontier people‖ had ―little organized social or religious life to relieve the dangers and privations they encountered daily‖ (Williams, p. 170). And for all of their rowdiness, they were attracted by the tens of thousands to the impassioned preachings of the ―Camp Meeting revivals,‖ and the ―camp meeting rapidly became a fixture of frontier life‖ (Williams, p. 170). At the camp meetings, it was not unusual for participants to fall into … neuromuscular seizures that were soon known as ―exercises.‖ These included ―barking,‖ ―jerking,‖ ―falling,‖ ―dancing,‖ ―laughing,‖ and other symptoms that might now be regarded as hysterical, but which were interpreted at the time as potent evidences of the power of the Spirit. (Williams, p. 170) Such ―ecstatic‖ spiritual experiences are valued by some contemporary Evangelical groups, most notably Pentecostals and Charismatics (Balmer, 2006b, p. xv). The third main drive of the Second Great Awakening took place in Western New York, which came to be known as the Burned Over District ―for the intensity and variety of the religious life that it generated‖ (Williams, 1990, p. 171). Christians in this area ―were free to seek new kinds of salvations as well as temporal fortunes‖ (Williams, p. 171) amongst the diversity of religious opportunities that sprang up. The Second Great Awakening, like the First Great Awakening, saw a ―temporary loosening of restraints‖ (Balmer, 1994, p. 50) that provided ―opportunities for women in public ministry … [although] their ministry was still considered the exception rather than 65
the rule‖ (Gallagher, 2003, p. 29). At the time, women outnumbered men overwhelmingly in church attendance, and some revival preachers began to claim that ―women were naturally more pious and spiritually sensitive‖ (Gallagher, p. 30). Women were seen as ―spiritual Titans‖ (Balmer, p. 51). Increasingly, despite women‘s role in the revival, the concept of gendered separate spheres grew, in which the women‘s sphere was the home and the men‘s sphere was the world beyond home. By the mid-19th century, the ―cult of true womanhood‖ had developed (Gallagher, p. 31), ascribing to women the characteristics of ―sentiment, piety, and tenderness,‖ as well as sexual purity and submissiveness (Gallagher, p. 31). The cult of true womanhood also ―exalted [the] notion of motherhood as the moral foundation of society‖ (Gallagher, p. 31). Conversely, the ―cult of true manhood,‖ which was complemented by the cult of true womanhood, ascribed to men the characteristics of ―breadwinner,‖ ―naturally lusty,‖ ―dominant and directive‖ (Gallagher, p. 31). The cults of true womanhood/manhood reflect the dualistic nature of the Evangelical ontology, in which gender-based differences are God‘s design. These ontological views are still woven into the contemporary fabric of Evangelical life. The Second Great Awakening was not a unified movement, and it reflected the different social needs of the three different arenas in which it occurred (Williams, 1990, p. 174). What was consistent amongst the three theaters was the directive to evangelize, a directive that remains strong in Evangelicalism today. The exhortation to evangelize requires that Christians interact with nonbelievers, those of the secular world. It requires Christians to be ―in the world.‖ The Fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century was marked by a retreat from the secular world and insulation against it. The rise of Fundamentalism is the focus of the next section.
Rise of Fundamentalism Some authors, such as Balmer, define fundamentalists as a particularly conservative subgroup within the broad category of Evangelicals. Hawley and Proudfoot (1994) frame fundamentalists as a separate group: ―In the most basic use of the term, fundamentalists are American Protestants with a militant desire to defend religion against the onslaught of modern, secular culture; their principal weapon is their insistence on the
66
inerrancy of Scripture" (p. 3). Lechner (1990) considers fundamentalists to be less defined by their theology and more defined by their aversion to modernity: "We can think of ‗fundamentalism‘ not as a term describing certain kinds of conservative Protestants, but rather as a particular type of anti-modern sociocultural movement" (p. 78). "Fundamentalism is a quintessentially modern phenomenon" (Lechner, p. 94) because it is a reaction against modernity. Fundamentalism rose ―in the early twentieth century to defend traditional evangelical orthodoxy‖ (Carpenter, 1998, p. 393). Fundamentalists got their name from a series of 12 booklets, published between 1910 and 1915, known collectively as ―The Fundamentals.‖ The booklets, written by conservative Christian leaders, defended orthodox Christian theology, including the infallibility of the bible (Carpenter, p. 393), against two modern threats. The first threat was German Higher Criticism, which raised ―intellectual skepticism about the Bible‘s supernatural origins‖ and ―difficult questions about its interpretation‖ (Bendroth, 1993, p. 37). For fundamentalists, who tended to be literalists (Balmer, 1994), German Higher Criticism threatened the infallibility—or inerrancy—of the bible. The second threat was the Enlightenment in general and the rise of scientific rationalism in particular: Enlightenment rationalism holds out the promise that reason can provide us with a model of the world that will allow us to see the meaning of the whole of things and, what is more, will allow us to direct our own fate within it. (Brown, 1994, p. 186). For fundamentalists, it is the bible that shows us the meaning of things, and it is God who directs our lives. As such, Enlightenment rationalism, for fundamentalists, was not only misguided—it was blasphemous: Central to its emerging identity as the scourge of Liberalism was its insistence not only on the authority but also the "inerrancy" of the Bible on all points, including matters of history and natural science. (Williams, 1990, p. 257) The Scopes Monkey Trial was the incarnation of the battle between the scientific rationalism of Darwinism and the inerrancy of the bible. William Jennings Bryan, a Democrat and progressive, prosecuted the case for fear that social Darwinism, ―which posited the superiority of some human beings over others, would have disastrous consequences‖ (Balmer, 2006c, p. xv) on society. Bryan, however, became the champion 67
of fundamentalists, who saw the fight against evolution as a fight for orthodox Christianity. Although Bryan won the much-publicized case and Scopes was convicted, public opinion swung brutally against Bryan and the fundamentalists. The fundamentalists ―slumped away from the trial in disgrace and despair, signaling a long retreat into their own subculture‖ (p. xvi). The retreat was, for the fundamentalists, perhaps less about the indignity of defeat and more about being ―self-consciously separatist, in order to protect [themselves] against a threatening modern center‖ (Lechner, 1990, p. 86). In the 1930s, fundamentalism "became increasingly isolated and socially irrelevant" (Gallagher, 2003, p. 38). The fundamentalists yearned for the ―halcyon past‖ (Balmer, 1994, p. 55), the ―golden age‖ (Hawley & Proudfoot, 1994, p. 12) of their ―actively constructed past‖ (p. 34). Indeed, the fundamentalists‘ ―militant opposition to modernism, if not to all modernity—is important. This militancy signals that the oppositional posture is what actually defines fundamentalism‖ (Hawley & Proudfoot,,p. 12). For the fundamentalists of the early 20th century who battled scientific rationalism, as well as for those of the later 20th century who battled abortion, fundamentalism is about: … maintaining strong and clear social boundaries—boundaries between nation- states, between law-abiding citizens and criminals, between the righteous and the sinful, between life and death, and not coincidentally, between men and women. This is a group centrally concerned with social order and social control. (Brown, 1994, p. 177) Whether one sees fundamentalists as a particularly conservative subgroup of evangelicals or as a separate and distinct group altogether, it is clear that binaries and social control are central to conservative Christians. While fundamentalism spent much of the first half of the 20th century isolated and insignificant, it experienced a resurgence in post-World War II America, and fundamentalists became less distinct from broader evangelicalism: Later, fundamentalists acceded to the label of evangelical, and their modernist opponents became the "liberal" mainstream church. In contemporary America what was known as the neo-evangelical movement in the 1950s and 1960s (along with Pentecostals and often fundamentalists) is now known simply as mainstream evangelicalism [emphasis in the original]. (Cochran, 2005, pp. 6-7) The impact of the neo-evangelical movement in post-World War II America is profound and serves as the subject of the next section. 68
Neo-evangelicalism Post WWII America Sometimes called "neo-evangelicals," the 1940s evangelicals held much the same doctrinal views as the fundamentalists, but their understanding of the relationship between the Church and the larger culture was different. Rejecting fundamentalist "separationism,‖ evangelicals in the 1940s sought to engage culture and transform it—to evangelize it [emphasis in the original]. (Ingersoll, 2003, p. 12)
Since World War II, neo-evangelicals—including fundamentalists—have sought to engage the broader culture in order to do God‘s work of saving souls. In doing so, evangelicals strive to be ―in but not of the world‖ (see section titled ―Evangelicals and Evangelical Discourse‖ for more on this topic). At mid-century, ―mainline liberal Protestantism dominated the American religious landscape‖ (Gallagher, 2003, p. 7). That was about to change. Neo-evangelicals, including leaders such as Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga, and Charles Fuller (of Fuller Theological Seminary), met together in 1942 at the National Conference for United Action to promote a ―revitalized engagement with the ideas of contemporary society and a return to social and political activism … to develop a sustained critique of modernity and exert a Christian influence in government, science, education, and the arts‖ (Gallagher, p. 8). The group formed the National Association of Evangelicals, which has grown exponentially since that time and today boasts 30 million members (August et al., 2006). Today, there are more evangelical Protestants than mainline Protestants in the United States (Baylor Religion Survey, 2005). The appeal of evangelicalism in the latter half of the 20th century reflected the desire of many Americans for constancy and absolutes in a time of extreme change. The ―upsurge‖ of evangelicalism in the latter half of the 20th century ―reflects the swing of the pendulum away from a period of extreme social stress and cultural confusion—namely, the era of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, the counterculture, and Watergate‖ and appeals to the young of the middle class because of its ―assurance that absolutes existed within a world in dizzying transition‖ (Williams, 1990, p. 360). For many new evangelicals of the middle class, evangelicalism was a lifestyle as well as a religion:
69
Accommodation to a more conventionally middle-class life-style also began to emerge in such 1970s phenomena as a ―Christian Yellow Pages,‖ which promoted evangelical patronage of businesses owned by the like-minded, and Christian book stores, which specialized in paperback and audiovisual materials promoting conservative Christianity. (The term Christian [emphasis in the original] in these contexts became equated solely with its evangelical form.) (Williams, 1990, p. 354) This idyllic Christian existence in which religion and lifestyle coincide was under-girded by the desire for constancy and absolutes, and that desire was partially sated by evangelicalism‘s essentialist gender discourse: Within the church, women were encouraged to give up the jobs that they had been encouraged to take during the war and return to homemaking and child rearing. Evangelical rhetoric of husbands‘ headship and wifely submission was supported by many social scientists, who argued in favor of the functionality of this division of labor and decried the hazards of maternal deprivation among children of employed mothers. (Gallagher, 2003, p. 43) Despite this emphasis on traditional gender roles, the larger cultural landscape was changing in ways that made conservative Christians uneasy: As a result of postwar suburbanization, economic expansion, and increasing geographic and social mobility, the individualistic dimensions of family life were quickly obviating the more traditional functions of marriage—long-term relational commitment and societal stability … It was on the heels of these social changes and redefinitions of family life that feminist criticism of women‘s traditional roles emerged. Feminist critiques drew force from these cultural shifts toward personal fulfillment, called into question the unequal treatment of American women, and gained considerable momentum well into the 1970s. (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 31) This second wave feminism drew criticism from evangelical leadership. Nonetheless, a small group of biblical feminists from within evangelicalism emerged and grew (see next section for further discussion). Neo-evangelicals not only sought to influence broader society and social mores, but also politics. Jimmy Carter was the first self-proclaimed born-again Christian president. Carter‘s election in 1976 brought additional status to evangelicals and lured them from their ―apolitical stupor‖ (Balmer, 2006c, p. xvi). Both Time and Newsweek crowned 1976 the ―‘year of the evangelical‘‖ (Williams, 1990, p. 354). ―Evangelicalism had now become respectable and even fashionable‖ (p. 355). However, it was Ronald Reagan who became the darling of the conservative ―religious right,‖ even though he had been divorced earlier in life, he had signed a bill as
70
governor of California to legalize abortion (Balmer, 2006c), and his ―actual church affiliations were rather dim‖ (Williams, 1990, p. 355). Indeed, it was during the election of 1980 that the ―Religious Right crawled into bed with the Republican Party … and cemented the political alliance‖ (Balmer, p. xvii) between the two. Since the 1980 election, the ―religious right‖ has been a consistent and reliable support for Republican presidential nominees (see section titled ―Evangelicals and Evangelical Discourse‖ for more on the political influence of evangelicals). During the latter half of the 20th century, heaps of evangelical parachurch groups blossomed, including the Moral Majority, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, and Christian Coalition. These groups, and the ―religious right‖ more generally, promoted a ―social agenda‖ that included fighting against ―Secular Humanism,‖ (Williams, 1990, p. 355-357) promoting school prayer and creationism, deploring abortion, opposing gay rights, and lobbying against the Equal Rights Amendment. Evangelicalism was rocked in the 1980s by a number of scandals, including those involving televangelist Jim Bakker, referred to as ―Preachergate‖ or ―Pearly Gate‖ (Williams, 1990, p. 357). Nonetheless, evangelicalism has continued to grow in prominence and power through such means as the ―Electronic Church‖—television and radio ministry—and ―superchurches‖ (or megachurches) (Williams, 1990). Evangelicalism‘s traditional theology mixed with equal parts social conservatism and political clout make for a very influential force for the future: The rapid rise of a complex religious culture that combines a conservative theological and social outlook with financial power and political activism will certainly continue to influence the shape of American society into the indefinite future. (Williams, p. 360) That said, it is important to reiterate that evangelicalism is neither monolithic nor homogeneous. It is comprised of diverse groups of conservative Christians that often differ from one another in theological commitments and social positions (Gallagher, 2003; Stacey & Gerard, 1990; Williams, 1990).
71
A Brief History of Biblical Feminism
When determining the organizational structure of the ―Brief History of Evangelicalism‖ section of this chapter, I considered incorporating the history of biblical feminism into the general chronology of evangelicalism depicted in the preceding pages. Ultimately, however, I elected to make it a separate segment. Biblical feminism, as a movement, emerged in the latter half of the 20th century and has been, since it inception, a counterhegemonic voice within evangelicalism. As such, it merits its own titled segment to validate its important, although perhaps limited, effect on evangelicalism. While the crux of this segment is about the biblical feminism movement, I feel it is important to recognize that the movement did not spring from a history utterly devoid of women‘s voices: Antifeminism may be the dominant perspective in this conservative Christian subculture, but it has long been challenged by alternative voices that argued for women's equality. (Ingersoll, 2003, p. 2) While biblical feminism launched in earnest in the latter half of the 20th century, it would be erroneous to conclude that prior to that point Christian women were entirely oppressed, voiceless, and powerless. History offers glimpses and glances of women‘s value and leadership within Christianity; however, the ―theological voices of ancient women are largely lost to us, surviving at best in the ventriloquizing performances of men‖ (Burrus, 2006, p. 55) whose writings have survived. There is a ―fundamental ambiguity of Christian women‘s experience‖ (Miles, 2006, p. 46) that makes it difficult to succinctly and accurately describe the degree to which women were empowered or powerless: Feminist historians have usually found it impossible to claim exclusively either that women in the early Christian communities were helpless victims of a pervasive misogyny or that their faith provided new rules and opportunities; rather, both must be acknowledged and described [emphasis in the original]. (Miles, 2006, p. 46) That said, certain periods of church history were more conducive to equality and opportunity for women than others, as the following sections illustrate.
72
Women in the Early Church The early church was split on its views about women: During its first two centuries, the Christian Church developed at least two different sets of attitudes about women. Gnostic sects described God as both masculine and feminine and integrated an egalitarian principle into their communal activities. The orthodox community, however, described God as exclusively masculine. (Bineham, 1993, p. 517) The Orthodox community won out, and by the third century men dominated women in social and family life as well as in the church. "In the fourth century, women's ministries were prohibited and women's voices forbidden in church choirs" (Miles, 2006, p. 47). The church‘s low view of women continued into the Middle Ages, when males were thought to be superior morally, intellectually, and physically to women (Bineham, 1993, p. 517). While the Reformation of the 16th century saw women as ―true believers‖ and provided women with increased freedom, women were ―still distinctly subservient to men,‖ and Luther ―excluded women from ministry positions because they possessed inferior organizational skills and were weaker than men‖ (Bineham, p. 518).
“Temporary Loosening” During the First and Second Great Awakenings Shifting over to the ―new world,‖ in pre-Revolutionary America, ―‗back-country‘ Baptist services were often held without a minister and did not recognize social distinctions of race, sex, and class‖ (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 18). Additionally, for women, the First Great Awakening ―provided opportunity for greater public voice, independence, and autonomous action. … With the limited support of Edwards, Whitefield, and Tennent, women‘s participation in evangelistic outreach, public prayer, and teaching began to expand‖ (Gallagher, 2003, pp. 25-27). At the same time, however, economic changes decreased the degree of ―interdependency of men and women within the household,‖ and ―mutual industry began to be replaced by notions of gender in which women figured primarily as domestic caregivers rather than productive partners‖ (Gallagher, p. 24). Thus while religious gendered role distinction was temporarily loosened by the revival, greater gendered role distinction was occurring within the home.
73
The Second Great Awakening, like the First, again opened temporary opportunities for women in religious leadership (Gallagher, 2003), including allowing ―women to pray and testify in public‖ (Hardesty, 1995, p. 210). However, this opening was overshadowed by the growing ideology of ―true womanhood‖ (or the ―cult of domesticity‖) (Balmer, 1994, p. 52) and ―true manhood.‖ Under the cult of domesticity, women ―reigned supreme‖ (Balmer, p. 52) in running the home, educating and caring for children, and handling private religious matters but were excluded from most public endeavors and church leadership. Evangelical women who participated in social reform did so within the framework of the ―nineteenth century ideology of domesticity—that women were more selfless and pious than men, and therefore their influence was necessary to correct the skewed morality of a public sphere harmed by a lack of womanly influence" (Fitzgerald, 1993, p. xii). This position is based on the evangelical theology of God-designed difference and ―complementarity‖ of the sexes. Complementarianism is the notion that women and men were created differently such that they would balance one another and fit together like two puzzle pieces. Because of these innate and God- designed differences between the sexes, each sex is better suited to a certain sphere and roles in home, church, and society. Thus occurred the ―gradual convergence of evangelical and Victorian gender ideals‖ (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 23): The organ itself, used for family hymn-singing, both symbolized and reinforced religious notions and the ideal of feminine domesticity. Mother [emphasis in the original] played the organ and thereby cemented her role as the religious keystone of the family. (Balmer, 1994, p. 53) Despite the ―temporary loosening‖ of restraints, women of the 19th century ―rarely ascended to positions of religious authority‖ (Balmer, p. 50), for while women were the religious keystones of the family, church leadership was surely the sphere of men.
Women in the “Age of Reform” While the cult of true womanhood could never be considered feminist, it elevated women‘s influence in the sense that the pious mother and wife was expected increasingly to be ―responsible for the inculcation of virtue into [her] daughters, sons, and husbands‖ (Balmer, 1994, p. 51) and to bring her ―purity and piety to bear on a host of public issues‖ (Gallagher, 2003, p. 32), thus setting into motion an ironic opportunity for 74
women‘s leadership in both social and religious action during the 19th century‘s ―age of reform‖ (Brown, 1995, p. 252). The first half of the 19th century witnessed the flourishing of myriad women‘s missionary and benevolent societies (Hardesty, 1995), including those for temperance, abolition, prison reform, and aid to the poor. These women‘s societies were ―formed out of necessity because women were barred from full participation in the ‗general‘ (male) societies‖ (Brown, 1995, p. 254). The rise of women‘s leadership in social reforms ―produced significant tensions‖ and women had to take care not to ―appear to be usurping the authority‖ of males (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 26). Nonetheless, tenacious women reformers ―carefully guarded their societies against takeover, particularly financial takeover, by the ‗general‘ societies‖ (Brown, p. 254). One of the greatest reform commitments of women in the 19th century was abolition, which ironically led to the dawn of the women‘s suffrage movement. The roots of the women‘s suffrage movement began within the abolition movement in several ways. More generally, during the antebellum period, the ―cause of freedom for enslaved African Americans was immediate and consistently linked with women‘s rights and the critique of oppressive social orders remained broad and uncompromising‖ (Fitzgerald, 1993, p. xvi). More specifically, women‘s unfair treatment within the abolition movement lead some abolitionists to push ―the Woman Question.‖ Sarah and Angelina Grimke, Quaker sisters, were passionate abolitionists who spoke often against slavery. The sisters raised eyebrows and concern for speaking to ―mixed audiences,‖ groups of both women and men, which was taboo. While ―antislavery and other reform societies presented some of the first occasions to women in the nineteenth century for acquiring political and organizational skills‖ (Williams, 1990, p. 179), in 1840, the role of women in public debate split the abolition movement. Some abolitionists, those of the American Anti-Slavery Society, argued that women had a ―right and duty to speak out publicly against slavery to ‗mixed audiences,‘‖ while others, who split into the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, believed that ―women‘s right to speak about political issues in public was so radical a claim as to make the movement seem ridiculous‖ (Fitzgerald, p. xii).
75
In 1848, abolitionists-turned suffragists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott held the first women‘s rights conference in Seneca Falls, New York. Conference attendees drafted the Declaration of Sentiments, a document modeled on the Declaration of Independence, calling for the ―equal station to which [women] are entitled‖ (Stanton, 1889, p. 70): When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature‘s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course. (Stanton, p. 70) The reference here to ―nature‘s God‖ is important. ―By invoking God as a higher authority than all earthly institutions, laws, customs, and clerical injunctions, the women at Seneca Falls provided the basis for radical reform legitimized by religious ideology‖ (Fitzgerald, 1993, p. xv). Legitimizing radical reform for women‘s rights through religious ideology was imperative, for the ―influence of orthodox Christianity in nineteenth-century America was profound‖ (Fitzgerald, p. viii). Nonetheless, while 100 women and men signed the Declaration, ―many of them withdrew their names when the newspapers ridiculed the whole affair‖ (Blackwell, 1923, p. 54). For the wider public, the Declaration of Sentiments contained ―very radical, indeed outrageous, demands‖ (Fitzgerald, 1993, p. xv).
Evangelical Women and Suffrage As indicated above, suffragists recognized the need to frame their fight for women‘s vote as God‘s desire, given the ubiquitous power of evangelicalism within the American milieu. Further, evangelical women suffragists brought to the cause much- needed status. Frances Willard, who served many years as president of the Woman‘s Christian Temperance Unions, was an ―outspoken advocate of woman‘s rights and suffrage in church and state‖ who ―defended women‘s ministry‖ and ―always encouraged women preachers‖ (Hardesty, 1995, p. 212). Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other radicals, however, "grew alarmed as organizations such as the evangelical Women's Christian Temperance Union joined suffrage ranks and demanded that women's political power be
76
used to increase the power of institutional churches and church teachings in the state" (Fitzgerald, 1993, p. xx): Frances Willard argued that for women to fulfill their traditional moral duties to protect home and family, the ballot was needed as a means to bring female influence to the public and to the state. The basic premise for their call for the ballot was quite different from that of the radicals. They did not believe in radical quality, self development, and individualism, but rather in women's moral superiority, presuming that women were ‗naturally‘ more pious and selfless than men, fundamentally different in ‗nature.‘ … The evangelicals‘ overall appeal to agitate for women's vote to bring traditional Christian values to the state alarmed radicals profoundly. (Fitzgerald, 1993, pp. xx-xxi) Thus for some radical reformers, evangelicals‘ push for suffrage was really a strategy for building a larger Christian electorate that could press for the institutionalization of conservative Christian values. As much as radicals were threatened by evangelical suffragists, so too were evangelical Christian leaders. ―A great deal of opposition to women reformers came from the same institution from which they drew their charge and their strength‖ (Brown, 1995, p. 255). Prominent conservative leaders opposed evangelical women‘s public agitation for the cause as well as women‘s right to vote itself. ―For most of the women reformers, though, Christianity was the foundation of, not the impediment to, their work‖ (Brown, p. 255). Consequently—and ironically—evangelical women suffragists were needed to give weight and momentum to the suffrage movement, yet they were considered suspect by radical suffragists and evangelical leaders alike. Regardless, they were important players in what later became known as First Wave Feminism. The next section explains more fully why radicals like Stanton sought to challenge evangelical discourse as an impediment to women‘s equality.
The Woman’s Bible Elizabeth Cady Stanton, abolitionist, suffragist, and radical reformer, believed that there could be no true liberation for women without a direct assault on religious hegemony. She argued that ―conservative religious ideologies and institutions tended to legitimate the oppression of women‖ (Fitzgerald, 1993, p. vii) and that ―religious institutions and ideologies were especially powerful external authorities in that they
77
shaped women‘s thoughts, not only about the world, but about their innermost selves‖ (Fitzgerald, p. x). In other words, the discourse of religious orthodoxy constructed women as second, as inferior, as less than: Traditional Christianity‘s adherence to a belief that women‘s subjection and selflessness were an intrinsic part of their nature and made them adored and loved by God was, in Stanton‘s estimation, the most formidable barrier to the widespread development of feminist consciousness. (Fitzgerald, p. xix) But to condemn and dismiss evangelical churches was problematic, for the churches, as illustrated in previous sections, often provided legitimate opportunities for women‘s leadership through reform efforts. Thus to ―attack the church was to attack much of the basis for women‘s political culture and to jeopardize the network through which women could meet and talk with other women in public‖ (Fitzgerald, p. xxiii). This was the landscape in which The Woman’s Bible was birthed. In 1895 and 1898, a group of reformers, including 20 Americans and 5 Europeans, led by Stanton, published the two-volume tome, in which the group took pivotal passages from the bible, such as the Genesis creation story, and reinterpreted them to illustrate the equality of women and men and the feminine element of God in the bible: The first step in the elevation of woman to her true position, as an equal factor in human progress, is the cultivation of the religious sentiment in regard to her dignity and equality. … If language has any meaning, we have in these texts a plain declaration of the existence of the feminine element in the God-head, equal in power and glory with the masculine. (Stanton, 1993, p. 14) The Woman’s Bible was the first attempt to reinterpret the bible in a feminist way. German Higher Criticism, which initiated ―intellectual skepticism about the Bible‘s supernatural origins to raise difficult questions about its interpretation‖ (Bendroth, 1993, p. 37), provided the intellectual space in which to construct The Woman’s Bible. Upon publication, The Woman’s Bible was much-condemned: [The Woman‘s Bible was] a scathing critique not only of the scriptural passages relating to women but of the very religion itself. … This was not a popular stand even among most women reformers themselves, and many dissociated themselves from Stanton‘s project. (Brown, 1995, p. 255) Indeed, the ―book was far too radical for the increasingly centrist suffrage movement; in 1896 the National American Woman Suffrage Association publicly repudiated both Stanton and her unorthodox theology‖ (Bendroth, 1993, p. 37). Nonetheless, The Woman’s Bible enjoyed a relatively wide readership. Within six months of publication, it
78
went through seven printings and was translated into several other languages (Fitzgerald, 1993). Although The Woman’s Bible was not embraced by evangelicals and did not signal a theological shift in American thinking, the fact that it was written and read and discussed at that time in history is noteworthy. Although harpooned by conservatives, The Woman’s Bible demonstrated that critiquing the bible and its interpretation was possible, that it was possible to provide a ―nonliteral, thematic interpretation of Scripture, sensitive to the cultural conditions that gave rise to Paul‘s prohibitions against female leadership‖ (Bendroth, 1993, p. 38). German Higher Criticism made intellectual space for The Woman’s Bible, and The Woman’s Bible created intellectual space for biblical feminism—feminism that is based on interpreting the bible as advocating radical equality. Although it would be more than a half century until the biblical feminist movement galvanized, Stanton‘s efforts were certainly a step in that direction.14 The German Higher Criticism which implicitly undergirds The Woman’s Bible was directly opposed by the emphasis on biblical inerrancy coming from the Princeton Theological Seminary. The latter was embraced by fundamentalists, a new breed of conservative Christians that opposed modernism broadly and women‘s expanding sphere more particularly.
Fundamentalist Desire to Control Female In its proper historical sense, the term fundamentalist describes a coalition of conservative, predominantly Calvinist, Protestants that emerged from within a broader, more ecumenical evangelical culture in the late 19th century. Known largely for their unrelenting attacks against evolution, they were committed to a militant defense of orthodoxy against what they saw as liberalizing influences. (Bendroth 1993, pp. 3-4)
Fundamentalism was a ―reaction against modernism‖ (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 27). One of the ―liberalizing influences‖ of modernism that so troubled fundamentalists was the expanding sphere of women. Women‘s benevolent and missionary societies, their
14 This is perhaps all the more ironic, given that Stanton herself was not Christian. Although ―born again‖ during her youth, Stanton turned away from Christianity, and, although claiming a belief in God and immortality, formally belonged to no religion during her adult life (Fitzgerald, 1993). 79
role in abolition, and the suffrage movement all pressed against the social boundaries constraining women of the time. ―Fundamentalism was born in an era of anxiety over gender roles. By the close of the nineteenth century, woman suffragists and social reformers had stretched the traditional boundaries of the feminine sphere to the breaking point‖ (Bendroth, 1993, p. 6). Additionally, the publication of the Woman’s Bible in 1895, an effort led by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, rocked mainstream and conservative Christians with its unapologetically feminist reinterpretation of scriptural passages. Such were the times, and the movement away from Victorianism‘s cult of true womanhood threatened the very core of conservative Protestant ontology. Early 20th century fundamentalists were (and contemporary fundamentalists are) much concerned with a dualistic notion of gender and its corollary of gender separation or ―separate spheres.‖ The binary of male-female is central to the fundamentalist ontology, and any perceived attack on the binary threatens the entire ontology. To protect and control the binary is to protect and control women. The early 20th century witnessed the fulfillment of the women‘s suffrage movement and new notions of femininity. In response, the fundamentalists sought to control and protect women: Many of the taboos devised by fundamentalists in their time of beleaguerment in the 1920s and 1930s centered on women. In reaction to the perceived moral laxity of the larger culture, which was careening stubbornly towards judgment, fundamentalists insisted that women forswear worldly adornments, especially jewelry and cosmetics. They devised elaborate parietal rules intended to protect the sexual innocence of their children, especially the girls, who were perceived as vulnerable to the animal cravings of less-spiritual males. (Balmer, 1994, p. 53) Women, for fundamentalists, were both spiritually superior and the cause of the Fall (of Man) and original sin. They were self-sacrificing and self-effacing and yet prone to lure men to their ruin. Women were other. Fundamentalism is about control of the other, and since secular rationalism as other had eluded its control, fundamentalism sought to control women in that capacity (Hawley, 1994, p. 27). To control the near other, the familiar other, was to control the chaos loosened by modernism: For every text that places well-domesticated womanhood on a religious pedestal, another one announces that, if uncontrolled, women are the root of all evil; and to the perception of many fundamentalists, the loosening of women is a prominent feature of modern Western secularism. Thus the focus of the chaos is transferred from an external other to a familiar one, where it can effectively be counteracted
80
with stringent measures of simultaneous denial and control: on the one hand, women are seen as exemplars of religion; on the other, they are confined to a sphere of activity that makes them as dependent as possible on men. (Hawley, pp. 27-28) Female dependence on and submission to the male head of home and male head of church were God‘s ―divine hierarchy‖ (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 28): Evangelical wives were alternately encouraged to emulate the selflessness and long-suffering of Jesus Christ; to reenact the subordination of Eve to Adam … and to mirror the submission of the Church to Christ‘s leadership. (Bartkowski, p. 28) Female submission was not only God‘s mandate, but also the cure to male ―spiritual complacency‖ in the church (Balmer, 1994, p. 53), for though women had little formal power in the church, they greatly outnumbered men in the pews and outworked men in active support of the church (Bartkowski, 2001). Fundamentalists argued for ―restoration of Victorian notions of assertive masculinity and passive femininity, a patriarchal household structure, and the ideology of separate spheres‖ (Bartkowski, p. 28). Fundamentalists argued that ―Christian warriors‖ must ―battle‖ on behalf of God‘s will against secular modernism. Such assertive masculinity and military metaphors were the ―true hallmark of the Christian warrior‖ (Bendroth, 1993, p. 6). Such masculine/militant discourse was not ―just a metalanguage for a stance of opposition to modernity. It is an active force that helps make ‗traditional‘ gender roles second nature in fundamentalist religion‖ (Hawley, 1994, pp. 33-34). Fundamentalism was born in opposition to modernism and was ―preoccupied with matters of boundary definition‖ (Hawley, 1994, p. 27). It chose as its anthem the reinforcement of traditional gender notions, and "by the early 20th century, fundamentalism was beginning to define itself in opposition to feminist trends elsewhere and evangelical Protestantism" (Bendroth, 1993, p. 7). Fundamentalism became distinguishable and separate from the broader evangelical culture and remained so until post-World War II. After the Scopes Monkey Trial, ―"fundamentalism became increasingly isolated and socially irrelevant. … By mid-century, renewed efforts to shore up muscular Christianity again fueled resistance toward women in public ministry, reinforcing the idea that women should be subject to their husbands‘ authority at home as well as in the church" (Gallagher, 2003, p. 38). After World War II, fundamentalism
81
became less distinct from broader evangelicalism, and evangelicalism, as a whole, became more politically active.
The Feminine Mystique and the Birth of the Biblical Feminism Movement The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for the groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night—she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question— ―Is this all?‖ (Freidan, 1963, p. 15) Thus begins Friedan‘s 1963 best-seller, The Feminine Mystique, which ―inspired the awakening women‘s movement to launch a full-scale attack on the exploitative and stultifying effects of women‘s confinement and dependency as homemaker‖ (Stacey, 1998, p. 12) and reflected the Post-World War II malaise of women that ushered in Second Wave Feminism. Three years later, in 1966, the National Organization for Women (NOW) formed. The feminist journal, Ms. magazine, began publishing in 1972. By then, the Equal Rights Amendment had passed both houses of Congress but awaited ratification by the states. In 1973, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade struck down anti-abortion laws. It was in this social milieu, in 1973, that Evangelicals for Social Action met in Chicago for what became known as their first Thanksgiving conference. The group produced The Chicago Declaration, which claimed: We acknowledge that we have encouraged men to prideful domination and women to irresponsible passivity. So we call men and women to mutual submission and active discipleship. (Scanzoni & Hardesty, 1992, p. 1) One year later, in 1974, Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty published All We’re Meant to Be: A Biblical Approach to Women’s Liberation and effectively launched the biblical feminist movement. The book proved to be a ―publishing hit, winning awards and going through at least five printings‖ and ―helped show evangelical women around the United States that they could be both evangelicals and feminists‖ (Cochran, 2005, pp. 11-12). Scanzoni and Hardesty became life-long friends and writing partners, and ―their
82
partnership became an illustration of the kind of community that feminism advocated‖ (Cochran, p. 11). By 1973, ―secular feminism was an active and vocal movement‖ (Cochran, 2005, p. 22). While secular feminism was the broader social context in which biblical feminism germinated, biblical feminism was not a tardy religious follow-up to secular feminism: ―Individuals unfamiliar with history have suggested that biblical feminism, and indeed all evangelical social action, is simply a belated attempt to jump on a secular bandwagon‖ (Scanzoni & Hardesty, 1992, p. 3). On the contrary, ―From the beginning, Scanzoni and other evangelical feminists paid more attention to historical argumentation and biblical exegesis than to arguments from the secular culture‖ (Cochran, p. 23). Nonetheless, it is hard to imagine biblical feminism blossoming in ground unfertilized by the broader feminist movement, an All We’re Meant to Be without its predecessor, The Feminine Mystique. At the heart of biblical feminism are two key beliefs: in the Truth and authority of the bible and that ―women suffered injustices and discrimination because of their sex and that the Bible offered a viable solution‖ (Cochran, 2005, p. 8). Biblical feminism distinguishes itself from secular feminism by its insistence on the vital importance of biblical authority in matters of church and society, and it is ―solidly anchored in the evangelical belief in an inerrant Bible‖ (Scholz, 2005, p. 92). Bineham (1993) offers a succinct overview of biblical feminism‘s contributions: The evangelical feminist movement began in the mid 1970s and has become an outspoken minority voice within the evangelical tradition. It has produced a small but important body of evangelical feminist literature, including Daughters of Sarah, a noteworthy ―evangelical feminist journal,‖ and several important books such as All We’re Meant to Be by Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, Women, Men and the Bible by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, and The Apostle Paul and Women in the Church by Don Williams (Hunter 105). These texts exemplify evangelical feminist thought and articulate that community‘s oppositional codes. This literature provides interpretive codes that both break from the dominant tradition and remain linked to it. … This affirmation of the Bible as a document of liberation links evangelical feminists to the dominant evangelical tradition. Evangelical feminists, consequently, provide codes for radical reinterpretation of scriptural texts rather than dismiss those texts altogether. (p. 521)
83
Evangelical feminists emphasized the importance of interpreting scripture in context, which has grand implications for how the bible is understood: The context of a passage includes the book it is in, the social and historical background to the text, and the place of that passage in the whole of the Scriptures. When seeking the wisdom of God, we must seek to understand the whole of scriptural teachings on this or any topic. Passages taken in isolation can often be misunderstood. The church should read the whole Bible together, with Christ as its center. (Padgett, 2002, p. 23) As described in the next section, the biblical feminist organization, the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women‘s Caucus (EEWC), has roots within Evangelicals for Social Action, and believes in interpreting scripture in context. Ultimately, though, differing views within the EEWC on interpretation of scripture about homosexuality led to a schism and the formation of Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE).
The EEWC and CBE In 1974, the same year as the publication of All We’re Meant to Be, at the second Evangelicals for Social Action15 conference, the group divided into six committees, one of which was focused on women‘s issues; that committee became the Evangelical Women‘s Caucus (EWC) (EEWC, 2008). The EWC publishes the journal Daughters of Sarah, and hosts a biennial conference. Although the group has remained relatively small, it has provided an intellectually and spiritually safe place for evangelical Christian women who consider themselves biblical feminists, as one of Ingersoll‘s (2003) participants explains: When I come to CBE I‘m home spiritually. It is the one place I‘m at home. For years I was just a closet member; I couldn‘t tell anybody I was part of it. I lived for The Priscilla Papers, because four times a year I could read something that would confirm in me that I was not a heretic and I was not headed straight for eternal damnation, that I was still well within the confines of evangelical belief. (p. 44) For over a decade, the EWC enjoyed a small but devoted fellowship of biblical feminists. Eventually, though, a debate over biblical authority erupted around homosexuality, which had become a ―watershed issue‖ (Cochran, 2005, p. 77). The conflict ultimately led to a
15 Evangelicals for Social Action was a group of ―young evangelicals concerned about the dearth of conservative Christians working toward social justice‖ (Cochran, 2005, p. 2). Ironically, only a few women were invited to the first conference held by Evangelicals for Social Action. 84
schism within the EWC and resulted in the inception, in 1987, of Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE). CBE (2007) describes the schism as resulting ―when EWC was moving in a direction these members perceived as unbiblical‖ (para. 5). The split was painful and traumatic for all involved (Cochran, 2005). After the schism, the EWC became less bibliocentric and evangelical: Progressive evangelical feminists began to turn to other sources of authority, such as science, reason, and experience, in addition to the biblical witness. They also began to use nonevangelical methods of interpretation, such as liberation theology. … EWC became less bibliocentric over time.‖ (Cochran, 2005, pp. 147- 148) Nonetheless, the EWC continued to value its evangelical roots while advocating inclusivity, and in 1990 changed its name to the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women‘s Caucus (EEWC). On the other hand, CBE members and other traditional biblical feminists remained more bounded by their evangelical identity and centered on biblical truth: Traditional biblical feminists, like those in Christians for Biblical Equality, however, remained committed to the external, definable, and transcendent authority of the biblical witness. As a result of their adherence to inerrancy and evangelical methods of biblical interpretation, traditional biblical feminist doctrine and social practice have remained, for the most part, solidly evangelical. (Cochran, 2005, p. 148) Not surprisingly, within evangelicalism, CBE has remained a more mainstream biblical feminist organization, and I have formulated some of the tenants of CBE beliefs into interview questions for my participants (see Chapter 3). Although the schism was traumatic to biblical feminists, the threat of two biblical feminist organizations and the ―acceptance of biblical feminist teachings among ever increasing numbers of highly respected Christian women and men‖ (Scanzoni & Hardesty, 1992, p. 334) was enough to mobilize some conservative Christians to assemble and, in 1987, to form the group known as the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) (Scanzoni & Hardesty, 1992), which advocates for complementarianism—the notion that there are innate differences between women and men that compel each to different spheres and roles. Ironically, the attack against biblical feminism epitomized in the formation of the CBMW demonstrates the reach and influence of biblical feminism within the larger
85
evangelical community: If biblical feminism were not making waves and impacting evangelicalism, it would not have warranted a focused and strategic response, such as the inception of the CBMW.
The Influence of Biblical Feminism Despite the strength of the threat that biblical feminism has become for conservative evangelicals, biblical feminism has remained a small movement within evangelicalism. CBE currently has, for example, about 2000 members (CBE, 2007), while the Christian Coalition of America, which promotes conservative ―family values,‖ boasts two million members in the United States (Christian Coalition of America, 2005). Though CBE‘s membership may be small, it boasts some evangelical heavyweights amongst its members and founders (Cochran, 2005, p. 154). Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian, author of Beyond Sex Roles and Professor Emeritus of biblical studies at Wheaton College, served as one of seven authors of the CBE belief statement. Bill Hybels, head pastor and founder of 6000-member Willow Creek Community Church and one of Time magazine‘s 25 ―most influential evangelicals in America‖ (August, et al, 2005), is one of the endorsers of CBE‘s belief statement. Hybels, as the leader of a network of 10,500 evangelical churches, wields great influence in evangelical culture. Hybels credits Bilezikian for mentoring him and inspiring him to found Willow Creek (Winner, 2000). Despite Hybels‘ influence, Willow Creek: failed to sway many of its affiliates to accept an egalitarian stance on women. According to one researcher, 60 percent of the seekers churches had a woman on their pastoral staff, but none was in a senior position, nor were any of them preaching or teaching pastors. Most often they were directors of programming or of adult or children‘s ministries. (Cochran, 2005, p. 163) Despite the efforts of organizations like CBE and the EEWC, many evangelical churches—whether through de jure or de facto injunction—keep women out of top leadership positions, including those involving teaching or preaching biblical Truth. While some prominent evangelical leaders have aligned themselves with biblical feminist organizations, generally speaking, biblical feminist leaders and their organizations are unknown to the majority of evangelicals and even some scholars of
86
evangelicalism (Cochran, 2005). Ingersoll‘s (2004) research revealed that an ―insignificant‖ number of college students had heard of biblical feminism and many referred to feminism as ―‘the f-word‘‖ (p. 44). Even so, biblical feminists have made an indelible mark on evangelicalism: Both their social agenda and their methods put them in the vanguard of young evangelicals who helped make acceptable a more culturally relevant, less fundamentalist, style of evangelicalism. Theologically, evangelical feminists helped shift the boundary of evangelicalism away from a strict definition of inerrancy toward the infallibility of scripture and hermeneutics. Socially, evangelical boundaries remain focused on gender roles, but biblical feminists have questioned the traditional definition of family by challenging hierarchicalist interpretations that subordinate women to men in the home and church. (Cochran, 2005, p. 191) More broadly, biblical feminists are ―marginalized yet significant women in the history of American religion‖ (Cochran, 2005, p. 190).
Research on Evangelical Gendered Ideology
The preceding sections of this chapter have served to familiarize the reader with evangelical characteristics and discourse and to provide a brief history of evangelicalism generally and biblical feminism more particularly. This section focuses on research studies over the past several decades that intersect with my interests in evangelical gendered identity.
Tangential Studies There are four studies, described below, that while only tangentially related to the gendered identity work and discourse analysis of my own study are helpful in understanding issues related to researching evangelical women.
Church Closets and Back Doors: A Feminist View of Moral Majority Women (1983) Studying issues related to evangelicalism and gender proved to be difficult for Carol Virginia Pohli, who attempted to poll evangelical women about their views regarding ―womanhood, their relationship to the larger American culture, and their 87
opinions about specific social/political issues‖ (1983, p. 542). What is perhaps most interesting about Pohli‘s research is the difficulty she had with entry, even though she herself is an (liberal feminist) evangelical. Pohli attempted entry by writing letters to evangelical pastors, describing her research and requesting that they ask their female members if they would be interested in the study. She found that pastors usually denied permission to do her research without even consulting their female members. After her initial frustration and discouragement, Pohli found a ―back door‖ into her research: she contacted women she knew within these churches and sought their help in gaining access. In all, Pohli sent out 96 letters about her research, and only 12 women helped her with arrangements. After gaining access, Pohli polled 123 Evangelical women through group interviews, using a 113-item questionnaire. In general, she found that the majority of evangelical women ―remain virtually closeted [from larger socio-political issues of the secular world] and often uninterested or uninformed about what the secular world calls significant issues‖ (p. 540). However, Pohli did find a minority of women in the group who espoused less conservative views and who voiced some level of frustration with or resistance to commonly held evangelical views. Pohli concluded that while most evangelical women remain closeted, there is an important minority of evangelical women who could be ―potential contributors to the struggle for equality‖ (p. 552), which for Pohli, as a liberal feminist, was of great importance. In my own research, issues of entry are nonexistent. I invited women from a book study group in which I had participated to be part of my study, and each accepted the invitation. What is intriguing, though, is the meaning behind Pohli‘s difficulty with entry. To what extent is research about—and involving—evangelical women, by its nature, a threat to evangelical patriarchy? To what extent do my participants‘ contributions to my project constitute a counterhegemonic act? Also of import in Pohli‘s study is the degree to which she felt that evangelical women were ―closeted‖ from larger socio-political issues of the secular world. Now, two and a half decades later, to what extent is this true of my participants as well? These questions raised by Pohli‘s research are important to my own.
88
Women Warriors: The Negotiation of Gender in a Charismatic Community (1987) Susan D. Rose conducted a ―two-year ethnographic study of an independent, charismatic fellowship in upstate New York‖ (1987, p. 245). Although the fellowship was very conservative and promoted traditional gender roles and the doctrine of wifely submission, members of the fellowship tended to ―negotiate [emphasis in the original] gender roles and expectations while constantly invoking a religious rhetoric that supports patriarchal authority‖ (p. 245). Female members‘ behaviors and attitudes suggest ―neither total acceptance nor rejection but rather accommodation and resistance [emphasis in the original] to the traditional ideology of femininity‖ (p. 246). For example, many of the women work outside of the home, and in practice, ―most family decisions are jointly discussed and agreed upon by both husband and wife‖ (p. 248). In some ways, the women embody traditional gender roles. They are responsible for house care, demonstrate ―denial of self‖ (p. 256), and claim to ―‘follow‘ their husbands in terms of residence and employment, and proclaim their submission to their husbands‖ (p. 256). Even as these women accept some traditional gender roles for themselves, however, they have ―made their husbands ‗modern men‘ who are involved actively in both work and family and capable of expressing their feelings, fears, and frustrations‖ (p . 256). Rose identifies tension and dissonance between the choice that many women make to submit to patriarchy and the resentment towards it which some of them communicate (p. 256). There is further dissonance and ―tension between the values of the ‗biblical,‘ patriarchal families they are trying to achieve and the more egalitarian norms that they live out‖ (p. 257). Rose‘s work informs my own in that I seek to explore the degree to which my participants negotiate, appropriate, and resist their evangelical discourses and experience dissonance between their various discourses. Further, I am interested in the degree to which my participants‘ life choices coincide with or depart from the traditional gender ideology of their evangelical discourse.
89
Male God Imagery and Female Submission: Lessons from a Southern Baptist Ladies’ Bible Class (1996) Pevey, Williams, and Ellison (1996) conducted a case study of a women‘s bible class attended regularly by about 130 women (p. 177) at Shady Grove, a ―large fundamentalist Southern Baptist church in a Texas city‖ (p. 173). The beginning of each bible class is co-educational, and this part is run entirely by men, which ―underscores the male domination of this church‖ (p. 178). After this first portion, the class splits into gender-based groups, and the women‘s group is run by a female teacher who uses a lecture format, invariably connects the lesson to marriage and motherhood, and uses ―off- hand joking remarks about the differences in the personality traits of men and women‖ (p. 179). One of the goals of the study was to explore the degree to which respondents were oppressed by all-male God imagery. However, interviews with the women ―suggest that masculine God imagery can be experienced by women as positive, and even empowering, rather than as oppressive and alienating‖ (p. 189). For example, the image of God as a gentle, loving father is used by some women to ―persuade men to be more communicative and caring, and to increase their participation in childrearing and other household tasks‖ (p. 189). The researchers‘ other goal was to explore the doctrine of wifely submission. Shady Grove teaches the doctrine of wifely submission and obedience to one‘s husband and exhorts women to ―make their husbands (better) Christians by manifesting a quiet, gentle spirit‖ (p. 185). However, the researchers found amongst the women a ―considerable disjuncture between their religious beliefs and reported practices‖ (p. 173) and identified strategies the women used to undermine their duty to be a submissive wife. For example, some of the women explained that they have ―exceptional personal qualities and a temperament that preclude total obedience to male authority‖ (p. 185). Many of the women described themselves as particularly strong-willed and favored self-exception to the doctrine of wifely submission. Another strategy used by some women was to invoke their ―traditional role as keepers of religion in the home‖ (p. 186) to exert their own will
90
over their husbands‘. For example, one respondent continued to pressure her husband to attend church regularly until she convinced him. An interesting twist on the use of strategies to undermine the doctrine of submission was employed by Ruth, who submitted to her husband only because he is an exception who claims that not all women should submit to their husbands. Ruth reflects the notion that all wives de jure should submit to their husbands and essentially ―redefines ‗submission‘ as loving cooperation based on mutual respect‖ (p. 187). In my own research, several of my interview questions investigate my participants‘ views on male God imagery, and I find myself unsatisfied with how the research by Pevey, Williams, and Ellison accepted, without question or further examination, the women‘s claims that exclusively male God imagery is empowering and not oppressive. Additionally, I am intrigued to explore the degree to which my participants may utilize one or more of the strategies these women used to undermine the doctrine of wifely submission.
Romancing God: Evangelical Women and Inspirational Fiction (2006) Lynne S. Neal‘s (2006) intriguing study of women who read evangelical romance novels, known as ―inspirational fiction,‖ reveals that for these women, reading these novels is a way to connect with God, a practice that ―affirms and bolsters their religious identity‖ (p. 188). Neal‘s consultants believe that ―God works through evangelical romance novels and influences the course of their daily lives‖ (p. 193). Inspirational fiction is also, for these women, a ―marker of subcultural distinction—of evangelical versus secular‖ (p. 82). Their reading ―sets them apart from secular romance readers—a separation that is necessary for their reading pleasure‖ (p. 76). Further, this genre simultaneously reinforces traditional evangelical gender ideals while also putting women in the lead character role and elevating their lives and interests: [Inspirational fiction,] while upholding contemporary evangelical ideas about gender, transports these women from the periphery to the center of evangelical life. By foregrounding women‘s spiritual lives, as well as their concerns about marriage and family, the genre validates women‘s experience of evangelicalism and their roles as wives and mothers, friends and leaders. (p. 12) 91
Although none of my participants read inspirational fiction, there are key findings in Neal‘s research that inform my own. We see in Neal‘s consultants the need to be ―in but not of the world‖ and to maintain binarized boundaries between the evangelical (sacred) and secular (profane) worlds. Further, Neal‘s work communicates the simultaneous desire to accommodate evangelical gender discourse while embracing a romance discourse that elevates women to center stage. My own project explores the ways in which my participants alternately embrace, accommodate, and resist evangelical gender discourse and navigate the intersection of evangelical discourse with the other discourses through which they constitute themselves and are constituted.
Core Studies Six studies, which are described in detail below, are most closely aligned to my own and provide context within the body of literature for me to position my own study. For each of these studies, I provide an overview of the study and its major findings. I also discuss how the study intersects with or informs my own and how it approaches evangelical gendered identity differently.
God's Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission (1997) Marie Griffith‘s study of Women‘s Aglow Fellowship, a transdenominational conservative evangelical "female prayer and mission association" (1997, p. 2), is detailed in her 1997 book, God's Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission. Griffith spent two years traveling to Aglow chapters in the Northeastern United States, attending over a hundred Aglow meetings, speaking to countless Aglow members, and traveling twice to Aglow headquarters in Washington state. Griffith cautions: those who interpret gender relations solely in terms of male ‗patriarchy‘ and female ‗oppression‘ that the realities are far more muddled, that women have always carved out spaces for themselves within the social, historical, cultural, and religious structures that constrain them and have resisted those structures in subtle and unexpected ways. (p. 14)
92
Griffith‘s analysis demonstrates the complexity and contradiction of repression and liberation within Aglow. For example, Griffith writes that ―Aglow fosters a kind of victimology that attributes women‘s suffering to the family‖ (p. 190), and yet, through the ―discourse of spiritual warfare‖16 (p. 196), the ―women‘s insistence on their own agency is apparent‖ (p. 194). That a passive victimology and an active agency coexist within Aglow discourse is just one way in which Griffith relates the complexity and contradiction within a gendered conservative evangelical discourse. Like my own study, Griffith‘s is focused on conservative Christian women in community with one another. Griffith uses a qualitative, emergent research method and addresses issues of reflexivity and ethics. Griffith, like me, is a self-described feminist researcher whose participants consider themselves non-feminist. Griffith's work models the notion that "respectful treatment of a group is not the same as agreement with its convictions" (p. 22). There are key differences between Griffith‘s study and my own. Her study focused on an organization—Aglow—and included a large number of observations and interviews of many Aglow women, most of whom were middle-aged (the median age of Aglow women is 50 [Griffith, 1997, p. 7]). My study focuses very deeply on four evangelical women participants who are in their late-twenties to early thirties and whom I knew well prior to embarking upon the study. Griffith uses an interpretivist framework, while I use a feminist poststructural framework. The foci of Griffith‘s study were to understand female submission within Aglow and to provide a depiction of evangelical women that does justice to the ―depth and complexity that their lives warrant and thereby dispute the flat, stereotypical terms to which so many journalists, political scientists, and various hostile bystanders still cling‖ (p. 11). Griffith is herself a Christian, and while not an insider to Aglow, is an insider to Christianity. I, too, hope that my study recognizes the depth and complexity of my participants‘ lives. Indeed, it is this complexity—as framed by the multiple discourses of my participants‘ lives—that serves as my focus.
16 Spiritual warfare refers to the ―putative battle being waged between God and Satan‖ (Griffith, 1997, p. 191). Aglow emphasizes that women have an important role in spiritual warfare as praying ―soldiers in God‘s Army‖ (p. 193). As it is ―performed in Aglow groups, spiritual warfare is a loud and vigorous process, involving shouting—in tongues and in English—and dramatic bodily gestures‖ (p. 193). 93
Brave New Families: Stories of Domestic Upheaval in Late-Twentieth Century America (1998) Judith Stacey‘s study of the upheaval and transformation of post-industrial family structures led her in a serendipitous and unanticipated direction. Much of her study became focused on a single mother, Pam, who was an activist feminist. Stacey wanted to focus on Pam‘s matriarchal postmodern extended family; this focus, however, shifted in an unexpected way. Pam was separated from her husband, Al, who became a born-again Christian after being responsible for a serious auto accident. Stacey recounts Pam‘s explanation of Al‘s conversion, Pam‘s own conversion, and their reunification: ―And just suddenly this total depression he‘d been in, this one where life just wasn‘t even worth living, suddenly he felt totally different … in fact still does to this moment, even though things are still real unsettled.‖ Quite suddenly and without comment, Pam shifted from a third- to a first- person account in this revelation narrative. By so subtle a maneuver did Pam disrupt my preconceptions and redirect the future course of research as she informed me that just as Al suddenly accepted Jesus into his life, she had accepted both Al and Jesus back into hers. (1998, p. 54) Stacey‘s research then became focused on the dissonance and discord Pam experienced as she tried to negotiate and re-appropriate her existing feminist discourse with her new evangelical discourse. Stacey described the attractiveness that evangelicalism held for Pam and her utilitarian reason for conversion. Stacey also identified what she calls ―last grasp patriarchy‖ (p. 56) or ―patriarchy in the last instance‖ (p. 59), the notion that wifely submission is mostly nominal and that patriarchal decision-making is invoked only when a decision or disagreement is at an impasse (p. 133): From her description of her current marriage, it was difficult to view her as a submissive wife, despite her formal accession to Al‘s patriarchal authority. Financially, occupationally, socially, and politically, Pam seemed to retain strong independence, or even control. … Moreover, Pam claimed to be making emotional demands on her Christian husband now that were far greater, and more effective, than those she had dared to make in any of her secular intimate relationships in the past. In short, I found Pam‘s commitment to male authority exquisitely subtle, a philosophy of ―patriarchy in the last instance,‖ the instance that never comes. (p. 59) Indeed, Stacey was often frustrated in her attempts to exhort Pam, Pam‘s husband, and Pam‘s pastor to explain how wifely submission manifests itself.
94
Despite this nominal ―patriarchy in the last instance‖ that never comes, Pam continued to struggle between her feminist commitments and the discourse of evangelical patriarchy. Her relationship with her close friend and co-worker, Jan, a feminist and lesbian, was strained and ultimately severed. Jan had felt betrayed by Pam‘s acceptance of evangelicalism, given its stance on feminism and homosexuality (p. 83). Jan also found Pam‘s evangelizing an affront (p. 49). Pam also struggled between admiring and abhorring the Global Ministries church to which she belonged. Stacey identified a pattern in Pam of throwing herself wholeheartedly into a life change as a way of seeking comfort, commitment and self-assurance: Pam had sought refuge in feminism, then evangelicalism, then Alcoholics Anonymous (p. 170): It was crucial to emphasize how actively Pam selected from these, and from all other cultural resources, that which she found useful, meaningful, and attractive, while she ignored, rejected, or modified less appealing features. Pam found feminism, evangelical Christianity, and now AA, I decided, adaptable to her always-evolving personal family reform goals. (p. 172) Ultimately, Pam could not reconcile her incommensurable discourses but did accept the incommensurability of them: ―She was still participating, skeptically, in Global Ministries, still attending AA, still a supporter of feminism. She had not reconciled her discordant selves but had reconciled herself to discordant realities‖ (p. 173). Several of Stacey‘s findings are meaningful to me as I approach my own study: a) evangelical patriarchy may be espoused but to a great extent be nominal; and b) an evangelical Christian can experience extreme tension and stress from the discordance among her competing and conflicting discourses. This second finding is what most intrigues me as I approach my own research; I want to seek out the ways in which evangelical Christian women negotiate, appropriate, resist, and embrace the multiple and conflicting discourses through which they are constituted and constitute themselves, and although this is not what Stacey set out to explore, it is on what her study—to a large extent—focused. Stacey also did member checks of her participants and included in her writing the candid responses of her participants to her analyses. I, too, plan to include member checks in my study and to incorporate participants‘ responses to my analyses in my final writing.
95
Stacey‘s framework was feminist postmodern, and it was her emergent research design that allowed her to shift her focus from changing postindustrial conceptions of family to how Pam negotiated and appropriated her new evangelical commitments with her existing feminism. Stacey drew understandings about Pam‘s discursive conflicts through Pam‘s narration of her life in the form of a series of interviews. My study begins with the assumption that my participants constitute themselves and are constituted through multiple and conflicting discourses, and I ask my participants to create an artifact that speaks directly about their various discourses. Thus while both Stacey‘s project and my own are largely about these competing and interacting discourses, we approach them differently. Further, Stacey did not use the poststructural language of discourse and discursively produced subjectivity to frame her work. This, too, is an important difference between our studies.
Godly Women: Fundamentalism and Female Power (1998) Brenda E. Brasher, a feminist and liberal Christian, sought to discover the extent to which—and ways in which—women in conservative Christian congregations could be powerful: The apparent paradox—that fundamentalist women could be powerful people in a religious cosmos generally conceded to be organized around their disempowerment—was intriguing. This book is the result of my effort to discover the extent to which this paradox actually exists in Christian fundamentalist congregations and to analyze the constitutive tensions between content and context that saturate the religious world of Christian fundamentalist women. (1998, pp. 3-4) Brasher studied two congregations, Mount Olive and Bay Chapel, for six months and attended all of the women‘s ministry events offered by each congregation. Both congregations espoused a complementarian perspective, the notion that God designed male and female differently for different purposes/roles to complement each other. As such, each sex is better suited to separate spheres. Brasher found that the evangelical male/female binary served as a ―sacred wall of gender that bifurcates‖ (p. 12) the church into two parallel worlds. The male world is that of church leadership and Sunday sermons. The female world exists within the all-female 96
enclaves made possible through women‘s ministry. The women‘s ministry enclaves are produced for and by women, and they ―largely function as self-legitimating female domains and play a cardinal role in the construction of female power in overall congregational life‖ (p. 13). About twenty percent of Mount Olive women and one third of Bay Chapel women participate in the women‘s ministry (p. 13), almost running a parallel church within their ministry: The women‘s ministry programs at Bay Chapel and Mount Olive would, by number of participants and hours invested per week, qualify as sizable churches in their own right. In the enclave context, women at times administer the sacraments of communion and baptism, which means that here at least they are exercising the full range of Christian ecclesial office—a rare phenomenon in Christendom, even at the cusp of the third millennium. That women lead only when men are not present nuances the symbolic import of their leadership, but it does not negate it. (p. 169) Nonetheless, the male pastor still was the final authority over the women‘s ministries. For example, when the Bay Chapel minister wanted the entire congregation to follow a particular study guide, the women‘s ministry ―fell into line,‖ and Brasher wondered to what extent the women‘s ministry pastor—a woman—―might be functioning as an authoritative follower of male leadership rather than a genuine leader of women‖ (p. 71). In that the female enclaves are spaces in which women lead and utilize their talents and minister to women‘s needs, Brasher argues that they are empowering; however, their very existence is also disempowering: Providing a symbolic alternative to overall congregational life, the female enclaves at Mount Olive and Bay Chapel undermine many of the patriarchal elements of Christian fundamentalism. At the same time, the enclaves simultaneously support Christian fundamentalist parochialism. By luring active women to invest themselves in a congregational subsection, they abet male dominance over overall congregational life. Thus ironically, the enclaves that are the primary source of women‘s empowerment in Christian fundamentalist congregations are also a principle source of their disempowerment. Siphoning off the time and energies of some of the most talented congregational women from overall congregational life, they help keep women under the sacred canopy of Christian fundamentalism who might otherwise deem its gender biases unacceptable and either press for change or leave. (p. 112) Brasher recognizes three different gender patterns, originally identified by Susan Palmer (1993), at work in the congregations she studied (p. 59): sexual polarity (two distinct
97
sexes; sexes ―generally unhelpful to each other‖ [p. 59]); sexual dominance (two distinct sexes; generally male dominance); sexual unity (two distinct sexes; sexes are equal). Brasher observed: In intracongregational gendered ministries, sexual polarity prevailed. In overall congregational authority, sexual dominance took precedence. In normative religious values, sexual unity was evident. (p. 60) Brasher concludes that while the all-women enclaves at Mount Olive and Bay Chapel provide an opportunity for women to exercise power and to be empowered while accepting pragmatic compromises, ―[she does] not believe they are the best long-term strategies for women‖ (p. 180). She summarizes the results of her study this way: The disempowerment a woman encounters in a Christian fundamentalist congregation is easy to document and should not be underemphasized. But the empowerment she may discover or build there, though not always immediately obvious, must be acknowledged as well. (p. 181) Brasher‘s work intersects with my own in several ways. While she was studying congregations generally and women‘s ministries more specifically, the contemporary, conservative megachurches of her study—which she refers to as fundamentalist—are remarkably similar to the evangelical church attended by my participants, where the gender pattern of sexual dominance is also evident in congregational authority. Further, her study was interested in issues of formal and informal power, and my research framework of feminist poststructuralism is also concerned with not only structural power but everyday, taken-for-granted forms of power as well. Third, Brasher, using an interpretivist framework, was sensitive to the contradictory ways in which empowerment and disempowerment can be at work within the same act. This attention to complexity and paradox is a hallmark of the feminist poststructural framework that my study utilizes.
Remaking the Godly Marriage: Gender Negotiation in Evangelical Families (2001) John P. Bartkowski conducted a two-part study about the role of male headship and female submission in patriarchal evangelical marriages. The first part of his study focused on the ―elite evangelical debates about gender and family relations‖ (2001, p. 14) codified in the advice manuals of countless conservative Protestant authors. The second part of his study ―examines the negotiation of these gender discourses within evangelical families‖ (p. 15) of Parkview Evangelical Free Church. Bartkowski, a nonevangelical 98
sociologist who was raised Catholic, describes himself as ―feminist in ideology, sometimes autocratic in practice‖ (p. xii). Bartkowski found that the ―unambiguous and categorical gender distinctions‖ of the advice manuals are ―inconsistent with the self-perceptions and lived experiences of many of Parkview‘s most committed members‖ (p. 16). Further, while Parkview congregants espoused male headship and wifely submission, ―all parties‘ definitions of submission in the home are so replete with ambiguity and exceptions that it is virtually impossible to distinguish any definitive position on this issue‖ (p. 16). While most of Bartkowski‘s participants espoused some form of gender essentialism, a few espoused egalitarian positions. Even some of those who espoused gender essentialism in reality led married lives that were more akin to egalitarian relationships, leading Bartkowski to conclude that often gender practices contradict gender ideals (p. 134). Bartkowski concluded of his study of elite evangelical advice manuals that ―essentialism remains the dominant discourse within evangelicalism‖ (p. 162) but that some evangelical luminaries support a more moderate essentialism, ―characterized by predispositional but mutable differences‖ (p. 162) and that some even advocate for a more androgynous notion of gender (p. 161). Further, ―divergent advice concerning the allocation of household responsibilities … highlights the complex and contested state of evangelical gender and family discourse‖ (p. 162). While the traditionalist ―separate spheres ideology‖ still dominates evangelical discourse, the ―hegemony of this discourse has been partly undermined by the massive influx of wives and mothers into the paid labor force‖ (p. 163). With regards to his study of the Parkview Evangelical Free Church congregation, Bartkowski drew two conclusions: 1) ―Essentialist rhetoric figures prominently into the construction of gender within this congregation‖ (p. 165); and 2) Despite this fact, Parkview spouses ―creatively reconstruct evangelical discourses of submission and family power. The innovative negotiation of family power was particularly intriguing in light of the overtly patriarchal structure of this church‖ (p. 165). Bartkowski uses a poststructuralist framework for this study, focusing on the discourses produced by evangelical elites and negotiated and reappropriated by Parkview
99
congregants. While my framework is feminist poststructuralism, both Bartkowski and I focus our studies on the discourses at work within and among people and how those discourses are embraced, resisted, and accommodated. Further, as do I, Bartkowski conceptualizes power as diffuse, contestable, subtle, and often invisible (p. 10) and gender as reproduced, contested, and subverted (p. 11). Bartkowski conducted a two-part study, including textual analysis of prominent evangelical advice manuals and interviews of a number of Parkview congregants and determined that there is space between avowed discourse and lived discourse. My study, on the other hand, focuses more narrowly on four women‘s experiences of negotiating and navigating their evangelical discourse vis-a- vis the other discourses through which they are constituted.
Evangelical Christian Women: War Stories in the Gender Battles (2003) Julie Ingersoll spent two years, from 1993-1995, conducting over 44 in-depth, formal interviews of ―women in the subculture [of Protestant evangelicalism] who participate in the process of change‖ (2003, p. 1). She describes her study this way: It is a sociological study of conservative women who challenge gender norms within their religious traditions, of the fallout they experience as part of the ensuing conflict, and of the significance of the conflict over gender for the development and character of culture. (p. 2) Ingersoll met many of her participants at a conference sponsored by the Center for Christian Women in Leadership, a group created to support—emotionally, spiritually, and professionally—Christian women in leadership. Much of Ingersoll‘s work describes the personal struggles of these women, who describe their experiences as ―war stories‖: They do talk about ―war stories,‖ they feel embattled, and they carry with them scars that include experiences of broken families, derailed careers, and sometimes, abandoned spiritual lives. They suffer from fatigue, despair, cynicism, and emotional distress that often reaches the level of clinical depression. (p. 15) These women‘s stories are heart-wrenching. Ingersoll opens her book with an extended quote by Sandra, a faculty member at a fundamentalist seminary: I got seriously suicidal on several occasions. … But although God created me a woman and, one must assume, gave me those [teaching and preaching] gifts, He also makes it impossible for me to please Him. Because to please Him would be to exercise the fullness of who I am, I can‘t please Him in the institution that represents Him. So the only way, ultimately, that I could please God would be to 100
kill myself. Because nothing I could ever do as a living human being, because of being a woman, could ever please God. (p. 1) Ingersoll also shares the story of Helen, who held a Ph.D. in her field and many years of teaching experience. Helen hoped to be employed at the Christian college that hired her husband. When they relocated, Helen was informed by the Board of Trustees that ―she could teach if her husband were to supervise her classes‖ (p. 72). Other women professors at seminaries and Christian colleges recounted tales of student disrespect, students addressing female professors by their first names or as ―Mrs.‖ Instead of as ―Dr.‖, which was the form of address used for male professors. One student walked in and asked his female professor where her hat was, a reference to Paul‘s epistle mandating that because women were created after men and accountable to the authority of men that they should have their heads covered (p. 74). Women professors at seminaries and Christian colleges are often denied tenure. Ingersoll cites a study of Seattle Pacific University tenure practices that showed that about three-fourths of men were tenured upon their first request and about three-fourths of women were denied tenure (p. 76). Ingersoll argues that ―that which would be called sexism in a secular context is often seen as being endorsed by God in a religious context‖ (p. 94). One of Ingersoll‘s participants explained that the unjust gender practices of her seminary were intractable because its leaders ―feel biblically justified in their attitudes. … They feel like they can always justify a more demeaning stance toward women‖ (p. 94). Women serving in church ministry also experienced a ―constant and pervasive pattern of behavior that undermine[d] their ability to do their ministry jobs‖ (p. 3). When a woman named Mary interviewed for an assistant pastor position, she had been ―emphatic during the hiring process that she was interested only in a pastoral position … [Yet] Mary arrived on her first Sunday to find that the church bulletin had introduced her as the ―new staff person in the office‖ (p. 66). When Mary, as assistant pastor, was scheduled to speak one weekend while the head pastor was out of town, she was further denigrated: Mary was aware that many in her congregation thought that ―the church roof would fall in if a woman preached.‖ The church even set up a special microphone from which she was to address the congregation. The microphone was in the front of the sanctuary but not on the platform from which the men spoke. (p. 66)
101
At times, women‘s ―war stories‖ go far beyond disrespect and discrimination. At each conservative Christian institution of higher education that Ingersoll visited, she unearthed stories of sexual assault and rape. In one situation, 15 women accused one man of date rape, but the young man was allowed to return to school, despite the women‘s testimony and the fact that he had been dismissed from a parachurch ministry position for the same offense (p. 89). Such stories caused Ingersoll to conclude: ―At its best, evangelical patriarchy is put forth as a gentle, loving leadership, but at its worst it can be the justification for abuse‖ (p. 92). Ingersoll does not portray her participants as hapless victims mistreated by outside forces. She frames them as war-weary change agents. She also gives voice to the internal conflicts of her participants—the feelings of self-doubt and sinfulness, the need to engage in ―creative blending‖ of their biblical beliefs with their feminist (although many of her participants eschew the term) sensibilities and the need to redefine for themselves the concept of womanly submission. Ingersoll points out that the ―evangelical subculture fits psychological profiles of dysfunctional and abusive families‖ (p. 114). Ultimately, some of the women whose war stories Ingersoll shares stayed committed to their conservative Protestant religion, while others abandoned it outright. Regardless of who stayed and who went, those women who were introduced to biblical feminism—without exception—found solace and respite, a space where they could be ―home spiritually‖ (p. 44): ―Whether they encountered biblical feminism in a book, in an organization like Christians for Biblical Equality, or (more rarely) from a sermon, they all describe their sense of freedom and relief in similar terms‖ (p. 10). Ingersoll, like many of the authors referenced in this chapter, recognizes the central role the gender binary serves in the conservative Protestant ontology. Further, she argues that ―when nearly all of life is ordered by gendered requirements, life itself becomes the performance of ritual in the space of the human body‖ (p. 124). Those whose performance does not fit the prescribed choreography are held suspect and ―othered,‖ and: Those who violate gendered requirements subvert the power of the status quo. Indeed, they may do so as part of a strategy of desecration for the 102
purpose of establishing their own right to control sacred symbols and to order reality according to their own interest. (p. 125) Even so, those who remain committed to evangelicalism are complicitous in its hegemony; even as they criticize it, ―they also participate in its replication‖ (p. 125). Lauding the recent research on evangelical women that demonstrates an ―increasing level of complexity and nuance, documenting both an essentially antifeminist strain of conservative Protestantism and a strongly feminist one‖ (p. 99), Ingersoll believes: Doing justice to the conflicting voices in the conservative Christian world leads us to see that there is no fixed gender that exists independent of culture, waiting to be transformed by accommodation to other cultural forces. On the contrary, gender in this world (as in others, I suspect) is the product of ongoing cultural work characterized by negotiation, compromise, and even conflict. When we recognize that the gendered requirements, expectations, and limitations in the evangelical subculture are the result of ongoing conflict, we can look at culture as something that is explicitly produced, rather than as the implicit backdrop against which life occurs, and then look for the ways in which this occurs. (p. 101) Thus discourse is produced and reproduced and revised. It can be studied to identify the ways in which it changes and is reproduced as the result of ongoing conflict. Ingersoll‘s theoretical framework appears to be feminist poststructural. She draws on the work of Butler and Foucault and identifies the shortcomings of interpretivist ethnography as a discursive framework. On the other hand, a section of the text expounds upon cultural production theory. Like Ingersoll, my study draws upon the work of Butler and Foucault, amongst others. I too am fascinated by the production, reproduction, and revision of discourse. My study, however, focuses not on the production and reproduction of discourse but rather how participants make meaning of the multiple discourses through which they constitute themselves and are constituted. Ingersoll does explicate some of the ways in which her participants internalize the conflict between discursive expectations and their own values/actions as well as ways in which they blend discourses and reframe submission. While my study does not focus on women leaders in evangelical culture, it does explore very specifically the ways in which women negotiate their multiple discourses.
103
Evangelical Identity and Gendered Family Life (2003) Sally K. Gallagher‘s work, Evangelical Identity and Gendered Family Life, grew from her work on a three-year research project about evangelical Americans funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Her research is a slice of the project‘s larger data collection and analysis and focuses on the historical development of gendered family ideals within American evangelicalism and how those ideals play out in the lived experiences of ordinary, contemporary evangelicals. She focuses particularly on family leadership and decision making, household division of labor, parenting and discipline, and attitudes towards women‘s employment and work/family balance. She argues that the concept of male headship is intractable in evangelical discourse because it is central to evangelical ontology and thus counterhegemonic perspectives, such as biblical feminism, remain dubious in the minds of evangelicals, even when their lives appear to be influenced by concepts of mutuality and egalitarianism: The continuing salience of men‘s headship emerges out of evangelical ontology itself. For the majority of evangelicals, gender is not just relational; it is reality extending throughout the created order. The alternative perspective, one of partnership and egalitarianism, is doubly embattled from the broader culture for its adherence to core evangelical beliefs and from the majority of evangelicals for abandoning the idea of men‘s headship. While drawing on many of the same subcultural religious tools and better reflecting the reality of most evangelical families, biblical feminism remains a suspect and counterhegemonic perspective within evangelicalism. (2003, p. 18)
Although most evangelical households espouse male headship and wifely submission, most appear more egalitarian in practice: The picture of contemporary evangelicals that emerges is one in which husbands‘ headship is largely symbolic, while decision making is pragmatically distributed according to interest and expertise. For all but a handful of committed egalitarians, evangelical family life is a synthesis of symbolic traditionalism with pragmatic egalitarianism. (p. 84) Thus there is space between espoused beliefs and lived experience. Nonetheless, evangelicals remain committed to the concept of male headship. Gallagher reports that 90% of evangelicals subscribe to the notion of male headship of the family (p. 70). What this means, exactly, in the daily function of families is harder to discern, as evidenced in this quote from one of Gallagher‘s participants:
104
You‘re equal in the sight of God, but in the relationship of the family he is more equal than I am. You know, he's the head. So I guess you can't say we‘re equal because I don't have equal authority as far as the family relationship goes. Although when he's not there, I deal with things. I don't know; it's kind of hard to explain … Well, we‘re equals in that I'm not in an inferior position in the family. With the kids, my word goes as well as his word … So my authority is as good as his; it's just … when it comes to push and shove, he has to be [the head]. I have to submit to him as the supreme authority in the family. (p. 165) Despite the difficulty of doing so, Gallagher identified several notions of what headship means in contemporary evangelical family life: Headship can mean spiritual leadership—―getting the family ready for church on time, leading prayers at meal times, and setting good examples for their children in personal devotions and Bible reading" (p. 87). It can alternately mean serving as the primary breadwinner, although this concept has waned as greater numbers of evangelical women are now in the workforce. As in Stacey‘s research, headship can refer to having the final say (trump card) when consensus regarding a family decision cannot be attained. It can also refer to the ―overarching sense of men‘s ultimate responsibility before God for the well-being of the family‖ (p. 71). Headship is generally seen by the evangelicals in Gallagher‘s study as more of a burden than a privilege (pp. 72, 148). Further, headship is seen as a type of Christ-like servant leadership, a role as protector of the family (pp. 72, 77, 90). Just as there is space between evangelicals‘ espoused beliefs and daily practice, Gallagher, like Bartkowski, argues that there is space between the words and writings of eminent evangelical leaders and the actual practices of ordinary evangelicals: Given the pragmatic egalitarianism of most evangelical households, it is difficult to make a case that ordinary evangelicals are buying, reading, or listening very carefully to all that Dobson, Webber, and Crabb have to say about the distinctive and God-given roles of men and women in families. (p. 116) Evangelical men are becoming more involved in parenting and—to a lesser degree— housework. ―To be sure, fathers‘ role as disciplinarians has not disappeared. Nor have notions about women‘s natural inclination to nurture. What has changed is that fathers are now expected to nurture as well‖ (p. 117). With regard to housework, the language of headship is mostly absent: ―For the most part, evangelical husbands and wives simply abandoned the language of headship—even the language of servant leadership—when talking about housework and described it simply as sharing labor that is necessary to keep
105
a family going‖ (p. 113). Nonetheless, ―housework remains largely woman‘s work‖ (p. 126). Regarding employment, "about 56% of all married evangelical women are now employed, about the same percentage as other women in the United States as well as other religiously committed Protestants" (p. 134), and "less than one third of all evangelical women are homemakers" (134). A "vocal and committed" minority of evangelicals decries the reality of working mothers and "lays a host of social problems at the feet of working mothers" (p. 150). The majority of evangelicals, however, are more ambivalent about working motherhood. Evangelicals struggle between the principle of sharing women's gifts inside and outside of the household with the essentialist notion that women were created for childbearing and rearing: Individual women may have gifts that exempt them from the responsibilities of motherhood; but whatever else they are gifted in, women's physiology is interpreted as a sign of women's giftedness in caring for others. Although in principle gifts may outweigh "nature," in the balance of ideals, nature weighs more significantly than gifts. In the end, women's physiology is taken as unavoidable and unambiguous evidence that women are fundamentally wired for bearing and caring for small children. (p. 150) In addition to competing ideals, evangelicals are also conflicted about competing needs— ―the need for additional household income with children's need for parental (that is, maternal) care" (p. 150). The decision regarding women's employment, however conflicted, "is seen as a private and personal decision" made within the family (p. 142). However similar to the broader culture evangelicals may appear with regards to women's employment: They actively reinforce boundaries with the broader culture by disassociating themselves from what they consider the excessive individualism of liberal feminism and reaffirming the relatively countercultural notion that a gendered hierarchy of authority in roles is God's design for family life. (p. 150) ―Only small minorities [of evangelicals] can be characterized as consistently holding to either the ideals of gender hierarchy and difference or the ideals of biblical feminism. Most mix and match the language of hierarchy and egalitarianism‖ (p. 83). Maintaining the mix of ―symbolic traditionalism with pragmatic egalitarianism‖ is no easy feat; ―ambiguity and struggle are involved as well as strategic creativity and commitment to a set of religious ideals‖ (p. 103). Nonetheless, ―rather than seeing these
106
beliefs as incompatible and contradictory, many evangelicals see them as a delicate balance‖ (p. 84). Ultimately, though, evangelicals—regardless of how influenced their daily practice is by changes influenced by feminism—still reject feminism and remain adamantly committed to headship, thus reinforcing a boundary between evangelicals and secular society: Although 65% of American evangelicals believe that feminism is hostile to their moral and spiritual values, only a handful spoke negatively about the policy changes that feminism has helped to bring about during the past 30 years. Instead, they argued that equal opportunity, equity in pay, and growing awareness of sexual harassment and sexual safety were all positive developments in the workplace. Adding paid work to what women do is not a problem. … [However] headship remains symbolically important even though it is no longer associated with men being sole providers or even primary providers. (p. 148) Gallagher‘s ―symbolic headship with pragmatic egalitarianism‖ is a common trope in recent research about evangelical gendered identity and is evident in my own data as well (this will be discussed further in ensuing chapters). Additionally, I drew upon the types of headship that Gallagher identified when constructing my own research questions. To a great extent, Gallagher‘s findings provided me with a sense of what to expect and where to start with my own interviews which focus to a greater extent on all of the discourses that evangelical women negotiate, not just headship and egalitarianism, although those discourses do figure prominently in my participants‘ lives. It is difficult to identify Gallagher‘s theoretical framework. She eschews the ―micro-macro, postmodern-traditional dichotomies present in much sociological analysis‖ and prefers ―using a more integrated, historically specified, and multilayered approach to understanding social change and the intersections of personal agency and social structures‖ (p. 17). As such, one distinct difference between her work and mine is my employment of a feminist poststructural framework. Additionally, Gallagher‘s study sought to identify characteristics of evangelicals and to compare those with other religiously committed groups. My focus is on exploring the discourses of four evangelical women, and while I hope that my research contributes to the research base, I make no claims about how representative my participants‘ views are of the larger evangelical population.
107
Conclusion A common theme running through the aforementioned studies is the notion that gendered identity within evangelicalism is neither simple nor homogenous nor static nor monolithic. On the contrary, evangelical gender identity is complex, contradictory, and nuanced. There are contradictions and inconsistencies between espoused and actual, and between formal and informal, gender hierarchies. There is often a good deal of difference between the gender essentialism promoted by evangelical luminaries and actual household practices of ordinary evangelicals. Further, amongst ordinary evangelicals, gender relations tend to be less patriarchal and more egalitarian in deed than in word. Interestingly, almost without exception evangelicals dismiss or lament the role of feminism—and (those who are aware it exists) biblical feminism—even though many of their actions suggest implicit acceptance of, and agreement with, ideals of egalitarianism and mutuality. Instead, evangelicals steadfastly remain committed to the ―God-designed‖ male/female binary that underlies evangelical ontology and provides an important boundary between the sacred and secular/profane worlds. In approaching my own study, I seek to explore the degree to which these beliefs are held by my participants.
108
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY: CIRCULATING WHIPS OF WIND
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. (Steven Wright, comedian)
When I think about feminist poststructuralism as a discourse, I picture one of those circulating whips of wind that funnel around the street, picking up bits of leaves, twigs, debris and circulating them around. The circulating whip of wind itself moves about, shifting in form, here and there discarding certain bits of debris and picking up other bits, all the while moving, shifting, changing, forming, reforming. Within the whip of wind, the debris dances about and bits knock into each other and fling about one another. To some extent, all discourses resemble these circulating whips of wind, in that all discourse change and morph over time. But this metaphor seems especially appropriate for feminist poststructuralism, since the discourse itself rejects the notion of fixed and foundational beliefs. It is feminist poststructuralism‘s similarity to one of these circulating whips of wind that makes it a productive, exciting space and that also makes it maddening for a doctoral student to attempt to define/describe.
Methodology Introduction
"Methodology" as a research term incorporates multiple pieces. The first is the theoretical framework used by the researcher. For this project, my research is grounded in poststructural feminist discourse. In Chapter 1, I introduced the reader to some of the key concepts within poststructural feminist discourse that I am utilizing for my research. In the first section of this chapter, I go into more detail about poststructural feminist discourse—the whirling whips of wind—and some of the more complex nuances of it. In
109 the second section of this chapter, I discuss the qualitative research approach I utilized in this project and the quality and ethical considerations thereof. In the final section of this chapter, I introduce the reader to the specific research methods I followed for this project, including the prompt to which participants responded and the interview protocol I followed.
Theoretical Framework
The net that contains the researcher's epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises may be termed a paradigm, or an interpretive framework... all research is interpretive; it is guided by the researcher‘s set of beliefs and feelings about the world and how it should be understood and studied. . . Each interpretive paradigm makes particular demands on the researcher, including the questions the researcher asks and the interpretations he or she bring to them. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 22)
The interpretative framework that I am using—poststructural feminism—has great implications for the research question that I have posed, the participants I have invited into the study, the data that I collect, the approach I take to interpreting that data, how I represent that data to the reader, and the overall ethical considerations to which I commit myself. This section of Chapter 3 begins by situating poststructural feminism within the historical context of feminism. I then go deeper into what poststructural feminism is, what it means, and its epistemology. In the next section of this chapter, I delve into the methodological premises of poststructural feminism and the ethical commitments of it. In the final section of this chapter, the methods section, I explain how the epistemological and methodological premises of poststructural feminism are embodied in my specific research practices.
Plurality of Feminisms In one of our book study sessions (11/3/05), Kali, who co-led the group with Wynne, explained that she did not like that one of the co-authors of Captivating—Stasi— 110 talked about ―escaping from militant feminism‖ (Kali‘s words). Kali asked the group, ―Is feminism bad and can feminism coexist with Christianity?‖ Kali‘s profound question was followed by Sophia‘s equally profound response: ―How do you define feminism?‖ Feminism is pluralistic, not monolithic, and there exist many feminisms (e.g. liberal/equality feminism, cultural/difference feminism, radical feminism, womanism, ecofeminism, postfeminism, etc.). In the United States, feminism is often conceptualized as occurring in three historic "waves." The notion of "waves" of feminism is not unproblematic: We recognize, for example, that wave approaches too often downplay the importance of individual and small-scale collective actions, as well as indirect and covert acts. We also agree that there is a tendency for attention to be drawn to the common themes that unify each wave, and this often obscures the diversity of the competing feminisms that actually exist. This tendency is particularly likely to obscure the contributions made by more radical camps and by more marginalized members in each wave (Mann & Huffman, 2005, p. 58). Additionally, the wave metaphor is primarily based on the white women's movement and marginalizes the efforts of women of color (Kinser, 2004). Nonetheless, the wave metaphor can be helpful in providing a brief overview of general movements within American feminism. The ―first wave‖ refers to the suffrage movement of the early 20th century, although the term ―first wave‖ was not coined until the 1960s (Goldman, 1991). The "feminist movement" that began in the 1960s is referred to as the ―second wave.‖ Second wave feminists were mostly white, middle-class, and educated. Their focus was on ending discrimination, both legal and economic, against women, and their motto was "the personal is political" (Mack-Canty, 2004, p. 154). The feminists of the early second wave were primarily liberal feminists who believed that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. Other key feminisms associated with the second wave include socialist and radical feminisms. Socialist feminists, see "relations of property under capitalism as the motor of patriarchal ideas and practices in the modern era" (Jones, 1989, p. 140). Radical feminists of the second wave, "seeing women's nature as different from (and usually better than) man's, argued that women are essentially different from men and that women's differences needed to be accommodated in society just as men's had been‖ (Mack-Canty, 2004, pp. 157-158). 111 The beginnings of second wave feminism can be found in the new left and civil rights movements: Women working in the new left and civil rights movements became dissatisfied because movements that sought to further the rights of blacks, workers, welfare recipients, and others had failed to recognize women's rights as a legitimate political goal. Furthermore, sex discrimination was rampant within these very movements … By the late 1960s these women had developed the determination and the ability to fight sexism. (Goldman, 1989, p. 144) Despite the influence of women‘s experiences as part of the civil rights movement, women of color and working-class women felt excluded from, and marginalized by, the second wave feminist movement (Amos & Parmar, 2001). Indeed, the ―charge of racism has been directed at feminist theory‖ (Bhavnani, 2001, p. 1). The profound irony of the feminist movement is that what is considered by some to be liberating was to other women an additional oppression. For example, Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique was heralded as a pivotal text in the women's liberation movement. However, bell hooks and other like-minded black feminists believed Friedan ―made her plight and the plight of white women like herself synonymous with a condition affecting all American women" (hooks, 1984/2001, p. 33). Black feminists such as Patricia Hill Collins gave "attention to the interlocking nature of race, gender, and class oppressions" (King, 1989, p. 42) and rejected the essentialism of the feminist movement. Third wave feminism both developed from, and expanded upon, second wave feminism, primarily by becoming more inclusive to voices other than those of educated, white, middle-class Western women. Common themes in third wave feminism include inclusiveness and regard for diversity and otherness, decentering, rejection of essentialism (the notion that not only are women homogeneous but also that ―femaleness‖ is biologically determined, permanent, and unalterable), and problematization of hierarchical binaries. The rhetoric of third wave feminism first appeared in the mid- 1980s. Feminist theorists disagree about the extent to which third wave feminism was a reaction against, as opposed to a development from, second wave feminism (Kinser, 2004; Mack-Canty, 2004; Mann & Huffman, 2005). Third wave feminism, like second make wave feminism, is "not a uniform perspective, but rather includes a number of diverse and analytically distinct approaches to feminism" (Mann & Huffman, 2005, p.
112 57), including postmodernist and poststructuralist feminisms, postcolonial feminism, and ecofeminism. Eco-feminism "extends its values of diversity and interconnectedness to other species and the natural world" (Mack-Canty, 2004, p. 156). Postcolonial feminists problematize the ethnocentrism of Western feminism and reject the way in which "women in the third world are often portrayed not only as a singular or essential other, but also implicitly as lesser-- as ignorant, tradition-bound, and victimized (Mann & Huffman, 2005, p. 68).
Postfeminist Challenge Presently, what steals the affections of the media and consequently much public dialogue seems to be an emphasis on postfeminism, which claims that any needed gender equity has been attained and that further feminist activity is contraindicated. (Kinser, 2004, p. 132)
This quotation is educative in several ways: It defines postfeminism is a state in which gender equity has been attained, and therefore, (liberal) feminism is no longer needed. It assumes that gender equity has indeed been attained, and it reduces the poly- vocal nature of feminism down to liberal feminism. I am dismissive of this conceptualization of postfeminism because I do not believe gender equity has been attained and because I recognize that liberal feminism is not the only—or even most productive—form of feminism. Nonetheless, I do recognize, as Kinser points out, that the danger of postfeminism as defined above lies in the "acceptance of the status quo and a failure to see the need for any change" (2004, p. 142). Another conceptualization of postfeminism represents a far greater challenge to poststructural feminism: Indeed, in academic circles, the term ―postfeminism" referred not to the smug media claims that feminism was no longer necessary, but rather to a series of debates about whether feminism could withstand the deconstructive critiques mounted by postmodernism and post-structuralism (Siegel, 1997, 53). While integrally involving identities, the underlying issue was how feminists could retain collective categories and simultaneously avoid essentialism. (Mann & Huffman, 2005, p. 63) This is indeed a paradox: poststructuralism rejects essentialism -- the notion that there are necessary and sufficient conditions for that which is "female‖ or "feminine", while feminism, prima facie, is dependent upon the essentialized category ―female‖ or
113 ―woman‖. Doing so not only belies the complexity and multiplicity of the terms but also invariably excludes: The feminist "we" is always and only a phantasmatic construction, one that has its purposes, but which denies the internal complexity and indeterminacy of the term and constitutes itself only through the exclusion of some part of the constituency that it simultaneously seeks to represent. (Butler, 1999, p. 181) The essentialized category "female" or "woman" is problematic but not lethal to poststructural feminism. Poststructural feminism deconstructs not only patriarchalism and its oppression of ―female‖ but also "female" itself: ―Feminist critique ought to explore the totalizing claims of a masculinist signifying economy, but also remain self-critical with respect to the totalizing gestures of feminism‖ (Butler, 1999, pp. 18-19). Poststructural feminists must deconstruct patriarchalism as well as deconstruct the various discourses which don‘t just reflect reality but construct it: ―that is, through recognizing the constitutive force of discourse, rather than seeing it merely as a tool for describing a real world, we can see ourselves as being spoken into existence" (Davies, 2000, p. 41). In other words, poststructural feminists examine the ways in which our discourses constitute our understandings of ourselves as women and of the very terms "female" and "woman". Further, poststructural feminists recognize that there is no one, single experience of women, no single oppression, and no ―one grand vision of liberation for all women‖ (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 493). ―Poststructural feminists believe the struggles of women are local and specific rather than totalizing‖ (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 493). The following section examines these ideas in much greater detail and shows that the terms "poststructural feminism" are not mutually exclusive but rather profoundly generative.
114 Defining Poststructural Feminism 17: Nailing Jello to a Wall
Poststructural feminism—as a theory—almost precludes its own definition: ―An important part of poststructuralism it is resistance to definition or even identification, presumably because such practices represent an attempt to pin down an essence that does not exist‖ (Gavey, 1989, p. 460). Nonetheless, it is imperative that a doctoral candidate define and describe the theoretical framework that she utilizes: Feminist poststructuralism, then, is a mode of knowledge production which uses poststructuralist theories of language, subjectivity, social processes and institutions to understand existing power relations and to identify areas and strategies for change. (Weedon, 1997, p. 40) Poststructural feminism, like other discourses, is not monolithic, nor are its proponents homogenous. In the introduction of St. Pierre‘s and Pillow‘s Working the Ruins: Feminist Poststructural Theory and Methods in Education, the authors eschew a concise definition of poststructural feminism but rather ―prefer to think of the relationship we are working in and out of as feminist and poststructural, a relationship that gestures toward fluid and multiple dislocations and alliances‖ (2000, p. 3). St. Pierre and Pillow ask how feminists and poststructuralists ―work similarly to critique, interrupt, and reinscribe normative, hegemonic, and exclusionary ideologies and practices‖ (2000, p. 3). Quite simply, though, ―feminist poststructuralist analysis results when gender issues are incorporated into a poststructural framework‖ (Arslanian-Engoren, 2002, p. 513), or— conversely (and this is the conceptualization that I prefer)—poststructural feminist analysis is the application of poststructuralism by feminists to ―challenge, examine, and deconstruct patriarchal discourse, social institutions, and power relationships that
17 Some authors (Weedon, 1997; St. Pierre & Pillow, 2000) use the term ―feminist poststructuralism,‖ Others, including Youngblood Jackson (2004) prefer the term ―poststructural feminism.‖ I prefer the latter in order to emphasis that—for me— ―poststructural feminism‖ is a type of feminism that utilizes poststructural theory. As detailed in the previous section, there are many feminisms, each with its own history, project, and proponents. I want to situate poststructural feminism within that long, rich history of polyvocal feminist voices. 115 disadvantage and oppress women in contemporary society‖ (Arslanian-Engoren, 2002, p. 513). Feminist poststructuralist researchers ―ask questions that produce different knowledge and produce knowledge differently, thereby producing different ways of living in the world‖ (St. Pierre & Pillow, 2000, p. 1). Poststructural feminism opens new spaces for different ways, productive ways, of thinking about gender and identity construction. The goals of poststructural feminist scholarship include: … developing understandings or theories that are historically, socially, and culturally specific, and that are explicitly related to changing oppressive gender relations. Rather than ‗discovering‘ reality, ‗revealing‘ truth, or ‗uncovering‘ the facts, feminist poststructuralism would, instead, be concerned with disrupting and displacing dominate (oppressive) acknowledges. (Gavey, 1989, p. 463) Poststructural feminism opposes the positivist, humanist beliefs that there is a fixed, stable self, that truth is objective, knowable, and certain, and that science is an unproblematic means of discovering Truth. Poststructuralism problematizes the concepts of reality and truth by focusing on the role of language in constructing reality. Further, it is through language, through discourses, that we are constituted as subjects. As such, discourse is inextricably bound to power. I examine poststructural feminism more thoroughly in following sections on rejection of Enlightenment theory, language, identity and subjectivity, truth/power, and agency.
Rejection of Enlightenment Theory Poststructuralism grew out of—and as a response to—structuralism. Structuralism, like poststructuralism, holds that: . . . meaning is produced within language rather than reflected by language, and that individual signs do not have intrinsic meaning but acquire meaning through the language chain and their difference within it from other signs. These principles are important because they make language truly social and a site of political struggle. (Weedon, 1997, p. 23) Structuralists view signs as fixed in meaning, as ―positive facts which are the product of the conventions of a ‗speech community‘ (Saussure, 1974, p. 72)‖ (Weedon, 1997, p. 24). Poststructuralists, on the other hand, emphasize the plurality of meanings in language, the changeableness of language and meaning, and the multiple and competing discourses of language. Where Structuralism desired ―objective, scientific neutrality,‖ poststructuralism demanded the ―indeterminacy of meaning, the role of ideology in the 116 production and dissemination of the text, and the influence of the reader upon the text‖ (Aichele et al, 1995, p. 132). While poststructuralism was most immediately a response to structuralism, it— like postmodernism—rejected the Enlightenment humanism associated with modernism. Flax (1990) outlines the key elements of Enlightenment philosophy that postmodernism and poststructuralism reject: 1. ―The existence of a stable, coherent self. Distinctive properties of this Enlightenment self include a form of reason capable of privileged insight into its own processes and into the ‗laws of nature‘‖ (p. 41). The humanist self has, at its core, an ―essential‖ and gendered character (Davis, 2000, p. 64). 2. ―Reason and its ‗science‘—philosophy—can provide an objective, reliable, and universal foundation of knowledge‖ (p. 41). 3. ―The knowledge acquired from the right use of reason will be ‗true‘--for example, such knowledge will represent something real and unchanging (universal) about our minds and the structure of the natural world‖ (p. 41). Binary—or dualistic—logic is inextricable from Western reasoning. These ―secret hierarchies‖ (Mann & Huffman, 2005, p. 68), as discussed in Chapter 1, are our ―mother tongue … [which] spawns structure after structure after structure—binaries, categories, hierarchies, and other grids of regularity that are not only linguistic but also very material‖ (St. Pierre & Pillow, 2000, p. 4). 4. ―Reason itself has transcendental and universal qualities‖ (Flax, 1990, p. 41). 5. ―Freedom consists of obedience to laws that conform to the necessary results of the right use of reason. (The rules that are right for me as a rational being will necessarily be right for all other such beings)‖ (p. 41). 6. ―Truth can serve power without distortion; in turn, by utilizing knowledge in the service of power, both freedom and progress will be assured. Knowledge can be both neutral (e.g., grounded in universal reason, not particular ‗interests‘) and also socially beneficial‖ (p. 41). 7. "Science is neutral in its methods and contents but socially beneficial and its results" (p. 42). 8. Language is transparent. "Just as the right use of reason can result in knowledge that represents the real, so, too, language is merely the medium in and through which such representation occurs.... Objects are not linguistically (or socially) constructed; they are merely made present to consciousness by naming and the right use of language" (p. 42). Now that I have spent some pages explicating the ideas that poststructural feminism rejects, the following sections explicate ideas that are commonly associated with poststructural feminist thinking about language, subjectivity, truth/power, and agency.
117 Language Key to poststructural feminism is the role of language in constituting reality and identity: Poststructuralism links language, subjectivity, social organization, and power. The centerpiece is language. Language does not ‗reflect‘ social reality, but produces meaning, creates social reality. Different languages and different discourses within a given language divide up the world and give it meaning in ways that are not reducible to one another. Language is how social organization and power are defined and contested and the place where our sense of selves, our subjectivity, is constructed. Understanding language as competing discourses, competing ways of giving meaning and of organizing the world, makes language a site of exploration, struggle. (Richardson, 2000, p. 518) ―Language‖ is the key word. Language does not reflect reality--it constructs it. "Any interpretation or understanding of an object or event is made available through a particular discourse concerning or relating to that object or event" (Gavey, 1989, p. 463). It is through language—in the form of multiple, competing discourses—that we not only understand the world but also through which our identity—our sense of self—is constructed: It is language which enables us to think, speak and give meaning to the world around us. Meaning and consciousness do not exist outside language. … It is language in the form of conflicting discourses which constitutes us as conscious thinking subjects and enables us to give meaning to the world and to act to transform it. (Weedon, 1997, p. 31) Reason, logic, and common sense are all discursively produced (Weedon, 1997; Jackson, 2004). Even the criteria which we use to determine the validity and usefulness of a theory is embedded in our discourses: the ―criteria which theories use to establish what is true or false, good or bad, are not universal and objective. They are, rather, internal to the structures of the discourses themselves‖ (Weedon, 1997, p. 172). Language, then, is the site of struggle over power, knowledge, and subjectivity. Poststructural feminists deconstruct discourses to ―reclaim and rewrite untold histories, to subvert what counts as knowledge and truth, and to challenge those who claim authority to speak for them‖ (St. Pierre & Willow, 2000, p. 5)
118 Identity and Subjectivity ―Subjectivity‖ is used to refer to the conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself and her ways of understanding her relation to the world. (Weedon, 1997, p. 32)
For poststructuralists, there is no essential, autonomous, fixed, stable self; this is a major departure from the modernist, Enlightenment, humanist "self" (Weedon, 1997, p. 31). Poststructuralists believe that the subject is continuously, discursively constituted through language. The self is ―an interactive, discursive process, fragile, capable of great pleasure in oneness with the group, in being competent within its terms, but also vulnerable to the discourses through which it is spoken and speaks itself into existence‖ (Davies, 2000, p. 26). Further: The individual is both site and subject of discursive struggles for identity. Because the individual is subject to multiple and competing discourses in many realms, one‘s subjectivity is shifting and contradictory, not stable, fixed, rigid. (Richardson, 2000, p. 518) Although the subject is neither fixed nor stable, self-knowledge is—while not impossible—never complete: The discourses of the historical processes that constitute me, and the location and nature of power relations inherent in them, make possible the self-knowledge I construct about myself and the "wording" of my world. This self-knowledge is the effect of the interrelations among power, discourse, and truth... these are partial knowledges and truths... (Jackson, 2004, p. 676) I must be careful to emphasize that the "reasoning subject is not a unified, sovereign, rational consciousness, but discursively produced and subject to process" (Weedon, 1997, p. 173). Nonetheless, to some degree, we can reflect upon and analyze the various discourses through which we are constituted and constitute ourselves. This process of self-knowledge is never complete or perfect, and what we think we know about ourselves -- our self truths -- are always partial, incomplete, imperfect. Ironically, the "culturally enmired subject negotiates its constructions, even when those constructions are the very predicates of its own identity" (Butler, 1999, p. 182). Further, what discourses are available to us, their status, their potency and prevalence, are functions of the complex network -- or web -- of ubiquitous power relations that surround us: "Some forms of subjectivity are more readily available to the
119 individual than others and this will depend on the social status and power of the discourse in question" (Weedon, 1997, p. 94). Ultimately though, the subject is the site of a constant and never-ending "discursive battle" (Weedon, 1997, p. 101). The poststructural feminist concept of power, and its relationship to truth, is examined in the next section. Key to the feminist poststructural project is the notion that as individuals we are simultaneously constituting ourselves and being constituted (Davies, 2000). It is through our navigation of these multiple, discursively produced identities that we are both subjectified and agentic: The process of subjectification, then, entails a tension between simultaneously becoming a speaking, agentic subject and the corequisite for this, being subjected to the meanings inherent in the discourses through which one becomes a subject. (Davies, 2000, p. 27) We are constituted in innumerable ways by our naturalized discourses. Yet who we are is not determined in any set way through our discourses. There is an "important distinction between being constituted and being determined. To be determined implies that a subject is given in advance, is stable, and never changes" (Jackson, 2004, p. 682). It is false to presume "that to be constituted by discourse is to be determined by discourse, where determination forecloses the possibility of agency" (Butler, 1999, p. 182). On the contrary, "multiple, conflicting, and hybrid subjectivities are theorized as contingent and fluid. This contingency—of ourselves, of our realities—points to everything as in the making" (Jackson, 2004, p. 686) allowing always for choice and agentic action. There is space for both agency and complicity in our identity construction. We can alternately ―embrace these ways of being, the subject positions, wholeheartedly, we may reject them outright or we may offer resistance while complying to the letter with what is expected of us‖ (Weedon, 1997, p. 83). We can negotiate, appropriate, and contest our discursive constructions: ―We also can see both the potency of speaking in new ways and the possibility of reusing old, undesirable ones‖ (Davies, 2000, p. 41). This understanding provides space for the concept of agency, which is discussed more thoroughly later in this chapter.
120 Power and Truth Poststructural feminism draws heavily on Michel Foucault‘s conceptualization of power (Mann & Hoffman, 2005): In fact, "Foucault has [sic] been tremendously influential within the fields of post- colonial theory and feminist theory. … The latter is perhaps rather surprising since Foucault has often been thought of as a misogynist... However, many feminist theorists have found that Foucault's critical thinking is of use. (Mills, 2003, p. 29) Within Foucault‘s theory and within poststructural feminist discourse, power and truth are inextricably connected -- intertwined as such that one is impossible without the other. They are "mutually dependent upon one another... with power generating knowledge and knowledge initiating power" (Arslanian-Engoren, 2002, p. 513). ―It is not possible for power to be exercised without knowledge, it is impossible for knowledge not to engender power‖ (Foucault, 1980, p. 52). Foucault in fact used the compound ―power/knowledge‖ to emphasize the inextricability and dependence of these two concepts on one another (Mills, 2003, p. 69). Foucault argued that discourse makes some things real/possible and invalidates the possibility/reality of other things: "instead of considering that language simply reflects an underlying reality... he asserts that discourse determines the reality that we perceive" (Mills, 2003, p. 5). Truth claims are discourse –dependent. There are no universal truths; all truths are local, partial, and contingent. The ―nonidentity and self-referentiality of language [sic] makes any absolute truth-claims impossible‖ (Aichele et al, 1995, p. 136). Poststructuralism rejects "general, universalizing theories, often called metanarratives" (Weedon, 1997, p. 172). Instead, poststructural feminists only accept "approaches which insists on historical and geographical specificity and no longer claim universal status" (Weedon, 1997, p. 172). The ―effects of truth are produced within discourses which in themselves are neither true nor false‖ (Foucault, 1980, p. 118). Domination is made possible by the ―ability to define a certain field of empirical truth‖ (Gordon, 1980, p. 237). Dominant discourses produce ―regimes of truth.‖ Regimes of truth is a Foucauldian concept that ―refers to the type of statements which can be made by authorized people and accepted
121 by the society as a whole, and which are then distinguished from false statements by a range of different practices‖ (Mills, 2003, p. 74). It is through language that truth--that reality--is constructed: Not only is the formulation of certain individual utterances possible in these discourses (in the sense of conforming to a model of acceptability comparable to that of a grammar) but it is these utterances (and not others) that are effectively produced." (Gordon, 1980, p. 244) Within certain discourses, some things are not—cannot—be uttered, while other utterances are not only possible are imbued with great power: Meaning is always political. It is located in the social networks of power/knowledge relations which give society its current form. Not all areas of discourse are equally significant in the hierarchy of power/knowledge relations but no discursive practice is outside them. (Weedon, 1997, p. 134) This is a very different conception of power than the modernist version. In modern/humanist theory, there are two paradoxical conceptions of power: ... on the one hand, the benign sociological model of power as the agency of social cohesion and normality, serving to assure the conditions of existence and survival of the community, and on the other the more polemical representation of power as an instance of repression, violence and coercion, eminently represented in the State with its "bodies of armed men". (Gordon, 1980, pp. 234-235) Within the modernist discourse, power is alternately a necessary function of the State to ensure civilized existence. On the other, it is unquestionably repressive, violent, negative. Foucault‘s understanding of power diverged radically from the modernist notion. For Foucault, power doesn‘t reside in an institution such as the State, rather it is a ubiquitous web of power relations that surrounds us and influences, disciplines us: Power is not an institution, a structure, or a certain force with which certain people are endowed; it is the name given to a complex strategic relation in a given society. (Foucault, 1980, p. 236) Such power can be oppressive, but Foucault‘s focus is on the way ―power operates within everyday relations between people and institutions‖ (Mills, 2003, p. 35). For Foucault, power is not a monolithic, impervious act of will by one entity/group in oppression over other entities/groups; rather, he saw power as a ―network or web of relations which circulates through society‖ (Mills, 2003, p. 30). ―Power is dispersed throughout society in all kinds of relationship, event and activity" (Mills, 2003, p. 52). Because power is part of the fabric of everyday life, it renders the "status quo natural and marginalize[s] attempts to change it as unnatural" (Weedon, 1997, p. 26). The taken for granted effects 122 of power are insidious and that they are largely invisible and except as commonsense. This hegemony18 of discursive power makes it easier to understand the "complicity of oppressed people with their own oppression" (Weedon, 1997, p. 80). As such, poststructural feminists "investigate the nature and implications of those hegemonic versions of language and subjectivity which most people take for granted in which underpin our notions of common sense, social meaning and ourselves" (Weedon, 1997, p. 72). The ―web of power‖ (Foucault, 1980, p. 116) theory lends itself to analysis of power at the "local, individual level, rather than at the level of large-scale, social structures" (Mann & Huffman, 2005, p. 64). While the hegemony of power can be insidious, power itself is "neither inherently evil nor a negative, repressive force" (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 491). On the contrary, power is reductive, generative: We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms … In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. (Foucault, 1977, p. 194) The productive character of power is what makes it not only tolerated but embraced: What makes power hold good, what makes it accepted, is simply the fact that it doesn‘t only weigh on us as a force that says no, but that it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse. It needs to be considered as a productive network which runs through the whole social body, much more than as a negative instance whose function is repression. (Foucault, 1980, p. 119) We exist within the network of power; it is impossible to exist outside of it: "We are born into relations of power from which we cannot escape" (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 492). Just as it is impossible to exist outside of discourse -- for we exist through discourse -- it is impossible to be external to discursively produced power relations. How then does power operate? It is often through repetitive, everyday regulatory technologies of power -- through "indefinitely progressive forms of training" that "automatic docility" (Foucault, 1977, p. 169) is produced. "Normalization becomes one
18 For my work I borrow Mills‘ definition of hegemony: "... hegemony is a state within society whereby those who are dominated by others take on board the values and ideologies of those in power and accept them as their own; this leads to them excepting their position within the hierarchy as natural or for their own good" (2003, p. 75). 123 of the great instruments of power" (Foucault, 1977, p. 185). There exist "regulatory regimes to keep us within a particular grid of intelligibility by governing and punishing nonnormative behavior" (Jackson, 2004, p. 677). This is a "radical shift from the sovereign state in which rulers disciplined by inflicting bodily harm on offenders to the modern disciplinary state in which the more inefficient mechanism of self-discipline operates to control the population" (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 491). Foucault writes about the insidious and very effective practice of liberal democracies and disciplining the populace: These new "surveillance" societies used more subtle disciplinary and regulatory practices, such as self-policing, that replaced the need for more obvious, external forms of social control (Foucault, 1997, 217). Such insights foster greater understanding of women's collusion in their own subordination ..." (Mann & Huffman, 2005, p. 64) While Foucault‘s interest is in the everyday regulatory technologies that move in all directions throughout the web of power, it is important to note that often these regulatory technologies are governed by institutionalized dominant discourses such as the "military, psychiatry, the school, the workshop, the state, the examination, the ‗disciplines‘ of academia, the ‗minute disciplines, the panopticisms of every day‘ (Foucault, 1979/1975, p. 223), that maintain the surveillance of people. . . .‖ (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 491) This is not to say, however, that agency is impossible. Power is not only enacted but contested, multiple, partial, and "largely unsuccessful" (Mills, 2003, p. 47). While it is impossible to be free of power, it is possible to resist its direction: ―Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is never in the position of exteriority in relation to power‖ (Foucault, 1978, p. 95). While revolution is not impossible, within Foucault‘s discourse of power, ―resistance is generally local, unpredictable, and constant‖ (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 492). Further, ―power is both pervasive and invasive. Even when it engenders counter-discourses, power tends to colonize them‖ (Aichele et al, 1995, p. 141). There is the following section, I explore the concept of agency more thoroughly and draw on the work of Butler and Davies. Foucault‘s interest in how self is discursively produced, his analysis of the ―conceptual frameworks which underpin much of what is characterized as common-sense within society‖ (Mills, 2003, p. 29), his identification of the body as a site of power, his rejection of grand-narratives, his belief in the ―‘role of discourse . . . to produce and
124 sustain hegemonic power‘‖ (Mills, 2003, p. 29) and his belief that individuals negotiate within discourses rather than simply submit to them are all Foucauldian ideas that resonate with me and inform my project. Poststructural feminists, like Foucault, are interested in analyzing the "way that we know what we know; where that information comes from; how it is produced and under what circumstances; whose interests it might serve; how it is possible to think differently..." (Mills, 2003, p. 66).
Agency Agency is a fairly simple concept within humanist discourse: Because humanist discourse conceptualizes the self as a stable, autonomous being, ―agency is synonymous with being a person‖ (Davies, 2000, p. 55). In fact, within humanism, ―agency is, by definition, a feature of each sane, adult human being‖ (Davis, 2000, p. 55). Humanists argue that without a stable, autonomous self—an agent—―there can be no agency and hence no potential to initiate a transformation of relations of domination within society‖ (Butler, 1999, pp. 32-33). How, then, is agency possible within the discourse of poststructural feminism? This is an especially important question, given that many forms of feminism rely upon the humanist concept of self and the Enlightenment dualism of male/female, man/woman. The poststructural feminist notion of a constituted subjectivity in which gender—and even sex—is constructed (Butler, 1999) could ―undercut [the] dualistic conception of gender that has informed feminist thought for decades‖ (Olesen, 2005, p. 243). The constructedness of subjectivity within poststructural feminism does not negate the possibility of agency; on the contrary, it is the very thing that makes agency possible: ―Construction is not opposed to agency; it is the necessary scene of agency, the very terms in which agency is articulated and becomes culturally intelligible (Butler, 1999, p. 186). How can this be? There are two important concepts within poststructuralism that make this possible. The first is the concept that power structures are ―inherently fragile‖ (Gordon,
125 1990, p. 256). The web-like relations of power that surround us are never fixed and always shifting, breaking, reforming. The ―instruments and techniques [of power] are always liable to forms of re-appropriation, reversibility and re-utilization‖ (Gordon, 1990, p. 256). This makes space for constituted, agentic subjectivities to access and utilize power. Second, the discursively constructed subject is constituted by and through language. The meaning of language is never finally fixed; it is always deferred (Weedon, 1997, p 25). The temporary fixing of meaning leaves room for agency: The plurality of language and the impossibility of fixing meaning once and for all are basic principles of poststructuralism. This does not mean that meaning disappears altogether but that any interpretation is at best temporary, specific to the discourse within which it is produced and open to challenge. (Weedon, 1997, p. 82) Meaning, therefore, ―can be strategically reinterpreted, reworked, and deferred‖ (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 504). Therefore, it is our very constitutedness through language that makes space for agency: "To be constituted by language is to be produced within a given network of power/discourse which is open to resignification, redeployment, subversive citation from within, and interruption and inadvertent convergences with other such networks." (Butler as quoted in St. Pierre, 2000, p. 504) It is important to note, however, that changes in meaning are not necessarily in the service of disrupting oppressive regimes of truth; ―changes in meaning can serve ―hegemonic interests or challenge existing power relations‖ (Weedon, 1997, p. 25). Further, not all possibilities of change are available, and ―language also determines how we perceive possibilities for change‖ (Weedon, 1997, p. 82). Within poststructural feminism, different theorists frame agency differently. For example, Judith Butler‘s theory of performativity differs from the theory of agency put forward by Bronwyn Davies and Chris Weedon. I favor the latter but wish to provide at least an introduction to Butler‘s theory of performativity to demonstrate that within poststructural feminism there is ample space for multiple conceptions of agency. Jackson explicates Butler‘s complex theory rather concisely: Performativity is Butler's theory of gender that accentuates a process of repetition that produces gendered subjectivity. This repetition is not simply a performance by a subject but a performativity that constitutes a subject and produces the space of conflicting subjectivities that contest the foundations and origins of stable 126 identity categories. Furthermore, agency lies in the work of performativity. Because subjects are constantly reproduced (through repetition), they are never fully constituted. There is always space for reworking and resisting. And because subjects can subversively transform, refuse, parody, or rupture the laws of discourse, thereby reconstituting themselves, identities emerge from discourse and power relations as neither foundational grounds nor fully expressed products. (Jackson, 2004, p. 675) Key here is the idea that ―gender is not a performance that a prior subject elects to do but gender is performative in the sense that it constitutes as an effect the very subject is appears to express‖ (Butler, 1996, p. 380). Performativity is not an actress (who has a prior, stable self) acting or performing a role. Rather, a subject is constituted, comes to ―exist‖, through performance. The performance itself must be repeated continually to establish the subject: ―performativity is not a singular act, but a repetition and a ritual, which achieves its effects through its naturalization in the context of a body‖ (Butler, 1999, pp. xiv-xv). Performance is an embodied act, repeated over time. It is naturalized such that it is taken for granted. It is this repetition that declares the ―instability of the very category that it constitutes‖ (Butler, 1996, p. 375). ―‘Agency,‘ then, is to be located within the possibility of a variation on the repetition‖ (Butler, 1999, p. 185). While Butler‘s theory of performativity is prevalent within poststructural feminism, it is not the only or—in my opinion—the most meaningful. Weedon and Davies articulate an agency that relies upon the multiplicity and incommensurability of discourses through which we are constituted. Butler‘s performativity relies on embodied acts for agency. While Weedon‘s and Davies‘ conceptions of agency are not divorced from the body and its acts, they emphasize the role of discourse in agency. At any given time, there are multiple courses available to us through which we constitute ourselves and are constituted: ―Just as there are multiple readings of any text, so there are multiple readings of ourselves. We are constituted through multiple discourses at any one point in time‖ (Davies, 2000, p. 62). Further, a subject exists neither prior to nor outside of her constituting discourses: ―We can only ever speak ourselves or be spoken into existence within the terms of available discourses‖ (Davies, 2000, p. 55). The key word here is ―available.‖ While there are always multiple discourses available to us, not all discourses are accessible, nor are all available discourses equally attractive, accessible, and powerful. We cannot think or be outside of 127 those available discourses through which we constitute ourselves. Discourses determine what is ―possible/thinkable‖ (Davies, 2000, p. 66). Discourses, comprised through language, are—like meaning itself—always shifting, changing, never fixed. ―One can only ever be what the various discourses make possible, and one‘s being shifts with the various discourses through which one is spoken into existence‖ (Davies, 2000, p. 57). Agency occurs in several ways: a) leveraging the multiple discourses which are always available to us; b) using incommensurable discourses against each other to create new spaces; c) influencing the change of discourses. If a subject is reflexive and critical enough, she may be able to analyze and utilize—to leverage—the multiple discourses available to her: The speaking/writing subject can move within and between discourses, can see precisely how they subject her, can use the terms of one discourse to counteract, modify, refuse, or go beyond the other, both in terms of her own experienced subjectivity and the way in which she speaks in relation to the subjectivities of others. (Davies, 2000, p. 60) This is not to say that an agentic subject can simply decide that the discourses through which she constitutes herself and is constituted are unhealthy or unproductive and simply dismiss them or shed them like a snake sheds its skin: Because a person is ―wholly constituted by social discourses, not merely situated in and influenced by them, it is not possible for her (or anyone else)simply to recognize certain discourses and practices as harmful and then effectively dismiss them in such a way that they exert no further influence‖ (Beste, 2006, p. 14). That said, ―we may be exposed to alternative ways of constituting the meaning of our experience which seems to address our interests more directly‖ (Weedon, 1997, p. 33): Though they are regulated and inscribed by discourse and cultural practice, subjects can resist those normalizing inscriptions and their material affects by moving from a discourse were only certain statements can be made to another where different statements are possible. (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 503) Weedon offers an educative example (and one with which I, as a new mother, can identify): The inadequacies widely felt by the new mother, for example, who is inserted in a discourse of motherhood in which she is exposed to childcare demands structured by the social relations of the patriarchal nuclear family, may leave her feeling an unnatural or bad parent. As a mother, she is supposed to meet all the child's needs single-handed, to care for and stimulate the child's physical, emotional and mental development and to feel fulfilled in doing so. The recognition that feelings of inadequacy or failure are common among women in similar positions, that the 128 current organization of childcare is the result, not of nature, but of social and historical developments in the organization of work and procreation, and the contemporary definitions of woman as mother conflict with other subject positions which we are encouraged to assume, offers a frustrated mother a new subject position from which to make sense of her situation, a position which makes her the subject rather than the cause of the contradictions which she is living. (Weedon, 1997, p. 33) Further, the agentic subject ―mobilizes existing discourses in new ways, inverting, inventing and breaking old patterns‖ (Davies, 2000, p. 66). For example, my husband grew up within the evangelical discourse. For him, God was always and only referred to using masculine pronouns. Hearing my use of feminine pronouns to refer to God was initially, in his words, like ―fingernails on a chalkboard,‖ but over time, not only did he get used to such pronoun use but acknowledged that using feminine pronouns to refer to God changed the nature of discussions about God. Thus the disruption—or inversion— of using feminine pronouns to refer to God was ultimately productive, if uncomfortable, for him initially. Thus it is not only the constructedness of our subjectivity but also its incompleteness, its constant and continual change (through changing discourses which are predicated upon language in which meaning is never fixed, is always deferred) that provides the opportunity for agency: The agency of the subject in its poststructural multiplicity is up for grabs, continually reconfigured and renamed as is the subject itself. However, agency seems to lie in the subject‘s ability to decode and re-code it's identity within discursive formulations and cultural practices. (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 504) In addition to leveraging the multiple discourses which are available to us as described above, agency can also be found in the act of using conflicting or incommensurable discourses against one another to create new spaces for thinking and being: ―There is a finite number of discourses in circulation, discourses which are in competition for meaning. It is the conflict between these discourses which creates the possibility of new ways of thinking and new forms of subjectivity‖ (Weedon, 1997, p. 135). The agentic subject is "capable of resistance and innovations produced out of the clash between contradictory subject positions and practices. She is also a subject about to reflect upon the discursive relations which constitute her and the society in which she lives, and able to choose from the options available" (Weedon, 1997, p. 121). For
129 example, one Sunday a number of years ago, after sitting through an agonizingly sexist sermon at Crossover Church, I wondered whether Christianity and feminism were mutually exclusive. I hurried home and spent the next several hours absorbed in reading what I could on the subject online. I stumbled across a British journal called Feminist Theology. I read a handful of articles from several issues. I also found a reference to a 1976 anthropological classic titled When God Was a Woman by Merlin Stone, which described ancient civilizations which honored feminine deities. I procured a copy of Stone‘s text from the library and have renewed it innumerable times. I am loathe to return it. It has somehow become for me a talisman against the dominant evangelical discourses which not only hail God as male but believe from God‘s ―maleness‖ man‘s domination of woman naturally follows. The journal and Stone‘s book represented to me newly available discourses that were quite different from the Catholic and evangelical discourses of male deity to which I was used. I felt an ineffable exhilaration, a buoyancy, and a validation in discovering these alternate discourses on religion. The conflicting nature of these discourses made it possible for me to reflect upon and resist the discourse of religion that had been part of my constituted subjectivity since childhood. I cannot emphasize enough what a profound moment this was for me, and I believe that it ultimately lead me to this topic as my dissertation. Thus, ... by allowing oneself to be aware of the contradictions, of the discursive constitution of the self as contradictory..., one may have access to other ways of knowing and to powerful ways of being that are not the result of normative judgment from within the dominant discourses made by those positioned as agentic within them. (Davies, 2000, pp. 58-59). There is a third way in which a subject can be agentic: influence the change of a discourse. An agentic being is: … one who can go beyond the given meaning and any one discourse and forge something new, through a combination of previously unrelated discourses, through the invention of words and concepts that capture a shifting consciousness that is beginning to occur, or through mentioning not what is, but what might be. (Davies, 2000, p. 67) Fiction can be one way to re-imagine things in a discursively new way, to provide ―imaginative alternatives to the present‖ (Weedon, 1997, p. 167). This is not without limit, however. Within certain discourses, it is impossible to think/speak/act in particular 130 ways—those ways would be unacceptable at best and unrecognizable at most. Yet within and between discourses there is space for imaginings that offer a disruption of current discursive thinking and make possible new ways of thinking and being. Examples abound within the genres of utopian and dystopian literature (e.g. Brave New World). We as agentic subjects are capable of resisting, accepting, shifting, subverting, and accommodating our multiple discourses; nonetheless, agency is always ―fragmented, transitory, a discursive position that can be occupied within one discourse simultaneously with its nonoccupation in another‖ (Davies, 2000, p. 68). We, as agentic, discursively constituted subjects, are entangled in a ―... complex and ambiguous agency in which women accept, accommodate, ignore, resist, or protest -- sometimes all the same time‖ (MacLeod, 1992, p. 534). Davies (2000) provides an excellent summary of agency: Agency is never freedom from discursive constitution of self but the capacity to recognize that constitution and to resist, subvert, and change the discourses themselves through which one is being constituted. It is the freedom to recognize multiple readings such that no discursive practice, or positioning with in it by powerful others, can capture and control one's identity. And agency is never autonomy in the sense of being an individual standing outside social structure and process. Autonomy becomes instead the recognition that power and force presume subcultural counter-power and counter-force and that such subcultures can create new life-forms which disrupt the hegemonic forms, even potentially replacing them. (p. 67)
Qualitative Research Approach
Qualitative research, as a set of interpretive activities, privileges no single methodological practice over another. As a site of discussion, or discourse, qualitative research is difficult to define clearly. It has no theory or paradigm that is distinctly its own.... multiple theoretical paradigms claim use of qualitative research methods and strategies... Nor does qualitative research have a distinct set of methods or practices that are entirely its own.... No specific method or practice can be privileged over any other. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, pp. 6-7)
Although—or perhaps because—qualitative research has no single, privileged methodological practice, nor does it prescribe a specific method or practice, it is
131 incumbent upon the researcher to explain how her own theoretical framework (―theoretical paradigm‖) shapes her qualitative research. As such, the section that follows represents the way in which I am approaching qualitative research, given my theoretical framework of poststructural feminism. I draw the following tenants of poststructural feminist research practice from the work of Bronwyn Davies (2004): 1. ―‘Data‘ do not stand as transparent evidence of that which is real. . . Statements or descriptions reveal the ways in which sense is being made, rather than the object of the sense making‖ (p. 4). Davies is not claiming that nothing is real; rather, as researchers we can never capture or portray or communicate that which is ―real‖ in any transparent or unproblematic way. The limitation on data is that it is always discursively produced; it exists within a discursive tradition that ties it to all sorts of conditions about what can be real and how it can be known and how it should be communicated. As such, a researcher must be aware of these limitations and forthcoming with the reader about them. 2. When researchers discuss ―‘the way that sense is made,‘ they are not attempting to reveal something about the sense maker (the subject) her- or himself … but about the possibilities of sense making available within the discourses within a particular sense-making community‖ (pp. 4-5). When discussing data and the limitations and legitimation of it, poststructural feminists aren‘t talking about these things vis-a-vis the specific researcher but rather about the discursive community in/through which she conducts research. That is why so much discussion—and so many pages—within this dissertation are focused on poststructural feminism and what my discursive positioning within that framework means for what research question(s) I ask, what constitutes data, how I interact with participants, how I analyze data, my claims of trustworthiness, and how I represent the aforementioned to the reader. 3. ―Ways of making sense are not only not transparent, they are not innocent‖ (p. 5). All research—regardless of the discursive framework used— serves certain purposes instead of others—purposes that are tied to values that are
132 inextricable from the discursive framework itself. As such, no research is ever innocent. It is always tied to values which—in one way or another—are always political. My research is openly ideological: My purpose is to deconstruct that which oppresses women and—by virtue of deconstructing it—hopefully open it up to critique and change. This project is certainly not innocent. 4. The language as it is presented in texts produced as data is not respected as if it did reveal the real but my be deconstructed and broken open to show the ways in which the real is constructed‖ (p. 5). Language constitutes reality, and different discursive frameworks use language to construct reality differently—or rather construct different realities. The use of deconstructed as a method of analysis can reveal how language is used to construct reality. For example, within the evangelical discourse, the concept of ―headship‖ represents the reality of the relationship and role of husbands to their wives. Headship is very real—and very valued—within evangelical discourse, but it exists not at all within certain other discursive traditions, including poststructural feminism. My participants' artifacts are not the only "texts" that I deconstruct; their experiences and self-reports -- shared with me through interviews -- are also constructed texts, and the meaning that I make of these texts is informed by my own discourses: As language constitutes subjectivity, both fiction and individuals' self- reports are examples of this constitution... First, the notion of experience (or behavior, self-reports, etc.) as text implies that we should approach the reports and accounts of those we research as discursive productions and not as reflections (accurate, distorted, or otherwise) of their "true" experience. Second, the poststructuralist emphasis on reading and the multiple meanings of texts reminds us that our understanding (reading) of our research data is really the constitution of such data, insofar as they are meaningful, and is controlled by our own location in various discourses -- for example, scientific, humanist, therapeutic, feminist, and so on. (Gavey, 1989, p. 466) 5. ―Researchers are not separate from their data, nor should they be‖ (p. 5). Who I am—how I constitute myself and am constituted by my multiple, overlapping, and conflicting discourse has all sorts of ramifications for my data— for what data I gather, how I gather data, what data I choose to hear/see/feel/notice/accept as data, and what I do with that data. I cannot extricate
133 myself from my data; nor can I extricate the data from myself. What I can do is to reflexively acknowledge this and be aware and wary of it, so be as transparent as possible with the reader about it (see ―Reflexivity‖ section later in this chapter). 6. ―Science is perceived as one system of discourse which produces knowledge in certain ways rather than as a hallowed discourse whose function is necessarily to be better than others‖ (p. 6). ―Science‖ itself is a powerful discourse—one that accepts or rejects certain methodologies as legitimate. Poststructuralist feminists reject the notion that the discourse of science is the one, best way of knowing (of constructing knowledge) and that it always advances humanity and understanding. On the contrary, history is rife with stories of science gone wrong, of it wronging people (consider, for example, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and myriad studies by imperialist powers of colonized Others). 7. ―The author is not the final arbiter of meanings, nor can she/he necessarily control meanings‖ (p. 6). Just as all data are discursively produced, so are all meanings made by readers of research. A text‘s meaning is always negotiated by the reader. That said, some readings of texts are more credible than others. Nonetheless, all readings—and the credibility assigned to them—are made available by the discourses framing the reading. 8. ―The point of analysis is not to expose the hidden truth in all its simplicity, but to disrupt that which is taken as stable/unquestionable truth. Such disruptions are closely associated with a sense of agency—or the capacity to create new trajectories‖ (p. 7). Poststructural feminism—and its use of deconstruction as a method of analysis—is about poking at things that are often so taken for granted, so ―unpassremarkable,‖ that they are barely noticeable. It is about asking unasked questions, about turning over, breaking open, and dissecting ―Truth‖. This particular study is about examining the taken-for-granted gendered identity of evangelical women and exploring the multiple discourses by/through which participants are constituted and constitute themselves.
134 Deconstruction as Method of Analysis In its most general sense, deconstruction encompasses a constellation of methodologies placed in the service of decentering … It has taken on a more general meaning of dismantling truths. Deconstructionist methodologies aim to generate skepticism about beliefs that are often taken for granted . . . (Collins, 2000, p. 53).
Like ―feminism‖ and ―poststructuralism,‖ the term ―deconstruction‖ is difficult to fit into a tidy Webster‘s definition. Deconstruction is both a discourse and a method. Methodologically, it rejects positivist science‘s attempt to discover what is true and real. Truth is always local, partial, and reflects the discourses of the researcher, all while recognizing that ―how we think we know what we know is neither transparent nor innocent" (Visweswaran, 1994, p. 80). Instead, it offers a ―provocative validity‖ that focuses on the unsaid, the implied; it troubles accepted interpretations and offers new ones. In doing so, deconstruction positions its new interpretations not as best or final but as different, alternative: It should be stressed, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with ‗deconstruction,‘ that such an undertaking seeks out the unspoken, the implicit and the contradictory … In so doing it aims for a ‗provocative‘ validity and the performance of alternative interpretations. These do not constitute a new bedrock on which appraisal can confidently be founded. Instead, they unsettle conventional readings in ways which open up new understandings and richer appreciation of the dilemmas of this sort of appraisal, in terms of its ambitions to ‗correspondence‘, ‗consensus‘ or—as I will eventually argue—‗translation‘. (Stronach, 2007, p. 344) Deconstruction is about looking not only at a text, but under it, into it, and through it to uncover and illuminate not only what it says and does not say but also what is assumes about power and truth. ―Deconstructive analysis begins with uncovering the assumptions that operate explicitly and implicitly in particular texts and discourses‖ (Weems, 2006, p. 999) and it confronts the "place of power in our processes of interpretation‖ (Visweswaran, 1994, p. 79). In my project, I use deconstruction to analyze participants‘ artifact and the discourses in/through which they constitute themselves and are constituted. Deconstruction lends itself well to feminism. Indeed, it has been taken up and utilized by many feminist and queer scholars. Derrida explains why:
135 Because deconstruction has developed itself as deconstruction of a structure which is called phallogocentrism, which is a whole structure, which is a system, so to speak. And it‘s not only a matter of concepts, of philosophical battle, but it‘s also a problem of how to write, how to behave in front of texts, in the institution, and of the relationship to literature and philosophy and so on. (Derrida, 2005b, p. 148) Deconstruction has been utilized by feminist and queer scholars to problematize the phallocentric nature of ―scholarship,‖ of the discourse of science that makes claims about what constitutes knowledge, how one should approach research, how one should write, etc. While deconstruction is skeptical of taken for granted truths, it is not nihilistic. Detractors have erroneously ―often and so stupidly accused [deconstruction] of being perverse or amoral, cynical, skeptical, nihilist, or relativist‖ (Derrida, 2005a, p. 717). Deconstruction does problematize traditional values and beliefs and does deny objective truth, but deconstructionists like Derrida reject the nihilistic notion that existence is senseless and useless and that nothing is real or true at all. Quite on the contrary, deconstruction can be productive, generative in that it troubles what is accepted and makes new spaces for understanding and knowing. Derrida states, ―However affirmative deconstruction is, it is affirmative in a way that is not simply positive, not simply conservative, not simply a way of repeating the given … we are able to criticize, to transform, to open‖ (1997, pp. 5-6). Deconstruction is the tension between the ―preservation of something that has been given to us, and at the same time, heterogeneity, something absolutely new, and a break‖ (Derrida, 1997, p. 6). Deconstruction can be an ―adventure of vision, a conversion of the way of putting questions to any object posed before us‖ (Derrida, 1978, p. 3). It is this generative approach to deconstruction that I hope is embodied in my work. For my project, I have deconstructed the texts of my participants, looking not only at the surface of the texts but also diving into, down, and through them.
136 Trustworthiness
Positivist research is replete with considerations of objectivity, validity, reliability, and generalizability (Lather, 2006). Postpositivist research rejects these constructs because it rejects their ontological underpinnings, including the notion that there is a single, knowable, definable Truth/reality that can be unproblematically recognized and communicated by a purely objective researcher to an innocent, passive receiver/consumer of research.19 Nonetheless, it is difficult for researchers raised and existing in a positivist world to completely reject the need to make some claim as to the quality of research: Since conventional social science has repeatedly been declared dead, as least theoretically, by postpositivist critics (e.g., Barone, 1990; Eisner, 1990; Guba, 1990; Howe & Eisenhard, 1990; Phillips, 1983), it is curious that many postpositivists continue to utilize validity even though they are quite willing to dump conventional science, the nomological net from which validity derived its meaning. (Scheurich, 1996, p. 2) Scheurich compares postpositivist researchers to emigrants who ―often take their ‗birthplace‘ culture (the conventional approach) with them to the new land (postpositivism)‖ (Scheurich, 1996, p. 245). In the ―new land‖ of postpositivist research, such as poststructural feminist research, the concern for quality is variously framed as credibility, adequacy, legitimation, trustworthiness (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), and interpretive sufficiency (Christians, 2005). I have elected to choose the term ―trustworthiness‖ because the researcher must in words and deeds be worthy of participants‘ and readers‘ trust in how she approaches and interacts with participants and how she attains, records, stores,
19 I am using the term ―postpositivism‖ as an umbrella to refer to various methodological approaches that reject the tenants of positivism (e.g. single, knowable Truth; objectivity; validity; reliability; generalizability, etc.). Other researchers, including Scheurich (1996), Weems (2006), and Lather (2006), use the term ―postpositivism‖ in this way. I do recognize that Denzin and Lincoln (2005) frame postpositivism, like positivism, as working ―from within a realist and critical realist ontology and objective epistemologies‖ (p. 24) and that they differentiate between postpositive research and constructivist- interpretive, critical, and poststructural feminist research. I, however, frame constructivist-interpretive, critical, and poststructural feminist frameworks as examples of—and under the umbrella of—postpositivist research. 137 analyzes, and represents data. Trustworthiness, therefore, speaks to both the credibility, the believability of the research as well as to the ethical considerations required by the research. Indeed, postpositivist research brings ―about the collapse of the distinctions between standards, rigor, and quality criteria and the formerly separate consideration of research ethics‖ (Lincoln, 1995, p. 286).
Positionality and Ideological Research Regarding the credibility or believability of postpositivist research, ―there is no such thing as ‗getting it right,‘ only ‗getting it‘ differently contoured and nuanced‖ (Richardson, 2000, p. 521). Poststructural feminism rejects objective, absolute, universal Truth and accepts only situated, partial truths: Positionality, or standpoint epistemology, recognizes the poststructural, postmodern argument that texts, any texts, are always partial and incomplete; socially, culturally, historically, racially, and sexually located; and can therefore never represent any truth except those truths that exhibit the same characteristics. (Lincoln, 1995, p. 280) As such, the research that these women and I do will make no claims about how all evangelical women think, make meaning, and deal with multiple, contradictory, and competing discourses. Instead, it will recognize that what is represented through our texts within the text (their artifacts, my analysis and poetry, and their member checks within the larger dissertation text) are partial, incomplete, situated truths about these women‘s worlds. The project embodies a ―situated, partial, positioned, explicit tentativeness‖ (Lather, 1997, p. 16). Indeed, the very purpose of this research is not to provide an objective, distanced account of these women‘s experiences. Rather, this research is about what participants choose to share about their multiple discourses and why; it‘s about exploring the ways in which the women navigate and make meaning of their discursively produced selves, and hopefully troubling the ways in which they constitute/are constituted by their evangelical Christian discourses. As such, my research is openly ideological. Once we recognize that just as there is no neutral education there is no neutral research, we no longer need apologize for unabashedly ideological research and
138 its open commitment to using research to criticize and change the status quo. (Lather, 1986, p. 67) I believe that the ways in which ―female‖ is constructed through evangelical Christian discourse(s) marginalizes women. It is oppressive and limiting. My research interest is to understand how evangelical Christian women negotiate and navigate their multiple discourses. I want to focus on the ways in these women make meaning and embrace and approximate and sublimate their gendered evangelical Christian discourses. In doing so, I hope that the experiences and stories of these women incite dialogue and reflection within scholarly as well as evangelical discourses. As such, my research has a decidedly ideological commitment. That said, I do not seek what Lather calls catalytic validity, the ―degree to which the research process re-orients, focuses, and energizes participants in what Freire (1973) terms ‗conscientization,‘ knowing reality in order to better transform it‖ (1986, p. 67). If I as a researcher am to listen genuinely to and dignify the voices and experiences of my participants, I cannot attempt with my research to ―consciously channel this impact so that respondents gain self-understanding and, ideally, self-determination through research participation‖ (Lather, 1986, p. 67). To do so is condescending. It assumes that the participants lack self-understanding and self-determination. It assumes that they are in need of conscientization and that I and my research can provide it. As researcher, I am no hero attempting to save or free participants. I am not convinced that they are in jeopardy or are in need of salvation, nor that I would be capable of providing it. That said, I like to think that any time we as humans think deeply and authentically about our lives, experiences, and identities that we are doing good work for ourselves. As such, perhaps the women of this study have found value in their participation. I certainly hope so, but if they do find meaning, it is to their credit and not mine.
Strategies to Establish Trustworthiness Postpositivist researchers have access to a variety of tools to establish trustworthiness. Those that I am utilizing include careful data documentation, reflexivity, member responses, reciprocity, and sacredness.
139 In addition to keeping a reflexive research journal (see next section), I have taken extensive field notes throughout this project, including copious notes taken during my interviews of the women. I also digitally photographed and preserved the women‘s artifacts and made audio recordings of their interviews20.
Reflexivity In postpositivist research, one of the tools used to establish trustworthiness is to keep a reflexive journal, which is a ―kind of diary in which the investigator on a daily basis, or as needed, records a variety of information about self (hence the word ‗reflexive‘) and method‖ (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 327). Reflexivity is about attempting to be as self-aware as possible as a researcher, to question one‘s assumptions, interpretations, and assertions, to be as fully attentive as possible to all manner of concerns: Self-reflexivity unmasks complex political/ideological agendas hidden in our writing. Truth claims are less easily validated now; desires to speak ‗for‘ others are suspect. (Richardson, 2000, p. 523) Reflexivity can never be complete or perfect, and it is about ―neither paralysis nor endless self-probing, but about opening new sites for work, a reflexivity that is about relational engagement rather than hermetic self-absorption‖ (Lather, 1997, p. 19). In my research, I have used the two-column, reflexive/field notes journal approach outlined by Richardson (2000), that contains observation notes, methodological notes, theoretical notes, and personal notes.
Member Responses A number of qualitative researchers also use member checks as a way to establish trustworthiness. [Member checks] . . . whereby data, analytic categories, interpretations, and conclusions are tested with members of those stakeholding groups from whom the data were originally collected, is the most crucial technique for establishing credibility. If the investigator is to be able to purport that his or her reconstructions are recognizable to audience members as adequate representations
20 See Methods section of this chapter for a discussion of the accidental loss of the audio recordings made of two women‘s interviews. 140 of their own (and multiple) realities, it is essential that they be given the opportunity to react to them. (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 314) I prefer to use the phrase ―member responses‖ instead of member checks. The term ―member checks‖ suggests that there exists what really happened and what didn’t happen and that members will check to ensure that the researcher got what really happened right. As a poststructuralist, I think of reality as being socially constructed. As such, there is no what really happened. What really happened is a construct. Nonetheless, I believe in the value of having research participants read, reflect on, and react to a researcher‘s use and analysis of their data. I have asked participants to read my analysis and respond to it in some fashion (through writing, verbal response, etc.). I have included those responses (and at times my responses to their responses) in the following chapters. Doing so has helped me to reflect upon and, as needed, revise my work.
Reciprocity I will also use the commitment of reciprocity to establish trustworthiness. ―Commonsense definitions of reciprocity imply an equal exchange between persons‖ (Weems, 2006, p. 996). Reciprocity, however, is not so simply defined. It has a specific history of use and multiple purposes and iterations. Reciprocity itself is a response to— and rejection of—the positivist relationship between researcher and subject: ―Early inscriptions of reciprocity emerged in the 1970s and 1980s in response to positivist assumptions of neutrality and distance in researching human subjects‖ (Weems, 2006, p. 997). Postpositivist researchers—including poststructural feminists--reject the notion that a researcher can achieve neutrality and compartmentalize herself from her participants. There is no objective researcher who maintains distance in a neutral, unbiased way. Further, postpositivists seek to work ―against the [positivist] view of participants as mere objects of data collection‖ (Weems, 2006, p. 997). As such, reciprocity is about replacing the metaphor of researcher as leech, sucking data from subjects, to researcher as one who interacts authentically with participants and who cares about their well-being. Reciprocity is conceptualized in different ways. Some see it as research that is advantageous to both researcher and participant; some as a way to develop better rapport
141 with participants and therefore get better data; some as the expression of gratitude through favors proffered by researcher to participants (Weems, 2006); and some as the researcher opening up about herself and trying to transcend the space between researcher and participant (Lincoln, 1995). Further, for some reciprocity is about trying to address the power differential between the researcher and her participants (Weems, 2006). Reciprocity is a ―kind of intense sharing that opens all lives party to the inquiry to examination‖ (Lincoln, 1995, pp. 283-284). Through reciprocity, the researcher moves from being a distant, anonymous automaton to a flesh and blood person who gives of herself, who shares herself with participants, as she asks them to share of themselves with her. In approaching the researcher-participant relationship in this way, it is hoped that the power differential between researcher and participant‘s is reduced or nullified. I believe that it is impossible to nullify the power differential between researcher and participant. Further, reducing the power differential does not necessarily make research more ethical; history is rife with examples of equals who act not only disrespectfully but even cruelly towards one another. Conversely, research in which the power differential exists is not necessarily unethical. On the contrary, research in which the power differential is acknowledged and serves as the nexus for reflexivity can be not only ethical but caring. I acknowledge that there exists a power differential between my participants and me. I chose the research topic, I wrote the prompt, and I created the interview questions. I invited them to participate in my research as I designed it—not to co-design the research or mutually agree upon the topic and prompt. ―Discourses construct authority through the inquiry project from selection of the topic to data analysis and even postfield reflexive accounts‖ (Weems, 2006, p. 1002). My participants did not interview me; nor did they analyze their own data (although they were invited to respond to my analysis of their data). In the sense that I respond to their responses of my analysis (it‘s like the back and forth of a tennis match), I get the ―final word‖—the ultimate trump card—in writing about their data. I have not tried to obliterate this significant power differential. I cannot destroy power. Power is ubiquitous; it exists always in a complex web throughout the
142 social fabric (Foucault, 1977); instead of rejecting my power, I am trying to identify it, acknowledge it, and carefully watch how it affects my interactions with participants, their responses to it, and whether it is causing deleterious effects on participants. I am not conceptualizing reciprocity in any of the aforementioned ways. Instead, while I reject the desire of some researchers to dissolve the power differential between researcher and participants, I still seek to establish reciprocity in the sense that it is about ―relationships that are ―‘caring,‘ ‗non-oppressive,‘ and ‗accountable‘‖ (Weems, 2006, 997). This is both easier and more complicated in my research situation. Because I have a friendship with each of these four women, they already know more about me as a researcher than participants generally would when embarking on a research project. On the other hand, simultaneously performing and navigating the discourses of researcher and friend is complex and gives rise to some interesting ethical questions. For example, all four women know that I am working hard to earn my PhD and how much it means to me. They also know how passionate I am about my topic. How has this knowledge influenced their decision to participate? Even though they all signed my IRB form stating that they are voluntarily participating in my study and were not coerced into doing so, were they somehow less free (constrained by their performance of friendship) to refuse participation than they would have been had a stranger or acquaintance asked them to participate? Additionally, my participants know that I have a feminist and question/critique aspects of Christianity. In one respect I have shared with them things about myself. In another respect, however, I wonder if what they know about my views has influenced their responses to questions. Have they performed friendship in such a way as to say/react differently to my interview questions than they would to the same questions posed by a stranger or by a friend with different views? I have asked my participants four questions at the end of the interview to explore that ways in which who I am as a feminist and friend impacts the relationship between researcher and participant and influences their participation: Why did you decide to participate in this study? What do you believe about my beliefs? Did your beliefs about my beliefs color/censor anything that you shared? How does our relationship as friends color and nuance this project/interview?
143 Do you have any other thoughts about this research project (e.g. hopes, fears, questions, concerns, excitement)? In spite of participants‘ responses to these questions—or perhaps because of them—I still believe that who I am and not I relate to my participants in friendship has affected this study in ways that I might not even realize and cannot articulate. The best that I can do is to be as transparent as possible with the reader about my positionality, my relationship to the women, and what the participants‘ reported in response to the aforementioned questions. Does my relationship of friendship with my participants make my research better than if a stranger to these women had followed the same methods? I think not. My relationship with my participants neither disqualifies nor exonerates me from issues of trustworthiness. My relationship with them makes the research different—differently flavored, differently nuanced—but not better. Indeed, even two different strangers to these women who each followed my methods separately would still each yield somewhat different—but not necessarily ―better‖ or ―worse‖—findings. Who the researcher is--the discourses in/through which the researcher exists and operates—inform how one approaches, conducts, analyzes, and draws conclusions about research. Reciprocity mindful of the linguistic turn may involve relocating ethics away from consciousness (knowing and being) and interpersonal relations between individuals toward an investigation of the historical, social, cultural, and locally contingent discourses that enable particular knowledges and practices of representation. In this way, reciprocity itself is viewed as a textual event that is open to interpretation, settlement, distillation, and contestation. (Weems, 2006, p. 1008) As such, it is imperative that the researcher be as transparent and candid as possible with the reader (and the participants??) about how the research is constituted discursively—all the while knowing that all such efforts are partial, incomplete, problematic, themselves discursively produced, and not innocent. Sigh! Such a complex and flawed thing is research. But such flaws do not annihilate the possibility of research—even quality research—but rather compel us as researchers to constantly, painstakingly attempt to reflect on these matters and be as open as possible about them with readers (and participants??).
144 Sacredness Perhaps it is ironic that I am so critical of evangelical discourse but elect to utilize the concept of ―sacredness‖ in my approach to research: The spiritual, or sacred, side of science emerges from a profound concern for human dignity, justice, and interpersonal respect. (Lincoln, 1995, p. 284) Sacredness is about making ―space for the lifeways of others‖ (Lincoln, 1995, p. 284). Again, this is both easier and more complicated in my situation. Because I know and love these women, I already bring to this project a deep respect for them. On the other hand, because I know them, I have tried to guard against expecting them to perform themselves in/through this project in certain ways. To do so would be disrespectful of the multiplicity of identities that we each embody. Similarly, was it a challenge for them to experience my performance of researcher? To what extent and in what ways did I perform ―researcher‖ differently with these women than I would have with other participants? Nonetheless, one of the things that I love and respect most about these women is their capacity to accept and embrace me.
Institutional Review Board Approval While both the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and its critics would balk at the notion that its role has to do with the sacred, the IRB was established to protect the dignity as well as physical and emotional well-being of research subjects21. The approval of my research proposal by the IRB in 2006 was not the quick and easy process that I expected it to be. Indeed, the IRB had several concerns about my initial proposal, including the selection of participants, the impact that my friendship with participants might have had on their willingness to participate in this study, whether I would make my findings available to women, the rights of disinterested third-party persons who may appear in photo or video artifacts by participants, and "reproduction rights" regarding participants' artifacts.
21 According to C. G. Christians: "In 1978, the U.S. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral Research was established. As a result, three principles, published in what became known as the Belmont Report, were developed as the moral standards for research involving human subjects: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice" (p. 146). 145 The aforementioned IRB concerns came in the form of an email, dated August of 2006, from Dr. James Swartz, then Chair of the Miami University IRB Committee. Per his request, my responses22 (in bold and underlined) to the IRB's concerns were sent to him via an email response to his original email. My email to him (which also includes his original writing to me) appears below: Dr. Schwartz and IRB Review Panel: Below are responses to the questions raised by the Panel regarding my IRB proposal, "How Evangelical Women Negotiate Discourses in the Construction of Self: A Feminist Poststructural Analysis” (06-013).
In addition to responding to the questions below and making the relevant changes to my IRB application and corresponding materials for participants23, I also made the following change: Originally I had used the term “creation” to refer to what the participants create in response to the prompt. In all attached drafts, I have changed the term to “textual production.”24
Thank you for your consideration of my responses/revisions. In the attachments, I have bolded and underlined changes/additions.
Please let me know if you have further questions.
Thank you.
--Kimberly Kappler > > >> Dear Dr. Weems and Ms. Kappler: >> >>
22 Because the e-mail from Dr. Schwartz was sent to my Miami University e-mail account, which was not set up correctly to forward to my active e-mail account, I did not receive the e-mail from Dr. Schwartz. Indeed, I was unaware of its existence until November of 2006 when Dr. Weems informed me of it. My e-mail response to Dr. Schwartz was dated November 22, 2006. The 23 My revised IRB application, recruitment letter, consent form, and Media Consent and Release form all appear in Appendix A. 24 In this dissertation, I have used the term "artifact" instead of the phrase "textual production" because it is a less unwieldy term and because the term "artifact" connotes a specific historicity of what these women produced for this project. 146 >> >> Your IRB proposal, "How evangelical women negotiate discourses in the >> construction of self: a feminist poststructural analysis", has >> received its initial review; however, there are a few concerns that >> need to be addressed before it can be approved. >> >> >> >> Reviewers expressed the following concerns: >> >> >> >> How many women were originally included in the book study? Please >> clarify the procedures for selecting the five women (from the target >> study group) to participate in the research project.
There were originally eight women in the book study, including me. The five25 women whom I would like to invite to participate in the study are all educators in some capacity (teacher, principal, pre-service teacher, corporate trainer, etc.). The only criteria for selection from those involved in the book study was affiliation with education. I have revised my IRB application to reflect this additional information. >> >> >> >> How will your dual role as a researcher and friend of the five women >> impact their willingness to participate in the study as intended?
While I cannot say for sure, I believe that my friendship with these five women will increase their willingness to participate in my study as intended. I believe that their willingness to participate will not be borne of a sense of obligation or coercion. Rather, I think that their interest in participation will be a combined function of their willingness to share/express their views, their interest in helping with my dissertation research, and their interest in the topic and the idea of creating something that represents their experiences.
25 Originally, I had intended to have five participants in the study. However, shortly after applying to the IRB, one of the potential participants left her role in education to embark upon an entrepreneurial endeavor. Therefore, I did not invite her to participate in the study. 147 Although the women are perhaps more likely to agree to participate because they know and trust me, conducting a study involving friends as participants creates many challenges. While I list a few of these challenges below, I cannot foresee all challenges that may arise. “Even the most responsible researcher cannot possibly anticipate what might happen until he or she is in the thick of dealing with actual people and actual situations” (Magolda & Weems, 2002, p. 496). Nonetheless, in the paragraphs below I attempt to point out some of the potential challenges that I may encounter because of my friendships with participants.
First, I must be ever vigilant to ensure that I am not leveraging my friendship with them to pressure them to initially participate or to continue to participate in the study if they feel uncomfortable and would like to quit.
Second, always in mind my will be questions such as, “How will S feel if I say this about her textual production or question what she said about T? What if what I say about her or her textual production hurts her? What if she disagrees with what I say about her textual production or interview responses?” While these are questions that all researchers should consider regardless of who their participants are, such questions are more immediate, more personal, and have greater potential for long-lasting effects because of my friendship with these women. My duty goes beyond the ethics of researcher-participant to the even greater commitment of friend-friend. In a sense, my friendships with these women hold me to an even greater standard of ethics and integrity than even that of the IRB.
Third, because these women not only know me but know each other, there is the potential that they will discuss the project—and their textual productions--amongst themselves. This could have all sorts of unintended, unforeseeable effects. For example, even though the women will be asked to choose a pseudonym for themselves in the research, they might share their pseudonyms with one another and then regret the vulnerability that such disclosure might create. Or perhaps they do not share their pseudonyms with each other, but they each use what they know about each other to figure out who is who in the dissertation. Perhaps several wish to share their pseudonyms but the others do not. Therefore even though each woman’s participation in the project is individual and nothing will be done as a group, there is the potential that participants may pressure or influence one another. Again, I must be vigilant, observant, and responsive, should such pressure occur.
While these potential challenges are significant, they are not insurmountable. Rather, part of what excites me about this project is the intimacy of it, the challenge and opportunity 148 of being in meaningful relationships with participants, of truly, deeply valuing their experiences and perspectives. Such challenges are “productive discomfort” (Herzfeld, 1996).
The fact that I know these women and they know each other creates a number of possible challenges to the research. As such, I am required to carefully and ethically navigate each challenge as it arises and take even greater care in what I say and do not say in the dissertation. Such qualitative research dissolves the “hard boundaries between rigor and ethics [and] in turn signals that the new research is a relational research—a research grounded in the recognition and a valuing of connectedness between research and researched” (Lincoln, 1995, p. 287).
Lincoln, Y. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275-289.
Herzfeld, M. (1996). Productive discomfort: Anthropological fieldwork and the dislocation of etiquette. In M. Garber, P. Franklin, & R. Walkowitz (Eds.), Field Work: Sites in Literacy and Cultural Studies (pp. 41-51). New York: Routledge.
Magolda, P. & Weems, L. (2002). Doing harm: An unintended consequence of qualitative inquiry? Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 490-507.
I have revised my IRB proposal to reflect this additional information. >> >> >> >> Will you make the findings available to these women?
Yes, I will make findings available to these women. I will provide each participant with a copy of the finished dissertation as well as any published piece in which their textual productions appear. I have revised my IRB application, letter to potential participants, and consent form to reflect this idea. >> >> >> >> What if the participants video or photograph someone else for their >> reflection? What rights does this disinterested person have?
In the case that a participant would include in her textual production another person (e.g. in a video, photograph, or other media form), the participant would provide the third 149 party with a copy of the Media Consent and Release form (see attached). This form, which would need to be signed by any third party that would appear/participate in a research participant’s textual production, grants to me permission to edit and use the related media and also waives rights of compensation and ownership of the media. Further, the Media Consent and Release form releases me from any claims of liability regarding the media.
(Before creating my Media Consent and Release form, I reviewed a number of media release forms used by various organizations; I drew ideas from these samples when I created my own form.)
I have revised my IRB proposal and Research Participation Consent form to reflect these additions. A copy of the Media Consent and Release form is attached to this email. >> >> >> >> Will the artwork etc. be reproduced in a journal article? Who owns >> the rights to reproduce the artwork and will you need permission to do so? >> You >> only discuss how long you will you will keep the artwork in the >> consent letter. Reproduction rights need to be included in the >> consent letter and in your IRB application.
There is the potential that participants’ textual productions would be reproduced in a published piece(s) beyond my dissertation. In order to facilitate potential future publication, I will ask in my Research Participation Consent form that participants provide me with complete reproduction rights to their textual productions. As such, I have amended my IRB application and consent form to reflect reproduction rights. As I stated in response to a prior question, I am committed to due diligence in providing participants with copies of any publication in which their textual productions appear. >> >> >> >> The best way to respond to this message is by email. Please highlight >> your changes in bold and underlining. >> >> Regards, >> >> James Swartz >> Professor, Educational Psychology >> Chair, IRB Committee 150 The above exchange illustrates several important ethical issues. First, in my response I attempt to explain that my relationship to participants compels me to a higher code of ethics than is required by the IRB. To me, the friend -- friend relationship is more sacred even than the researcher -- participant relationship. Second, I had not even thought to consider the rights of disinterested third parties, and the IRB's concern about these rights led me to investigate and develop the Media Consent and Release form, which appears in Appendix A, along with my revised IRB application, recruitment letter, and revised consent form. Essentially though, the effect of having third parties sign away their rights is not much different than unintentionally ignoring their rights in the first place. That said, I believe that it is imperative of the researcher to honor the rights not only of participants but also of those who unintentionally become part of the research project itself. Third, the phrase "reproduction rights" used by the IRB to refer to participants' artifacts is ironic. Often, the phrase is used colloquially to refer to women's sexual reproduction rights and not to rights regarding the replication of artifacts created by women. In addition to the necessity of addressing these rights, it is ironic how the IRB's discourse of research ethics utilizes the same terminology that refers to the most intimate rights held by women -- their sexual reproduction rights. Nonetheless, in my response to the IRB, I explained that I had revised the consent letter so that participants relinquished their rights to their artifacts (their "reproduction rights"): In order to facilitate potential future publication, I ask that you grant permission to me to reproduce, use, edit, distribute, digitize and transcribe your textual production, in whole or part, for the purposes of research and publication.
Further, I ask that you consent and grant permission that your textual production may be used free and clear of any claim to compensation or ownership thereto. I elected to ask participants to relinquish their rights to their artifacts not because I do not respect their relationship to their artifacts but rather for logistical ease. The IRB seemed to want a cleanness and simplicity that was more easily obtained by granting participants no ―reproduction rights‖ at all than protecting those rights, which would have been somewhat cumbersome: I would have had to request, obtain, and store their consent each time I wished to submit a document for publication that included part or all of their artifacts. Ironically, in this incident, I chose logistical ease over greater ethical sensitivity,
151 and I'm not sure I‘m comfortable with that compromise. Nonetheless, I felt that doing so would ease the way to IRB approval of my project. Thus ironically, in serving the interests of the IRB, logistical ease trumped ethical sensitivity. While I recognize and value the very necessary role of the IRB, I do not feel that the IRB's concerns compelled my project to become more trustworthy or ethical. In fact, my reflexive concerns for my participants go far beyond the code of ethics required by the IRB.
Writing as Inquiry, Writing as Creation, and Writing as Agency Writing has the dual role of being a method of inquiry and an act of representation. Richardson (2000) writes of the inextricability of form and content. For her, writing is a ―method of inquiry, a way of finding out about yourself and your topic‖ and a way of ―‘knowing‘—a method of discovery and analysis‖ (p. 516). For my project, writing (or more inclusively creating) is a way for participants as well as myself to find out what we think about things, ourselves, our topic. As the adage goes, I cannot know what I think until I read what I have written. In addition to writing being a method of inquiry, it is often the act of representation of research. Qualitative research has not only ushered in new research methods but has also introduced new methods of representation and consideration for the voice of the participant. From Richardson‘s writing on autobiography, cultural stories, and collective stories (1990) to Van Maanen‘s impressionist tales (1988), to Visweswaran‘s ―Sari Stories‖ (1994) to Lather and Smithie‘s Troubling the Angels: Women Living with HIV/AIDS (1997), to Mystories (Magolda, 1999; Ulmer, 1994), to hypertext (Morgan, 2000), unconventional forms of representation are being explored as new ways of making and sharing meaning. In the successive chapters, I have used a mixed genres (Richardson, 2000) approach. I have juxtaposed participants‘ creative works (their artifacts in response to the ―chair‖ prompt) next to my own analysis, in the form of both expository writing and poetry. As such, there are a number of texts within the larger text (dissertation). I believe that this juxtaposing creates spaces for participants‘ voices to be heard and spaces for the reader to make meanings and
152 connections across the texts. In this sense, I hope that juxtaposing these texts can serve as a form of agency for researcher, participants, and readers. For me as researcher, I found that I could express certain ideas through poetry that I could not do so through expository writing. For my participants, it is my hope that the act of creating a text -- their artifact -- and seeing that artifact in print as they created it -- and not just the meaning of it mediated through myself as researcher -- has been empowering and agentic experience. For the reader, agency lies in the fact that the interconnections amongst the texts, meanings of the texts, and the value of the research itself are all mediated and ultimately determined by the reader.
Methods
Participants Originally, I had invited four young, professional, evangelical women educators who had participated in the book study of Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman’s Soul by John and Stasi Eldredge26 to take part in this project. Each of the women—Kali, Gretchen, Kelly, and Sam—agreed. Circumstances, however, required that Kali withdraw from the project. Soon after the research began, she gave birth to her first child and experienced fairly severe postpartum depression that required medical treatment. As such, she voluntarily withdrew from the project. After Kali‘s withdraw, I invited Nina to participate. Nina, a special education teacher at a public elementary school, did not take part in the original Captivating book study, but she and I participated together in a different small group study. That study group was comprised of couples, and Nina and her husband—who had not been married long prior to the group‘s formation—participated. Although I did not know Nina as well as the other participants in my project, she agreed to take part. Because I am friends with my participants in had participated with them in the aforementioned study groups, I do not have the challenges of entrée, establishing rapport,
153 and building trust, that face many researchers. Indeed, the nature of our friendships and study group participation involved deeply personal and often raw discussions. Therefore, discussing with me personal views, experiences, and beliefs was not new for my participants, but taking part in a research project in the more formal nature of the interview questions were certainly new for these women. While I did not have common research challenges of entrée, rapport, and trust, this does not mean that my relationship with my participants did not influence in new ones the data in meaningful and profound ways. Indeed, to investigate the ways in which my participants' knowledge of and relationship to me influenced their participation in responses, I asked the following four questions: Why did you decide to participate in this study? What do you believe about my beliefs? Did your beliefs about my beliefs color/censor anything that you shared? How does our relationship as friends color and nuance this project/interview? Do you have any other thoughts about this research project (e.g. hopes, fears, questions, concerns, excitement)? As a feminist poststructuralist researcher, I am keenly interested in how the relationship between participant and researcher colors and contextualizes the data. Each of the four women attends Crossover, a nondenominational, evangelical megachurch in a sizable Midwestern city, and each considers faith to be of central concern in her life. Additionally, each of the women is connected to the field of education in a different way: . Gretchen is a public school teacher of students for whom English is their second language. . Kelly is a human resources executive for a sizable corporation; a large part of her role is to conduct training sessions for employees. . Sam is a designer who has begun studying at a local university for a second career as an elementary teacher; she is currently a pre-service teacher. . Nina is an elementary special education teacher at a public school. Each of the women is in her late-twenties or early-thirties. All four are white, college- educated, and middle-class. In selecting participants for this study, I wanted to explore the multiple, overlapping, and contradictory discourses through which women constitute themselves and are constituted. These women had talked of their multiple discourses— although without using such language—in the two aforementioned church studies. As such, I invited them to participate in this study because I knew that navigating multiple 154 discourses was something with which each grappled. In selecting my participants, I was not attempting to find a representative or diverse sample. Instead, I hope that the findings of this study may prove informative to other researchers who wish to explore the multiple discourses of other populations. Additionally, although all four participants are white, middle-class, young professional educators/trainers, I make no claims about transferability: These women‘s experiences are not necessarily transferable to those of other white, middle-class, young professional educators/trainers: Displacing a validity of correspondence with a focus on the terms of address, of reception, orientation shifts to the reader who determines the degree to which is study is "transferable" to their own context of interest. (Lather, 1997, p. 11) Indeed, ―no matter how similar two persons may be in terms of social location, there are oftentimes differences in interpretation based on the singular, temporal, and spatial dynamics of knowledge construction‖ (Weems, 2006, p. 1002). Further, I have no greater prima facie understanding of these women by virtue of the fact that I too am a white, middle-class educator. Transferability displaces positivist claims of representativeness of research sampling; instead, the postpositivist researcher relies upon the reader to decide the degree to which findings are meaningful to other groups/contexts/situations/individuals. The concept of transferability, therefore, relinquishes the positivist power of the researcher‘s claim of representativeness—which allows for generalizability—and instead shifts power to the reader as arbiter of fitness to other contexts: "Transferability, for example, shifted focus to reader response, a move from a hierarchical array of quality criteria to a horizontal, social axis, arranged across space" (Lather, 1997, p. 18). In the next chapter, I introduce the reader in more detail to each of the four participants. In the next section, I introduce the reader to Crossover Church, the church home for each of the four women. Because an evangelical's church home is often a nexus not only of spiritual activity but often social activity as well, the discourse of "church home" is often an influential discourse in the lives of evangelicals. As such, I go into some detail in the following pages about Crossover Church.
155 Crossover When one enters any of the countless and well-marked entrances to Crossover parking grounds, one is greeted by a number of unexpectedly joyful parking attendants, outfitted with neon vests and flags and (often) silly, playful hats. After parking, one is greeted again by friendly, agreeable volunteers at the fleet of double doors to the church building. Once inside, the large open area is abuzz with people milling about, chatting, getting coffee (or some other beverage of choice at a large hospitality center that rivals the concession area at a multiplex movie theater). The information center boasts affable volunteers who provide information and free bibles. Free CDs of previous services are also available. Flat screen TVs throughout the cavernous room count down the minutes until the service and play music and images that relate to the current series. Yet another set of volunteers flank the entrance doors to the auditorium-type church service area that seats several thousand –3500 to be specific (―24 Million & Change,‖ p. 6). There are three levels, each of which offers comfortable stadium seating oriented towards the large stage. The stage itself changes to reflect the current message series, and I wonder if the stage design crew had been recruited from Broadway—the sets are exquisite and creative. For most series, there sits at the front, center of stage a tall stool and table. Here is where the teaching pastor presides and delivers his message (for the teaching pastor is invariably a ―he‖). But first, the service opens with the loud, contemporary strains of highly skilled musicians who play masterfully both well-known and brand new worship songs as images flow continuously over two gigantic screens that flank the stage. After a short series of worship songs, which are met with strong applause, someone hops up onto stage to welcome visitors, make announcements, and introduce the series. Then the teaching pastor—either head pastor Brian Tome or someone of his choosing (always a male)—steps onto stage to deliver Christ‘s word in what they strive to make a relevant, authentic, and meaningful way. The teaching pastor invariably weaves humor with personal anecdotes and carefully selected biblical passages to deliver the day‘s message.
156 Crossover is self-consciously ―seeker friendly,‖ meaning, as Brian Tome often intones, that it is a church for ―people who have given up on church but not on God.‖ As such, Crossover strives to be culturally relevant and accessible for those who are seeking God. This is Crossover. Crossover is an evangelical ―megachurch‖ (Balmer, 2006b, p. 17) located in a hip suburb of a mid-sized Midwestern city. A megachurch is a church that serves thousands of followers and offers a number of ministry services: Typically, these congregations feature a charismatic pastor and an array of small- group programs targeted to specific audiences—young couples, divorced women, parents of teenagers, siblings of those in prison, senior citizens, those struggling with their weight. Though sometimes derided by critics as ―Cafeteria Christianity‖ or ―Christianity Lite,‖ the megachurches have had enormous appeal, especially in the suburbs, where they blend into the surrounding culture. (Balmer, 2006b, p. 324) Indeed, Crossover‘ head pastor, Brian Tome, exudes charisma, and the church offers countless small groups. Many mega-churches attract young working adults who comprise a large percentage of attendees (Brasher, 1998), and this is certainly true of Crossover. "Mega-churches have flourished within evangelicalism over the past several decades" (Balmer, 2006b, p. 323). This is certainly true of Crossover. The church opened in 1996 with 450 people attending; in 2008 (―Crossover Context,‖ p. 3), Crossover saw 10,000 people attend every weekend ("You Are Here" brochure). Like many mega-churches, at Crossover, men have almost all Congregational authority (Brasher, 1998, pp. 12-13). When Crossover was initially founded, there was an argument over whether or not women should be allowed to hold the position of head pastor and should be allowed to serve as church elders. According to Brian Wells, former teaching pastor of Crossover, the argument threatened to cause a schism between the founding members. A compromise was struck: Crossover would allow women to serve as church elders but not as head pastor (B. Wells, personal interview, December 14, 2005). As is the case in many evangelical churches, men often serve in roles that require preaching and teaching, while women may lead songs, share testimonials, and oversee children's and women's ministries (Brasher, 1998; Cochran, 2005). For many evangelical churches, this is not a function of ability but biblical rule (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 99). As one of Ingersoll's informants pointed out, "‘we will never come to grips with the gender 157 issues because they feel biblically justified in their attitudes‘" (2003, pp. 94-95). Another of Ingersoll's informants argued that "‘most people don't want a woman as a senior pastor‘" (2003, p. 63). For Ingersoll, this was another example of the "effectiveness of strategies used to reproduce gender norms and expectations" (2003, p. 7) within the evangelical community. Crossover sees itself as a group of "revolutionaries who acknowledge the need to move outward—to go love and bless others" (Crossroads, 2009) and sees itself as challenging the evangelical status quo. In some ways it clearly does not: As described in the preceding paragraphs Crossover very much fits the "formula" of evangelical mega- churches, and Crossover is consistent with the status quo regarding gender-based leadership. Further, in its very mission to be "seeker friendly," Crossover is focused on evangelizing. In other ways, however, Crossover does challenge the evangelical status quo in could be considered revolutionary. While often evangelical churches are insularly, Crossover regularly reaches out to other churches of various denominations for projects that range from six-week topical studies to volunteer activities, such as a Thanksgiving food drive. Additionally, Crossover seeks to fight generational poverty locally and globally. Crossover is working with a "collaboration of nonprofits and local churches" (―You are Here" brochure) to form CityLink, envisioned as a "single campus packed with expert agencies, professional staff, health care, employment services, fitness rooms, dining areas" (―You are Here" brochure) -- a one-stop shop for people in need. Internationally, Crossover has an ongoing relationship with Charity and Faith Church in Mamelodi, South Africa. While many evangelical churches provide mission work overseas, Crossover is unique in that it emphasizes forming an ongoing, mutual relationship with Charity and Faith, as opposed to the traditional image of the benevolent American evangelical church that reaches out to a poor, lesser people abroad. Crossover frames its work in Mamelodi as an exchange of strengths: The strengths of Crossover— ―building infrastructure, helping with finances and specialized labor" are paired with Charity and Faith‘s strengths—―dependence on prayer, compassion and the ability to chill out" (―You are Here" brochure) to form a symbiotic partnership.
158 In summary, Crossover is both the epitome of -- and a disruption of -- the mega- church model. What follows is Crossover‘s "Seven Hills" document, a proclamation of Crossover‘s most valued tenants. Seven Hills We Die On Cincinnati is known as the city of seven hills.
Crossover has seven hills, as well—we call them the seven hills we die on. Simply calling these "values" doesn’t cut it. All too commonly, values have come to signify mushy, sentimental ideals for which we rarely fight. As a church, we believe that if something is worth living for, it is worth dying for. We realize we can’t do everything—but what we, as a community, are called by God to do, we do with excellence.
The Seven Hills We Die On are applications of biblical truth expressed through the unique personality of Crossover. We remember these seven hills as ABCDERG (we really did try to find an "F" that worked and was appropriate, but finally gave up and went on to bigger things).
Authenticity We believe we can’t be what God has called us to be if we play games with each other. Whether it’s what happens on stage, within our smaller communities, in serving teams or in our homes, we need to be able to share our faults and weaknesses and not fake it. That’s authenticity, just being real. (From Philippians 3:17 in the Bible)
Biblical Truth Crossover is a place for people on every part of the spiritual journey, from those just investigating whether there is a God to those who have made following Christ the priority of their life. The Bible presents a dangerous message of life change. We don’t assume everyone believes, or even knows the Bible, but we do assume everyone who comes through our doors is open to exploring it. We believe the Bible is God’s inerrant truth and it’s the foundation to everything we do. (From 2 Timothy 3:16 in the Bible)
Culturally Current Communication Crossover is a place that helps connect those who are exploring God’s love and truth. The challenge for us is that the Bible was written a long time ago for people in another culture. The fact that we live in 21st century Cincinnati doesn’t change the message that God gave 2000 years ago, but it does mean that we need to do some work to connect it to our lives today. Jesus did exactly the same thing when he was teaching. He used the current language and daily life experiences of those around him to communicate truth. That’s what we mean by “culturally current communication.” (From Ecclesiastes 12:10 in the Bible) 159
Doing Life Together We aren’t interested in being a place where a lot of people get together for an inspiring service but never move beyond the casual, arm's distance relationships of an auditorium. We want to grow by really “doing life together.” People who grow in their relationship with God also grow in their friendships with each other, moving beyond the Auditorium in small groups, Community Groups and through serving. Real community is knowing and being known, loving and being loved, celebrating and being celebrated, serving and being served. (From Hebrews 10:24-25 in the Bible)
Excellence We don’t believe in striving for unrealistic perfection. Real excellence is about bringing your best to God’s work and to life in general. We want to bring our “A-game” to everything that we do, whether it’s our communication and music, how we hold babies in the nursery or how we take care of the building, we want it to reflect excellence for Christ. (From Malachi 1 in the Bible)
Reproduction Reproduction is about recognizing something that God has created and then reproducing it in his name. We want to send God’s message out into the world by reproducing everything from the weekend program to CDs of each message series. Crossover wants to be a place where Christ-followers reproduce Christ-followers, leaders reproduce leaders and churches reproduce other churches. (From Matthew 28:19-20 in the Bible)
Growth We don’t expect anyone who walks into Crossover to be a committed Christ-follower, but we do expect everyone who is around our community for any length of time to be growing. We expect every person to be moving closer to reflecting the complete image of Christ in every area of life. This is a safe place for everyone. But safe doesn’t mean comfortable. The answers aren’t always comfortable. In fact, we often grow only when we are pushed out of our comfort zone. (From Colossians 1:10 in the Bible) (Crossroads, accessed 2/19/09) In successive chapters, I explore the ways in which participants' home church discourse of Crossover informs the gendered construction of self.
Methods Most ethnographic research utilizes three main methods: participant-observation, open- ended interviews, and analysis of artifacts/documents (Magolda, 2000, p. 138). My study
160 utilizes two of these methods: analysis of artifacts created by participants and extended interviews of participants. While these methods are common in ethnographic research, asking participants to create artifacts in response to a researcher‘s prompt is less common, even unconventional. Yet what is unconventional is often generative: ―Poststructuralism, then, permits—nay, invites—no, incites us to reflect upon our method and explore new ways of knowing‖ (Richardson, 2000, p. 518).To explore the ways in which these women both constitute their identity through—and are constituted by—their multiple discourses, I prepared an artifact box (think large, plastic tub). It was filled with an assortment of accoutrements meant to be used by a participant to speak about the multiple discourses through which she constitutes herself and is constituted. Materials in the box included: . Magnetic poetry tiles . Magazines, glue, scissors (materials for constructing a collage) . Various types of paper/pens . Tape recorder and cassette tapes . Digital video camera and tapes . Digital still camera . Polaroid camera . Sketch book . Clay
Additionally, I invited participants to feel free to use materials other than those included in the box (e.g. ―found‖ materials). The purpose of asking participants to create an artifact was not to have a polished, finished product but rather to provide space for participants to explore their multiple discourses, no matter how ―rough‖ or ―unfinished‖ the artifact may look. Each participant was asked to respond to this prompt: Think about all of the seats in your life (favorite chair at home, your chair at work, your car seat, a chair at your favorite bar, your seat at the dinner table at your parents’ house, chair at your salon, chair at church, etc.). Identify each of the seats in your life. Then consider: . What does each of the seats in your life say about who you are as a woman? . Could these chairs be friends with each other? Which chairs would get along and which couldn’t? Why/why not? . If these chairs were to fight with each other, which would win? Why? 161 In response to the prompt, participants created some kind of artifact—a text: Poststructuralists define text as any set of symbolic objects (not just words) through which we try to communicate something and through which we thus create meaning. . . Moreover, they do so because not only do we create them, we also ―read‖ them. This means that texts are never simply the objective results of an author‘s intention, but include those excess meanings manifested in our personal and collective interpretations of them. (Martusewicz, 2001, pp. 11-12) Participants‘ texts could include a skit acted out and recorded via the video camera, stream of consciousness recorded on an audiocassette, sculpture, drawings, poetry, a photo montage, etc. these artifacts reflect not only participants intended meetings but also "excess meanings" that provide rich opportunity for analysis. In addition to responding to the prompt above, I also included a sheet containing a variety of short prompts (statements, sentence starters, personifications, and questions) to incite other creations. Such prompts included: . If the Bible could talk, this is what it would say about women . . . . If the Bible could talk, this is what it would say to women . . . . If the walls at your church could talk and they knew nothing about women other than what they learned from the content of Sunday service messages over the years, this is what the walls would say about women: . If a chair at your church could talk and knew nothing about women other than what it knew of the various women who sat in it over the years during Sunday services, this is what the chair would say about women: . I am different from other females in this/these ways . . . . I am like other females in this/these ways . . . . I believe that God created women and men equally. . I struggle with some parts of the Bible. . God designed me to be . . . . God designed women to be . . . . Women should be in leadership roles in the Church. . Women should not be in leadership roles in the Church. . How does God see women? . I see God as female. . I want to say this to God: . I want to say this to men: . I want to say this to Church leaders: . It is right to follow men‘s leadership. . This is how women and men are different: . In God‘s eyes, women and men have different roles.
162 Participants were invited to include their responses to one or more prompts within their artifact, to answer one or more prompts separately, or to ignore the prompts altogether. Each participant originally intended to have the artifact box for one week, on a rotating basis; however, each participant needed more time and was offered as much time as needed. After receiving back the artifact box from a participant, I arranged a two-part interview with that person. Each interview session lasted between 90 and 120 minutes and was audio-recorded with the participant‘s permission. I also took copious notes during the interview.
Interview Protocol After participants created their artifact in response to the prompt, I picked up their artifact and the artifact materials box from them and spent time carefully examining their artifact. For each participant, I drafted interview questions that were specific to their artifact in an effort to explore more deeply what they did in creating their artifact and why they did it. Additionally, I prepared a series of 53 interview questions that I asked of each participant. I recognize that this is an extensive—perhaps too extensive—set of interview questions. In retrospect, having fewer questions that were broader in nature would have reduced interview fatigue—on the part of participants and myself—and provided participants with more freedom to take the conversation in their own direction, as opposed to responding to my narrower questions. That said, there was careful reasoning behind each of my interview questions, and several activities that I embedded within the interview protocol (described in the following paragraphs) helped to break up the barrage of questions and provide opportunities for participants to engage with various materials. In the following paragraphs, I describe generally how I developed these interview questions and how the flow of the interviews went. For a complete list of the 53 interview questions, as well as notes explaining why they were included in the interviews and -- if appropriate -- where the questions came from (e.g. such as from another study),
163 see Appendix B. Additionally, the activities that I asked participants to complete during the interview are provided in figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.
164 Figure 3.1 Evangelical Index (Hammond & Hunter, 1984, p. 236)
165 Figure 3.2 Participant Beliefs
For each of the statements below, please mark the box that best represents your view. After you finish, I will ask you to explain why you marked each statement as you did.
Statement* Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree The Bible supports the equality of the sexes.
Our society and churches have irresponsibly encouraged men to domination and women to passivity.
I believe in God‘s redemptive word on mutuality and active discipleship.
I support gender-inclusive language and images for
166 God (e.g. referring to God as Mother as well as Father, She as well as He).
Women should be allowed to be ordained as ministers and fully express their leadership and spiritual gifts.
* from: EEWC. ―About EEWC.‖ Evangelical and women‘s caucus. [Online]. Available: http://www.eewc.com/About.htm. (accessed April 7, 2007).
Figure 3.3 Complementarianism vs. egalitarianism positions Complementarianism Position
Proponents of this view believe that women and men are equal in worthiness in God‘s eyes but that women and men were created differently by God. As such, women and men have different roles in home, church, and society. This ―different but equal‖ position is described by one complementarian this way:
“At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships” and “At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.” (Piper,2006, pp. 35-36)
Reference:
167 Piper, J. (2006). Vision of biblical complementarity: Manhood and womanhood defined according to the bible. In J. Piper & W. Grudem (Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood: A response to evangelical feminism (pp. 60-93). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Egalitarianism Position
Proponents of this view believe that the Bible advocates for women‘s and men‘s equal participation in home, church, and society. One organization that embraces the egalitarianist position claims:
“We believe the Bible teaches the equality of women and men.
We believe God has given each person gifts to be used for the good of Christ's kingdom.
We believe Christians are to develop and exercise their God-given gifts in church, world, and home.” (CBE, 2007)
Reference:
Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE). Christians for biblical equality: Who we are. [Online]. Available: http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/about/who_we_are.shtml (accessed April 6, 2007).
168 Figure 3.4 Excerpts from New International Version (NIV) Bible
I Corinthians 11:3-12 (NIV)
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the women is man, and the head of Christ is God … 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
1Timothy 2:8-15 (NIV)
8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. 9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
169
Galatians 3:26-29 (NIV)
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham‘s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Genesis of Interview Questions In developing the artifact prompt to which participants responded, I attempted to find a concrete way -- using seats -- through which participants could conceptualize and expound upon the multiple discourses in and through which they exist. The seat examples that I gave in the prompt, including "favorite chair at home, your chair at work, your car seat, a chair at your favorite bar, your seat at the dinner table at your parents‘ house, chair at your salon, chair at church, etc." were my attempts to offer examples of what I thought might be seats associated with important discourses of the women's lives -- home/personal, professional, social, family, class, religious/spiritual, etc. The questions associated with the prompt attempted to explore the relationships between participants‘ discourses: What does each of the seats in your life say about who you are as a woman? This question attempts to explore the extent to which -- and the ways in which -- participants believe discourses inform who they are as women. To what degree are participants self-conscious and analytical about the discourses and in and through which they are constituted? Could these chairs be friends with each other? Which chairs would get along and which couldn't? Why/why not? These questions explore the interrelationship between discourses. To what extent are participants‘ discourses consistent, overlapping, contradictory, incommensurate? If these chairs were to fight with each other, which would win? Why? These questions explore the power relations between discourses. When participants‘ discourses are in conflict, do some prove more powerful than 170 others and, in effect, "trump" other discourses in constituting gendered identity? Participants‘ artifacts, as well as their explanations of their artifacts, provided insight into their discourses and how those discourses inform participants‘ construction of self. In addition to the interview questions related directly to the participants‘ artifacts, the 53 additional questions of the interview protocol came from a variety of sources: my background reading on general evangelical discourse; other research studies on the intersection of evangelicalism and gender; and my own interests in participants‘ multiple discourses. For example, item number two (the first question not related directly to participants‘ artifacts) is drawn from my study of general evangelical discourse: Describe to me your background is a Christian and as a religious person. For how long have you been a Christian? How did you become a Christian (Did you have a conversion experience?)? Do you consider yourself a "born-again Christian"? How would you characterize your Christian life over the years? Have you ever had what some might call a "religious experience"? It is important to note that in a multipart question like this, I did not necessarily ask all subparts, depending upon what the participant shared in response to the initial part of the interview item. The purpose of this question was to explore the relationship between the participants‘ religious experiences and the discourse of evangelicalism as discussed in Chapter 2. For example, did the participant have a conversion experience or a "religious experience"? Has the participant participated in proselytizing or parachurch group activities? Each of the aforementioned is associated with general evangelical discourse, and I was attempting to determine to what extent participants‘ own evangelical discourses were consistent with, or different from, the characteristics of general evangelical discourse described in Chapter 2. As such, this is an example of a question that draws from my background reading on evangelical discourse. Specifically, three of the sub- questions come from an interview question guide utilized in a research study written about by Smith (1998, p. 251). Questions 43 through 45 are informed by Brasher‘s (1998) research study on the intersection of evangelicalism and women's gendered identity: If married: How does being a Christian inform your married life? In your marriage, do you submit to your husband? If so, what does that look like? Does the practice of submission make your marriage different from the marriages of people who do not practice it? Are there ways in which you would not submit to 171 your husband? In your marriage, is your husband the "head"? If so, what does this look like? In your marriage, who usually takes the lead in spiritual matters? Who has more say? Pays the bills? Plans the activities? Does the cooking? Does the laundry? Cleaning? Yard work? How are major family decisions made, such as having children, buying a car, moving, etc.? How will having children impact your marriage?
If in relationship: How does being a Christian impact your relationship? Are you willing to seriously date someone who is not a Christian? Do you submit in your relationship? If so, what does that look like? Are there ways in which you would not submit to your significant other? In your relationship, is your significant other the head? If so, what does this look like? In your relationship, has the most say? Who takes the lead in spiritual matters? Who phones/emails whom? Who makes the plans? Who pays for the dates? Who determines the seriousness of the relationship? Who sets the boundaries on the physical aspect of the relationship? These questions explore notions of headship and submission and the ways in which evangelical discourse influences women's gendered identity within a heterosexual romantic relationship. By building on Brasher's research, I am connecting my study to work by others in the field of women's religious gendered identity. Additionally, these questions explore women's discourses of romantic relationships. Question 18 ("What does God think of the Bible? Of Christianity? What does God think of your ‗church home‘?) is my own attempt to explore to what extent there is a distinguishable difference between the discourse of God, a discourse of Christianity—or evangelicalism more specifically—a discourse of the Bible, and a home church discourse. I believe that many researchers conflate these where they might actually be quite different discourses. Not only do these questions attempt to discern to what degree participants articulate these as different discourses or one in the same, these questions also provide the opportunity to see to what extent participants feel comfortable critiquing the bible, Christianity, and their home church through the discourse of God, which I surmise might be participants‘ most powerful discourse—the discourse which might ―trump‖ other discourses. The preceding paragraphs attempt to provide a sampling of interview protocol questions, their genesis, and their purpose. For a complete list of interview questions and notes about them, see Appendix B.
172 Interview Structure Participants were interviewed in two sessions, each of which lasted approximately 90 to 120 minutes. I gave participants the choice of where the interviews would occur. I interviewed three of the participants at my home and one of the participants at her home. Each interview was recorded on a digital audio recorder, and I took copious notes during each interview. After asking participants questions specific to their artifacts, I asked two questions related to their Christian discourse (background as a Christian and whether participant identifies with any of the following labels: fundamentalist, evangelical, mainline Protestant, liberal). Then I administered to each participant the Evangelical Index (Figure 3.1), a six-question survey that identifies the degree to which someone‘s beliefs are consistent with the moniker ―evangelical‖ (Hammond & Hunter, 1984, p. 236), based on the following characteristics of evangelicalism: biblical Truth, piety, traditional familism, legislation of morality, and moral absolutism (Hammand & Hunter, 1984). The next batch of interview question focused on family discourse (e.g. ―Did your parents encourage you spiritually?‖), discourse of ―college educated‖ (e.g. ―How did your college experience inform who you are as a woman?‖), professional discourse (e.g. ―Do you view your job as contributing to God's kingdom or God's glory in some way?"), class discourse (e.g. "With which social ‗class‘ do you identify...?"), and feminist discourse ("What this feminism means to you? Do you consider yourself feminist? Is feminism bad?"). Then participants were asked to complete a Likert scale containing value statements (e.g. ―The bible supports the equality of the sexes.") from the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus (see Figure 3.2). I developed a Likert scale in order to explore the degree to which participants identified with the Caucus‘ egalitarian stance. Next, there were a number of questions regarding the discourse of God (e.g. "What questions you have for God?"), Christian discourse: political/influence (e.g. "To what extent -- and in what ways -- do your religious beliefs influence whether and how you vote?"), and Christian discourse: in but not of the world (e.g. "thinking about all the people in America who consider themselves Christians, how different you think their values and lifestyles are from the rest of American society today?"). I then showed
173 participants two cards, one containing a section of text representing the complementarian perspective and the other containing a passage of text representing the egalitarian perspective (see Figure 3.3). I ask participants with which passage they most identified and why. The next series of questions involved biblical discourses of headship, gender roles, and the concept of submission (e.g. ―The bible refers to man as the ‗head‘ in a marriage. What exactly does it mean to be head?", "What are your beliefs about women in church leadership?" and "Does the practice of submission make your marriage different from the marriages of people who do not practice it?"). Following this series of questions, I presented participants with three different biblical passages (see Figure 3.4). The first (I Corinthians 11:3-12) is a classic passage used to defend the concept of headship; the second (I Timothy 2:8-15) focuses on womanly submission; the third (Galatians 3:26-29) represents egalitarianism. I asked participants what they thought of each passage and why. I would then ask probing follow-up questions in response to participants' reflections. These passages in the questions associated with them proved to generate rich statements by participants. These will be discussed in succeeding chapters. The last section of the interview contained questions about participants' church home discourse (e.g. regarding satisfaction with church home, participation in church groups, and serving at church; also "In what ways, if at all, do you see similarities or differences between men and women evidenced in the life of your church?"). The final three questions, which were discussed above, focused on how my relationship with participants influenced their participation in the project and their responses to questions. Again, I recognize that this interview but protocol is incredibly lengthy and perhaps overwhelming; however, these numerous questions, as well as participants‘ artifacts, provided an extensive and rich data set for analysis. Themes in findings are discussed in detail in successive chapters.
Data Challenges Due to a computer meltdown, I lost the audio recordings of to participants' interviews. After discussing this challenge with Dr. Lisa Weems, my committee chair, I
174 decided to begin drafting my analysis of these two participants' interviews using my extensive interview notes and then re-interview the participants on only a small subsection of the original questions that required either clarification or extensive quoting. Unfortunately, I had to learn the painfully hard way to back up not only files of my written work but also to backup my audio files. I elected to have the remaining audio files professionally transcribed. While I believe that there is great value in transcribing one's own audio files because doing so provides deeper insight into them, greater familiarity with them, and an initial analysis through the process, time constraints and pragmatic matters (new baby) persuaded me to seek the help of a professional transcriber. In order to ensure the quality of the transcribing, I chose several sample segments of the audio files to transcribe myself and then compare it to the transcriptions completed by the professional transcription service. In doing so, I am confident, in the reliability of the transcription. If there were a section of the audio file that was scratched or if there were a section of the transcription that seemed questionable, I went back to the original audio file to verify.
Conclusions
My chosen theoretical framework, poststructural feminism, is one type of feminism amongst numerous types that vary in their history, project, and proponents. While poststructural feminism is difficult to define, it is the application of poststructuralism by feminists to ―challenge, examine, and deconstruct patriarchal discourse, social institutions, and power relationships that disadvantage and oppress women‖ (Arslanian-Engoren, 2002, p. 513). More specifically, postructural feminists reject Enlightenment humanism, emphasize the role and power of language to construct social reality, and reject the concept of a fixed, stable self. Instead, one‘s subjectivity is constituted in and through discourses. Power and truth are inextricable, and power flows—web-like—throughout social relations. Power is ubiquitous and is neither inherently negative nor destructive. Because meaning is never fixed and power relations
175 are fragile, agency is possible through the disruption and reworking of language. Discourses can shift and change and be used against one another to form new possibilities and spaces. I use the concept of trustworthiness to refer to my commitment to quality, rigorous research and to research that is—above all—ethical. My research is openly ideological: I wish to deconstruct and expose the oppressive and misogynistic elements of evangelical gendered identity and to incite dialogue and reflection within scholarly and evangelical circles. To establish trustworthiness, I utilize the strategies of reflexivity, member responses, reciprocity, and sacredness. My qualitative research approach uses deconstruction as a method of analysis. My methods include document/artifact analysis and semi-structured interviews. I asked each of my four participants to respond in a medium of their choosing to a prompt that asked them to explore their multiple discourses. I then conducted two 90-120 minute interviews of each participant using an interview protocol. The following three chapters examine the data that I collected through participant artifacts and interviews. Chapter 4 introduces the reader to each of my participants by exploring a discourse or discursive conflict that was prevalent in her artifact and/or interview. In Chapter 5, I deconstruct participants‘ evangelical gendered identity, exploring their construction of headship and the ways in which they navigate and make meaning of complementarian and egalitarian discourses. In Chapter 6, I illustrate the ways in which participants re-read and un-read biblical passages about women‘s gendered identity, and I probe participants‘ complex and paradoxical views on feminism.
176
CHAPTER 4
INTRODUCING PARTICIPANTS: GENDERED SUBJECT POSITIONS
The interpretive practice of making sense of one's findings is both artistic and political.... there is no single interpretive truth" (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 26).
I acknowledge that there are multiple ways in which I could organize the chapters of my data. I have elected to use this chapter—Chapter 4—to introduce each of my four participants by focusing in on a discourse or discursive conflict that was a significant trope in the participant‟s artifact and interviews. In the sections below, I introduce the reader to Sam and Kelly through poems about—of all things—treadmills. I then explain the significance of the poem in the context of the discursive positioning of each of the two.
Everything‟s a Discourse
In the analysis and representation of my data, I use the term “discourse” obscenely frequently. In order to provide an understanding of how I differentiate my use of the general term “discourse,” I have devised the terms “discursive communities” and “discursive constructs.” In my model, discursive communities are comprised of members who are only recognizable as such upon display of their competence with the key discourses (discursive constructs) that serve as the centripetal force for the community. For example, the discursive community of evangelicals will recognize as members those people who perform the various discourses that are most valued by the community (e.g.
177 born-again conversion experience, personal relationship with Jesus, evangelizing, etc.— see Chapter 2). Discursive constructs are produced and maintained by discursive communities but may be accessed/used/articulated by multiple discursive communities (although not necessarily in the same way or time). These commonly articulated discursive constructs allow various discursive communities to communicate with one another, to recognize one another, to see one another as legitimate. For example, within Sam‟s experience, the discursive community of her family subscribes to the discourse (discursive construct) of beauty that mirrors the discourse of beauty to which the fashion industry subscribes and—one could argue—American pop culture in general (which is a mightily heavily populated discursive community).
Introducing Sam: Conflicting Discourses Inscribed on the Body
Doppelganger’s Treadmill
I come to it, this machine, this treadmill Two different people in one— A doppelganger.
Today I am steady, strong My shoulders back Breathing solid I come to it from a place of balance It is a means to Expression Release Katharsis 178
I step off of it further strengthened, emboldened, refueled. I am strong. I am whole. I am ready for the world.
Yesterday I came to it from a place of fear, of desperation Gasping, straining, stumbling, flailing, Petrified of failing, collapsing, Being spat off the back end of the thing, Crumpled, alone, whimpering.
Who will I bring to it tomorrow?
Sam is alternately moving within and between two competing discourses of the body. Her subject positioning relative to these discourses is captured in each of the two stanzas of the poem. The discursive position of body that Sam strives for and on which she tries to focus and commit is reflected in the first stanza, the stanza in which the speaker comes to the treadmill strong, whole, powerful and uses the treadmill (discourse of body) to further strengthen and embolden herself. Nonetheless, the second, older (in the sense that it informed her subjectivity starting earlier in life) discursive positioning still exerts a powerful—if uneven—hold on her. As much as she wishes that she could entirely exorcise it from her subjectivity, Sam cannot—or rather has not as of yet. At the beginning of Sam‟s first interview, when I asked what she thought when she first received the prompt, Sam stated, “I feel like a lot of times our chairs in our lives, whether it‟s work, our family lives, whatever, I think they kind of conflict sometimes.” Nowhere was this conflict more evident for me within Sam‟s artifact and interviews than in the multiple and conflicting discourses inscribed on the body. Figure 4.1 is a digital photo of Sam‟s artifact, a collage comprised primarily of clippings from multiple magazines. The upper left quadrant (see Figure 4.2), backed by zebra-print, contains myriad images and phrases that emphasize strength, energy, power, health, action, force (reflected in the first stanza of the poem). The photos portray strong- 179 looking, fit, athletic females hiking, running, biking, and swimming. The photos are interwoven with phrases including: dance, believe, escape, play, maintain balance, strength, endurance, health, energize the LifeAthlete in you, and—perhaps the phrase that provides the best synopsis for this quadrant—“EVERYDAY IS A DAY. GO. DO. BE.”
180
Figure 4.1 Sam‟s artifact, full
These images stand in stark contrast to Sam‟s “sickness,” a period starting in college when Sam suffered acutely from anorexia and her weight plummeted to about 80 pounds. Although she has recovered in the sense that she is now at a thin but fit weight, and she is healthy, she still works to maintain a balance between being well and being overly consumed by concerns about food and exercise. 181
Figure 4.2 Sam‟s artifact, upper left quadrant
During our first interview, Sam was talking about how her anorexia grew “out of not loving myself.” When I asked her where that came from, she explained: You’re not sure where that came from, that not loving yourself? Yeah, I do. Yeah, it came from the struggles in grade school, which ended up with the lack of confidence, feeling like I wasn’t smart. That the only thing I had going for me was that I was [a] blonde, cute little girl. And unfortunately that got worsened by things my father would say. Not bad things, but things that I, as an individual, took differently.
Can you give me an example? Yeah, one of the biggest—well there are two that always stick in my mind. In my teenage years, one summer I went without wearing any make-up, which I don’t wear much anyway, and his comment was every woman needs a little bit 182
of make-up. Which led to not feeling so great. As well as every time he would ever say, “You’re eating again”, or, “You’re getting a second portion?” Which with a lot of people may not be a big deal, which is what’s so interesting about people, we all read into things so differently.
So you feel like the eating disorder was sort of a function of you not loving yourself. And not loving yourself came from in school you felt like you were told that you weren’t smart and that what you had going for you, your best feature so to speak, was your physical attractiveness. And that became kind of where you put your energy and identity, and did so in a self-destructive way. Am I understanding it? Yes. It’s awful, isn’t it? Later in the interview, when discussing how her family has informed who she is as a woman, Sam explained: I think definitely my family has changed over the years. I think as a child, though, it formed me to believe—which sucks—but I had to depend on making sure that I was cute, or pretty, to make it in life. Which sounds bad, because it’s not like they were mean, but the way I read into things. Sam‟s subjectivity was constituted within this discourse of beauty. This discourse was inscribed on her body. She did everything that she could to be competent within this discourse—including becoming anorexic and deleteriously affecting her health. The self is revealed here, not as an object or thing, but as an interactive, discursive process, fragile, capable of great pleasure in oneness with the group, in being competent within its terms, but also vulnerable to the discourses through which it is spoken and speaks itself into existence. (Davies, 2000, p. 26) Sam felt compelled to be competent within the discourse of beauty and enjoyed the benefits of legitimacy that she gained through her competence. Nonetheless, the requirement within this discourse to be achingly thin made Sam vulnerable to an eating disorder. She was required to discipline her body to be recognizable as defined by the discourse of beauty. To be legitimate within this discourse, one is to be thin, blond, passive, admired, non-confrontational, quiet. One‟s “beauty” is to be admired, appreciated, consumed. One‟s purpose is to be appealing, decorative. While this discourse of beauty is prevalent within our American discursive community, it also intersects with the evangelical 183 discourse. Consider these three excerpts from Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman’s Soul (the bestselling book that I studied in the Crossover small group and that inspired this dissertation study): The essence of a woman is Beauty. … Beauty is what the world longs to experience from a woman (Eldredge & Eldredge, 2005, pp. 130-131)
A woman of true beauty is a woman who in the depths of her soul is at rest, trusting God because she has come to know him to be worthy of her trust. She exudes a sense of calm, a sense of rest, and invites those around her to rest as well. She speaks comfort. (p. 135)
She fears it, but below the fear is a longing to be known, to be seen as beautiful and enjoyed. So the unveiled beauty of a woman entices and invites. (p. 136) Lest the reader be inclined to dismiss this discourse of beauty within the evangelical discursive community as being not about external beauty but about internal beauty (a powerful and fictive binary itself), the Eldredges make it clear that physical beauty and beauty of the soul are intertwined: The beauty of a woman is first a soulful beauty. And yes, as we live it out, own it, inhabit our beauty, we do become more lovely. More alluring … Our true self becomes reflected in our appearance. But it flows from the inside out. 27 (p. 130) In addition to being constituted by and through the evangelical discourse, for Sam, the other major discursive influences were her family (in which her father was the traditional patriarchal head) and school: I think I always felt challenged by my father. A lot of times-
What do you mean by challenged? Well, I guess … kind of challenged, or overruled. And I still do it now and it’s something I’m trying to break where it’s not the first thing I think of is what is he going to think? So I’ve always lived to do as he would do in a man’s world as opposed to what do
27 In addition to the discourse of beauty within the evangelical discursive community, this quotation also underscores the evangelical commitment to the humanist concept of the “true self,” the consistent, continuous, autonomous self.
184
I want to do. Who do I want to be? It’s been pretty difficult to break that cycle and take a job or buy a car, or whatever. Just do things. Maybe ask an opinion, but do what I want to do. Within the discursive community of her family, Sam‟s father has long held the position of patriarchal head. Sam recognizes that it is difficult to break the “cycle” or rather the “web of power” (Foucault, 1980, p. 116) relations within the discursive community of her family, which has disciplined her to seek out and obtain her father‟s approval prior to making significant life decisions. The difficulty for Sam in breaking this “cycle” is that power is part of the fabric of everyday life; it is naturalized as the status quo, and therefore difficult to disrupt. In addition to her public schooling, where Sam was labeled as “learning disabled,” which she read as “not smart,” Sam also experienced this discursive positioning in her Catholic CDC classes: My mom and sister and I went to Catholic church a couple of times, but we stopped going because the nuns were mean to me. Because they used to make me read out loud and that was part of my learning disability was reading. Even though my mom had talked about it to them over and over again, they would still do it. It just got to a point where I hated going and it was frustrating because it was creating more of that “I feel stupid and you’re pointing it out”. For Sam, the discursive positioning of “not smart” served as the basis for her initial career choice of design; she believed that the study of design would not rely heavily on book learning. Her subject positioning of “not smart” continued on well into her adult life until another discursive concept smashed into—and displaced—it: That was like a big one for me. That was a big weakness of mine, that I didn’t feel like I was smart. So having people challenge me on that, that that’s not necessarily a weakness. I’m smart in different ways. In this statement, Sam was referring to the Captivating book study in which we participated. During the book study (which was attended by three educators) the topic of Howard Garner‟s theory of multiple intelligences came up, and our discussion of the theory led Sam to reconsider her subjectification of “learning disabled” and “not smart.” By introducing her to the discourse of multiple intelligences (MI), she was able to reconsider her subjectification within a discourse of intelligence that excluded her as 185
“disabled.” She began to see that she had intelligences beyond—and unrelated to—her reading disability. She took up and used the MI discourse against her former subjectification. Her introduction to the MI discourse served to “disrupt the obviousness and thus the inevitability of the patterns of power and powerlessness” (Davies, 2000, p. 24) in which Sam was constituted. After the book study (during the initial stages of this research project), Sam applied to a local, private university‟s graduate school of education and was accepted and began classes as a pre-service teacher. As of this writing, Sam has taken an extended break from her studies. Even if she pursues her graduate degree no further, her success in the classes that she did take helped to re- constitute her as “smart.” In other words, her subject positioning was profoundly impacted by her introduction to a different, more productive discourse (multiple intelligences theory) and her experience afterwards served to reinforce her (new) subject position as “smart.” Ironically, while her early subject positioning of “not smart”, which required her positioning within the discourse of beauty, has been replaced, the discourse of beauty has been much more difficult to disrupt. On the back of her artifact, Sam had taped one of the secondary prompts that I had given to participants: “How does God see women?” In response, Sam wrote the following: “Love who you are and how God created you. Love each curve, each bump—find love for yourself in your heart.” When I asked her about it, she explained: You asked me why I haven’t been running in the past four months. That had become so much a part of who I am and, honestly, I came back from [a mission trip to] Africa and I was just tired. Just totally tired. For the past four months, for the first time in—I don’t know how long—10, 12, maybe 15 years I was able to not work out. My life was always every day I had to be out running or doing something. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t meet my friends for dinner. And it wasn’t even well I’m going to be consuming food more or less, but it was more like I feel ugly because I didn’t go work out. This has been another huge growth period for me of I can love who I am, be excited about the person I look at in the mirror every morning, and I don’t have to go out and run every day. When I do it, it can be about making me feel good spiritually or physically, but not about my physical self. About saying, “Okay, I did 186
this today, so now I feel pretty.” I feel like I buy into it finally. Not even buying into it, I really feel like I believe that. That I actually care more about myself than I ever have before, and that I can look in the mirror and say wow. And it’s been surprising to me to be able to say that I can’t believe I just did this. Not only that, but I’ve not been working out, I’ve been eating. I’ve been eating normal. I don’t usually eat cookies and all that kind of stuff. I don’t eat out at restaurants. And so I put on a couple of pounds, big deal. It’s kind of like that question people ask you, what’s the worst thing that can happen? Well, nothing, I’m not going to eat a cookie and die. In the past, when Sam would avoid going out to eat with friends because she had missed a workout, it was not to avoid the additional calories that she would be consuming: it was about her not feeling competent within the discourse of beauty, about her feeling “ugly.” When she did not work out—when she did not discipline her body—she did not feel competent within the discourse of beauty which constituted her subjectivity. Without being able to exist within the discourse, she did not feel legitimate. Her body [was] inscribed with cultural notions of what she should be … Her choices may well be "correct" in terms of the available discourses. Her desires may well be the result of bodily inscription through metaphors in storylines that catch her up in one way of being/of desiring from which she has no escape. But now she can reinscribe, discover new storylines, invert, invent, break the bounds of old structures and old discourses. (Davies, 2000, p. 47) For Sam, reinscribing the purpose and role of her treadmill in order to break the bonds of her old positioning within the discourse of beauty has been difficult but profound. When I asked about her treadmill, Sam explained: To me, I feel a lot of strength in that. I know it’s kind of silly, but it’s that feminine view of soft and cuddly, emotional type of girl. When I’m on the treadmill it is so not that, and I like that feeling. I like having both that I like being able to know for myself that I have that strength, that I have that endurance. Some things are a little more hardcore, I’m not all soft. If that makes any sense. As in the first stanza of the poem that opened this section, Sam sees in the treadmill a source of strength, endurance, a resistance to the positioning of female as “soft and cuddly, emotional.” For Sam, this is a big change from a time when the treadmill (as in
187 the second stanza of the poem) was a brutal disciplining of her discursively inscribed body: But it’s different than before having to force myself to sit down because I was trying to literally burn enough calories so that I could eat something. Or feeling the guilt. When I was sick, literally I would have a bagel and I’d be like I’ve got to go work that off. I’d feel guilty. My sister used to get mad at me because I’d never eat a Hershey Kiss. Now I have a jar of them. Still, though, for Sam it‟s a “fine line” on which she balances to remain within her newer discursive positioning vis-a-vis the treadmill (discourse of fitness/woman athlete) and not to slide back into her former discursive positioning (discourse of beauty)—thus the last line of poem, which asks, “Who will I bring to it tomorrow?” If one‟s body has learned to interact with the world in certain ways, then these ways may need more than access to a new discursive practice to change them. Or the means of translating an idea into everyday practice may not easily be achieved, one‟s life-practice-as-usual or life as the practical expression of old familiar discourses always coming more readily to hand. (Davies, 2000, p. 65) In other words, our older, more familiar discourses that are inscribed on our bodies are so ingrained in our life patterns that merely being aware of and having available to us a more liberating discourse is not necessarily—in itself—sufficient for discursive re- positioning. That said, Sam has discovered and wants to volunteer for an organization that teaches “young girls good eating habits and physical activities so that they can gain confidence.” She wants to make this newer, healthier discourse to which she is committed available for other young girls. I asked Sam which of her chairs (discursive memberships) would win in a fight (was strongest): If these chairs were to get into a fight with each other, which one do you think would win? Actually I think my treadmill one would because I feel strongest. Just thinking the different times I feel stronger physically and mentally. That’s probably bad.
Why is that bad? I don’t know. It just probably isn’t the right answer. The right answer should probably be church. We’re not here for right answers.
188
There are several things that I find intriguing in her answer. The first is that Sam identifies as her strongest discourse (metaphorically represented by the treadmill) that discourse in/through which she feels strongest, as opposed to articulating it as the one that most informs who she is or in which she operates most frequently. Second, Sam admonishes herself for not selecting “church” or her evangelical discourse. This discourse is not the one through which Sam feels strongest physically and mentally. Yet she admonishes herself because part of evangelical discourse is the requirement that religion/spirituality be the strongest force in one‟s life. In identifying the discourse of fitness/woman athlete as her most influential, Sam committed a transgression within the discourse of evangelicalism. This is further intriguing because Sam uses her evangelical discourse to provide an explanation for her anorexia by claiming that it was God‟s way of getting her attention: Actually, even going through the eating disorder and everything, I’m thankful for that because I honestly don’t know how else He would have gotten through to me. It wasn’t exactly the best time, but it got me to where I am now. And then even this one, this was just kind of very based on me and how I had felt through things. Feeling worthless, feeling guilty about things, unloved, that I didn’t have any—that the world was impossible for me. There were definitely feelings like that as a child. And being sick I felt very shattered and broken and desperate. This quotation is doubly informed by Sam‟s evangelical discourse. First, for her the meaning and purpose of her anorexia is positioned within this discourse as a way for God to get her attention and reach her in order to form a personal relationship with her. Second, evangelical discourse is rife with the trope of the “shattered,” “broken” person seeking out God‟s redemptive healing. Indeed, in Captivating, a chapter is dedicated to “healing the wound,” from which this excerpt is taken: You have been assaulted. You have fallen to your own resources. Your Enemy has seized upon your wounds and your sins to pin your heart down. Now the Son of God has come to ransom you, and to heal your broken, wounded, bleeding heart, and to set you free from bondage. (Eldredge & Eldredge, 2005, p. 95) For Sam, the discursive communities of her family, schooling, and evangelicalism compelled her to constitute herself and be constituted through the discourse of beauty.
189
Through her introduction to the discourses of multiple intelligences theory and the discourse of fitness/woman athlete, Sam has been “capable of developing her storylines, new metaphors, new images through which we can live our lives” (Davies, 2000, p. 42).
Introducing Kelly: The Body Constrained
My Treadmill
Hope. Prison. Torture. Dating service. Beautification device. It is all these things—it is my damned treadmill. There it is in all its metallic glory— glaring mocking enticing cajoling insulting barking goading whispering patronizing It is an abhorrent means to a shimmering end— love marriage acceptance And if I were sure—entirely sure—that shimmering end were no mirage, 190
Perhaps I could embrace the thing— Or at least tolerate it. As it is though, I cannot. And so it goes. And so it goes. glaring mocking enticing cajoling insulting barking goading whispering patronizing If only I could get the damned thing to shut up!
Figure 4.3 displays Kelly‟s artifact—a mixed media work on three sides of two patterned sheets of paper that incorporates Polaroid photos with magazine clips and hand- written text. Figure 4.4 shows a close-up of the “workout seat” portion of the artifact. The back of this page contains hand-written, stream-of-consciousness style responses to the sub-prompts regarding what each seat says about the participant as a woman, whether the seats could get along and be friends, which seat would win in a fight, and how the chairs change with time. She has portrayed work, relationship, workout, back deck, future, and vacation seats in her artifact.
191
Figure 4.3 Kelly‟s artifact, full 192
Figure 4.5 Kelly‟s artifact, “workout seat” portion
For Kelly, there is a direct, causal link from her “workout seat,” to a “relationship seat,” to her “future seat”: too much time is spent on the work seat & dwelling about not looking the right way so start spending more time in the workout seat expecting that if I spend more time there I will have more luck I the relationship seat which will put me more down the
193
path of sitting in my future seat as well as looking better when I am in the vacation seat and not be so self conscious about how I look Not only is the workout seat instrumental in obtaining the relationship seat and future seat, but Kelly also believes that it will lessen her self-consciousness about her appearance, allowing her to better enjoy her vacation seat. She bemoans the “pressures of needing to be thin and slim & look a certain way.” In the poem “My Treadmill,” the treadmill, which serves as a metaphor for Kelly‟s workout seat, represents hope that the speaker will be beautified by the treadmill and then get from it a date that will then lead to marriage, love, and acceptance. Yet the speaker in the poem is resentful of the treadmill. It is to her a “prison” and “torture.” I believe that it is not the physical exertion required by the treadmill (workout seat) that elicits such fierce dislike but rather the access that the workout seat provides to the discourse of beauty. The speaker of the poem resists the role that the treadmill plays as giving access to those things that the speaker desires. The speaker sees the treadmill as alternately enticing her with promises of what it can offer, cajoling her for not using it frequently enough, and mocking her for not being enough. To Kelly, her workout seat is the very despicable means to desired ends—love, marriage, family—in short, the future that she most wants. Kelly resents the importance that having the “perfect,” “latest look” (discourse of beauty) plays in attracting a mate. Indeed, I believe that Kelly‟s perceived exclusion from this discourse, her inability to gain legitimacy through this discourse, is what aggravates and discourages her. When the chairs in her life wrestle for her time, the “workout chair usually doesn‟t win so attacks w/unspoken guilt as you look in the mirror & realize maybe they should have won, But in a sense they kind of do b/c they never go away.” Her perceived inability to access and show competence within the discourse of beauty weighs constantly upon Kelly, an albatross around her neck. She describes the workout seat as a “constant need to be in shape, be fit, have a „flat‟ stomach.” For Kelly, it is beyond frustrating that the fact that she is a well-educated woman who is professionally very successful and who has strong relationships with family and friends is not enough. On the contrary, she laments that “some guys are intimidated by 194 the success and $ that you make even though you would give it up in a minute.” In this respect, her professional woman discourse directly conflicts and serves as an obstacle to gaining access to the relationship discourse. She wants so much to “spend my time w/the relationship chair,” but it remains elusive because of her denied access to/competence within the discourse of beauty and the obstacle that her professional woman discourse presents. Kelly‟s desire to be constituted as competent within the discourse of beauty led her to take—and ultimately abuse—diet drugs. Several years ago, after a disheartening break-up, she took Metabolife and lost 45 pounds. People told her that she looked great, and it boosted her self esteem. The positive attention and boosted self esteem were “addicting.” She was taking three to four doses of the drug per day. Her “heart was zooming,” and she knew that it wasn‟t good for her body. Around that time she was struck by Bell‟s palsy, a temporary paralysis to one side of the face. Kelly believes that this episode of Bell‟s palsy was triggered by her misuse of the diet drugs. Davies (2000) warns of the “specific danger of the romantic storyline” and the intoxicating assumption that the “storyline would unfold correctly with its inevitable happy ending of fulfillment and domestic bliss” (p. 80). For Davies, it is “through stories [that] we each constitute ourselves and each other as beings with specificity” (2000, p. 22). It is through our narrative storylines that our unique identity is constructed. Further, within discursive communities there are storylines—leading motifs—which contain and transmit valued discursive “truths.” For Kelly, the romantic storyline (or relationship discourse) is expected to produce her future discourse, which she envisions as: The dream seat—nice house, my own reading/relaxing room, gazing out the window at a late/pool— maybe watching the kids play— listening to the laughter—thinking of fun times and remembering how blessed I am to have so many great things
195
While I loathe the idea of disrespecting her future discourse, it is difficult for me as her friend to see her put so much faith into an idealized, fictional storyline and to see her causally connect that discourse back to her relationship discourse and back further to the highly problematic discourse of beauty. I feel as though her discursive positioning relative to these constructs gnaws at her, keeps her unsettled, discontented, and—in her own word—“depressed.” I wish to shatter the causal links among her discourses which constitute her as lacking, as not enough, as not competent, and displace them with other, more liberating, emboldening, and healthy discourses. However, “what seems obvious from one position, and readily available to any other person, is not necessarily so for the person in the „other‟ position” (Davies, 2000, p. 101). This causal discursive link between the discourse of beauty, relationship discourse, and future discourse may have been in place and reinforced over many years. Kelly points to her discursive community of family as one source of her discursive understanding of these causal links. Kelly describes her mother as “materialistic, focused on looks.” When Kelly was younger, her mother suggested that she enroll in Weight Watchers and made comments like, “You shouldn‟t wear those sorts of pants.” To have her mother position her as lacking, as incompetent in the discourse of beauty was profoundly hurtful to Kelly. She wonders if her abhorrence for her workout seat is in part her “rebelling against my mom.” Kelly resents—and resists—the workout seat as she simultaneously desires the access it permits—or makes available—to the discourse of beauty. As McLeod notes, "women accept, accommodate, ignore, resist, or protest—sometimes all at the same time" (1992, p. 534). For both Sam and Kelly, the discourse of beauty and the discursive community of family are strong constituting forces. Although these forces manifest themselves differently for each woman, both have experienced the debilitating effects of the power of these discourses. That said, both women highly value and love their families, and both are capable at successfully constituting themselves within the broader social discourse in which they are positioned.
196
Introducing Nina: Discourses Vying: Work v. Wife
The Mirrored Me
I pull my mirror from my bag and survey myself before my students pour in hair well coiffed, smoothed perfectly in place well tailored clothes, neat and professional I am with it, together, competent. In the background, behind my image, my desk sits tidy and uncluttered. My eyes shift back to my reflection my gaze is calm, patient, caring This I am good at. I hear the chatter of voices as my students clamber down the hall I glance at my image one last time I'm a “teacher.” Just right.
I walk into the house, and I am transformed—instantaneously— into a wife. I scoop up the mail, fishing out the bills and coupon flyer. As I walk into the kitchen, my eyes fall on the tennis racket that he has laid out. If that man tries to teach me to play tennis one more time I might choke him! He should know by now that I hate it when he tries to school me. I can figure it out myself, thank you very much! Then my eyes fall on the small vase of lilies placed next to the racket. I shake my head and smile. That man. He knows me so well. And at some point I’ll get the hang of this wife thing, I tell myself, 197
As I pull the salad and lean chicken from the fridge and turn on the oven. I catch my reflection in the mirror on the wall. On second thought, I turn off the oven, order a pizza, and think to myself, Tonight I’m the “fun wife.” Just right.
I slide behind the wheel of my car and shut the door, Shutting out my teacher self, my wife self. Establishing a 4-wheel, vehicular boundary. I shed my handbag and toss my canvas tote into the messy back seat. I begin to peel off my well-tailored clothes, which are suddenly too formal and itchy, And search the cluttered console for a hair band. I pull my hair into an untidy bun. And breathe. Then I check my reflection in the rear-view mirror. The mirror is delightfully, blessedly, mercifully blank, Reflecting nothing at all, As if I do not exist. And yet I am most myself here. I sigh in contentment. This is indeed a magical place. Just right.
Nina‟s artifact (see Figure 4.5) is mixed media constructed of a piece of patterned bond paper—representing her family chair—overlaid with another, two-sided piece of patterned bond paper split down the middle, thus making four separate panels (representing her work, self, marriage, and friendship seats). The pieces are held together by a hinge of tape. Each paper contains a mix of Polaroid snapshots, words and images clipped from magazines, and a drawing.
198
The first stanza of the poem “Mirrored Me” represents Nina‟s professional or work discourse. Nina is a special education teacher, and her specialty is working with autistic students. Nina describes her subject positioning within her professional discourse: I wanted to represent myself without showing myself [in photographs]. On the teacher one, I chose this [picture of myself] because I’m all put together. I look fresh. I’m showered. My hair is fixed. I have makeup on. This is how I represent myself as a teacher. Everything has to be all put together. Then, the book bag with the things coming out of it is also how I’m put together for my job every day. There is rarely a time where I don’t have all the things I need or, if I don’t have something, I’m so prepared and so early that I can go back and get it. I’m together, organized and I do it 100%. I do everything I need to do in this role in my life. Nina‟s professional discourse requires that she—like the speaker in the first stanza of the poem—be prepared, organized, well groomed, and professionally attired. Nina feels beyond proficient at her professional discourse. She is calm, caring, and skilled: My kids obviously know I have a personality, but I would say 95% of the time I am happy and what they need to see as a teacher. Calm, that’s an interesting one on this page because you don’t see it anywhere else. I am so together with my job, calm about everything, and I don’t react and panic. I don’t have any of those things going on, whereas in all my other seats I probably would have that. “Autism speaks.” I put that because that is where I have spent a lot of my time studying for my Master’s. It’s something I think I’m good at that a lot of people don’t understand. Interestingly, for Nina, her professional discourse requires that she be happy and calm around her students, that they not see too much of her “personality.” Although tangential to the focus of this study, it is intriguing that for Nina her professional discourse requires a white-washing or suppression of any “negative” emotions/reactions for the “benefit” of her students. What is key here is that Nina feels more comfortable, calm, skilled, and competent in her professional discourse than she does in some of her other subject positions, especially her marriage discourse.
199
Figure 4.5 Nina‟s artifact. 200
The second stanza of the poem represents Nina‟s marriage discourse. Nina had been married to Brian for about two years when she participated in this project, and she was pregnant with their first child at the time. The speaker in the poem takes care of the bills and cooking. These are roles within her marriage discourse that Nina performs. Because Nina is particular about the foods she eats and insists on having healthy meals, she does all of the cooking and grocery shopping. She also takes care of the household finances, a role that she wants to hold but that also causes her some anxiety: I put the check because I take care of the finances in the family. Otherwise, I think this role is really big. It’s a lot of pressure and it’s a lot of stress for me as a wife. I don’t mind doing it and I like to be in control of things, so it’s good for me that I do it, but it’s also a very scary part of our marriage, I would say. Brian doesn’t necessarily ask where our money is. He’s very trusting to know that everything is taken care of and it’s fine. This is scary for me because I don’t have a lot of help in making the big financial decisions; he just trusts me. It would be nice for me to have someone else look at it and say, “Yeah, I feel really good about it. It will be fine.” The coupon is a representation of the money. That’s another specific role I have as a wife. It’s my job to go to the grocery store. If I don’t go, then we’re eating out, and it’s my fault. I have these there because they are distinct roles that I have. I do well with distinct and the black and white. The gray stuff in the middle is harder for me. The cooking stuff is another role that is mine and that doesn’t happen if I do not do it. These three things are things that I have to be in total control of or I know it doesn’t happen. In fact, when Nina “allows” them to order a pizza—instead of being frugal and healthy— she becomes the “fun wife”: The pizza I put because we order pizza often. It’s like I’m being a fun wife when I let us do that. “Can we just order pizza?” Most of the time, I say, “No. We’re going to have something good. We’re going to have something healthy.” Ordering pizza is like I’m going to be so fun tonight. It’s pretty crazy. Over her spheres of control and responsibility, Nina‟s authority is unquestioned. Brian asks and Nina decides. He neither resists nor protests her discursive authority. Nina appreciates the well-defined roles that she and Brian have within the discourse of 201 marriage. These are the spheres of her control and her responsibility. If she does not perform these functions, they are left undone. One of Brian‟s roles is to clean. The photograph on Nina‟s “self” panel that shows a monstrous pile of clothes, hanger, and cord was not staged; she snapped a picture of her bedroom (see Figure 4.6). For all of her neatness and organization within her professional discourse, there is none of that in her marriage discourse, much to Brian‟s dismay. When I asked Nina how she and Brian decided on their respective roles within the marriage, she answered: I think it just came. I don't think we ever talked about it. It was just clear to him that he was probably going to be the one that cleaned. As conscious as I am about what I eat I had to be the one to cook to get my needs met that way. The money came about just because I couldn't look at the way that he spent money and be like, "Does that makes sense to you?" He was fine to be like, "Great do it because I don't know what I'm doing."
Figure 4.6 Nina‟s artifact, “self” panel
202
For Nina and Brian, the discursive negotiation of roles within their marriage was automatic and free of conflict, determined by their relative strengths, as opposed to by their sex/gender. Their marriage is not free of conflict, however, when Brian tries to teach Nina something, such as tennis. As comfortable and competent as Nina is at the teacher role within her professional subject position, she vehemently resists being positioned in the subordinate role of student within the marriage discourse: The tennis racket is—Brian and I play tennis together. That’s something he has taught me to do and to like. He loves to play tennis with me because he can coach me. It’s something I didn’t have before him. We don’t play very often because every time we get in a fight. We’re both really competitive people, and I think this is me as a wife. I never want to be wrong. I really would rather him never show me how to do things. I’m really stubborn in that way and I think that the tennis racket is a really good representation of that. When I first looked at Nina‟s artifact, one image screamed out at me: On her marriage seat page, Nina has a Polaroid of the passenger seat of Brian‟s car. Immediately I thought that Nina was positioning herself in the passenger or subordinate role within her marriage discourse. However, during our interview, I had to rethink my initial impression: This is Brian’s passenger seat. I thought that represented me as a wife. When we go somewhere together, he always drives and I’m always in the passenger seat. This is where a lot of our conversations take place, a lot of important conversations, unimportant conversations and possibly some disagreements. Because we’re not home that much together, if we have things we have to do, then we go places together in the car. A lot of discussion takes place there. It’s a good representation of me as a wife because I can sit in that seat and be happy, serious, not serious, mad. For Nina, the passenger seat does not represent a subordinate position within the marriage discourse. It represents an opportunity for her to be focused on the marriage discourse without having to perform other subjective positionings. Additionally, within her marriage discourse, Nina feels at liberty to display a variety of emotions/reactions— unlike within her professional discourse, when she feels as though any negative emotions/reactions cannot be revealed. As the interview progressed, it became clearer 203 and clearer that not only did Nina not see herself positioned as subordinate within her marriage discourse, but—quite on the contrary—the idea was abhorrent to her. Nonetheless, I wanted to ask a clarifying question: Before when you were talking about the wife seat you said what the passenger seat represented was where you guys have a lot of your conversations and you could be happy, or serious, or mad or whatever in that seat. Do you feel like that whole passenger seat is a metaphor for your whole marriage though? The way that you can just be different things all the time, is that what you mean? No, more like— Like I'm in the passenger seat and I'm not in control? Right. No. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. I would say that's the only time where my only role at that time is being a wife. We don't have friends around or other family. I'm not at school. Usually in that sense my only role at that time is a wife.
While certain that the passenger seat was not a metaphor for a subordinate role within her marriage discourse, Nina was less confident about her competence at the subject positioning of wife. When describing the panel of her artifact that represented her marriage seat (discourse), she explained that—like the speaker in the poem—she was still trying to get the hang of “this wife thing”: Obviously, I’m caring and loving as a wife, but I put “grow” because I have a long way to grow with all of these things. A lot of that is a result of being in a single- parent home. I didn’t see two parents and how they interact with each other, so I have to grow to be more like half of the marriage rather than wanting to be 90% of it, to trust another person with things that really don’t matter. I guess that would be “change” too, change and grow. I have a lot of both of that to do still. Two years into her marriage, Nina does not feel entirely competent and secure in her performance of wife within the discourse of marriage. Part of this stems from her experiences within her discursive community of family. Family—and Nina‟s experience being raised in a single-parent household—have left a powerful and indelible mark on her storyline. When I asked her why she
204 constructed the four smaller panels of her artifact upon the larger one representing her family, Nina explained: There are reasons for everything. I did these [work, self, marriage, and friend seats] smaller, with this one [family seat] in the back, because everything that is on my family seat makes me who I am as these other people. For example, being a teacher comes from what I have in the background of my family … The family one had to be bigger because that’s a bigger part of me than the other ones. For Nina, the discursive community of her family is by far the most important and powerful of her constituting discourses. It serves as her foundational discourse. Nina's extended family is close. They play softball together every Friday evening and often dine out together. The most influential aspect of her family discourse is Nina's mother. Nina and her brother were raised by their single, working mother. Nina‟s mother acted as breadwinner, disciplinarian, CEO, and CFO of their family. When asked how her family informed who Nina is as a women, she explains her mom‟s influence on her: My mom is the "work ethic mom," and she carried every role in our house. She was the disciplinarian, and my thoughts of it are that she carried every single role so well. When I talk about I'm not that emotional of a person I don't talk about it that much because I don't remember her doing that a lot. I think it was because she was always the strong one. She never wanted us to be sad that our dad wasn't there or stuff like that. I think a lot of that comes from that. Because her mom performed all of these functions—and did so with great proficiency— Nina still struggles to be part of a marriage team instead of a one-person show like her mother. Nina is attempting to revise her understanding of how a household looks and functions as she becomes more comfortable within her marriage discourse. When I asked Nina which of her chairs (discourses) would win if they were to fight one another, Nina promptly answered that it would be her family chair: I would say that family would win, although I would like to say that the self chair would win, but family would win because although I am very strong and set in my ways, I hate to have anyone mad at me. The underlying thing would just be that I would not want anyone in my family to be mad at me. As a wife, of course you don't want your husband to mad at you, but he has to get over it. There's no choice so he gets over it and it works that way. I wish I could
205
think of an example for that. I can't really think of anything. My family doesn't fight so if they did it would be really bad. For my wedding there was a blow up. My mom was really upset because she thought I was doing everything Catholic and we're not Catholic. She thought I was catering to Brian's family more than my own. It got kind of ugly for a couple of days. It was really terrible. As a wife, although the things that were happening were probably offensive to him, I knew he would be fine and get over it, whereas my mom—we had to do what we had to do to get her to be okay. Not only is Nina‟s discursive community of family a powerful influence on her, but her need to maintain harmony with her family—especially her mother—trumps even her marriage relationship. Where Nina expects her discursive community of marriage to weather strife without significant maintenance, she feels compelled to work to maintain the stability and harmony of her family. Further, the fact that strife is not a major component of her family discourse makes her doubly compelled to address it when it does surface. Strife—because of its infrequency in the family discourse—signals to her a possible discursive rupture, one that must be avoided by maintenance and conflict resolution. Ironically, although Nina does not feel completely competent in the subject position of wife, she believes that her marriage discourse is strong and secure and is not threatened by rupture and in need of maintenance. The last stanza of the poem represents Nina‟s “self” panel of her artifact. For Nina, her car is a place where she is free of the roles and expectations of her subject positionings and she is “just being [her]self”: This is my driver’s seat in my car. I included that because I am the only person that ever drives my car, and probably 95% of the time I am the only person in my car. That’s a lot of where being me is just being myself. My thoughts can be completely what I want them to be. No one is ever asking me, “What are you thinking about,” unless I’m on the phone, but that doesn’t count. Things like that. When Brian and I go somewhere together, we go in his car, so it’s not like—this isn’t even my life seat, this is just me. I might be getting myself together for the day and if I’m sad or something, I always feel like it’s time to be whatever. That’s what my question mark is, I guess, with the car too. It’s always my place where I’m thinking about things, things that I might not want other people to know or things that might bother me and I don’t feel like 206
talking about it. I just have time. This really is the kind of car I have. I put that because people identify you so much with your car. In the poem, once the speaker is alone in the car, shutting out her teacher self and wife self, she sheds the clothes and hairstyle of those other subject positionings. Her car is messy (she searches the “cluttered console” and tosses her “canvas tote into the messy backseat”), which reflects the picture of Nina‟s room that she included in her artifact as being how she “really is.” Once the speaker of the poem has shed the trappings of her subject positionings, she looks into the mirror and sees nothing—no reflected image of herself. This is significant because within the theoretical framework of poststructural feminism, “our existence as persons has no fundamental essence; we can only ever speak ourselves or be spoken into existence within the terms of available discourses” (Davies, 2000, p. 55). There is no “real self,” no true personhood outside of and separate from our discursive positionings. We are no more and no less than our subject positions. The way that Nina frames her description of her car as a site where she can be “just me” demonstrates her (most likely unconscious) commitment to the Enlightenment/humanist concept of the fixed, stable, autonomous self. This self is a discursive fiction of the Enlightenment/humanist discourse (St. Pierre & Pillow, 2000, p. 6). How, then, does a poststructural feminist make sense of Nina‟s experience of freedom when she is in her car? Nina‟s car is a site that is not “discourse free” but perhaps rather “discourse neutral,” in the sense that for the most part when she is in her car, she is not being actively hailed vis-a-vis a specific subject positioning. To be hailed is to be spoken into existence as a specific subject (Davies, 2000). “Both the person hailed and the person doing the hailing are constituted through discourses and storylines, the constitutive power lying in the discourse and the ways in which it has been taken up” (Davies, 2000, p. 29). For Nina, her car represents a place that she is alone, a place that insulates her—however temporarily—from multiple and active hailings. Functioning within and moving among differing discourses requires us to be a “different person in different social situations which call for different qualities and modes of femininity” (Weedon, 1997/1987, p. 83). This can be exhausting. For Nina, her car represents a reprieve, a rest from navigating her multiple—and often conflicting—discursive 207 positionings. The blank mirror in the third stanza, therefore, is illusory in the sense that we are never free of our subject positions; they are always with us. A more accurate image would have been a mirror filled with many and varied Ninas in her various subjectivities.
Introducing Gretchen: Actual and Ideal
The Man of My Dream
I sit on my perch as the boat idles down the Nile, The East and West coasts of Luxor drift by, awash in their glittering temples. I breathe in the scents, the architecture, the rich, vivid culture— The excitement, the vitality of traveling, Exploring, independent and free. Thrilling. Alive—fully alive.
The warm sun washes over me, Water laps gently against the boat— Tactile lullabies. My gaze becomes unfocused, I drift into a daydream.
A tall, broad-shouldered man— Part Indiana Jones— Capable and protective, leading me through exotic lands . . . Part Atticus Finch— A Man of integrity, a stable provider, caring for me . . . I sink into his arms, rest my head against his shoulder. 208
My eyes flutter open, My dream world dissipating like the Nile’s morning fog. I gaze at the sensational splendor around me. And wonder which I prefer— This world or the one in my daydream. Gretchen‟s artifact (see Figure 4.7) consists of bulleted lists for each of her seats, written in marker on white typing paper and pasted onto patterned stock paper (one seat per side of the stock paper). She has also taken Polaroid pictures of each of her seat sheets. Using poster paper and pieces of Velcro that she has obtained elsewhere (they were not in the artifact box), Gretchen has made a poster board with pockets to contain the seat sheets and Polaroids. She has pasted Velcro tabs onto the poster board to which she can affix the various Polaroids of her seats as she discusses them with me. Figure 4.7 shows the seat pairs that were on opposite sides of each patterned piece of stock paper (couch/lounge; car/plane; school/computer; restaurant/church). She intentionally matched the pairs as she did, coupling ones that she felt were most likely to befriend one another (addressing one of the prompt sub-questions that attempted to explore the degree to which discourses were consistent or overlapping).
209
Figure 4.7 Gretchen‟s artifact
210
Gretchen‟s artifact is replete with words and phrases associated with the image of a strong, capable, independent leader in control of her life: exploration (appears twice) control (appears five times) individuality (appears twice) independence (appears twice) excitement alive proactive providing for myself ownership location of information sharing my knowledge base ability to reach, shape, and mold others lead and influence delegate This discourse of independence is a major theme in her artifact and interviews. Her discourse of independence, which is explored more thoroughly later in this section, is connected to—and both makes possible and is reinforced by—her discourse of travel. Two of Gretchen‟s seats—seat on a plane and seat in a car—represent her discourse of travel. For her, this discourse values exploration, “cultural awareness,” independence (yet dependence on others of the culture being visited), control, and excitement. For Gretchen, travel is important enough to prioritize financially above some other purchases and uses of her funds. She feels “blessed” and “fortunate” to be in a position to travel regularly. The first stanza of the poem “The Man of My Dream” portrays Gretchen‟s discourse of travel specifically, as well as the general theme running throughout her artifact of the strong, capable, independent woman—her discourse of independence. The speaker of the poem thrills in the adventure of her travels down the Nile. She feels 211 independent, free, and fully alive. This stanza stands in stark contrast to the second stanza, the one in which the speaker daydreams of an iconic man—a cross between Indiana Jones and Atticus Finch—who can provide, protect, and lead her. The man of her daydream is from the American culture‟s prince/hero storyline. At various points during my interviews of Gretchen, she articulated an evangelical complementarian viewpoint. The complementarian viewpoint is often juxtaposed by its counterpoint—the egalitarian position. While both positions, their biblical basis, and analysis of the participants‟ perspectives on each are thoroughly examined in Chapter 5, I provide here a brief introduction to the complementarian perspective in order to examine Gretchen‟s complex—and paradoxical—views. Complementarianists—including best-selling Christian author John Piper— believe that God created women and men to be equal but different, such that women and men are each better-suited for some roles and functions than others, including the role of authority: At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man‟s differing relationships … at the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman‟s differing relationships. (Piper, 2006, pp. 35-36) The quotation above was on one of two cards that I presented to each participant. The other card had a quotation representing the egalitarian position. I asked each participant with which card she most identified. Gretchen selected the complementarian position as articulated above. When I asked Gretchen why she selected the card that she did, she explained that she feels that the complementarian perspective “has more bearing” on how she views herself in society and “men in society.” She hastened to add that it‟s “not that I disagree with the [egalitarian position]” but that she had believed the complementarian position for the “longest.” Then she added that she had selected the complementarian position not just because that was how she was raised but that it is her own view, the view with which she is “more comfortable.” In the third stanza of the poem, I have represented the complementarian perspective through reference to Indiana Jones and Atticus Finch, two icons who—
212 collectively—represent Piper‟s image of “mature masculinity” as leading, protecting, and providing. In the fourth stanza, the speaker considers which world she prefers—her current world, in which she is an independent explorer, or the one of the man of her dream. I felt that this tension was apparent throughout Gretchen‟s interview. On one hand, she seemed proud of her discourse of independence—in her accomplishments, in providing her herself, in owning her own home, in being in control of her finances. On the other hand, when speaking about her romantic discourse (she was dating a man named James at the time) she stated, “maybe I‟m traditional, but I believe in chivalry.” When asked about submission within a relationship, she conceded that she does submit. She waits for him to call her, usually waits for him to ask her out, and while she does pay for the date “once in a while,” James usually pays. She explains that she is “more apt to have him lead the relationship and how it goes” partly because Gretchen believes that doing so is a good way to know if “he‟s into me.” For Gretchen, her romantic discourse is predicated upon the complementarian position, and it is thus uncomfortable and difficult for Gretchen to “be the instigator in the relationship.” In addition to the artifact depicted in Figure 4.7, Gretchen also created a collage of words using metallic poetry tiles in response to the sub-prompt, “If the Bible could talk, this is what it would say to women . . .” Figure 4.8 shows her response to the sub- prompt.
If the Bible could talk, this is what it would say to women . . . star peace lost light music power funny tired
213 girl told talking color woman hand friends imagination soar love wing she sun mom true joy fun beautiful dream laughing smart glow teacher together happy heart awesome hard soft still alive
Figure 4.8 Gretchen‟s collage of words
214
When I asked Gretchen why she chose the words that she did, she explained that how she views women now has changed from how she viewed women when she was growing up. When she was little, she thought of women in more “traditional” terms, including, she pointed out, “mom,” “soft,” “teacher.” However, as Gretchen has gotten older, she identifies more with terms such as “power,” “soar,” and “imagination.” These are “more part of me, more important for women and me because of being independent,” which “made me more who I am.” Through being on her own, through being independent, she has “realized” and “appreciated” these elements of being a woman. Gretchen is proud of her discourse of independence and believes that it has made her a stronger and better person. Given that the sub-prompt Gretchen chose was about what the bible would say to women, I asked her for examples, people, or stories from the bible from which she drew when selecting poetry tiles. She explained that for the “stereotypical” tiles (e.g. mom, soft, teacher) it could be Mary or Mary Magdalene. “For words like „power‟ and „soaring,‟” she paused, considering, and said she was “trying to think of someone from the bible who would be an example.” After another pause, she concluded that “the bible concentrates more on the stereotypes” but she “knows there are some” examples from the bible that would fit the other words. Chapter 6 focuses more on participants‟ meaning- making of key biblical passages regarding gender. Gretchen had—earlier in the interview—stated that she is a “very different person because of circumstances given to me.” She had expected to be married with children by this point in her life. The fact that she is not has “made [her] a different person.” Initially, this frustrated her, but now she thinks, “Wow! I‟m a better person because I‟m independent.” She feels “happy for that now” and believes that she is “blessed” and “stronger.” Gretchen did not intentionally seek out and desire a discourse of independence. Rather, she was positioned this way by unexpected—and undesired—life circumstances. While her discourse of independence was not something she chose, it is nevertheless a source of pride and strength. Yet Gretchen also embraces complementarianism, which—for all its exclamations of “different but equal”—positions women as subordinates: 215
Still, in the model of headship and submission, the broader principle that “the way down is the way up” remains largely one-sided. Women submit. Men lovingly lead. This is the concern evangelical feminists raise with “complementarian” interpretations of mutual submission … When mutuality means authority for men, even when that authority is couched in the language of sacrificial love, real partnership is not possible. (Gallagher, 2003, p. 163) In other words, “different” is not “equal.” Regardless of how the requirement to submit to the authority and leadership of man is framed, it establishes an important and unrecoverable inequality. The contention between Gretchen‟s discourse of independence—marked by strength, control, and authority—and her commitment to the complementarian discourse—marked by affirming, receiving, submitting, and being lead, is reflected in some word pairs that Gretchen included in her poetry tile artifact, including “told/talking” and “hard/soft.” Embedded within this artifact is the very contention that is woven throughout her interview.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to introduce the reader to each of my four participants and to a discourse or discursive struggle that is significant to each. Each of the women experiences contention in and among her multiple subject positions, and each struggles to negotiate the multiple discourses that are valued by her varying discursive communities. Interestingly, throughout all four participants‟ artifacts, their discursive community of family was more prevalent than their discursive community of evangelicalism. Of the four, only two visually represented their religious discourse at all. While most of the interview questions revolved around their evangelical discourse, this was not the focus of most of the discussion of their artifacts. While they often refer to their religious discourse as explanation for why they believe certain things or think in certain ways, this discourse was less evident in the material artifacts that they created. What significant or importance—what meaning—is there in this? 216
The next chapter focuses specifically on the evangelical commitment to headship and submission. It also explores the complementarian and egalitarian positions and how participants respond to each. It will be clear to the reader that participants‟ views on these topics are complex and anything but straightforward.
217
CHAPTER 5
MAJOR THEMES: NAVIGATING EVANGELICAL GENDERED IDENTITY
"The interpretive practice of making sense of one's findings is both artistic and political.... there is no single interpretive truth" (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 26).
In this chapter, I examine in detail the evangelical concepts of headship and submission, complementarianism and egalitarianism. I attempt to articulate my participants‟ complex, nuanced, and paradoxical views on these discursive constructs. Before embarking on this analysis, I want to pause to discuss the classification of my participants as evangelical.
To Be or Not to Be Evangelical: That is the Question
In Chapter 2, I defined “evangelical” and explicated the characteristics of evangelicals. Generally, those who are recognizable as members of the discursive community of “evangelical” have the following characteristics: They are born-again Christians. They emphasize the importance of a personal relationship with Christ. They believe in the inerrancy of the bible. They believe in the importance of evangelizing. They believe in a dualistic ontology. They believe in the importance of being “in but not of the world.” They tend to hold conservative political and social views. Based on these characteristics, all four of my participants are evangelicals. However, categorizing an individual‟s religious identity is neither simple nor straightforward. For
218
making these assignments, “social scientists typically employ three main measures: denominational affiliation, theological belief, and self-identification” (Smith, 2000, p. 16). Even so, “all three measurement methods are useful but imperfect ways to identify these religious groups” (p. 16-17). All four of my participants attend Crossover, a nondenominational megachurch (described in Chapter 3). This alone is not sufficient for classification as evangelical. I attempted to explore the second measure, theological belief, by administering to my participants the brief, 6-question Evangelical Index 28 (Hammond & Hunter, 1984). The Evangelical Index was part of a larger study referred to as the Evangelical Academy Project, which took place from 1981-1985 (Hunter, 1987, p. 242). The questions in the index (see Chapter 3, page 80) attempt to examine the degree of theological orthodoxy amongst populations being studied (Hunter, 1987). The questions examine participants‟ views on inerrancy and literalness of the bible; divinity of Christ; nature of the devil; life after death; origin of humanity; and origin of the world. Scores for each of the six items range from 1 (high evangelical response) to 3 (low evangelical response). Possible score totals range from 6 (theologically conservative) to 18 (theologically liberal). Figure 5.1 shows the scores of each participant.
28 Although there are two places within my study where I include quantitative data (i.e. use of the Hammond and Hunter (1984) Evangelical Index and my development and use of a Likert scale [see Figure 5.2]), my study is not a mixed methods research project. Mixed methods studies are “direct descendents of classical experimentalism” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 9) that “presume a methodological hierarchy in which quantitative methods are at the top” (p. 9) and qualitative methods are relegated to a lesser position. Quite on the contrary, my study privileges qualitative data. I use the Evangelical Index as one way to consider my naming/categorizing participants “evangelical,” while acknowledging that within the poststructural feminist framework that any naming/categorizing is a problematic act that must be analyzed and deconstructed (as I try to do in this chapter). I also developed and used a Likert scale based on EEWC belief statements. I asked my participants to complete this scale as a quick way for me to ascertain their agreement with biblical feminist statements; this quick check allowed me to focus my interview questions more carefully to really explore their views about such beliefs. In neither case do I see my “quantitative” data as “evidence of that which is real” (Davies, 2004, p. 4), which is the hallmark of quantitative research. Further, poststructural feminist work invites methods that challenge and trouble traditional understandings of research and that push “what is possible, theoretically and methodologically” (St. Pierre & Willow, 2000, p. 16). 219
Figure 5.1 Evangelical Index Results
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
K G N S K = Kelly G = Gretchen N = Nina S = Sam
While each participant‟s score was unique compared to the others‟ scores, they were knotted in approximately the middle (although slightly towards the liberal side) of the scale. The only item on which all four participants agreed was about the nature of the devil: All four believe that “the Devil is an impersonal force that influences people to do wrong,” (Hammond & Hunter, 1984, p. 236) which was rated a scored of 2, representing a “moderate” evangelical response. The only item on which there was no agreement was about the origin of the world. Responses ranged from Kelly‟s belief that “the world was created in 6 twenty-four hours days” (high evangelical response) to Sam‟s belief that “the Biblical account of the origin of the world is intended to be symbolic and not literal” (low evangelical response) and Nina‟s response of “can‟t say” (also rated as a low evangelical response). According to the Evangelical Index, my participants are soundly evangelical. Smith‟s third method for measuring religious identity is self-identification. Interestingly—and importantly—none of my participants identifies herself as evangelical. When I asked Nina about her religious identity, asking her if she would describe herself as fundamentalist, evangelical, mainline Protestant, or theologically liberal, she responded, “I don‟t really understand what these mean.” Gretchen identifies herself as “fundamental” because her “viewpoints are fundamental—they are the core values of Christianity,” the “fundamental” Christian beliefs. Gretchen‟s definition of fundamentalism is different than the academic notion of the term, as explicated in Chapter 2. Further, Gretchen associated evangelicalism with tongues and being “slain in the spirit—hard core Christianity.” Her notion of evangelicals is more aligned to the 220
academic conception of charismatics. Kelly did not strongly identify with any of the monikers and had a strong negative response to the term “evangelical”: “the term freaks me out.” Like Gretchen, when Kelly thinks of evangelicals, she thinks of people speaking in tongues. Sam also did not identify with any of the terms, explaining that to her “all of those just seem to yell, to me, „conformity rules.‟ Like close-mindedness, I guess. I look at non-denominational as being—well, I guess it‟s literal, but like being open-minded, being accepting.” When I asked her about the term “evangelical,” she responded: You know, when I think of evangelical it gives me the creeps. Only because of the whole thing of going literally physically and going out and stopping people on the street. That’s why. I don’t agree with it. As a person, I don’t think that’s how you lead people to God. That’s not how I did it and I don’t see many people that way. Sam is referring to the extreme version of evangelizing that insists that Christians go forth and make disciples of strangers. Sam, on the other hand, only evangelizes people with whom she has a relationship and whom she believes are open to being evangelized. For example, Sam‟s boss began to attend Crossover and even joined a small group because of her influence. Anther coworker of Sam‟s began to attend Crossover with her children as well. My participants‟ responses to this question about their religious identity are important for two reasons: 1) the way that they define the terms is often at odds with scholarly definitions of the terms; 2) I have to ask myself as researcher what I do with the fact that I am labeling my participants with a term with which they not only don‟t identify but with which three of them have a negative connotation—even a visceral reaction. This is an ethical quandary. On some level it seems condescending and inappropriate to label participants when they are not in agreement with the labeling. Nonetheless, within the discourse of scholarly writing, one is expected to use academic terminology and to situate one‟s research using established classification systems. On the other hand, my discourse of poststructural feminism requires prioritizing the researcher‟s ethical commitment to her participants above all else. Even the title of my dissertation identifies my participants as “evangelical Christian women.”
221
While this quandary might seem modest in the scheme of ethical dilemmas, it does exemplify how one can be caught between conflicting and contradictory discursive requirements. How will I resolve this conflict? I have decided to use the scholarly understanding of the term—as I have outlined in Chapter 2—while being candid about my participants‟ non-identification with the term. Providing space for their contestation of the term provides them with the opportunity to reject this discursive positioning. That said, I am still uneasy with my decision to label my participants with a term for which they have no affinity.
Headship and Submission
As discussed in Chapter 2, evangelicals are committed to a dualistic ontology replete with binaries such as creator/creation, good/evil, saved/unsaved, sacred/secular, spirit/body, male/female, masculine/feminine (Balmer, 2006b; Cochran, 2005; Ingersoll, 2003). These binaries are hierarchical in nature such that the first term in the pair is superior to—and positioned above—the second: Dualism describes a split in reality between “transcendent Spirit (mind, ego) and inferior and dependent physical nature.” It is evidenced by a series of polarities: mind-body, individual-collective, grace-nature, spirit-matter, man-woman, God- creation. Each of these fit into a hierarchy of good and evil that associate man with “the male transcendent ego or God” and woman with the lower, material world. This assigns to her a negative identity in relation to the divine.27 Gender, therefore, is the primary symbol of dualism and can be seen clearly in the subordinate way in which women are viewed in scripture. (Cochran, 2005, p. 122) This commitment to the dualistic nature of reality and the subordination of women within that reality is codified for evangelicals in the complementarian perspective. The “complementarian, or traditionalist, position [is] the backbone of the Christian Right‟s discourse on gender and the Bible” (Scholz, 2005, p. 85). This “prevailing evangelical notion of wifely submission” is the “dominant discourse of family power among conservative religious luminaries” (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 57, 110):
222
God chose to create two sexes, to create the man first to establish his headship in the family and potentially in the church, and to create the woman after, from, and for the sake of the man to establish her position in the family and the church … Why God chose to confer headship on the man is not clarified in the Bible; one possible explanation, suggested by Ephesians 5:22ff., is to demonstrate the relationship between Christ and the church to believers and to the world. This difference between men and women can be termed economic or functional subordination. It means that though men and women are equal in personhood, God has ordained a difference in function. Men function as heads of their wives and may become elders in the church if they meet the qualifications in I Timothy 3:1ff. Women submit themselves to their husbands and may not become elders in the church (they may not teach and rule in the church). 29 (Foh, 1979, p. 260) Key in this passage are the notions that 1) God made men and women different from one another for different purposes, functions, or roles; 2) God positioned women subordinate to men; 3) the subordination of women to men may reflect the divinely designed subordination of the church to Christ; 4) this divinely ordained order requires headship of men and submission of women; 5) women are barred biblically from serving as church elders and teaching/ruling men. Proponents of the complementarian position often emphasize that while women are functionally subordinate to men, “male and female believers share the benefits of salvation equally; both are being conformed to Christ‟s image … This principle can be termed ontological equality of being. It means men and women are equal as persons” (Foh, 1979, p. 259). This difference between ontological equality and functional quality means that men and women are “created equally before God but with different social and ecclesiastical roles” (Scholz, 2005, p. 88): The evangelical tradition prescribes a particular role and nature for the “Christian” woman. She is submissive; she needs protection from physical and emotional attack, and from spiritual deception; she is to be obedient to male authority; she is to maintain a quiet and tranquil spirit even in the face of a disruptive male presence. These prescriptions are ordained by God and based in human nature and the biological fact of one‟s gender. (Bineham, 1993, p. 520)
29 Susan Foh earned her M.A. at Westminster Theological Seminary and is the author of several texts (book, chapters, articles). Ironically, some scholars and church leaders bar women from graduate study of theology based on arguments espoused by Foh (Ingersoll, 2003). Further, in the sense that Foh‟s writings could be read by and educate men, she would be in violation of the edict she promotes that bars women from teaching men. Ironically, Foh is a counter-example to the very position that she advocates. 223
Women, as the weaker sex, are to look to men for protection, leadership, and guidance. This is God‟s order for creation, a biological fact of human nature. Through the “cultivation of femininity,” women are “conforming to their own true nature” (Griffith, 1997, p. 44). These “gender roles reflect inherent, essential differences between women and men” (Brasher, 1998, p. 144). For women, submission to men is “living in accord with godly order” (Brasher, 1998, p. 148). This “naturalized hierarchy” (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 61) dictates the roles and positions of men versus women. Women are not to lament their subordinate position. Rather, they are discursively disciplined to see the “joy to be found in subordination to the God-given authority of husbands” and to “find their true selves, lovingly created by god, liberated through submission” (Griffith, 1997, p. 44-45, 45). Evangelical author Elisabeth Elliot wrote (as quoted in Griffith, 1997) that there is “‟great relief in not having to be equal‟” (p. 44). Biblical feminists offer a vociferous rebuttal of complementarianism, arguing that functional or economic subordination within ontological equality is contradictory and meaningless, as Groothuis (as quoted in Gallagher, 2003) explains: When authority of this nature is restricted for men and denied to women, it is meaningless and misleading to talk of it as not being a privilege but a responsibility, and not a position of superiority but of servanthood. … Regardless of how hierarchalists try to explain the situation, the idea that women are equal in their being, yet unequal by virtue of their being, is contradictory and ultimately nonsensical. … A permanent and comprehensive subordination based on a person‟s essence is an essential (not merely a functional) subordination. In the final analysis, gender hierarchy allows for no meaningful distinction between the person and the position. (54-55) (p. 165) For Groothuis—and other biblical feminists like her—benign patriarchy in the form of different but equal complementarianism is neither benign nor equal. Complementarianism is not only an oppressive discourse for women but also for homosexuals. Generally unspoken but inextricable from this gender essentialism is blatant heterosexism (Scholz, 2005, p. 91). Homosexuality is threatening to the evangelical ontology (and is therefore not only banned but vilified) because it ruptures the supposed complimentarily of the sexes and upends essential, “God-designed” gender roles (Balmer, 2006c).
224
The egalitarian position, also known as biblical equality, stands in stark contrast and serves as an “oppositional discourse” (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 110) to the complementarian position: What is biblical equality? It is the belief that all people are equal before God and in Christ. All have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God. God freely calls believers to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race. (Padgett, 2002, p. 22) For egalitarians, roles and functions are based on gifts, strengths, and interests, not on gender/sex assignments (Gallagher, 2003; Bartkowski, 2001). Egalitarians promote not only ontological equality but also functional and economic equality. Within the context of a relationship, egalitarianism is a “partnership of interdependent, individually gifted, and mutually respectful individuals” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 76). Proponents of biblical equality are often referred to as “biblical feminists” (Cochran, 2005): From the beginning, biblical feminists addressed [the issue of biblical authority] because of a desire to convince their fellow evangelicals that the Bible, not just secular society or liberal philosophies, teaches the equality of men and women in the home, church, and society. To do this, they had to take the authority of the Bible seriously and show that those who taught women‟s subordination had been misinterpreting scripture. (Cochran, 2005, p. 190) For egalitarians, the bible does teach equality, and any reading of the bible contrary to this is an errant reading. As an example, Cochran argues that “to make the analogy that the wife is to her husband as Christ is to the Father would be to make the male analogous to the first person of the Trinity, an idolatrous concept” (2005, p. 61). Emphasis on the inerrancy of the bible puts egalitarianism soundly within the evangelical discourse even while it attempts to subvert the key discursive construct of the dualistic and complimentary nature of gender/sex. Because biblical feminists believe in the inerrancy of the bible—as do complementarianists—both discourses use the bible as the basis of, and in defense of, their position. This is no small issue: Not only are the meanings of biblical texts different for traditional evangelicals and evangelical feminists, but the nature of those texts are different too. For the former group the texts are closed, for the latter they are open to various interpretations. (Bineham, 1993, p. 527) In their commitment to biblical inerrancy, there is overlap between the discourses of complementarianism and egalitarianism; however, for traditionalists, the bible is the
225
straightforward Word of God and is not open to anything as relative as interpretation. While for biblical feminists dating all the way back to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, it is imperative to their project that the bible be interpreted differently. Not only is the meaning and nature of the bible different for these competing discourses, but there is an important ontological difference regarding the nature of man and woman as well. For complementarianists, the world is dualistic in nature, and men and women have important, essential differences that have implications for their purposes and roles: “The continuing salience of men‟s headship emerges out of evangelical ontology itself. For the majority of evangelicals, gender is not just relational; it is reality extending throughout the created order” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 18). For egalitarians, however, this dualism is not only rejected but obliterated, and in its place is the discourse of gifts/talents. For egalitarians, the “issue of who makes decisions is connected to the particular skills or gifts each brings to the partnership” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 95) and is independent of race, class, and gender. I cannot overstate the size and significance of this disjuncture between these competing discourses. Nonetheless, some traditionalists have begun to “inject egalitarian rhetoric” (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 55) into the mandate for submission: In a move reminiscent of segregationist arguments for separate but equal treatment, gender-essentialist evangelicals have begun to argue that men and women each have authority that is exercised in different ways. In an effort to bridge the gap between hierarchalists and egalitarians, Larry Crabb (1991), for example, writes that husbands have authority to serve by leading and wives have authority to serve by submitting. (Gallagher, 2003, p. 164) Infusing into complementarian rhetoric a nod to women‟s authority (to submit) is one strategy for making the complementarianist discourse more palatable in contemporary America. Another is to emphasize that a husband is called to be a “benevolent patriarch” (Stacey, 1998, p. 65), a “servant leader” whose authority is a “burden” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 164) and not a privilege, and to call both men and women to “mutual submission” to each other: “‟Mutual submission is just another way of describing servant leadership for the husband and loving submission for the wife‟” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 164). The discursive construct of “servant leadership” is, however, an oxymoron (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 59), and these strategies represent a “neopatriarchal discourse” (p. 59): “New- 226
guard advocates of patriarchy have sought to incorporate feminist critiques of male domination into their vision of marital relation while still envisioning the husband as the family‟s leader” (p. 59).
Ambivalence: The Space between Avowed and Lived
The complementarian and egalitarian positions are exemplified in the passages quoted from John Piper (2006) and Christians for Biblical Equality (2007) in Figure 5.2. For my study, I showed to participants two cards, each one containing one of the aforementioned positions. I asked participants with which position they more identified.
Figure 5.2 Complementarian and Egalitarian Position Statements Complementarianism Position
Proponents of this view believe that women and men are equal in worthiness in God‟s eyes but that women and men were created differently by God. As such, women and men have different roles in home, church, and society. This “different but equal” position is described by one complementarian this way:
“At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships” and “At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.” (Piper,2006, p. 35-36)
Reference:
227
Piper, J. (2006). Vision of biblical complementarity: Manhood and womanhood defined according to the bible. In J. Piper & W. Grudem (Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood: A response to evangelical feminism (p. 60-93). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Egalitarianism Position
Proponents of this view believe that the Bible advocates for women‟s and men‟s equal participation in home, church, and society. One organization that embraces the egalitarianist position claims:
“We believe the Bible teaches the equality of women and men.
We believe God has given each person gifts to be used for the good of Christ's kingdom.
We believe Christians are to develop and exercise their God-given gifts in church, world, and home.” (CBE, 2007)
Reference:
Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE). Christians for biblical equality: Who we are. [Online]. Available: http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/about/who_we_are.shtml (accessed April 6, 2007).
All of the participants except Gretchen stated that they more identified with the egalitarian position, although Nina was somewhat ambivalent when she selected the egalitarian card: What made you decide on that one?
228
I think the quotes at the bottom, that “God has given each person gifts to be used for the good of Christ's kingdom,” and “use the gifts in the church, world and home,” I can relate to that more than I can some of the things in this one that just kind of throw me off, like “mature femininity.” I don't know, this was hard. I kind of could pick either one, I think.
So you feel like you identify with both, but you like that one [egalitarianist position] a little more?
I think I do. Yeah. I feel like this one [complementarian], I definitely think “different but equal.” That we're equal, but for different reasons and for different purposes.
In her response, Nina was attracted to the egalitarianist contention that we are all uniquely gifted and that we should use our gifts to promote God‟s kingdom in ways that are not dictated by race, class, or gender. On the other hand, she is attracted to the “different but equal” tenant of the complementarianist position. Nonetheless, the next portion of the interview seemed to support her egalitarian leanings: In marriage, who should have more say-so when it comes to making decisions about important financial matters?
I think whichever spouse, husband or wife, has more knowledge in that area, or better experience. I don't think it's always the husband, or always the wife, or always the person who makes more money. I don't think that, either.
So in your relationship, that would be you, because you're sort of the financial person?
Yes. Brian's more of a global-type of personality, not focused on that.
What about child rearing?
I think that should just be both. If both husband and wife are equally involved, it's not like a separate living situation, it should be equal, both.
What about spending leisure time?
I would say the same for that. Both equally.
229
Who should make the decision about who works outside the home?
I think both people, just depending on looking at the reasons for one person to be working outside the home to be better than the other.
So if you and Brian were to disagree about important decisions that are to be made, who should give in and go along with what the other thinks?
Well, him, of course! (Laughs.) I don't know. From my own marriage, I'd say the man, just because a lot of times, they're just more laid back about things, and it's a lot easier for them to not have that control over whatever it is that the issue might be. But I don't necessarily think that either person should have to.
So would you say that the man would give in more because they're more laid back, is that something you think of marriages in general or something that's more specific to you guys?
It is specific to us, but I think I generalize and think that most husbands must be like that, because Brian's the only husband I know in that way.
This is an intriguing piece of dialogue. Nina holds that God created men and women equally but for different reasons, different purposes. Yet when asked about traditional gender role distinctions that are commonly articulated within evangelicalism (i.e. men as head of home and family who control finances, make significant family decisions like who works outside the home, and act as the final arbiter, while women are more suited for child-rearing and submitting to the decisions of the man), Nina responds in a way that is consistent with egalitarianism and elides the different reasons and purposes for which men and women were made. Further, to the question about who should give in when consensus cannot be reached between her and Brian, she answers—most decidedly against complementarian discourse—that Brian does because he is more laid back and does not have a strong need for control. She extrapolated from her relationship with Brian to state that husbands in general are essentially (created) like this (implying that women are not), although she then recognizes that she is generalizing based only on her
230
experience with Brian. Nonetheless, this suggests a subtle but important discursive conditioning towards essential gender differences—a hallmark of complementarianism. Ultimately, though, she states that “I don‟t necessarily think that either person should have to” give in when consensus cannot be reached. To this point, Nina has been somewhat ambivalent philosophically about complementarianism versus egalitarianism in the abstract but decidedly egalitarianism when answering about practical ways in which these discourses play out. This is not unusual. Both Bartkowski (2001) and Gallagher (2003) found space between evangelicals‟ avowed beliefs and their lived experiences. Often, their participants avowed a less egalitarian perspective but lived a more egalitarian lifestyle. The next series of questions in Nina‟s interview disclose an even more complicated set of beliefs: The Bible refers to man as the head, in marriage. What exactly does it mean to be head?
I think it definitely means the spiritual leader. That's one of the questions, sorry.
That's okay.
I do think it means that the husband should be responsible for spiritual direction. I remember being at a wedding, and the pastor for the two who were getting married, when he was describing the roles, he was like, you're going to say to her, wake up and get the kids ready, we're going to church no matter what.
What were you thinking about that when you heard it?
I think it's good. I don't think that's a role that a woman cannot have, or a wife cannot have. But I think it might be good that it's identified that the husband, you need to lead us, you need to make sure we're accountable. Kind of giving one person that role.
Do you think that the husband should be the final authority in decision-making?
No.
231
Do you think that the husband should necessarily be the primary breadwinner?
No, I don't think necessarily.
So in your marriage, do you see Brian as the head?
Probably not. I don't know that one of us would say that one is head. We're definitely head in certain issues, in different things in our house, but I wouldn't say as the marriage as a whole.
Nina narrows the discursive construct of headship to mean spiritual leadership. This is one of the types of headship that Gallagher (2003) identifies; she also recognizes headship as being the financial breadwinner, as having the final say in decisions, and as having the ultimate responsibility for the family (p. 71, 87). Spiritual leadership can refer to “having daily devotions, going to church, joining in church activities, setting a good example, being more than a pew warmer” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 72). However, instead of seeing male headship as spiritual leader as “rooted in natural, God-given, unchangeable differences between women and men” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 71), Nina explained that “I don‟t think that‟s a role that a woman cannot have, or a wife cannot have”; instead, it is as if God has assigned this role to men arbitrarily, since nothing about the male requires that this role be his—he has no essential nature that serves as a necessary condition for this assignment. While Nina states that man is head spiritually, at this point in the interview, she doesn‟t see Brian in this role within their marriage. However, later in the interview she identified with the egalitarian construct of mutuality and concluded that headship and mutuality are mutually exclusive but then also agreed that Brian is the head in spiritual matters: Do you think that husbands and wives should be mutual, equal partners in everything?
Yes.
What does that mean to you?
Well, maybe I need to change that. Maybe I want to say no. They don't have to be equal partners in
232
everything. I think that people in general just have different strengths and weaknesses. If there's a clear strength in either the husband or the wife in the marriage, one of those concrete things like finances or something like that, then you might not be equal partners in that. My example would be like Brian just trusts that whatever decisions I make with our money is fine. He's not really an equal partner in that. I would easily make a decision without asking him.
When you put all those things together, as a sum total, in the whole marriage?
In the whole marriage, as a whole, then yes, they should be equal partners.
How does that idea of being equal partners overall, then not equal partners in different subsets of the marriage, how does that, if at all, relate to the idea of male headship?
I think it kind of doesn't, because if you're mutual equal partners, then it means that whatever issues or whatever your discussions are, it's not like it's going to be that you debate it until the end and then, okay, you have the final decision. I don't think it would ever be like that, so I don't think that you could say that the husband would be the head of a marriage with mutual and equal partners. I don't think the word "equal" allows room for "head."
…
Do you see Brian as the spiritual leader of your marriage?
Yes, I would say I do.
What does that mean to you?
I think for us it's more of we both have really strong beliefs. We both have a good faith, but he's able to verbalize it more, where I want to just keep it to myself and not want to talk about it. But he will say to me, that's not what people do, you should want to talk about it, you should want to pray out loud together.
233
In that respect he's sort of the spiritual leader of your home. Would you say then that you believe in headship or that you don't believe in it?
I do believe that the male should be the spiritual leader. So if that's what you mean by headship, yes.
But that's really the only way you see it?
I think so.
Why do you think the male should be the spiritual leader? What makes you think that?
I think just because I think of God as male, and we have more male pastors and obviously the priests are only male. In our society, religion has evolved in our country, you just automatically think of the male as the spiritual leader.
…
Are there separate roles for men and women in the home?
Yes.
What are those?
As a stereotype, I don't know. But I think as a marriage, you decide the separate roles for a woman and a man.
So it's not across the board, men should do this, women should do this?
No. I think it should be within your own individual marriage. I don’t think it's across the board.
In the beginning of this passage, Nina agrees that husbands and wives should be mutual, equal partners in everything. Then she hesitates, explaining that they don‟t have to be equal in everything, since “people in general just have different strengths and weaknesses.” Through this statement, she accesses the gifts/talents construct of the egalitarian discourse: “Most egalitarian partners base decision-making on the distribution of specific expertise” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 96). Nina‟s example of this is her control of the finances, explaining that Brian isn‟t “really an equal partner in that. I would easily 234
make a decision without asking him.” In this exchange, Nina has articulated a discourse of specific inequality based on skill/gift/talent (e.g. running finances) set within an overall or overarching net equality, stating: “In the whole marriage, as a whole, then yes, they should be equal partners.” In the next portion of the passage above, she rejects headship as final arbiter or “trump card” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 99) headship or “last grasp patriarchy” (Stacey, 1998, p. 56): “ it‟s not going to be that you debate it until the end and then, okay, you have the final decision.” She—for a moment at least—admits the impossibility of reconciling complementarian and egalitarian discourses: “I don‟t think that you could say that the husband would be the head of a marriage with mutual and equal partners. I don‟t think the word „equal‟ allows room for „head.‟” In my attempt to understand this complex nexus of views, I continued to question her notion of headship. Throughout this exchange, Nina never communicated—verbally or nonverbally—impatience with my perseveration on this topic. As I continued to seek understanding of her ideas about headship, asking, “In that respect [Brian‟s] sort of the spiritual leader of your home. Would you say then that you believe in headship or that you don‟t believe in it?”, she responded, “I do believe that the male should be the spiritual leader. So if that‟s what you mean by headship, yes.” Earlier in the interview, Nina had defined headship as spiritual leadership (“What exactly does it mean to be head?”/“I think it definitely means the spiritual leader.”) but had stated that Brian wasn‟t the head in their marriage (“So in your marriage, do you see Brian as the head?”/“Probably not. I don‟t know that I would say that one of us would say that one is head.”). Here, though, she is almost submitting to me to define headship (“So if that‟s what you mean by headship-“) and then agreeing that, by this definition of headship, Brian is head of their marriage. When I asked her why the male should be the spiritual leader, she explained, “I think of God as male, and we have more male pastors … you just automatically think of the male as the spiritual leader.” This could reflect inductive reasoning—all available examples in her life are of males in the position of spiritual leadership (a function of powerful discursive positioning). It could also reflect an essentialist belief that males are designed for spiritual leadership, that such leadership is part of their purpose and role. 235
Again, this is different from her answer earlier in the interview in which she stated that “I don‟t think that‟s a role that a woman cannot have, or a wife cannot have.” In this passage, Nina moves back and forth between complementarian and egalitarian discourses. The result is a messy, contradictory explanation that is difficult to follow and perhaps impossible to fully understand. I say this not as any fault or failing of Nina‟s. Quite on the contrary, Nina diligently attempts to appropriate headship by narrowing it to spiritual leadership—something that she can accept within the specificity of her own marriage. Further, she tries to accommodate both the ideal or abstract discursive construct of headship—which is biblically required (and therefore incapable of being rejected or dismissed, since her evangelical discourse frames the bible as inerrant and central)—and mutuality, which is her lived discourse. Nina‟s interview exemplifies “symbolic traditionalism with pragmatic egalitarianism” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 84); she does not/cannot renounce complementarianism entirely, but her marriage experience is egalitarian: “But I think as a marriage, you decide the separate roles for a woman and a man.” As Nina attempts to move between and among the discourses of complementarianism and egalitarianism, she slips and stumbles. This is understandable, given—as discussed earlier in this section—the ontological schism that lies between these discourses. In Gallagher‟s (2003) study: This process of thinking-it-through-on-the-fly was typical of the majority of evangelicals … most evangelicals work very hard to put together seemingly disparate ideals of partnership and hierarchy within marriage. That this is a struggle should not be surprising … ordinary evangelicals asked about gender face a tension between two sets of ideas that seem difficult to reconcile. (p. 78) As such, evangelicals who attempt to accommodate and appropriate these discourses in order that they may coexist find themselves puzzled. The coexistence of the discourses of complementarianism and egalitarianism is difficult at best and contradictory and meaningless at worst. Nina‟s interview reflects the “complex and contested state of evangelical gender and family discourse” (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 162). In this interview, Nina was like a weaver, weaving together two disparate patterns, attempting to braid and intertwine them, and in the process—regardless of how
236
deftly she weaved—knots formed, which tripped up her knitting. Gallagher (2003) uses the metaphor of a gyroscope to explain this tendency: Like a gyroscope, evangelicals appear quite wobbly when asked to slow the process down and describe bits of values and needs. Apparently inconsistent, vague, and uncertain of their direction, they speak of one idea and then wobble on to speak of another. (p. 151) This gyroscopic movement was evidence with each of my participants, to greater and lesser degrees, as the succeeding sections show.
Other Views on Headship
In marriage, Vicky claims, a wife is supposed to support her mate, but a husband is, in return, responsible for his wife‟s development. “There are different roles in the home. The husband is the mediator between the family and God. It is his responsibility to guide the family. It is his responsibility to take care of his wife, to provide for her happiness, to provide for her needs. She is, in a sense, what he makes her to be. That‟s his responsibility. A wife is there to be a helper, an encourager, a supporter, a prayer partner, a prayer warrior for her husband.” (Brasher, 1998, p. 153-154)
For Brasher‟s participant Vicky, headship is a powerful construct that dictates the roles and relationship between man and woman such that the woman is “what he makes her to be,” the wife is an “encourager” and “supporter.” None of my participants framed headship in nearly so striking and powerful a way as did Vicky. While Nina framed headship as spiritual leadership, Sam and Kelly—both of whom self-identified as egalitarians—framed it as a voicing on behalf of the family, as Sam explains: I think of the time that [biblical mandate for headship and submission] was referred to, society was different, which always has to be taken into account, but I feel like for me and maybe this is partially from growing up, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he is the ruler of everything. I think when things are discussed and decisions are made, he is the one that comes to the table and says “this is the decision that we made together.” Do you know what I mean? Say it is a move. They discussed, they determined the pros and cons and they come to a final decision together, compromising, but it is basically him that voices. This is the decision we have made. I think in the times that this 237
was written, it was the man is head of the household, the man is ruler. He is the direction. He is the final decision maker. He is the one that brings the money in, but I feel like times have changed, but that is not necessarily the representation anymore. It may have been at the time. I don’t really think that was the best thing for relationships for one person to have.
Sam contextualizes the biblical mandate for headship by situating it in a different time period. While the mandate still remains, the meaning and embodiment of it has changed. Indeed, Sam strips from the construct of headship all its potency and appropriates it as giving voice to shared decisions while actively rejecting any notion of headship as a superordinate position of ruler, decision-maker, direction-setter, and breadwinner. Further, she concludes that such a positioning of man is unhealthy: “I don‟t really think that was the best thing for relationships for one person to have.” Sam has reframed headship such that it is merely nominal. Similarly, Kelly frames headship as the role of speaker, which she connects with the concept of ultimate responsibility, of an “overarching sense of men‟s ultimate responsibility before God for the well-being of the family” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 71). Kelly described headship as “just head of household to ensure everything and everyone are okay. He‟s greater responsible.” When I asked for a specific example, she paused, and then explained that if something were to go wrong with a couple‟s children, the husband would “be the speaker” and would “take the fall” and say, “‟I apologize for my kids‟ deeds.‟” Again, for Kelly and Sam, the husband as head takes on the role of speaker for the family but not the role of decision-maker or ruler. Neither woman rejected headship outright, but each scraped from it any real sense of power, authority, and superiority. I wonder if how I phrased the question had anything to do with my participants‟ responses. I began the question by stating, “The bible refers to man as the „head‟ in a marriage.” That simple sentence signaled a strong discursive requirement: A good evangelical does not—cannot—question, reject, or dismiss that which is in the bible. My very phrasing of the question may have forced my participants to negotiate a version of headship that simultaneously embraced the inerrancy of the bible while limiting the scope and power of headship. In doing so, they resisted—but
238
ultimately accommodated—the biblical construct of headship. Additionally, it is important to note that also embedded in my question is the unexamined discursive expectation within evangelicalism of heterosexual union in the form of marriage—the “godly family” (Stacey, 1998, p. 7). While 90% of self-identified evangelicals support the concept of headship (Gallagher, 2003, p. 70-71), there is little agreement on what headship means and how palpable and powerful it is within a relationship (Gallagher, 2003; Bartkowski, 2001). The meaning of headship and submission is “field-dependent” (Brasher, 1998, p. 148). While Nina, Sam, and Kelly eschew a strong notion of headship, Gretchen‟s understanding of headship is the clearest and strongest of the four. Gretchen, as the previous chapter discussed, was the only participant of the four to self-identify with the complementarian perspective. It is not surprising, therefore, that her commitment to biblical headship is strongest. For Gretchen, headship refers to man as the ultimate decision-maker, the one whose responsibility is the “resolution of the decision-making impasses that occur when opinions differ” (Bilezikian, 1985, p. 212). Further, he is the “ultimate leader, even though decisions are made jointly.” The man has ultimate “responsibility” for the family. When I asked for an example of this, Gretchen posed the hypothetical of a couple considering whether or not to buy a house. She framed the situation as one in which the house was within the couple‟s means and “both people are financially savvy” and there is “no weight on the scale” that makes one or the other of the couple more skilled or capable of making the decision. In such a situation, the man would make the decision. Gretchen reflected that this would “be difficult for me,” that it may be “good on paper but in real life really hard.” She would have to “bit my tongue.” In this example, even though Gretchen is committed to the concept of headship as final arbiter (which in itself is a limited and narrowed version of headship)—what Stacey (1998) refers to as “patriarchy in the last instance” (p. 59)—Gretchen still mixes into her explanation bits of the egalitarian discourse of skills/gifts/talents by explaining that the headship requirement would only kick in if neither member of the couple had more expertise in this arena of decision-making. 239
When I asked whether the “husband should be responsible to give the spiritual direction of the family,” Gretchen responded, “I think so. I think so. I think that he definitely should be giving spiritual direction—but both husband and wife should—but he should be head” of this effort. Again, Gretchen mixes some of the language of egalitarianism (“both husband and wife should”) within her otherwise complementarian views on headship. When I asked if headship referred to the husband as breadwinner, she responded, “What is my view on that? I would like for my husband to—just kidding. (Laughs.) Yes, but not in the sense of making more money, but that he is ultimately responsible.” Again here she is accessing some egalitarian sensibilities when laughing at the idea that she would want/expect her husband to act as breadwinner. This implies that she believes that both husband and wife are responsible for financially providing for the family but that the husband has the “ultimate responsibility.” While Gretchen‟s complementarian leanings support a stronger sense of headship, she nevertheless does “mix and match the language of hierarchy and egalitarianism” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 83). This is especially evident when I asked her about roles within a married relationship. For example, when asked who should “have more say so when it comes to making decisions about important financial matters,” Gretchen replied “both.” She explained that such decisions should be made “jointly” and that there should “not be one person over the other.” With regards to child-reading, she again answered, “both, even though the mom is seen as more as child reared, the husband should have equal say.” Later on in the interview, however, when I asked about whether there “separate roles for women and men” in parenting, she answered that she “feels a little different—Mom, hmm—Dad should be more the one that has the ultimate say but Mom should have a definite say.” Here again, as with Nina, Gretchen is not perfectly consistent in articulating her position on the practical application of the evangelical discourse of complementarianism. Gretchen also indicated the decisions about how a couple spends its leisure time and who should work outside the home all should be “made jointly, not taking one opinion over the other.” However, when asked who should give in if “you and your spouse were to disagree about important decisions that need to be made,” she answered, that is a “hard one for me. The male should have the ultimate say. It has to be someone, 240
and from the perspective of the Bible, it says it should be the male.” Gretchen clearly stated this reluctantly; however, Gretchen‟s evangelical discourse requires that she abide by the dictates of the bible and apply them to her life. As such, for her, she could not answer otherwise. Thus while it may uncomfortable—even disagreeable—for Gretchen to live out the biblical mandate of male as final arbiter, she is discursively obligated to do so. When I asked if she thought that “husbands and wives should be mutual, equal partners in everything,” she answered, “Yeah, for the most part—except for the things we touched upon,” including ultimate decision-making authority and responsibility. Thus, for Gretchen, egalitarianism is a discourse of choice when not otherwise required to espouse a complementarian perspective. For her it is a balance, a dance: “Rather than seeing beliefs as incompatible and contradictory, many evangelicals see them as a delicate balance that, if employed correctly, allows families to function in a way that is both orderly and fair” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 84).
Essentialism Never Entirely Exorcised
Sam had the most consistently egalitarian position throughout her interview, and her responses on the EEWC Likert Scale (see Figure 5.3) reflect her commitment to the egalitarian discourse. Figure 5.3 Likert Scale Based on EEWC Position Statement
Statement* Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree The Bible supports the equality of Sam Nina Kelly the sexes. Gretchen
241
Our society and churches have Sam Nina irresponsibly encouraged men to Gretchen Kelly domination and women to passivity.
I believe in God‟s redemptive word Sam on mutuality and active discipleship. Gretchen Nina Kelly
I support gender-inclusive language Sam Nina and images for God (e.g. referring to Gretchen Kelly God as Mother as well as Father, She as well as He).
Women should be allowed to be Kelly Sam ordained as ministers and fully Gretchen express their leadership and spiritual Nina gifts.
* from: EEWC. “About EEWC.” Evangelical and women‟s caucus. [Online]. Available: http://www.eewc.com/About.htm. (accessed April 7, 2007).
At several points during the interview, she lamented essentialist notions of femaleness. When explaining her artifact, Sam stated: In the church I think we’re a little bit expected to, but- 242
Expected to what?
Expected to give and be there because we’re supposed to be maternal and comforting. And I think when you think of the Christian realm of things—especially years back, like women are comforters and whatever. But I love this [clipped “give back” phrase on her artifact] and I loved it with this “roam unburdened” because it was like, again, give back, do things, roam around the world, but do it in joy. Do it unburdened by whatever society is trying to push on you or whatever society has said previously. Or even what the church may say. Go and do and be, but in joy. When I think of being unburdened I think that’s a joyful state. That’s a comfortable state. That’s a state where you want to be doing whatever it is you’re doing. In this passage, Sam bemoans the church‟s positioning of women as “giving,” “maternal” and “comforting.” She rejects this discourse of essentialism and yearns to be free and unburdened by it. Such a state of freedom from essentialized womanhood is a “joyful state.” However, shortly thereafter in the interview, in explaining her use of the phrase “be a girl,” she explained: It’s something I’m learning right now. Enjoying the feminine side of the world. Here I am at 31, and I’m just getting to the point of thinking about weddings and dresses and colors is exciting me. Even growing up as a little girl, it didn’t matter to me because even if I was playing with Barbie dolls or whatever, I was playing with the boys in the neighborhood. So I was playing baseball and stuff. And I don’t think we should have to hide behind things in a man’s world, but instead enjoy the feminine sides of us. Be a girl. Have fun with being a girl. Doing your hair, wearing make-up. This is a confusing passage because in it Sam embraces essentialist “feminine” pursuits of wedding dresses and “doing your hair, wearing make-up.” It also references her discursive movement, or border-crossing, between the feminine world of Barbies and the masculine world of baseball. She also refers disapprovingly to having to sublimate one‟s femininity to be in a “man‟s world.” There is a push and pull tension here. She is simultaneously accepting, rejecting, embracing, and resisting (MacLeod, 1992) an essentialized understanding of the world. She is embracing her essentialized femininity while rejecting the need to sublimate her femininity to perform proficiently in a “man‟s world.” She both resists and accepts essentialized femininity. 243
It seems as though Sam yearns for access to some elements of essentialized femininity without essentialized femininity being discursively constructed as less than. Earlier in the interview, she lamented, “I just feel like women are undervalued a lot.” However, other aspects of essentialized femininity she rejects outright (giving, maternal, comforting). What disturbs her most, I think, is the hegemony of patriarchy in the form of essentialized maleness that one must “hide behind” and because of which one must suppress one‟s femininity. Sam also decried women‟s limited access to high-level leadership roles in the church: There’s a lot of conversation and, probably not great conversation, basically about women taking high roles within churches. And that bothers me. Why can’t we? Just because, again, the world has made women out to be these comforters and these emotional basket cases. At least that’s how I feel and that seems to be the thing that comes up, women are very emotional; they can’t step back and take a look at the true situation of what’s going on. Or Biblically, they say, women are supposed to be standing behind, and I don’t believe that that’s necessarily true. Otherwise, I mean that’s--reading especially the passages how Eve came from the rib of Adam. To me, that’s showing equality, that’s one and the same. It’s kind of a tangent. Again, here Sam takes issue with women being essentialized as “these emotional basket cases” who “can‟t step back and take a look at the true situation of what‟s going on.” She believes strongly that women should have access to church leadership roles, and she also disputes the claim that the bible requires women to “be standing behind” men. Sam also offers a counter-discursive reading of the Genesis story by reading into it the equality of Adam and Eve by virtue of Eve being borne from the rib of Adam, while many complementarianists read this same story as support for the subordination of Eve to Adam, of women to men. This is an example of the “tendency of both gender essentialists and biblical feminists to read the same texts and arrive at extraordinarily different conclusions” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 79). Consider this passage from Sam‟s interview, in which she explains what would be lost if evangelicals stopped talking about headship, stopped thinking in terms of headship: 244
I think there is something about—it is me thinking like man as a headship. I am thinking strength and safety, security in him, stability, and so I feel like if we stopped talking about it, if we stopped asking them to be that strength, that we would lose those things.
Here Sam seems to be essentializing men as strength, safety, and security and promoting the storyline of the strong male protector of the weaker, less capable woman. Interestingly—and ironically—Sam fears that if we stop calling men to be these characteristics—if we stop positioning them as such, they will cease to be such. In a way, this suggests that for Sam these characteristics are not given, unchanging aspects of the male being. On the contrary, they are the male‟s subject positioning. Seen this way, Sam is not essentializing men, she is maintaining that their subject positioning as strength, safety, and security is valuable in some way and should be preserved. The question then becomes why such a positioning of males is—in Sam‟s view—important and valuable. Whose interests are served, what good maintained, from this subject positioning of males? What can one make of these paradoxical statement‟s of Sam‟s? Is she an espoused egalitarian and closet essentialist? I think not. Are there traces of essentialism still visible in Sam‟s thinking, like the pintamento of a reused canvass on which some of the pigments from the previous painting show through in subtle ways to influence the appearance and coloring of the topmost painting? Perhaps. “This process of socialization [or discursive discipline] is so thorough and so pervasive that it becomes second nature for us to regard the opposite sex as opposite” (Bilezikian, 1985, p. 210). In some ways, I can identify with Sam. Like Sam, there are some aspects of essentialized femininity that I want to embrace and enjoy—like getting pedicures and wearing twirly dresses. That I appreciate and enjoy these things does not, however, mean that I embrace the essentialist discourse. There is no such thing as the essential woman. We women are not by nature—by God‟s design—wired with certain characteristics, predispositions, or for specific roles. That which is deemed feminine within the essentialist discourse is so assigned not based on fact/biology/God‟s design but based on a human-constructed dualistic ontology that privileges essentialized, fictional maleness 245
over essentialized, fictional femaleness. That this is so and that I reject it does not mean—I hope!—that I must reject and despise all things identified with essentialized femininity. As a poststructural feminist, I want access to—I want to pursue—that which I find interesting, valuable, and enjoyable—regardless of whether it is associated within essentialized femininity (like wedding dresses) or with essentialized masculinity (like baseball). As a poststructural feminist, I want to trouble and upend these essentialized fictions in order to make space for both women and men to identify, pursue, and develop their own gifts and interests as opposed to trying to squish themselves into the prescribed boxes of essentialized man and essentialized woman. Such boxes will always be ill- fitting and suffocating. As a poststructural feminist, I want to call out, to obliterate, patriarchal hegemony in all its guises. As a poststructural feminist, I want what Davies (2000) articulates: I desire a world in which there are multiple ways of being available to everyone, that multiplicity not being organized around the male/female dualism. I long for a world in which each of us can move legitimately and recognizably from any one of those multiple ways of being to another. I long for the "female" ways of being that are available to me now to be valued and available to anyone. (p. 37) And while I cannot claim that my reading of Sam‟s statements is the “correct” or “accurate” reading (to make such a claim would be another fiction), I do think that she too wants what Davies wants.
Conclusions
Within the evangelical discursive community, complementarianism is the dominant discourse, and egalitarianism acts as a counter-discourse. While Sam, Kelly, and Nina self-identified as egalitarians, and Gretchen self-identified as complementarian, they do “not conform to tidy typologies” (Bartkowski, 2001, p. 164). Each woman‟s views are complex, nuanced, and—at times—paradoxical. They “creatively reconstruct evangelical discourses of submission and family power” through “innovative negotiation”
246
(Bartkowski, 2001, p. 164, 196), especially around the construct of male headship. My participants, like a “majority of evangelicals[,] affirm husbands‟ headship as well as what might seem to be its antithesis—the idea that marriage is an equal partnership” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 75). Further, they exemplify the “struggle of most ordinary evangelicals to articulate a consistent gender perspective” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 79). My participants‟ massaging of evangelical gendered identity might be termed “symbolic headship and pragmatic egalitarianism” (Gallagher, 2003): "Headship plays a strategically important yet largely symbolic role... evangelical family life reflects the pragmatic egalitarianism of biblical feminists while retaining the symbolic hierarchy of gender-essentialist evangelicals" (p. 84). All four women alternately accept, appropriate, and negotiate the evangelical discourses of gendered identity and the biblical mandate of male headship. My participants‟ discursive commitments reflect “neither total acceptance nor rejection but rather accommodation and resistance to the traditional ideology of femininity” (Rose, 1987, p. 246). Specifically, all four of my participants strip from headship any real notion of superiority and authority of males and the requirement of females to submit to males. While discursively obligated to endorse headship, they have agentically and creatively sanctioned a merely nominal notion of headship: To conceive of agency when female/female dualism begins to be troubled is to think of speaking subjects … who take up the act of authorship, of speaking and writing in ways that are disruptive of current discourses, that invert, invent, and break old bonds. (Davies, 2000, p. 66). My participants—albeit modestly—author (and authorize) a version of headship that disrupts and breaks old bonds of male superiority and rule over females. It is important to point out, however, that changes in meaning can serve “hegemonic interests or challenge existing power relations” (Weedon, 1997/1987, p. 25). While my participants‟ re-authoring the meaning of headship challenges existing power relations between women and men within the context of family life, it does not fundamentally challenge the discursive power of the bible or of the dualistic ontology itself. People who are positioned on the negative side of dualisms are "rarely heard as legitimate speakers, are 247
rarely positioned as having agency. The language that embeds such dualisms needs breaking up" (Davies, 2000, p. 68). Thus while re-authoring headship is a creative and agentic negotiation of the evangelical discourse, it does not shatter the dualistic ontology that underpins this discourse. And anything less than shattering the dualistic ontology leaves women marginalized.
248
CHAPTER 6
BITING ONE‟S THUMB AT THE BIBLE & USING THE “F-WORD”
The Lausanne Covenant articulates the official agreement among evangelical leaders that the bible is the inspired word of God … as the totally truthful (“without error in all that it affirms”) and trustworthy (“only infallible rule of faith and practice”) revelation of the story of God‟s relationship with creation. Despite this general consensus, however, evangelical leaders continue to have diverse opinions about matters of biblical authority and interpretation. Even among advocates of inerrancy, disagreements exist concerning the degree to which particular texts should be taken literally. (Gallagher, 2003, p. 80)
For evangelicals, the bible has primacy as the inerrant and infallible Word of God. While there is consensus about this among evangelicals, there are also, nevertheless, disagreements among evangelicals about how one should properly or acceptably interpret the bible. Whether one is a biblical literalist or a biblical feminist using a hermeneutic approach, the bible serves as the key way in which evangelical women and men know and follow Christ. The same key biblical passages can be used to promote a complementarian or egalitarian discourse. Besides the Genesis passages, these key passages are mostly Pauline texts—pieces of books of the bible attributed to the author Paul, a disciple of Jesus. They include I Corinthians, I Timothy, Galatians, and Ephesians (Gallagher, 2003). Because of the importance of the bible in evangelical discourse, I decided to ask my participants their thoughts on three of the Pauline passages (I Timothy 2:8-15, I Corinthians 11:3-12, and Galatians 3:26-29 from the New International version, or NIV). I put each of the three passages on cards that I gave to participants to consider (see Figure 6.1).
249
Figure 6.1 Key Gender-Related Bible Passages30 1Timothy 2:8-15 (NIV)
8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. 9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Galatians 3:26-29 (NIV)
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham‟s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I Corinthians 11:3-12 (NIV)
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the women is man, and the head of Christ is God … 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is
30 The superscripts in cited bible passages represent verse numbers, per the NIV. 250 the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Then I asked what each thought about the passages. This exercise was perhaps the most surprising portion of my study for several reasons. First, I was surprised that they were not already familiar with the passages, given that within the evangelical discourse one is expected to ready the bible regularly as a life guide. I also had expected them to have some familiarity with the passages, given that these texts are used discursively within evangelicalism as direction from God about how women should be subjectively positioned. Second, I was surprised that some of their responses outright protested and rejected the passages. It is transgressive for an evangelical to in any way de-legitimize or dismiss the bible and its truth. Yet this is what each of my participants did, to greater and lesser degrees.
1Timothy 2:8-15 (NIV) 8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. 9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who
251 was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
My participants‟ responses to this passage ranged from long pauses and incredulity to flat out disagreement. Sam was “stumped” by the passage: I don‟t like that. [Pause.] I think where it says a woman should learn in quietness and full submission—I don‟t believe that means to men. I believe that that means to God. [Long pause.] Hmm. [Pause.] I so disagree with this. I am trying to think how I need to respond. That a woman can be saved through childbearing. So what? Because she can bring life into the world that God has forgiven her? Which doesn‟t make any sense because not all women can have children. This is the direct Word of God?
It is from the New International Version. That is a direct quote.
I think for me that I would have to say that the time it was written, that was their—[pause] that is maybe how things were done. Yes, Eve was the first one deceived, but Adam didn‟t try to stop it. In that same sense, I feel he was deceived just as much. I really don‟t know what else to say about that. I think when it comes to men praying without anger or disputing, I think men are easier to anger and harder to express their worship to God. In that way, that is God challenging them and in discussing women dressing moderately and decently, to me that is basically expressing that as women we should be viewed and accepted for who we are, how we live our lives, how we think, how we interact in the world as opposed to the beauty that we posses exteriorly. I know you are wondering about the bottom stuff, and I really don‟t like it. [Pause.] Does it say in the portion of the NIV at the bottom how they decipher that?
I honestly don’t remember what it says. Ready for the next one?
Yes. This one has me stumped. It is the last one of those that I don‟t really like. I have yet to determine how I feel about it.
252
In this exchange, Sam struggled. She paused often and for lengthy moments, bent over the passage, reading and re-reading it. She couldn‟t help but to communicate her dissatisfaction (I don‟t like that/I so disagree with this.), but because the bible is discursively positioned within evangelicalism as the inerrant word of God, she had to accept and make meaning of the passage in a way that could co-exist with her other discursive commitments, including egalitarianism (I am trying to think how to respond). Discursive contradictions are threatening to the evangelical (and humanist) ontological desire for wholeness and stability. Consequently, “to act rationally, those contradictions we are immediately aware of must be remedied, transcended, resolved, or ignored” (Davies, 2000, p. 102). Accordingly, Sam worked to find a way to make these disparate discourses mesh and co-exist in order to avoid a rupture in her sense of discursive stability. She employed several strategies to do this. The first is to re-inscribe upon the text a counter-reading. For example, she explained, “I think where it says a woman should learn in quietness and full submission—I don‟t believe that means to men. I believe that that means to God.” The more commonly accepted reading of this passage refers to woman‟s submission to man, not to God. Here Sam is reading against the grain (Davies, 2000). She also reads the portion of the passage about women dressing modestly in a way that reinforces her view (communicated earlier in the interview) that too much emphasis is placed on a woman‟s physical appearance: “to me that is basically expressing that as women we should be viewed and accepted for who we are, how we live our lives, how we think, how we interact in the world as opposed to the beauty that we possess exteriorly.” In this way, God‟s words endorse Sam‟s prepossessed views. The second strategy that she employed was to question the passage‟s authenticity: “This is the direct Word of God?” Third, she believes that the passage must be situated in the historical context in which it was written (I think for me that I would have to say that the time it was written, that was their—[pause] that is maybe how things were done). She also asks about the concordance (Does it say in the portion of the NIV at the bottom how they decipher that?). Concordance is the additional text, usually at the bottom of biblical passages, that provides word meaning, context, and additional information about 253 the passages. The Life Application Study Bible (New International Version) explains concordance this way: The Life Application Study Bible does what a good resource Bible should—it helps you understand the context of a passage, gives important background and historical information, explains difficult words and phrases, and help you see the interrelationships within Scripture. (1991, p. xvi) In asking about the concordance, Sam is doing two things: a) recognizing that historical and contextual information might help her make sense of this prickly passage; and b) she is deferring—to some degree—her meaning-making authority to others. Evangelicals believe that regular people can and should access and make meaning of the bible for their own lives: When Martin Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses on the cathedral door at Wittenberg, he declared, in effect, that he would be guided by his own understanding of the Bible and not by the teachings of the Roman Catholic hierarchy … and Protestants ever since have stubbornly insisted on interpreting the Bible for themselves, forgetting most of the time that they come to the text with their own set of cultural biases and personal agendas … Everyone becomes his or her own theologian. There is no longer any need to consult Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther about their understanding of various passages when you yourself are the final arbiter of what is the correct reading. (Balmer, 2006b, p. 24) Despite their commitment to sola scriptura—the reliance on scripture solely for God‟s word, evangelicals also highly value biblical concordance as the “right way” to interpret scripture: In truth, however, despite all the evangelical rhetoric about sola scriptura in the twentieth century, most evangelicals don‟t trust themselves to interpret the Bible, so they turn to others—local pastors, mendicant preachers and lecturers, authors of thousands of books, commentaries, and reference tools—for interpretive schemes. (Balmer, 2006b, p. 194) This gives to concordance authors and commentators a great deal of power to determine and communicate the “right way” to interpret God‟s timeless truth. Sam‟s question about the concordance was a discursively disciplined response to her trouble with the passage. However, her difficulty with the passage was more about her resistance to the obvious interpretation—her desire to find an alternate explanation for the passage—than with any specific issue with word analysis or context. Ironically, she looked to the concordance for assistance—a location where she is most unlikely to find a counter-hegemonic
254 reading. Finally, though, she concedes that “this one has me stumped” and “I have yet to determine how I feel about it.” Nonetheless, Sam has employed several strategies aimed at “disrupting and decentering old discourses and narratives—to unstitching and fraying the patterns” (Davies, 2000, p. 81) of power that are caught up within them. Kelly‟s response to the passage was much more immediate and vehement: “Nope!” she exclaimed. Then she protested that the “verse is taken so literally” and that it is “very misused. People take it too literally.” She was frustrated that people “take some things in the Bible literally but not others.” The term for this is “selective literalism”: The issue is one of selective literalism. Most evangelicals worry very little about biblical proscriptions against usury or about Paul‟s warning that “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” Those admonitions, they claim, are culturally determined and therefore dismissible. But those evangelicals who still oppose the ordination of women, on the other hand, choose to interpret Paul‟s instructions to Timothy literally: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” (Balmer, 2006c, p. 9) Thus Kelly‟s aggravation is justified and her concern about the literal interpretation of the passage warranted. To resist the passage, she must protest the practice of selective literalism, which shifts her resistance from the text itself (the inerrant Word of God) to its interpretation (which is human and fallible). This is a subtle but profound move. Discursively, one cannot reject the bible, but one can reject human interpretation of the bible. Kelly‟s resistance to the passage uses tools allowable within the discourse of evangelicalism to trouble the discourse‟s positioning of women. In a modest way, she uses the master‟s tools to dismantle a piece of his house. Both Nina and Gretchen also communicated concern about the passage. Gretchen‟s was more subtle: “I feel kind of a little negativity against that,” while Nina was more frank: The first two paragraphs where it talks about lifting up your hands in prayer, not the expensive hair in braids and pearls, I didn't take all of that literally. I take that as he just wants everybody on a level playing field, where the only thing that they're playing for is to pray and worship God. Then the last paragraph, I don't know the background of this book of the Bible, but it just makes me 255
think that can't be right. I don't agree with that and I don't know what the context for that is.
Interestingly, Nina interpreted the verse about female adornment differently than Sam. To her it is an injunction against classism. Like Sam, Nina wonders at the “background of this book of the Bible,” but nonetheless feels certain that it “can‟t be right.” It surprises me that my participants are so willing to make statements like Nina‟s “I don‟t agree with that” about biblical passages, given the evangelical “almost mystical attachment to the Bible” (Balmer, 2006a, p. 194-195) and the discursive conditioning against such declarations. This is further surprising given that none of them was willing to dismiss out of hand the biblical mandate of headship. I‟m not sure why this is. Perhaps it is more difficult to excise—to remove altogether—a discursive construct (e.g. headship) from a discourse than it is to redefine it, since “meaning can be strategically reinterpreted, reworked, and deferred” (St. Pierre, 2000, p. 504). This explains why reframing headship might have been a more productive strategy of resistance than attempting to eliminate it. It does not, however, explain my participants‟ acts of transgression by disagreeing with their sacred text. I wonder if my participants are applying to their evangelical discourse some element of another, different (and conflicting) discourse in which they are positioned as capable of disagreeing with, dismissing, and rejecting texts. There is no direct evidence of this, but I wonder if there is something at work below the surface, something that makes it possible for these women to disagree with their sacred text without the threat of rupturing their discursive commitment to evangelicalism. At any given moment, we are constituted by, and have access to, multiple and conflicting discourses. “It is the conflict between these discourses which creates the possibility of new ways o thinking and new forms of subjectivity” (Weedon, 1997/1987, p. 135).
256
Galatians 3:26-29 (NIV) 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham‟s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Participants‟ reactions to Galatians had none of the same consternation. Quite on the contrary, they were without exception concise in their agreement with the passage. Same stated: Here I feel this is God saying we are all equal. No one is better than anyone else.
Anything else to say?
No.
Kelly didn‟t interpret the passage as informing gender relations. To her it was about the requirement to “be baptized in Christ,” which is a form of “cleansing” and the pathway to becoming “hears to heaven.” Nina agrees with the passage but thinks it is overly idealistic:
This one I really like and agree with. I think it's idealistic for us.
Why do you say that?
Because I completely agree with that, but I don't think that's how most people in society or most Christians are able to view things. Like there is neither Jew nor Greek, I don‟t think most people that are Christians find themselves at one with a person that is Jewish. To me, the beliefs seem so different. Like the slave nor free, that makes me think of social status, or socio-economic status. It's really nice to think everybody that is there for Christ is all one. There's not distinguishing differences, but I just don't think it's realistic.
257
While Nina “completely agree[s]” with the Galatians passage, she also believes it to be overly idealistic: “It‟s really nice to think everybody that is there for Christ is all one. There‟s not distinguishing differences, but I just don‟t think it‟s realistic.” Thus while the Galatians passage is consistent with her egalitarian leanings, Nina feels that it is out of sync with the real world. Again, Nina‟s response of “This one I really like and agree with” is surprising to me. The evangelical discourse positions the bible as God‟s unerring truth, not as something to be agreed or disagreed with like so much broadcast political commentary. I began to wonder if how I framed the task of responding to the bible passages influenced participants‟ responses in this way. I went back to the transcripts and checked; here was the prompt that I used with Sam: “These are three different bible passages. I will read each one and ask you to respond to it,” and this one I used with Nina: “I‟m going to read to you three different bible passages, and after I read it, I‟ll give it to you. I just want your thoughts on them.”31 I do not see how my phrasing of the prompt could have influenced my participants towards challenging the bible. This leaves me to consider other meanings of these small but numerous acts of transgression. Gretchen does share Nina‟s sentiments about the overly idealistic nature of the passage: “I relate a lot more to this one. This is more God‟s viewpoint about men and women.” She went on to surmise that she‟s “not sure God is constantly thinking this way [points to I Timothy passage], more thinking this way [points to Galatians passage].” The Galatians passage reflects God‟s “ultimate” view. The content of the I Timothy passage is “not an area he focuses on as much as this [Galatians].” For Gretchen, the Galatians passage allows her to redeem her belief in God‟s egalitarian stand. She uses this passage to discursively minimize the effect and importance—even the veracity—of the I Timothy passage. Interestingly, Gretchen is eliding the discursive influence of the I Timothy passage by using the heterogeneous (and paradoxical) nature of these passages—one against the other—to “to resist, subvert, and change the discourses
31 As I discussed in chapter 3, because of a technological meltdown, I do not have the audio files of Gretchen‟s and Kelly‟s interviews. Because I did not script the prompts that I used for this activity, I cannot speak to how I framed the task for them. 258 themselves through which one is being constituted” (Davies, 2000, p. 67). She uses the Galatians passage to fortify her egalitarian leanings and to undermine (and emasculate) the force of the I Timothy passage. To use a discourse against itself is a clever act of agency.
I Corinthians 11:3-12 (NIV)
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the women is man, and the head of Christ is God … 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Kelly pointed out that the second part of the passage (verses 11-12) “seems contradictory” to the first part (verses 3-10). She was “okay with the last part—that women are not dependent” but didn‟t dwell on the first part, dismissing it as reminding her of the Muslin requirement that women cover their heads. At first I was disappointed that Kelly did not examine and explicate the passage more thoroughly. Upon more reflection, I began to wonder if this is itself a form of resistance—to ignore and disregard that which threatens one‟s discursive values (egalitarianism). She remedies the contradiction by ignoring it (Davies, 2000, p. 102). Or seen another way, by referencing the Muslin tradition of women being covered, Kelly delegitimizes the text as Other. Either way, her response marginalizes the passage, makes it insubstantial. Perhaps she— intentionally or not—felt that attempting to talk her way around or through the passage 259 would be ineffectual and thus chose the strategy of disregarding it altogether—a form of “If you can‟t beat it, ignore it.” The passage—at least verses 3-10—most certainly runs counter to her espoused egalitarianism. Sam used a different strategy of resistance: She again advanced a counter- discursive reading of the passage: This is everything is connected through God himself. That we are all equal and that the true head is Christ himself. Does that make sense?
Yes.
I like that it says woman has authority on her head.
What does that part mean to you?
That is actually saying that we have just as much say, we have just as much—balance and equal. I don‟t really get the whole covering your head thing. It is saying if it is a disgrace and not it is a disgrace. It looks to me like it takes that back to a different point in time. I think women have authority on our heads because we are the bearer of life.
Contrary to Sam‟s reading, the dominant discursive and hegemonic reading of this passage is that having a “sign of authority” on one‟s head means that one is subject to man‟s authority: I Corinthians 11 and 14 represent Paul‟s timeless teaching to the church. Men‟s authority over women is established by the order of their creation. Just as Jewish men used to uncover their heads in worship as a symbol of their subordination to God, women‟s long hair and covered head during worship symbolizes their subordination to men. If a woman uncovered her head (in the manner of a Jewish male worshiper) she would be usurping the place of the male … Everyone should participate in an orderly service of worship. Wives are subordinate to husbands both at worship (being silent and waiting to ask questions until they get home) and at home (the head of woman is man). (Gallagher, 2003, p. 201) Sam‟s reading of this passage is very much against the grain; she claims that the passage endows women with authority, not subordinates them to the authority of men. This example suggests that we read into discursive texts what we wish and that there is space between the author‟s intended reading and the reader‟s extracted meaning (Davies, 2000). In reinscribing upon the biblical text a new and counter-hegemonic meaning, Sam takes
260 up the act of authorship, of speaking and writing in ways that are disruptive of current discourse, that invert, invent, and break old bonds” (Davies, 2000, p. 66). To a lesser extent, Sam also minimizes the reference to women covering their heads by again using the strategy of historical context. Nina responded to this passage similarly to how Gretchen responded to the Galatians passage: She points to or declares what God really thinks: The last paragraph is more in line with what I believe and what I think God thinks of men and women. And for the first paragraph, I think there has to be some other meaning than that it sounds so literal. I don't believe that the only reason women are created is for men.
By stating that the “last paragraph is more in line with what I believe and what I think God thinks of men and women,” Nina was making a bold statement. There is no greater support for one‟s views—no greater claim of truth within the evangelical discourse, than to attribute a belief to god. Regardless of whether Nina was aware of this move, she was wielding the most powerful tool in the evangelical arsenal. Gretchen, like Kelly, recognized the difference in tone and message between the first part of the passage and the second. She identifies more with the second part and holds that God does too: “The last paragraph is more in line with what I believe and what I think God thinks of men and women.” Nina is at a loss to explain the first part of the passage but firmly believes that there “has to be some other meaning” beyond the literal. She rejects the possibility that the “only reason women are created is for men.” By holding that some other interpretation of the passage must exist (although she cannot now access it) she is able to jettison the apparent, literal interpretation. Like Gretchen with the Galatians and I Timothy passages, Nina uses one portion of the text (the second) against the first by claiming that the latter is what God really thinks. Here we see the “experience of contradictions as important sites” for agency. Ironically, both Gretchen and Nina make claims about what God really thinks and believes even though their main access to God‟s truth is—according to the evangelical discourse—is through the bible. While they do not point to any evidence or understanding beyond the bible for their beliefs about God‟s real views, such understanding seems implied.
261
Gretchen‟s response to this passage generally mirrors parts of the others‟: I agree with this, a lot of this. The part that sticks out is „woman came from man‟ however woman for man—but I also think God is ultimately giving authority to both independently. I like verses 11-12. I really relate to the last couple of verses. Gretchen emphasizes the independence of woman from man and—like the others— privileges the last verses over the beginning verses.
From Unreading/Rereading the Bible to Using the F-Word
None of the women accepted any of the three passages as discursively positioning them as inferior to or subordinate to men. None accepted the dominant and hegemonic reading of the passages. Instead, they employed a number of strategies to deflect, dismiss, and undermine any complementarian interpretation. These strategies include employing counter-discursive readings of the passages (reading against the grain), disregarding or delegitimizing portions of the passages, and privileging portions of the passages over others by claiming that they were what God really thinks/believes. Ironically, participants both accessed selective literalism by emphasizing that some verses were culturally determined and decried the use selective literalism by patriarchs. To a lesser extent, a participant questioned the authenticity of a passage and another outright rejected one. My participants‟ responses to the passages are replete with acts of transgression and resistance. I feel privileged by the fact that my participants felt comfortable enough with me to commit these delicious acts of transgression in my presence. I want to point out though that while my participants seemed confident in articulating what they believe about God‟s position on these matters, none took delight in or celebrated their resistance. They were clearly uncomfortable—yet matter-of-fact—as they committed these transgressions. Nonetheless, my participants authored acts of agency: As individuals who speak, we may be heard as having authority. Not authority in the sense of one who claims and enforces knowledges, dictating to others what is
262
“really” the case, but as a speaker who mobilizes existing discourse in new ways, inverting, inventing and breaking old patterns. (Davies, 2000, p. 66) Yet for all of their agentic acts of transgression, a more potent agency lies beyond their reach until they self-consciously analyze and critique their own multiple and conflicting subject positionings: The speaking/writing subject can move within and between discourses, can see precisely how they subject her, can use the terms of one discourse to counteract, modify, refuse, or go beyond the other, both in terms of her own experienced subjectivity and in the way in which she speaks in relation to the subjectivities of others. (Davies, 2000, p. 60) Without this awareness and reflexivity, we cannot intentionally select and move among multiple discursive positionings of our gendered subjectivities in order to intentionally “forge something new, through a combination of previously unrelated discourses, through the invention of words and concepts that capture a shift in consciousness that is beginning to occur, or through imagining not what is, but what might be” (Davies, 2000, p. 67). Just as my participants‟ unreading/rereading of the bible is an act of negotiation and accommodation, so too is their reading of feminism. Their views on feminism are complex, nuanced, and paradoxical.
Bold, Outspoken Feminists & Nice, Quiet Nonfeminists
For most people today, much less in the early 1980s, the terms evangelical and feminism are contradictory. (Cochran, 2005, p. 1)
In interviews with students on several evangelical college campuses, I found that many of them call feminism “the f-word.” (Ingersoll, 2003, p. 44)
Conservative Protestantism is often portrayed by scholars as uniformly committed to “traditional family values” and to the antifeminism therein. Differing views on gender within the subculture are commonly explained away as aberrations or accommodations to greater cultural forces, rather than being seen as legitimate alternatives that are part of a process of definition and deserving of recognition. (Ingersoll, 2003, p. 15)
263
This section explores my participants‟ complex and nuanced views as evangelical women on feminism and the degree to which they identify with feminism—particularly liberal feminism. As part of my interview protocol, I showed participants two images of women from the shoulders up (see Figure7.1) and explained: These two pieces of paper represent two different women. One is a feminist; one is not. Please select a card to represent the feminist. The non-feminist. Why did you select as you did? How do you describe each? What does one think of the other? What would each say to the other?
Figure 7.1 Feminist/Nonfeminist Images
My participants—without exception—all selected the short-haired woman to represent the feminist. Additionally, they all described both the feminist and non-feminist in relatively similar ways. Kelly described the feminist as having a “sassy” haircut, a “funky personality,” and being “put together.” Sam also described the feminist as “sassy” and that her short hair makes her look “a little bolder,” explaining, “I think most women who are feminists are more outspoken and bold.” She continues: The girl with the short hair—it is like she gives you that look that she is going to go against the grain, like I am going to push the limits. I am going to do things that are different. I feel like when I talk to people most about women, oddly enough the haircut is the big thing. The shorter hair seems to be a bolder personality. It is like she has some fight in her. Gretchen described the feminist as looking “a little more driven, determined, with lots of thoughts, opinions.” Gretchen also thought that the feminist‟s facial expression looked 264
“contemplative.” She described the feminist as having “lots of thoughts and opinions on how women should be treated equally.” Nina identified the picture of the woman with short hair as the feminist because her “hair was shorter and she wasn‟t smiling. She wasn‟t showing teeth in her smile." When asked to describe the feminist, Nina explained, “This one I would say more strong on her views. Maybe more liberal. I guess more tough, more tough emotionally. Independent.” Quite conversely, the nonfeminist was described by participants as conservative, quiet, motherly, nice, and traditional. Specifically, Kelly described her as “clean, crisp, quiet,” a “proper individual,” a “trophy,” and “too conservative.” Sam described her this way: She just looks pleasant, but not that a feminist isn‟t. I probably am a feminist and don‟t know it. The woman with the long hair kind of gives you more of that Suzy Homemaker, like the modern day mom, long hair, jewelry. She probably goes to Silpada [jewelry] parties with her friends. Nina, too, sees the nonfeminist as motherly: She looks so nice and she's smiling and has her pearls on. Very traditional woman … more nice and motherly, more traditional in her views. Gretchen described the nonfeminist‟s beliefs as “not necessarily has negative feelings about how women are treated but is more passive or positive.” When asked what each of these women would have to say to the other, Nina responded: I don't know. This one [nonfeminist] looks like it would say, “be nice.” This person just looks so nice. This one [feminist] looks like she would say, “stand up for what you believe in.” Something like that. What would this one [nonfeminist] think of this one [feminist]? I think she would think it was fine if she was a feminist, or if she did have really strong views, but she just is like, “Well, I just don't choose to feel that way.” What would she [feminist] think of her [nonfeminist]? I would think she would just think, “Oh, what a traditional woman.” Throughout participants‟ descriptions, the traditional woman, the nonfeminist, is described as “nice”—as if the feminist were a foil to this characteristic. Indeed, Nina‟s
265 nonfeminist tells the feminist to “be nice.” The nonfeminist does not judge the feminist for her “really strong views” but just doesn‟t “choose to feel that way.” The feminist is perhaps a little more judgmental, commanding the nonfeminist to “‟stand up for what you believe in‟” and dismissing the nonfeminist as “‟Oh, what a traditional woman.‟” For Gretchen also, the feminist would instruct the nonfeminist to, “Stand up for yourself. Be bold. Make statements.” Interestingly, the nonfeminist would tell the feminist to, “Be proud of who you are and how you‟re treated. Be positive about how you‟re viewed in society,” which suggests that the feminist is too negative about how she‟s viewed in society and not proud of who she is. Here we begin to get a sense of the feminist as a malcontent or dissident. This theme will become more evident to the reader. In Sam‟s world, the feminist is again portrayed as bold and outspoken, but, unlike with Kelly‟s, Nina‟s, and Gretchen‟s descriptions, the nonfeminist has a bit of spunk to her as well: I think the feminist would be like “fight for yourself, woman.” The non-feminist would be like, “Shut up and go home and clean your house.” Feminists want women to take a bolder step in the world and so I think when—that is just my being stereotypical. I think they would look at women who hold what you call old-fashioned roles, stay-at-home mom, does all the housework, has the dinner on the table when the husband gets home from work. They would look at them and say, “But who are you? Fight for yourself. What is for you? Do you really enjoy what you are doing?” A non-feminist may come back and say, “This is the woman‟s place” or “now I don‟t have to work.” That sounds bad. You like how I make them talk to each other? [Laughs.] Sam‟s response echoes the cry of Friedman‟s The Feminine Mystique (1963), the clarion call for liberal feminists. For Sam, each woman is committed to her own lifestyle. Interestingly, the feminist seems to be baffled by the nonfeminist‟s lifestyle and at a loss as to how the traditional woman could embrace it (What is for you? Do you really enjoy what you are doing?). Sam—like the others—paints the nonfeminist as a traditional, “old-fashioned,” homemaker who sees the home as “the woman‟s place.” In all four participants‟ portrayals, the feminist is bold, strong—a fighter. The nonfeminist is the “traditional” woman whose place—happily—is hearth and home. The feminist is 266 dissatisfied with the status quo, while the nonfeminist is not only satisfied with the status quo but happy with it. This is different from Kelly‟s version. Interestingly, she holds that the nonfeminist wants to be a feminist. While Kelly didn‟t elaborate on this, hers was the only response in which the nonfeminist was anything other than wholly satisfied with her traditional status. Kelly‟s response may make more sense to the reader later in this section when she discusses her views on feminism.
Feminists—Bold and Unreserved or Disgruntled and Militant?
When I asked each participant with which woman she most identified, Sam and Kelly selected the feminist, and Gretchen and Nina selected the nonfeminist. This is not surprising, given that Sam and Kelly were more committed to the egalitarian position, while Nina was somewhat ambivalent, and Gretchen was—as least abstractly—more committed to the complementarian perspective (see Chapter 5). Sam explained her identification with the feminist: I find I am identifying more with a feminist. I just think today in this world, that can sometimes have a negative connotation, but at some point in my life, I wanted to be the non-feminist. I just wanted to stay at home and clean and all that kind of stuff and I wasn‟t into building a career, which is totally different now. When I stop and think, oh, can I stay at home and clean and cook dinner and do all that kind of stuff and not have as much of an opinion in the world, I would be upset. I would be a real angry person. I don‟t think I could handle that. Although she sees feminism as having a negative connotation in the world, over time she has come to identify more with the feminist position. To her, being a nonfeminist would entail not having “as much of an opinion in the world,” which would “upset” her and make her “a real angry person.” Being positioned as a traditional woman entails—in addition to being assigned duties in the domestic sphere—being silenced. For Sam, being positioned as a speaking subject is worth the simultaneous, negative positioning as feminist. Kelly too identifies more with the feminist, but her reasoning is somewhat different. She relates more to the feminist‟s “sassy,” “funky,” “put together” personality 267 and found nothing endearing about the vanilla flavor of the nonfeminist. The feminist is a vibrant figure, while the nonfeminist is flat. Conversely, while Gretchen “does have a little bit of feminist views, I don‟t see it as a major problem—how women are treated.” She sees women as treated “mostly positively” but does advocate for equal pay and, as such, feels more “feminist on that in the workplace.” However, “on the whole, women are treated pretty fairly,” and Gretchen feels that she has a “positive outlook on life.” For Gretchen, a feminist is someone deeply dissatisfied with women‟s position in society and how women are treated. There is a sense that a feminist is a negative, pessimistic person who—perhaps—finds things to be displeased about. This reminds me of the type of charge leveled against poststructural feminist author Bronwyn Davies: “‟You are oversensitive and make yourself unhappy unnecessarily by seeing offense where none is intended‟” (2000, p. 166). Additionally, Gretchen‟s belief that “on the whole, women are treated pretty fairly” is consistent with the postfeminist position, which “claims that any needed gender equity has been attained and that further feminist activity is contraindicated” (Kinser, 2004, p. 132). The postfeminist discourse “asserts that there is no longer any need to „be a feminist,‟ and (sic) outlines derisive monolithic images of feminists as proof that it is undesirable and outmoded … it co-opts the motivating discourse of feminism” (p. 134). Although Nina does not here articulate a postfeminist discourse, she, like Gretchen, sees a feminist as someone who is actively involved in advocacy work: Because when I think of a feminist, I think of someone who is really active in women's rights and equal this for everyone, and not that I don't think it's important, but I really don't care to participate or know that much about it. It is ironic and paradoxical to me that Nina states that equality issues are important, but she doesn‟t really “care to participate or know that much about” women‟s rights and equality advocacy. Because of her lack of passion on these issues, she does not consider herself a feminist. For both Gretchen and Nina, it is not a feminist‟s theoretical/philosophical commitments so much that turn them off but rather how she is discursively positioned—and perhaps regarded—in society as dissatisfied with the status quo and zealous to a fault about women‟s rights. Many evangelical women are “reluctant 268 to call themselves feminists” (Ingersoll, 2003, p. 82). The evangelical discourse is skeptical of feminism at best and at worst vilifies it (Griffith, 1997) because “undermining the clear-cut divisions between masculinity and femininity is threatening because it undermines the very order of the universe itself” (Ingersoll, 2003, p. 29). What‟s interesting is that all four participants describe the feminist and nonfeminist picture cards in generally similar ways but their affinity for each is quite different. For Sam and Kelly, they are attracted to the strength, outspokenness, and boldness of the feminist, while Gretchen and Nina are turned off by her position as agitator, activist, or dissident in society. As such, my participants constitute their own subject position vis-a-vis the feminist/nonfeminist in markedly different ways.
Militant Lesbians and Active Protestors
After the activity involving the picture cards, I asked my participants, “What does feminism mean to you?” and whether they consider themselves feminists (which is different from asking them which of the picture cards they more identify with, as the reader will see). Nina defined feminism this way: Feminism means to me women don't want to be thought of as any less than men. Or even they sometimes want to be thought of as more superior to men, as far as rights and jobs, and views on issues. I think you said earlier that you don't consider yourself a feminist, is that correct? No, I don't. I don't think it's bad. I think it's fine, but I think you have to be really involved or have a passion about those kinds of issues for women, and I don't necessarily have that. Nina begins by describing (liberal) feminism as a desire for equal consideration but then goes on to describe feminists as people who “want to be thought of as more superior to men as far as rights and jobs.” Have feminists gone too far in Nina‟s views? In Gallagher‟s study (2003), she found that her participants, “while affirming antidiscrimination and equal opportunity laws, they bracketed their otherwise positive comments with the qualifier that affirmative action has gone too far in giving women 269 access to jobs and promotions” (p. 147-148). Although Nina states that she does not think that feminism is bad, she does not consider herself a feminist because she doesn‟t fit the role of someone who is “really involved or [has] a passion about those kinds of issues for women.” Again, here Nina portrays feminists as passionate, (too?) strongly politically/socially involved advocates of women‟s issues. Because she does not fit that construction, Nina does not consider herself a feminist. Gretchen, like Nina, does not claim that feminism is bad but also does not consider herself a feminist. For Gretchen, a feminist is someone who sticks “up for what they believe is true and should be true.” She believes that women whose experiences have required them to stand up for themselves are more feminist. She reflects that if she had experienced such “circumstances,” she might “feel the same” and consider herself feminist. Like Nina, Gretchen sees feminists as advocates who actively “stand up” for issues. Because her experiences have not required this of her, she does not consider herself a feminist. Here Gretchen “others” feminists, creating space between her own subject positioning and that of feminists. While she may identify with certain feminist commitments, like workplace equality, she does not want to identify with feminism. Kelly constructs feminists as people who “go to the extreme,” who, for example, “know their body inside and out” and who are certainly not “afraid of the body.” Feminists are also people who believe that when it comes to the workplace, they “have a right to be there.” Kelly agrees and identifies with this latter aspect of feminism. However, while Kelly did identify more with the feminist picture card than the nonfeminist picture card, she would be “ashamed if people called me a feminist.” She admits to having “feminist thoughts but avoids the title because of the stereotype.” When I asked her what stereotype she referred to, she replied, “lesbian.” For Kelly, feminism is the “f-word.” While Kelly identifies with some feminist sentiments, she believes that people labeled feminist “push it just to push it.” She offers Hillary Clinton as an example of a feminist: “People don‟t like her.” Kelly admires that Clinton is “strong-willed and determined” and she also recognizes that this alienates and turns some people off. Kelly concludes that, for her, feminism isn‟t bad, but when it is “taken to the extreme, it drives me crazy.” 270
There is a lot to unpack here. Kelly seems to move between a construction of feminists as “strong-willed” and “determined” people who advocate for women‟s rights in the workplace—a construction with which she identifies—to a construction of feminists as extremist “Femi Nazis” who are too familiar with their own bodies, who press matters for the sake of pressing them. Feminists are disliked, devalued, practically personas non grata, as the experience of one of Ingersoll‟s (2003) participant illustrates: I was full of questions and the desire to search for a deeper understanding of my spirituality, my role as a woman, my God. I needed to ask questions such as, „Why is God father and not mother?‟ The mere question has turned into deviant behavior at this point as I was labeled „the feminist.‟ I had friends tell me that people I did not even know on campus thought I was opinionated and abrasive. I had no idea that a few women studying one topic and asking honest questions could stir so much emotion. I felt bullied by people I did not know well as they joked about the „femi-nazi‟ and „apostate.‟32 (p. 83) Given this woman‟s experience, it is no wonder that Kelly doesn‟t wish to be positioned as a feminist. Further—and worst of all to Kelly—“feminist” is synonymous with “lesbian.” In the late 20th century, lesbianism became “‟coterminous‟” with (radical) feminism within evangelical discourse (Cochran, 2005, p. 106). The reader must remember that within the evangelical discourse, homosexuality is roundly condemned. Best-selling evangelical author James Dobson writes: The divinely inspired biblical writers would not have referred to homosexuality with such abhorrence if it were not an evil practice in the eyes of God. Whenever this perversion is mentioned in the New Testament, it is listed with the most heinous of sins and misbehaviors. (1982, p. 452)33 For Kelly, the term “feminist” is ruined because of its discursive association with lesbianism. The term is unrecoverable, and to be discursively positioned as a feminist would be devastating. In addition to homosexuality being vilified within the evangelical discourse, being constituted as lesbian would, in Kelly‟s view, also keep her from gaining access to her “future seat,” which includes a husband and children. For both of these reasons, Kelly is adamant about not being positioned as a feminist.
32 An apostate is a person to turns away from her religion. 33 The same dualistic conception of the male/female binary within the evangelical ontology that positions women as inferior Other also positions homosexuals as such. Although beyond the scope of this paper, I believe that the evangelical discourse‟s construction of homosexuality is perhaps even more unjust and unethical than is its construction of women. 271
Of my four participants, only Sam considers herself a (liberal) feminist: I would define it as speaking out for women‟s rights, that we are equal and should be assumed as equal in this world. We should have equal pay. We shouldn‟t have to pay more to have our shirts laundered. That annoys me. I think I would probably consider myself a feminist at this point, and I don‟t think feminism is bad. I think I feel like sometimes I notice things in men from feminisms that may not be good. I don’t understand what you mean. Sometimes I feel like because women have become stronger and we have found a voice, that men have become weaker. Why do you think that is? I think they are more intimidated. I think for so long—I don‟t want to say held power, but they have held control of the business world and of the home in a sense. They called the shots in dating. That is not the same anymore. Sometimes I think that is maybe why dating is more difficult, it is prolonged. Marriages are happening later. It could be why the divorce rate is high. Women are feeling stronger and are not taking what guys are giving. That actually comes with conversations with my grandmother who is no longer with us. I think she has been around since before feminism was around. She was probably the first feminist. Sam clearly believes in the liberal feminist commitment to equal treatment and equal access. What is fascinating is that she sees feminism as having a deleterious effect on men, weakening them and intimidating them. One of Brasher‟s (1998) participants echoes this concern: Linda, a Bay Chapel member who is divorced and has not yet remarried, flatly supports male leadership and condones male assertiveness. She worries that the societal struggle to secure equal rights for women and men is undermining men‟s capacity to develop the strong masculine identities she prefers. “With the women being more aggressive nowadays and wanting equal rights, that is part of what created the problem of men not being as assertive.” (p. 153) Similarly to Linda, for Sam there are negative consequences on men when they are no longer in control and calling all of the shots in everything from business to home life to dating, including delayed marriage age and higher divorce rates. Interestingly, the negative consequences are not wrought because there becomes a vacuum of capable leadership and decision-making but rather because men become less (e.g. assertive) when these roles/power are taken from them. Ironically, Sam‟s grandmother advocated this
272 perception even as she was “probably the first feminist.” For Sam, although she considers herself a feminist and sees feminism as doing good things for women, she also sees feminism as having a harmful, weakening effect on men.
Nonfeminists in Liberal Feminists‟ Clothing?
Liberal feminism aims to achieve full equality of opportunity in all spheres of life without radically transforming the present social and political system. The realization of its aims, however, will mean the transformation of the sexual division of labor and of contemporary norms of femininity and masculinity. It will also require provision for domestic labour and childcare outside of the nuclear family. (Weedon, 1997/1987, p. 4)
Early in my participant interviews, I asked each woman the following: “Annual governmental reports indicate that women are paid less than men in most occupations. Assuming that these reports are accurate, what do you think of this pay difference?” All of my participants responded that they believe that gender-based pay difference is wrong, but they each had a distinctive reaction to the question. Gretchen responded, “What do I think? It‟s wrong. Period.” She explained that because teachers in her district are on a pay scale that is based on education level and experience, there is “no negotiation in salary.” However, she points out that “males get higher pay in districts because of roles.” According to Gretchen, “one of five men in schools is a principal.” Because of their overrepresentation in administration, men, on the whole, make more than women in education. To Gretchen, this is unequivocally wrong. Sam too believes that gender-based pay difference is wrong, and she has personal experience that makes this issue hit home for her: I would probably have to say [the pay] is different only because of what I have heard and seen that women do get paid less than men, and I think probably in my job definitely because I have more—Being a project manager is a little bit more—especially in interior design and construction—it is a little bit more of a man‟s job. I do 273
feel like I don‟t get paid enough for what I do, and I do think if it was a man, they would probably get paid more. What do you think about that? Do you think that that is wrong? Yeah, it has actually been highly irritating lately, especially with the thought—I took a pay cut from a design position to take this job, as opposed to working a couple of jobs, I am working all the jobs and getting paid less. Implicit in Sam‟s response is the understanding that the work that she does is of equal merit to a man‟s and therefore should be equally reimbursed. Also implicit is that there is no adequate reason for a man to be paid more than Sam for the work that she does. To be sure, Sam finds this “highly irritating.” Kelly had the most visceral response to the question: “Disgusting. It makes me nauseous.” Like Sam, Kelly has been on the receiving end of unequal pay. She actually left her management position at Cintex34, a large, successful corporation, because she felt she was not being adequately paid. She learned that a male colleague of equal rank who enjoyed fewer responsibilities was paid considerably more than she. When Kelly interviewed with another large, successful corporation, she was informed that she was not awarded the position because the hiring company felt that her lower salary at Cintex suggested that her job must have been different from what her job title suggested. The company did not think her experienced enough in management. Hence, not only was the salary difference at Cintex unjust, but it actually kept her from gaining access to a job that would provide her with a salary commensurate to her role. Kelly was then offered a position and more fitting salary at another corporation. When she informed Cintex of the offer, Cintex presented her with an almost 60% salary increase and stock options to convince her to stay. This offer would have raised her salary to that of her peers. Kelly declined the offer and accepted the position at the other corporation. Because Kelly has experienced first-hand the injustice and impact of unequal, gender-based pay, the practice disgusts and nauseates her. Each of these women also communicated their appreciation of the women‟s movement when I asked, “Has the women‟s movement of the last 30 years impacted your life? If so, how?” Kelly responded, “I have a job.” She went on: “No offense to you,
34 Like other names in this dissertation, the name of Kelly‟s past employer is a pseudonym. 274 but it seemed every woman had to be a teacher. Like Anne of Green Gables.” Because of the women‟s movement, Kelly feels that “being female won‟t hurt your chances of moving up” professionally. Gretchen echoed Kelly‟s appreciation of the women‟s movement‟s impact on her professionally. She explained that “even though I have a „traditional‟ female job, I see myself more as a professional because of the women‟s movement.” Most American evangelicals, like Gretchen, identify the benefits of the women‟s movement: Although 65 percent of American evangelicals believe that feminism is hostile to their moral and spiritual values, only a handful spoke negatively about the policy changes that feminism has helped to bring about during the past thirty years. Instead, they argued that equal opportunity, equity in pay, and growing awareness of sexual harassment and sexual safety were all positive developments in the workplace. (Gallagher, 2003, p. 148) For Sam, the benefits of the women‟s movement have served women professionally but also provided benefits beyond the workplace: I think because I realize that just because my mom stayed home with us and was that stay-at-home mom who was always there that I don‟t necessarily have to do that. Not that I don‟t want to be there for my family, but I am learning that I have a voice. My voice is just as important as a man‟s and from that and finding my happiness doesn‟t mean that I have to go along with this old way of thinking. In thinking in college that I am going to get a degree and get married and I am going to stay home and never use it and that was fine with me, but it is not. It is not fine with me. I want to be able to work. Even after I have kids, I want to work somehow, in some capacity. For Sam, the women‟s movement offered women lifestyle options and helped women to find their voices—voices that are “just as important as a man‟s.” The movement made possible new ways of finding happiness beyond those of the “old way.” While only Sam self-identified as a feminist, Kelly and Gretchen support some feminist ideals, even as they eschew the appellation. Nina‟s responses to these questions were qualitatively different than those of the others, and I wish to explore hers in the next section, although in doing so I raise more questions than I make meaning.
275
The Curious Case of Nina Nina was the least concerned about the gender-based pay difference and felt that if it is a reality, then a woman should simply select a different job in which pay difference isn‟t the case: I think it's wrong if you are doing the same exact job as somebody, but I'm not a really big feminist type of person. I don't really put a lot of thought into issues like this. I think if that's how it is, it's not right, but don't work for somebody or something that you think is not right. In the teaching profession everyone makes the same based on your years and your education, so I've never felt cheated by that. Is it that way in administration too?
No.
It's not, so it could be different for everybody.
Yes. [Next interview question was then asked.] It is true that most school districts have a pay scale for teachers that it based on education attained and years of experience, as opposed to gender; although, extra-curricular supplemental positions offer additional pay and tend to be on a different scale—at the top of which is usually the position of high school football head coach. Administration contracts, on the other hand, are usually not on a scale, and the high school principal—a position typically held by a man—is usually second only to the superintendent—who is also more often than not a man—in pay. Thus issues of pay difference by are perhaps closer to home than Nina realizes. What is most fascinating is that while Nina believes that gender-based pay difference “for the same exact job” is wrong, this practice that affects “most occupations” does not require organized or political action. It merely makes sense to Nina that a person would select another position instead—as if this were a simple, unproblematic thing to do (as Kelly‟s experience disputes). Instead of stating that the act of gender- based pay difference itself should end—that it is intolerable and unjust—Nina does not communicate a need for social change—just personal change in the form of other work. Does her response devalue the work of those who advocate for equal pay? Does her response communicate that unequal pay is not worthy of collective action? How can her
276 views be understood vis-a-vis her discursive positionings? Is this because antifeminism “may be the dominant perspective in this conservative subculture” (Ingersoll, 2003, p. 2)? Is this because feminist activists are negatively positioned in broader social discourse? Postfeminism outlines images not only of how outmoded feminist struggles are, but also of how undesirable feminists themselves and claiming a feminist identity are … “images of feminists as man-bashing bra-burners, created by the sexist forces in the media, and images of feminists as stereotypical second wavers who haven‟t changed in thirty years”. (Kinser, 2004, p. 135) Feminism is not only negatively positioned within the evangelical discourse but also suffers a bad image within the broader social discourse. These discursive positionings leave motivation to self-identify as a feminist. When I asked Nina about the women‟s liberation movement, she replied, “I don‟t know. Can you explain more what you mean by women‟s movement?” When I explained that, amongst other things, the women‟s movement advocated for equal access to the workforce, higher education, and health care, as well as pushing for equal pay, Nina responded: I guess it has impacted me, I didn't even realize what all was involved in it. Anything else? Not really. First, it is noteworthy that Nina—and she is by no means the only woman of our generation to whom this applies—is unfamiliar with second wave feminism and the women‟s movement. Kinser (2004) argues that one of the effects of postfeminism is the entitlement of women to its benefits without engagement with political/social action. Postfeminism “creates a comfortable sense that „one can partake of the “good” these movements produce without any commitment to transformative politics and practice‟” (p. 142). Although the direct beneficiary of the women‟s movement, Nina lacks connection to it. It is as if Nina experiences nonidentification with the category of “women” with regards to women‟s beleaguered status and injustice against women. These are not issues that she has “put a lot of thought into.” Why is this? Nina eschews both political action in and of itself and feminism, which she associates with political action. What it is in Nina‟s subject positionings that disconnects her from the category of women as a political entity? What in Nina‟s
277 discursive background has led to political action and feminism being positioned as things that have nothing to do with her, as things that Others do? How can we make sense of this Nina—the Nina who was raised by a strong and determined single, working mother who did it all? The Nina who handles the family finances in her marriage and who does not relinquish to her husband the decision-making power and who refuses to be positioned by him as the subordinate “student” in tennis? The Nina who greatly values and excels in her professional work and wants to continue to work after she has her child? How can we reconcile these Ninas with the Nina who abdicates all association with the political category of women? Davies (2000) writes: Persons as speakers acquire beliefs about themselves that do not necessarily form a unified coherent whole. They shift from one to another way of thinking about themselves as the discourse shifts and as their positions within varying storylines are taken up. Each of these possible selves can be internally contradictory or contradictory with other possible selves located in different storylines. (p. 102) There is no one, coherent, whole Nina. There are various and multiple Ninas—various subject positionings and storylines that Nina takes up and puts down as discursively required. The paradoxes between and amongst these various Ninas cannot be dissolved for they are grounded in multiple and contradictory discourses, including her professional discourse, her marriage discourse, and her evangelical discourse. None of these discourses requires or embraces a subject positioning of political activist or feminist.
Of Pronouns and Leadership: Feminism and the Evangelical Church
On the EEWC-based Likert scale that participants completed (Figure 5.2), Gretchen and Sam “agreed” with the following statement, while Kelly and Nina “disagreed”: “I support gender-inclusive language and images for God (e.g. referring to God as Mother as well as Father, She as well as He).” When I asked participants, “At most of the churches that I have attended, I‟ve heard God most often addressed as „father.‟ How would you respond if you heard God addressed as „mother‟ during a service?” Gretchen responded that “it would definitely throw me for sure.” She has
278
“never heard God addressed mother, so it would throw me.” She concedes that she does think of God “as man” because she was “raised that way.” Nonetheless, on her Likert scale she supported gender-inclusive language and images of God. Sam agrees with Gretchen and believes that people‟s reactions to gender-inclusive language are informed by the bible and society‟s history: I think it would throw people off. Again, I think that comes from the Bible, but also I think it comes from the fact that society as a whole, starting way back, was a man- driven society and man was head of government, head of household, head of everything, so as God is supposed to be the head figure overall, how would that be represented in the world. Well if man rules, then that‟s why. … You had said at the beginning that hearing God addressed as mother during a service would throw people off. Would it throw you off? I think it would catch me off guard, but I think I would be pleasantly surprised. It would actually be interesting to see a service done on if we addressed God as Mother, what that would look like. Maybe they have done that, but I don‟t know of anything and how biblically that could be supported. It would be very interesting to open eyes to see that. For Sam, the fact that heretofore God has mostly been referred to using male pronouns and imagery is—at least partly—a function of patriarchy and history, as opposed to God‟s design. Despite what she perceives to be people‟s unease with gender-inclusive language, and the fact that it would “catch me off guard,” Sam is interested in “what that would look like.” She believes that she would be “pleasantly surprised” by the result and that it would “open eyes,” but she is not sure how gender inclusiveness could be supported biblically. And within the evangelical discourse, it must be supported biblically, or it won‟t happen. While Sam sees the use of gender-inclusive language and images as intriguing and potentially generative, for Kelly it would “weird me out.”: I see it as father. I don‟t see God as female. It‟s „almighty father.‟ I‟m not sure I would go back to the church. Interestingly, in answer to a previous question, Kelly explained that “God allowed women to be treated differently and abused and stay at home to teach—so we could see
279 the effects of „true humanity‟ and „free will.‟” To her, women‟s subjugation is not a function of God‟s design but man‟s free will. However, she does not see the common use of male pronouns and images of God as a function of that same free will that has resulted in women‟s subjugation. To her, these issues are entirely separate. Nina too would be very uncomfortable with gender-inclusive language and images because it is “different,” and she has also only ever heard of God referred to as male: I probably wouldn't like it because it's different to me, and I do think of male figures to be the spiritual leaders. Not that I think women can't be, but I think everything I've known or read about God, I always think of male, not female. For Nina, God is male and spiritual leaders are male—although women could be. To what degree are her views a function of the internalization and naturalization of the discursive practice of using male language and imagery to represent God? Interestingly, all four of the women either “agreed” (Nina, Gretchen, and Sam) or “strongly agreed” (Kelly) to the Likert statement, “Women should be allowed to be ordained as ministers and fully express their leadership and spiritual gifts.” I also asked participants: “What are your beliefs about women in church leadership?” Although all of the women supported the ideal of women in church leadership, there were varying degrees of discomfort with the reality of it. Nina said of women in church leadership: “I think it‟s okay. I think women should be allowed; they have equal rights to do that.” Nonetheless, “I just don‟t think I would pick a church that had a female as a head.” When I asked her why, she explained: I do think I look to the male as the spiritual leader. That's probably not a very in-depth answer. Just instinctually. My friends that are getting married this weekend, it's a woman marrying them, which is very different, and I've never seen that before. Nina claims that her view of males as spiritual leader is something she feels “instinctually”: To describe contemporary social relations as natural is, of course, one way of understanding them. The appeal to the “natural” is one of the most powerful aspects of common-sense thinking, but it is a way of understanding social
280
relations which denies history and the possibility of change for the future. (Weedon, 1997, p. 3) When Nina states that her feelings about men as spiritual leaders are instinctual, she is positioning her beliefs as natural or obvious. Doing so elides the constructedness of our common-sense or instinctual beliefs. Some of Nina‟s discomfort with female church leadership appears to be her inexperience with it. Lack of familiarity is a theme that runs through these women‟s discomfort with females in certain roles and with gender- inclusive language and imagery. Ironically, their discomfort likely keeps them from gaining familiarity and comfort with these things. Nina would not choose to attend a church headed by a woman. Kelly would not return to a church that uses gender inclusive language and imagery. It‟s a vicious circle: Their lack of experience accounts for their discomfort, but because of their discomfort, they would not choose churches where they would experience these things and possibly become more comfortable with them. In order to disrupt the discursive positioning of males only as church leaders, there need to be examples of women in these roles in order to re-write their discursive expectations of men only in these capacities. This would require transgressive churches to act counter-hegemonically by positioning women in church leadership positions. To be sure, some churches are already doing this, but this is still a fairly rare exception (Ingersoll, 2003). Doing so, however, would—if Kelly and Nina are representative of the sentiments of the larger evangelical community—likely result in decreased church membership at these churches but would help to revise members‟ discursive expectations. Gretchen too experienced “for some reason hesitation—but not because [women in church leadership is] not right but because I‟m not used to it.” Sam shows less discomfort with women in church leadership roles. She believes that church leadership should be based on gifts and not on gender: Yeah, I don‟t think there is any reason why they can‟t hold leadership positions. I think at times it would probably be better. Why do you say that? I just think that women—There are some men who hold these positions who can‟t vocalize thoughts or aren‟t good teachers or pastors. It is not their gift and if it is a gift a woman, why just because she is a female, what is wrong with that? I get very tired of hearing that women 281
are emotional. They can be more biased. I think that is stupid. Sam shows impatience with “stupid” beliefs about women being unfit for church leadership roles because of emotionality or bias. She believes that women can be more gifted than men as teachers or pastors. Leadership—like roles in the family—should be based on gifts and not gender. Again, we see that the discourse of spiritual gifts can be used to disrupt and dismantle patriarchy and headship. While all four participants agreed with allowing women access to church leadership roles ideally/abstractly, they show varying degrees of discomfort with the reality.
Conclusions
For my participants, feminists are discursively positioned as bold, unreserved, militant, activists, dissidents, malcontents, and lesbians. While only Sam self-identifies as feminist, all four participants invoke the language and claims of liberal feminism, especially when applied to their professional lives. This is the case even though aspects of the liberal feminist discourse and that of their evangelical discourse are discordant and contradictory, especially when it comes to gender inclusive language and imagery for God. This is also the case with women in church leadership, which, while supported by all four participants, is still uncomfortable and foreign to some. This vicious circle of discomfort due to lack of experience/access which results in rejecting/avoiding the novel experience must be yanked to a halt in order for large strides towards inclusivity and real challenges to patriarchy to occur within the evangelical discourse. As it stands now, feminism largely remains a “derisive epithet” (Ingersoll, 2003, p. 115) within evangelical discourse even though evangelicals‟ “convictions and biblical interpretations [have] been greatly influenced by the biblical feminist movement” (p. 100).
282
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking. (Steven Wright, comedian)
Although unconventional, I have elected to summarize and conclude this dissertation in verse. In the first part of this chapter I use a series of poems, written throughout the duration of my study, to explicate my main findings and to summarize my journey. Following each poem, I explain its significance to what I have learned from my dissertation work.
Stumbling and Diving into a Dissertation
Proverbs 31 Woman
“I am the excellent woman.” I can‟t say it without a sneer. Absurd. My hands are chapped raw with working And my eyes have bags the size of carry-on luggage— And I‟m supposed to rejoice and be filled by my service to him? Bullshit! I‟m all about making him successful, clean, groomed, articulate, savvy, honest. Behind every great man, you know, there‟s a woman— Giving him the finger. His bastard god—
283
That‟s who‟s to blame for all of this— my lost youth my absent self my bored soul His god, so they say, made the excellent woman. made me. Well I raised my clenched fist to his bastard god! after I finish writing his speech.
On a cold, bleak day, as I drove the desolate miles from Dayton to Columbus, I flicked through the few available radio stations, trying to find something to pull me from my desire to dose. I happened across a radio broadcast of John MacArthur. I went from a state of drowsy half-attention to being riveted by his vitriolic condemnation of feminism as the root of (almost all) evil. MacArthur spoke with a great deal of bombast and certainty, I was mesmerized by his denunciation of feminists. I began to research MacArthur and his Grace to You ministry, which is housed in a 40,000 square-foot building on 2.79 acres in California (Grace to You, 2005). MacArthur‟s daily radio show is featured on 2000 radio stations world-wide (Grace to You, 2005). The ministry boasts satellite offices on five continents, and the media powerhouse also includes books, software, audiotapes, and CDs (Grace to You, 2005). I am still in awe of the proliferation and reach of MacArthur‟s teaching. One of MacArthur‟s radio broadcasts, which aired on Mother‟s Day in 2005, was titled, “The Proverbs 31 Woman,” also known as the “excellent woman.” The broadcast slammed feminism and the woman who “refuses to submit to her husband, demanding equality with him in everything,” who “expects her husband to do at least an equal share of housework” (MacArthur, 2005, p. 1). So intense was his condemnation of such women that his listeners might have thought that Armageddon was near, brought about solely by such wicked women. MacArthur skewers the “noisy woman,” the “rebellious woman,” the “quarrelsome woman,” the “foolish woman,” and the age-old classic, the 284
“adulteress” (p. 2). He claims that woman was designed by God to be the “crown of her husband,” and God designed men to be “head of the family” (p. 2). MacArthur then goes on to extol the virtues of the Proverbs 31 woman, who works tirelessly and joyfully for the well-being of her husband and family, who is others-focused and self-sacrificing. She is the domestic manager who seeks out what is in her husband‟s best interest. She is “never unkind, always submissive, but eager to be sure that he walks with God” (p. 5). Apparently she must iron his shirts and ensure that his soul is saved: What does God say a woman, a mother is to be? Well let‟s turn to Proverbs chapter 31, that time-honored, age-old portion of scripture and see what it has to say because herein is God‟s revelation of the excellent woman (p. 2). Then in verse 18, “She senses that her gain is good, her lamp does not go out at night.” What does it mean “she senses that her gain is good?” That all of this effort is producing goodness to the family. She sees that what she does is beneficial for everybody and she lives for them. She is motivated by the goodness of that effort, the goodness to everybody around her. She is spurred on not by self-fulfillment, not by self-indulgence, she is spurred on by the inherent goodness of what she is doing in the lives of everyone she loves. The family is not organized in such a way that everybody has to attend to her, but rather that she is committed to give herself away for the goodness of everyone else. (p. 9) MacArthur‟s sermon illustrates in sharp relief the traditional evangelical constitution of woman. She has no identity outside of marriage and motherhood. She is submissive to the headship of man. She exists for him. MacArthur embodies a strong complementarian discourse, the notion that God-designed dualistic ontology includes the creation of man and woman as different from one another to serve different roles and purposes such that they would fit together like two inter-locking pieces. The implication of this is that each was endowed with certain essential, unchangeable characteristics, with women being, amongst other things, meek, submissive servants of men‟s leadership. While only Gretchen self-identified with the complementarian discourse, all four women disclosed elements of essentialism in their artifacts and/or interviews. What is most interesting is that they would commonly make essentialist statements while simultaneously distancing themselves from such essential characteristics. For example, Nina‟s response to the sub- prompt “How does God see women?” (see Figure 8.1), includes some traditional words/images for women, including: candy, perfume, chocolate, diamond, champagne, soft, never ugly mean, mother child, love, and rose. 285
Figure 8.1: Gretchen‟s Response How does God see women?
Gods woman candy perfume chocolate diamond champagne true soft surround friend remember never ugly mean speak up brilliant gift embrace essential man fresh sister the universe mother child worry love dance live warm love life rose
286
Yet when I asked her about her choices of words/images, she claimed that she herself did not embody many of these God-given characteristics of women: You also chose to answer the additional prompt of, "How does God see women." Why did you choose that prompt?
That was the only one I felt like I had enough of an opinion about to actually answer it. The other ones I was like, "I'm not so sure. I'm not so sure." I feel like as a woman I'm a lot different than a lot of women as far as my emotional … I just feel like I'm very different than a lot of other women as wives in all aspects. That's something Barrett always says to me, "Most girls or most women would, but not you," so I thought it would be kind of interesting to answer this one.
What are some of those ways that you feel like you're different than most women?
I think I'm not as emotional. I'm pretty even keeled all the time. I do get excited and I do get sad and stuff, but my highs aren't too high and my lows aren't too low. Attention wise I feel like I don't need as much attention from my husband as I feel like a lot of people need, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I think I'm wired really differently and I think a lot of it is coming from a single parent home. For holidays all the women Barrett works with will always be like, "You should get her a thing to the spa to get a massage and stuff," and he'd be like, "She would hate that." That is just not something that I would want. There are a lot of stereotypical things that I just don't really care about. Interestingly, within this very passage, Nina appears to move in and out of the essentialist discourse. She identifies the way that God sees women, which is pretty consistent with traditional complementarian characterization, yet where she sees other women as emotional, she does not herself have that (essential) characteristic. She also doesn‟t need as much male attention as other women need and dislikes “stereotypical” things like spa visits. Pevey, Williams, and Ellison (1996) too found that their participants claimed to have “exceptional personal qualities” (p. 185)—such as being strong-willed—that were the exception to the essential norm. What‟s intriguing here is that Nina moves from God‟s view/design of women to claiming that her own exemption from these characteristics comes from being raised in a single-parent home, which implies that these
287
characteristics are less designed and more a function of experiences—implicitly invoking the nature/nurture binary. Thus even when Nina appears to be positioned within the essentialist discourse, she still moves in/between it and a discourse in which the self is constructed or influenced by experience. Even as Nina implicitly promotes the complementarian perspective, she also disaffirms it by positioning herself as a counter- example, an exception, for how could there be an exception to an unchangeable, God- designed, essential characteristic? MacArthur would find great fault with Nina about this. It was the transcript of MacArthur‟s broadcast that inspired the poem “The Proverbs 31 Woman.” Unlike MacArthur‟s excellent woman, who indefatigably toils for others in bliss and gratitude, the excellent woman of the poem is rather disgruntled, even mutinous. For all of her rebellious invectives, however, she ultimately accepts her positioning: The self is revealed here, not as an object or thing, but as an interactive, discursive process, fragile, capable of great pleasure in oneness with the group, in being competent within its terms, but also vulnerable to the discourses through which it be spoken and speaks itself into existence. (Davies, 2000, p. 26) This poem attempts to represent the narrator‟s contradiction between implicit acceptance, indeed her “great pleasure in oneness” with the identity of the “excellent woman” while contemporaneously resenting and resisting that same subjectification. The narrator “sneer[s]” at her constitution as the others-focused “excellent woman,” and rages against her chapped hands and “service” to her husband. Quite on the contrary to MacArthur‟s construction of the excellent woman, the narrator is not “motivated by goodness of that effort” but rather begrudgingly accepts her discursively produced identity as servant wife (she makes him “successful, clean, groomed, articulate, savvy, honest”) while resenting it (“giving him the finger”). The narrator is not “committed to give herself away for the goodness of everyone else, “but rather is “vulnerable to the discourses through which [her self] be spoken and speaks itself in to existence.” Nina, too, is vulnerable to the discourses through which she is spoken into existence. Even though she positions herself as a counter-example or exception to the essential woman, she does not problematize the act of essentializing itself. She does not
288
see her exceptionality as contradicting and undermining the validity of the essential woman. Although I use Nina here as exemplar of this practice, Chapter 5 shows examples from each woman of ways in which they move between and among complementarian and egalitarian positions, simultaneously accepting and rejecting each, as does the Proverbs 31 Woman of the poem.
The Impossibility of Exorcising Complementarianism?
The Siren‟s Song
We stood at the entrance to the save, Breathing in the nurturing sunshine, Feeling it warm on our skin. We peered into he cave, blacker than any night, Filled with grotesque, fascinating, unseeing creatures. We looked at one another once more, searching for our own resolve. With that, we slid inside. We saw priceless things of stunning beauty— Stalactites so precious and precarious— Formed over two thousand years. And in the steady, entrancing drip-drip, We heard it, the Siren‟s Song. This Siren song was sung not by a sea creature of mythical feminine beauty, But by a reptilian piper: “At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man‟s differing relationships” and “At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman‟s differing relationships.” 289
The Siren‟s voice filled all the air around us, And beckoned us towards the void ahead. I felt myself pulled forward by the voice, The sweet, idyllic voice, the mellifluous voice That promised comfort, security, a bucolic world. In my peripheral vision, I could see that We were both moving, trance-like, deeper into the cave, This place of strange beauty and peril. Towards the unseen abyss. And in that moment, I HICCUPPED. A strange little involuntary explosion in this ephemeral place, Reverberating against the limestone walls. Strangely, ironically, That tiny hiccup—that most human and divine reflex Staccatoed against the Siren‟s song, Shattering it for but a moment— And in that moment we seized for each other‟s hand and locked our eyes, horror-filled. And spun to race back to the world above, Grasping, panting, struggling to be Free of this too dark world and its Siren song.
Each of the women showed some tendency to embrace the complementarian perspective. Gretchen loves the independence and excitement of travel and is proud of her ability to take care of her finances and be a homeowner but is committed to chivalry and following the man‟s lead in a relationship—waiting for him to call, to ask her out, to decide the seriousness of the relationship, etc. Highly successful human resources manager and corporate trainer Kelly is tired of the corporate grind and longs for her “future seat” in which her husband will work, and she will stay at home with the kids: “I darn well better be married. I want to be at home.” She wants a rest while her husband 290
provides for the family. Sam fears that the loss of headship from the evangelical discourse would weaken men. In each of these examples, my participants both embrace and resist—both embody and abrogate—the “traditional” woman of the complementary discourse. I will admit that there is something, somehow, alluring about the complementarian perspective. I remember one sunny summer day, sitting on my back deck, reading about the complementarian discourse and growing increasingly mesmerized by it. It evoked many sunny, soothing, bucolic images and feelings of a peaceful, idealized world where roles and expectations are simple and straightforward, where there is no need for negotiation and ambiguity—where men are men and women are women and that‟s a beautiful, uncomplicated thing. Then I snapped out of it. Blinking in surprise that I found myself being lured by a perspective that nauseates me, I was at a loss to explain myself. How could this be? Why did I react that way? It was this experience on my back deck on that idyllic summer day that I wrote “The Siren Song” to communicate how enticing—and dangerous—the complementarian perspective is. Because it is the dominant discourse in the evangelical discursive community—and in other discursive communities, such that of the lucrative “Disney Princess” bonanza—complementarianism has been naturalized and internalized (Davies, 2000). It feels right, or—as Nina put it—“instinctual.” It is familiar. It is comfortable. The words of John Piper, here represented as a smooth-tongued reptile, invoke in his readers familiar storylines. Sometimes—like in the poem—we must be jarred or knocked by another discourse (represented in the poem by the hiccup) in order to realize how we have constituted ourselves or been constituted by a repressive discourse. It is the experience of a counter-discourse that helps us recognize the dominant discourse that had been invisible because it was taken for granted. It is the clash between contradictory subject positions and practices” that makes us “able to reflect upon the discursive relations which constitute her and the society in which she lives” (Weedon, 1997/1987, p. 121). The egalitarian discourse, which is a counter-hegemonic discourse, serves in this capacity for my participants. Even so, the hiccup—the discursive collision—doesn‟t destroy complementarianism, doesn‟t unseat it; rather, it merely displaces it temporarily, 291
just as the effects of the hiccup are temporary. Without shattering dualism once and for all, patriarchy and the reptilian Piper‟s song will continue to flourish (Davies, 2000).
Rejecting (Almost All) Gender-Based Roles Roles
I see it on the page: “Women and men are created equally before God But (there is always a „but‟) with different social and ecclesiastical roles.” There is a box around that word, roles. Or rather the box is around me, Around each of us. Boxed. Boxed by our anatomy. Boxed by a sentence, a discourse, a Book. Boxed. Suffocating. I can‟t breathe. Gasp. The air in this box is too thin. Or perhaps it is the wrong type of air altogether. Gasp. Is this it? Is this how it is to be? To end? Suffocated like this in a box? A box stronger than steel, Erected by men, using pages of an aged Book? Gasp. [Silence.] 292
While this poem is rather melodramatic, it does communicate the stifling effect of being forced into certain roles based not on one‟s skills/gifts/talents/interests but based on one‟s gender. Gender-based roles are almost always ill-fitting and uncomfortable at best and suffocating at worst. Ingersoll‟s Evangelical Christian Women (2003) highlighted the sense of depression and being trapped—and in one case suicidal—that her participants experienced in being boxed by their gender: “Many women report resorting to extensive therapy and even antidepressant drugs” (p. 93) to deal with the suffocation of being boxed. Gretchen—even though she self-identified as a complementarian—and defined headship as the man making the final decision when the husband and wife cannot agree (“tie-breaker headship” or “patriarchy in the last instance”) reflected that it would be “difficult” and “very hard” to acquiesce and allow her husband to make the final decision. The role of submissive wife (even in this limited way) made her feel boxed; as much as she didn‟t like the idea of conceding to her hypothetical husband, she recognized that that is what is dictated in the bible and thus it must be. Because of her discursive commitment to evangelicalism—and to biblical truth in particular—Gretchen—as well as the speaker of the poem—is boxed by the steely strength of the bible—and by the men who wrote it, translated it, and who communicated it‟s meaning with such certainty in innumerable sermons. Despite being bound by the bible‟s edicts, each of my participants—in the vast majority of instances—believe that various roles should be decided by skill/talent/interest and not by gender. These roles covered the gamut from financial overseer (like Nina in her marriage to Brian) to hypotheticals about child-rearing, breadwinner, etc. One curious aspect to this was how the women felt about females in leadership roles in the church. On their Likert scales, each woman “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that women should have access to church leadership roles, yet the reality of this was uncomfortable for two of them. For example, Nina didn‟t think that she would attend a church with a woman serving as head pastor, and Gretchen had some “hesitation” about female pastors. Thus while my participants balked at most roles being defined by gender, church leadership was a box that they were used to being filled by men. 293
Discourse of Gifts/Talents
What am I to do?
What am I to do? God gave me these gifts, They are dancing atoms, anxious to burst forth their energy to write, lead, do. These atoms inside of me, comprising me, Do not fit the essential biblical womanhood Foisted upon me, like a heavy harness on an unruly colt By “pious” men and their pastor wives. What am I to do? How am I to tell God That these gifts—these vibrating, iridescent atoms Must be pushed down into the sand and covered over with cement, Stamped with an evangelical cross? What am I to do? Would it have been better had I never seen these atoms? If I did not know they existed? What am I to do? I itch, I ache to smash a sledge hammer Down Down onto the cement cross And shatter it into a million pieces And release the vibrating, dancing Iridescent atoms into the world, And in doing so, Honor Her. What am I to do?
294
This poem is in some ways a companion for “Roles.” Where “Roles” illustrates the stifling effect of gender-based role assignment, “What Am I to Do?” takes the approach of the anxiety, the restlessness, of keeping one‟s gifts pent up, of not being at liberty to express them freely. The egalitarian discourse is framed around the language of gifts (Padgett, 2002), the “vibrating, dancing/Iridescent atoms” inside of us. Because complementarianism‟s discourse of roles acts as the dominant discourse in evangelicalism, the atoms of the poem are bound, suppressed. Acts of resistance—of violence—must be perpetrated against the binding forces in order to release the gift- atoms and honor the speaker‟s creator. Within the egalitarian discourse, all people “have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God” (p. 22). This need, this responsibility, to use one‟s God-given gifts in obedience to God‟s calling and glory is confounded and derailed by the discourse of roles. While my participants haven‟t committed physical violence as acts of resistance to their evangelical gender positionings, they have committed numerous and varied acts of resistance, of transgression, against the concept of headship and the bible itself. These are explored within the context of the next two poems. Before moving on though, I would like to point out my use of the pronoun “Her” in this poem to refer to God. Although the egalitarian organization Evangelical and Ecumenical Women‟s Caucus supports gender-inclusive language and images to represent God, of my participants, only Sam is comfortable with this and sees it as potentially generative. For the others, the use of feminine pronouns for God is discursively so unfamiliar, so foreign, that the practice is akin to fingernails on a chalkboard or being jerked to a sudden stop on an amusement park ride. The effect is jarring and disorienting. Such is the power of discourse to discipline our response to an act of boundary violation. This discursive conditioning trains us to reject out of hand that which is exterior to—and contrary to—the language of our tightly held discourses.
295
The Accumulation of Small Stones: Multiple Acts of Resistance
Stone Resistance
Countless times a day I trudge with my bucket through the fecundity to the stream I dip my bucket, filling it I traipse back up and empty it into the basins in the big house All the while, they‟re watching me, ensuring that I perform as required, as expected. I am a good girl. Sometimes, though—just every once in awhile, instead of filling up my bucket with water, I fill it with beautiful, smoothed stones that feel cool and substantial in my hand Then I trudge back up as I always do Unremarkable in the normalcy of my trudging All covert—right out there in the open And they don‟t see my subterfuge Or can‟t— --because they cannot conceive of such dissidence? --because they are too involved in their own performance, maintaining the boundary at the same time I rupture it? I‟m not sure. I surreptitiously unload my bucket of stones, placing them here and there At some point someone must notice all these accumulating stones, right? I‟m not sure. 296
I let my heart feel a little thrill --about the cool, substantial stones --and more about my clandestine acts of treason And then I trudge with my bucket once more.
In this poem, the speaker commits many small, modest acts of resistance over time. These acts fly under the radar of the powers at be, and the speaker takes a morbid delight in her own artfulness and duplicity, her “clandestine acts of treason.” My participants also committed modest acts of resistance. Like the speaker, their acts of resistance are not a direct challenge or threat to institutionalized power—the church proper. They have no intention of upending or overturning the patriarchy of their evangelical discourse. Instead, their acts of resistance, like the speaker‟s, most likely go unnoticed by Crossover, their home church. In various ways, they each wove the language of complementarianism and egalitarianism together—an uneasy task at best—and certainly an act of negotiation of the dominant discourse of patriarchy. They also stripped from the discourse of headship any real power or superiority of men. Instead, they framed headship nominally alternately as one who speaks for the family, weak spiritual leadership (e.g. getting the family out the door to church and leading devotions in the home), or (for one participant) as tie-breaker patriarchy. While each of the women abstractly accepts the concept of headship, each accommodates it in such a way as to make it all but impotent. Gallagher refers to this as “symbolic headship and pragmatic egalitarianism” (2003). To a large extent—or maybe entirely—the transgressions that these women commit are unconscious or lack the awareness of intentionality. Yet in order to find “ways to unlock the inevitability of their positioning,” they must recognize the “enormous constitutive power of the discursive practices through which their selves are ongoingly being constituted” (Davies, 2000, p. 17). This awareness, this consciousness, is critical for “understanding and guiding change” (p. 17). Without deliberate and considered response to, and use of, our multiple discourses, we are like empty kayaks being swept down a roiling river, as opposed to those kayaks womanned
297
by seasoned kayakers who can use the flow of the river (their discourse) to adroitly and fluidly move as they wish to where they wish within the river. A key difference between the speaker of the poem and my participants is affective: The speaker thrills in her acts of transgression, whereas my participants seemed uneasy and almost squirmy as they tried to adhere to the dictates of their evangelical discourse even as they were negotiating or rebuffing it. They communicated to me no delight or pleasure in negotiating their various discourses. In fact, doing so seemed at times downright uncomfortable. Like the speaker in the poem, they are recognizable within their discourse as being “good woman,” and I believe that they delight in that. We are “emotionally committed to our category memberships and experience our belonging and not belonging in moral terms,” such as good girl/bad girl (Davies, 2000, p. 44). Indeed, all four of my participants, although guilty of minor transgressions against patriarchal discourse, are nonetheless recognizable by their discursive community as competent members—good girls.
Rebuffing the Bible: The Big Surprise
Conversation with the NIV
You damned thing (ironic—and most likely heretical—to damn the “Word of God”) What does God say about you? I cannot image a nod of approval let alone commendation. How dare you construct women as you do— Weaker vessel Silent and meek Submitting to male headship Never to be over a man Incomplete except as wife and mother 298
A helpmeat, created in service to man How do you do it? Convince them so— Woman and man alike, homosexual and hetero, oppressed and entitled alike— All your slick, sick binaries. You‟re so—old. And of questionable authorship at best. God‟s truths are many and varied— And you squish them like little meal worms. How does one argue— Combat— An inanimate thing— a book—that has more lifeblood and power than any living think I know? Such a wonderfully awful adversary you are.
The biggest surprise to me of my research was participants‟ responses to the key bible passages that speak to evangelical gendered identity. While none of my participants referred to the bible as “damned thing,” Kelly did outright, emphatically, and unequivocally respond “Nope” to I Timothy. My participants applied various strategies in resisting meanings/interpretations of the passages that ran contrary to their own views about issues like headship and women in leadership positions. They alternately decried selective literalism and applied it in reading against the grain, sought the context of the passages, questioned one passage‟s authenticity, and dismissed passages as not really what God thinks or focuses on. For them, there was space between what the passage seemed to say on the surface and what God really thinks. Although biblical feminists frame their discourse on the bible as God‟s truth, others believe “feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian bible” (Cochran, 2005, p. 1). I am constantly in awe of the power of the bible‟s discursive effect—that the bible is so convincing, so certain, so powerful. Yet it is really the people positioned authoritatively to interpret the bible (to author its meanings) who 299
have the real discursive power—the power to construct truth and to fortify that truth against almost all attacks, for who can successfully combat God‟s truth? The bible serves as the keystone of the evangelical discourse. To destroy its positioning as God‟s Word would be for evangelicalism to dislodge the keystone from an arch—the entire thing would crumble. One who wishes to defy the bible‟s discursive position is in a double-bind: Such a person would be “hailed as transgressive, of not having unremarked or obvious membership” (Davies, 2000, p. 27), for to reject God‟s truth is heretical, and anyone who does so would be dismissed as unrecognizable within the evangelical discursive community. Yet to dislodge the discursive power of the bible (if even possible) would cause the evangelical discourse itself to crumble, for the bible is to central in the evangelical ontology. Perhaps the best that those who wish to stand against evangelical patriarchy can do is to promote pragmatic egalitarianism and use existing counter-discourses—such as biblical feminist/egalitarianism—to chip away at the actual power of patriarchy while leaving the symbolic power of the bible largely untouched.
I‟m No Feminist!
Damsel in a White Dress
I‟m 28 years old. (and still single) religiously, since I was 10, I‟ve had the same recurring dream … I‟m standing in the turret of a tall, stone tower. I‟m adorned in a gauzy, luminescent white dress and a circlet of gold on my brow. Below me are people, 300
all sorts of people, with all sorts of problems, sadness, woes. They suffer poverty, cancer, and prejudice; disappointment, oppression, and fatigue. I smile and stretch out my arms, and they are calmed, soothed, relaxed. Their fists unclench. Their shoulders sag. Their faces ease into a dreamy contentment. I am the damsel in the white dress. The damsel in the white dress represents the discursive concept of beauty within complementarianism. Women are to be beautiful, inviting, an oasis and refuge from the world (Eldredge & Eldredge, 2005). They are to sooth, not to solve. To be a balm, not a cure. This poem attempts to bring to light the lie of complementarianism: A woman‟s role is not equal to man‟s in esteem or effect. Different is not equal. The damsel in the white dress doesn‟t solve the people‟s problems; rather, her beauty merely serves as a temporary drug to dull the pain of their problems, to ease them into “dreamy contentment.” The damsel in the white dress, like the position of woman in complementarianism, is passive and weak. Her power and authority are illusory and superficial. The damsel is the anti-feminist, the foil to the feminist. With the exception of Sam, none of my participants self-identified as feminists. On the contrary, they generally held negative connotations of feminists, even through Nina and Gretchen emphasized that they weren‟t against feminism—it just wasn‟t for them. For Kelly, though, the idea of being termed a feminist is “humiliating,” for she associates feminism with malcontents and lesbians. Nonetheless, during the course of their interviews, all four participants espoused views consistent with liberal feminism, especially regarding equal access and pay in the workplace. Feminists have much work to be done to revise and reframe their discursive positioning within evangelicalism. Further, the efforts made by “feminists to transcend class insularity and appeal more 301
broadly to women in diverse social locations cannot succeed without reexamination of this deeper intolerance to religion and the limits imposed by faith on believers” (Griffith, 1997, p. 205). In their emasculation of headship, their un-reading and re-reading of the bible, their “symbolic patriarchy and pragmatic egalitarianism,” and their complex views on feminism, my participants simultaneously negotiate, accommodate, resist, embrace, and reject their multiple and contradictory discourses. So what? Now what? These are questions that I take up in the next section of this chapter.
Implications: Ruminations For My Daughter
Let what I hope for my child be what I strive to provide for all children.
My daughter is not quite six months old as of this writing. In considering the implications of my study, I think about what I want for my own daughter—the type of education I wish for her, the opportunities and possibilities that I hope will be open to her. When I think specifically about her formal education, I want it to help her identify and develop her gifts and interests in ways that are not restricted or constrained by her
302
gender. I want the discourse of gifts and not the discourse of headship to guide her teachers‟ instruction. I want her to be introduced to careers such as scientist, firefighter, mathematician, astronaut, pilot and not simply teacher, nurse, social worker. I want her to read literature that portrays strong, intelligent, capable, courageous female characters. I want her to learn “her-story,” including the history of second-wave feminism and the women's movement. I want her to develop a sense of responsible citizenship, of political awareness and activism. I want leadership positions and advanced placement courses to be open to her. I want her teachers to encourage her, believe in her, push her to grow and excel. I want her to grow up strong, healthy, and thriving. I want her to find her bliss and have the skills and knowledge to pursue it. Davies (2000) articulates well what I want for my daughter: I desire a world in which there are multiple ways of being available to everyone, that multiplicity not being organized around the male/female dualism. I long for a world in which each of us can move legitimately and recognizably from any one of those multiple ways of being to another. I long for the "female" ways of being that are available to me now to be valued and available to anyone. (p. 37) In considering the implications of my study in this way, I have developed a series of proposals based on my vision of education for my daughter in which she will be able to move among a multiplicity of ways of being. I have arranged these into the following categories: teacher education and ongoing teacher professional development; K-12 public education; and the advancement of feminism. The following pages explore these proposals.
303
Teacher Education
Proposal #1: Coursework/Professional Development on Race, Class, Sexuality, Dis/ability, and Gender35
A couple of years ago in my district, a male kindergartener announced to his teacher that his favorite color was pink. After class, the teacher and I smiled appreciatively that in this classroom pink could be his favorite color, and we lamented that at some point in the future he would probably be forced by his discursive position as boy to select a different, more masculine, color as his favorite. (How is it that even colors are ascribed gender properties?) In the future, I hope that more classrooms can be like this boy‟s kindergarten class—places where students can move amongst various ways of being without the threat or consequence of transgressing discursive boundaries of race, class, gender, dis/ability, and sexuality. I hope that my daughter‟s future kindergarten teacher—indeed all of her teachers—will have taken coursework/professional development about issues of race, class, sexuality, dis/ability, and gender. Such coursework should include both theory (e.g. critical race theory, poststructural feminism, etc.) and research on issues of race, class, sexuality, and gender in classrooms and schools (e.g. the work of Gilligan, Sadker & Sadker, Davies, etc.). Such coursework/professional development may help pre-service and practicing teachers to be more aware of and responsive to these issues in their classrooms. For example, Sleeter and Grant (1997) analyzed 14 social studies texts and found under-representation and marginalization of the lower/working class, non-white racial groups, and women: Books show social-class diversity very little. Seven portray only middle-class people, or depict people wearing clothing, occupying houses, and using speech commonly associated with the middle class… Upper-class people … all are White. (p. 289)
35 I recognize that poststructuralists are uneasy with the types of categories that serve as an organizing force in the study of race, class, sexuality, dis/ability, and gender. See the feminism section of Chapter 3 for treatment of this issue. 304
Identifiable Native Americans are completely absent from five books. In the other ten, the percentage of pictured people who are Native American ranges from 2% to 10%. … Readers contain between one and three stories in which the main character is Native American. (p. 288) In the story line, “her-story” is undertold or presented as an afterthought. … Women are contextually invisible or marginalized: their roles and contributions often are not covered in any details in the story line. Sometimes they are given a special section with a heading such as “Special People,” where one woman‟s career and contributions are discussed, or in a special section about an event such as women‟s suffrage. Women are not usually discussed in sections about major decisions regarding political and economic life. (p. 286) Pre-service and practicing teachers should have access to this type of research that troubles that which we take for granted, such as the content of “his-story” books. The topics of race, class, gender, and sexuality must not be explored in isolation of one another; the “intersectionality” of these is important, as Dill (2009) illustrates: For example, one impact of gender in schools is that girls are more likely than boys to be steered away from math and science. Class differences then compound the effects of gender, because low-income girls interested in math and science are likely to attend schools with poorly equipped labs and fewer certified teachers— thus their training may make it harder for them to compete successfully at higher levels. Race adds another layer of difference because White and middle-class teachers—who are the majority of educators—are likely to have higher expectations of White girls than of Black girls. As research has shown, they give White girls tasks that develop their academic abilities while giving Black girls tasks that focus on their social maturity and caretaking competencies. (p. 65) Intersectionality provides an avenue for “understanding the organization of society—the distribution of power within it and the relationship of power and privilege to individual experience” (p. 65). Both preservice and practicing teachers should have the opportunity to explore issues of intersectionality in the education of students and the structure and leadership of schools. By encouraging teachers to analyze and reflect on the ways in which race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability intersect, as well as the ways in which power and privilege are maintained, I hope that my daughter‟s future teachers will recognize structural (e.g. boy versus girl sports) as well as “invisible” constraints (e.g. gendered, raced, and classed history books).
305
Proposal #2: Build Teacher Efficacy and Examine our Invisible Glass Walls It was not unusual in my college freshman calculus class for the average score on an assessment to be less than 50%. I had never before experienced such a thing, and I found it maddening. For one assessment in particular I studied for hours, only to earn a 62% on it. It was little consolation to me that my 62% represented an A-. I found myself developing a learned helplessness about math—the subject that had always come most easily to me. I ranted to my calculus professor that these scores meant that the average person in the class was learning only half of the material she should be learning. What kind of message did this send, I demanded? What about the stuff we‟re obvious not learning? Luckily, my professor didn‟t read my impassioned questioning of him as an attack or as the height of disrespect. He didn‟t mark me as transgressing discursive teacher-student boundaries. What, though, if he had? I was too naïve to recognize the possible implications of being marked as transgressive. Perhaps because of my own experiences (of being a teacher-pleaser who occasionally transgressed in not-so-subtle ways) I struggle to envision the type of student that I want my daughter to me. Certainly I want her to be bright, articulate, hard working, and kind, but do I want her to be a teacher-pleaser? To be bold and to transgress discursive boundaries? Do I want her to be active, strong, aggressive even? Actually, I might want her to be all of those things. What happens, though, to a student who transgresses boundaries, who, say, challenges her teacher in front of the class or who asks too many questions or the wrong type of question? Even if the student‟s challenge is respectful (although some teachers may see “respectful challenge” as an oxymoron), will that student—my child—be marked? I have been in education long enough to see what happens to students who are marked—marked as “trouble-makers” or “hopeless” or “maddening.” Just thinking that my daughter could be marked in such a way makes me fierce. I hope that my daughter‟s teachers will have a strong sense of efficacy: Instead of venting their frustration and laying blame, our teaching peers who solve their problems with students, classrooms, and teaching successfully—alone and/or with the help of their peers—view teaching as leadership by asking, “What can I do to make things better? How can I change? How are the ways I am 306
thinking and the approaches I use limited? How can I grow as a teacher and person? How can I adjust to meet the needs of learners in this case? What can I understand about my students and their lives that I am missing? (Poetter & Badiali, 2001, p. 54). I want—no, I need—for My daughter‟s teachers to indefatigably serve student needs by questioning, addressing challenges, reflecting, asking oneself and others hard questions, and troubling their “invisible glass walls” (Zerubavel, 1979), the values and expectations that are so much a part of us that they evade our consciousness. We often implicitly accept and reproduce the status quo in schools, and in doing so, we reproduce the injustices and miseducation of students—and of ourselves. The best type of teacher, though, has the courage to risk her “ontological security” (Starratt, 1993, p. 29) to crack her invisible glass walls and to guard against the force of “dynamic conservatism,” the force that “constantly pulls practitioners back to a status quo that consists of norms, rules, skills, and values, which become so omnipresent as to be taken for granted and go unchallenged” (Anderson & Herr, 1999, p. 17). Not only should a teacher examine her values and practices but the discourses from which they spring—the discourses from which she springs as a self in process: What the encounter with poststructuralism does is to enable the subject to see not just the object it appears to itself to have become, but to see the ongoing and constitutive force of language (with all its contradictions). It is through making that constitutive force visible that the subject can see its “self” as discursive process. (Davies, 2000, p. 137) This is the type of teacher that my daughter—and all students—deserves.
Proposal #3: Deconstruct the Curriculum I find myself analyzing nearly everything that I say and do around my daughter. I tell her that she is smart and curious and adventurous and beautiful. Should I not tell her that she is beautiful? In doing so, am I positioning her within the discourse of beauty that was so problematic for Sam and Kelly? Am I emphasizing physical characteristics and subordinating abstract characteristics, like integrity? By dressing her up in a frilly outfit for Thanksgiving am I reinforcing a gender identity that I find loathsome? Everything I do teaches her something. My mother has long said that parenthood is one long guilt-trip. I like to think of it as an ongoing act of deconstruction—of examining all aspects of my daughter‟s 307
care for what is hidden and taken for granted and for the way that power is negotiated and discursive positionings reinforced, troubled, or ruptured. Just as I continually deconstruct what I teach my daughter implicitly and explicitly, so too should my daughter‟s teachers deconstruct the curriculum of her schooling. Curriculum, quite simply, is what is taught in schools. Some theorists differentiate among the official (formal, written—exponents, matrices, and derivatives) curriculum of schools, the informal/implicit curriculum (what is purposely taught by teachers but is not part of the official curriculum—math success is more about effort than “God-given ability), the hidden curriculum (that which we do not even realize that we teach—math is “boy subject”), and even the null curriculum (that which is not taught—famous women mathematicians). Most importantly, perhaps, is recognition that: Curriculum is the selection of elements of a culture. Questions such as what should be selected, how this selection from the resources of a culture ought to be accomplished, by whom, using what criteria, and with what effect, form the basis of what it means to study the curriculum. (Kliebard, 2002, p. 92) Values form the basis of curricular decisions; “views of what counts educationally have an extraordinarily important bearing on the kinds of learning opportunities that are created in the curriculum” (Eisner, 1994, p. 139). Such decisions must be deconstructed. “Deconstructive analysis begins with uncovering the assumptions that operate explicitly and implicitly in particular texts and discourses” (Weems, 2006, p. 999) and it confronts the “place of power in our processes of interpretation” (Visweswaran, 1994, p. 79). Teachers should be able to deconstruct the formal, informal/implicit, hidden, and null curricula to poke at, examine, and pull apart the cultural values embodied in the curricula and analyze issues of power in which curricula are caught up. What are the implications, for example, of teaching Cartesian dualistic logic as if it were the only way of thinking and organizing our understanding of the world (formal curriculum)? What are the implications of a bulletin board that I saw recently in a technology classroom that highlighted the contributions to the development of technology of various individuals—13 of which were men and one of which was an 19th century woman (implicit curriculum)? What are the implications of an Advanced Placement physics class in which 92% of the students are male (hidden curriculum)? What are the implications of
308
graduating students with little understanding of second-wave feminism and the women‟s movement (null curriculum)? It is my hope that if my daughter‟s teachers continually deconstruct the curricula of her schooling, and my husband Greg and I continually deconstruct the curricula of our household, my daughter will be well-served.
K-12 Public Education
Proposal #4: Teach Deconstruction as a Form of Critical Thinking/Reading In the previous section, I advocated for parents and teachers to deconstruct the curricula students learn. In this section, I argue that students should be taught to deconstruct various texts around them. Deconstruction is a strategy for displacing hierarchy, for revealing the dependence of the privileged or ascendant term on its “other” for its own meaning; deconstruction moves to disrupt binary logic and its hierarchical, oppositional constitutive force. It requires reading against and pulling apart; it requires asking what has gone unasked and uncovering that which has been hidden. I would revel in my daughter‟s skill at deconstructing the world around her, from the power relations embedded in her peer relationships to the treatment of her bus driver to the politics of her attire to the novels she reads and sports she plays to the decisions I make as her parent to the way her government serves or disserves its people. If she can deconstruct the discursive texts around her and her own subject positionings, she will be well situated to be agentic. The best, most potent type of agency comes from deconstructing one‟s discursive positionings in order to be able to use them with/against one another to make spaces for new ways of being. A curriculum that embodies these commitments would emphasize “critical literacy.” Critical literacy involves questioning the attitudes, values and beliefs that lie beneath the surface of any text. Critical literacy includes: 309
Looking at the meaning within texts Identifying the purpose for the text Considering the author's motives Questioning the ways in which texts have been constructed Analyzing the power of language Emphasizing multiple interpretations of texts (because people interpret texts in light of their own values, experiences, and beliefs, texts will have different meanings for different people) Examining the ways in which texts can act to reinforce or to trouble and subvert dominant discourses that oppress36 Such critical reading should extend beyond students‟ assigned, bound texts to all sorts of texts that surround them, including the actions and decisions of their teachers and administrators. Students need safe spaces in which to critically read and write about the texts that surround them. Student publications—both sanctioned and underground—can serve as a space for deconstruction by students.
Proposal #5: Provide Curricula that Embrace the Other and Examine Issues of Power and Oppression I am a “white bread” girl from the „burbs of Midwest America. It just doesn‟t get much more bland than that. My daughter, too, is a “white bread” girl form the „burbs of Midwest America. Providing a home life—and advocating for a school life—that embraces the Other and celebrates difference will enrich and expand my daughter‟s life in general and her access to multiple and various discourses in particular. For example, as much as I love reading Dr. Seuess books to my daughter, I recognize that I must provide My daughter with other reading material as well, such as the feminist picture books The Paper Bag Princess and Skateboard Mom, as well as books with characters representing other races, such as I Love My Hair and Josias, Hold the Book, and other wonderful characters, such as Seal Surfer and Ringo the Flamingo,
36 Adapted from Tasmania, 2002, http://www.discover.tased.edu.au/english/critlit.htm. 310
both of which feature characters who experience a physical dis/ability. I want her to experience books like Esperanza Rising (by Pam Muloz Ryan), the story of a wealthy Mexican girl whose family fortune is lost during the Great Depression, leading her to become a labor camp worker in California. Diverse children‟s literature is just one way in which I can enrich my daughter‟s life through difference. I propose that school curricula embrace the Other and examine issues of power, ideology, and oppression. Martusewicz (2001) writes about the “generative force of difference,” of the “creative force necessary to create passages to a better world” (p. 7). Diversity of thought, diversity of perspective, of values, of culture, of commitments makes for messy, contentious, difficult interactions and dialogue. However, in this cacophony there is richness and strength and beauty. In these multiplicities, there is the creative power and energy to revise education for a more just world that values and protects human dignity. A school that embraces the Other must not only respect and tolerate difference but celebrate and value it. Embracing the Other involves seeking out the voices in the margins, making space for them, and amplifying them. It involves finding dissonance melodic. While Martusewicz sees difference as the passage to a better world, Davies (2000) sees the differences, contradictions, and overlappings of discourses as space for liberation through difference, by recognizing ourselves as being an amalgam of a “variety of discourses within different contexts and for different purposes. We can take up and put down the different subject positions available within these discourses, our subjectivity always fluid and in process” (p. 43). Thus we are not stable, uniform, monolithic creatures. Each of us is a polyphony of the multiple discourses in which we place ourselves and find ourselves placed. We are each an Other to our own varying subject positions. A celebration of the Other is, therefore, a celebration of ourselves, of the Other around us and within us. A curriculum that embodies these commitments might include texts (in the broader sense of texts as books, song, performance, people, movements, events, various media, etc.) that represent different perspectives, frames, discourses. Such a curriculum would also involve a great deal of personal reflection and introspection, as well as writing and performance as spaces for navigating the diversity of 311
discourses that function around and through and within us. Fiction will have a special place in such a curriculum: Fiction [is] an important site for the articulation of oppression and of utopian hopes for a different future. The power of fiction lies in its ability to construct for the reader ways of being and of understanding the world. (Weedon, p. 140) Neither the promotion of fiction writing as agency nor the celebration of difference within and among ourselves is the dominant discourse of schools. Martusewicz (2001) writes about the power of cultural transmission and reproduction in schools: Schools are clearly vehicles of cultural transmission tied to political and economic interests; they are ideological state apparatuses as Althusser (1971) taught us years ago. Teachers‟ particular ideological maps, their individual and collective histories, and their desires are all implicated in this institutional dynamic. (p. 110) These maps, histories, and desires must be critiqued and examined. “Above all, authority can, indeed must, be analyzed” (Said, 1978, p. 20). To free our students and ourselves from oppression, we, as educators, must examine ourselves and “help students identify, engage, and transform relations of power that generate the material conditions of racism, sexism, poverty, and other oppressive conditions” (Giroux, 1995, p. 41). Educators must encourage and assist students as they identify and react to the hegemony that engulfs them, for: A true politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of their own ideas; it is at the stable point of reason that he secures the end of the chain; this link is all the stronger in that we do not know of what it is made and we believe it to be our own work; despair and time eat away the bonds of iron and steel, but they are powerless against the habitual union of ideas, they can only tighten it still more; and on the soft fibres of the brain is founded the unshakable base of the soundest of Empires. (Servan, quoted in Foucault, 1977, pp. 102-103) Curriculum should examine the ways in which we are complicitous in our own subjugation and require that students investigate their own worlds, lives, and histories to identify how they may be complicitous in their own or others‟ oppression. I propose that students be taught that “knowledge and power can be emancipatory, that their histories and experiences matter, and that what they say and do can play a part in the wider struggle to change the world around them” (Giroux, 1995, p. 47).
312
ADVANCING FEMINISM
Proposal #6: Counter Postfeminist Claims My generation was born into a world that knew feminism and benefited from its effects. I fear that my daughter has been born into a postfeminist world where two different but nefarious discourses are in play: postfeminism and anti-feminist backlash. The first of these is discussed in this section, the second in the next section. The “genius of postfeminism” is that it promotes “acceptance of the status quo and a failure to see the need for any change” (Kinser, 2004, p. 142). Postfeminism‟s claim that the goals of feminism—equality and access for all—have been achieved belies the destructive oppression that exists within patriarchal discourse and dualistic ontology. Feminists must continue to call out, to identify, to cite examples of the patriarchal power dimension and negative subject positionings that exists in our everyday lives, even—or perhaps especially—the mundane and ubiquitous: This power dimension is illustrated daily on the individual level with men in board meetings interrupting and speaking over women or appropriating authority over what women have said (with, for example, such seemingly supportive remarks as, “What Connie meant was that …”). The same pattern is discernible on TV when an advertisement promotes a household product for women (e.g. dishwashing detergent). While the video depicts a woman using and enjoying the product (“My hands are softer after washing the dishes …”), a male voice-over provides the technical information … (“Three out of four dermatologists conclude that new, improved …”), and the trappings of authority. (Steinberg, 1999/1996, p. 475) And lest postfeminists claim that equal access has been achieved, we need look no further than the 110th U.S. Congress to see that this is not the case: just 93 women serve currently in Congress. Seventy-six of 435 (17.5%) members of the House of Representatives are women, and 17 of 100 serve as Senators. Whether we look to our nation‟s leadership or just as far as the TV in front of us, evidence against postfeminism abounds. Feminists must find a way to combat these postfeminist claims.
313
Proposal #7: Contest Anti-Feminism As my participants illustrate, negative subject positionings of feminists dominate evangelical discourse and—I would argue—larger American discourse. When I attended Vanderbilt University, I avoided women‟s studies courses like the plague; I wanted nothing to do with feminism, which I thought of as radical and militant. Although at the time I probably advocated many of the philosophical beliefs of feminists, I eschewed the term and the people who embraced it, even as I reveled in my own strength, competence, and leadership. As a climbing instructor at Vanderbilt, I took great pleasure in easily and nimbly out-climbing and outlasting the big, beefy, tough guys, who had to subject themselves to getting instruction from a girl much smaller than they. And when a male professor was shocked that someone so “frail and fair” as I (me? really?) would be pursuing secondary urban education, I relished jarring him from his chauvinism. Even then I delighted in troubling and disrupting traditional positionings of women, and I basked in my academic and athletic accomplishments. Yet I had such a strong distaste for the moniker “feminist,” which—when I heard the term used around me—was usually preceded by the phrase “man-bashing bra-burners” (Kinser, 2004, p. 135). My point here is that the negative discursive positioning of (or backlash against) feminists has been around for far too long in our society—in evangelical communities and (il)liberal universities alike. I fear that my daughter, like I before her, will frame feminism as extremist and/or noxious. I advocate that feminists contest and revolt against such subject positionings. I have no delusions that I know much of anything about how to influence public opinion and how to shift the portrayal of feminists in American discourse. I only know that it must happen, and I look to organizations like the Feminist Majority and the National Organization of Women for leadership in this endeavor.
Proposal #8: Work to Dismantle Dualistic Ontology We perceive the world from a gendered subject position and we re-create the sexist world by re-creating the male/female dualism in the things we say and do. (Davies, 2000, p. 40)
314
About seven years ago, while attending a session at a small education conference in Ohio, I saw two people whose sex/gender was not immediately discernible to me. I am embarrassed to say that I spent too little time attending to the session at hand and too much time surreptitiously looking at those two people, trying my best to determine whether each was woman/female or man/male. So disciplined was I by the sex/gender dualism in our culture that I had to categorize each in my own mind as either woman/female or man/male. How ludicrous! I hope that my daughter will never waste precious minutes in so silly (and so discursively disciplined) a pursuit. I hope that the world that she grows up in will embrace multiplicity and challenge dualities, for ultimately—and fundamentally—the subordination of women is encoded in the hierarchical binaries of a dualistic ontology. Anything less than rejecting and supplanting dualistic ontology will fall short of crumbling sexist discourse and will—in fact— maintain and reinforce it. Binary logic of every type must be problematized at every step. The messy, polyphonic, cacophony of difference—of multiplicity—must be celebrated and stretched.
Proposal #9: Promote the Study of Nonfeminists I concur with Griffith (1997) that a “central feminist task” should be to focus “with thorough mindfulness on women previously ignored or hidden from view, including—perhaps especially—those who challenge prior assumptions within feminist thought or who patently reject feminist tenets altogether” (p. 204). Instead of rejecting or marginalizing the voices and experiences of these women (the Other), I propose that poststructural feminists explore these women‟s discursive positionings in respectful ways that maintain their dignity. To do so is itself an anti-patriarchal act, an act of resistance to the way that patriarchal discourse has historically treated the Other. It is important work for poststructural feminists to attend with “careful, empathetic reconsideration [to] what might actually be at stake for those women who, for religious reasons and perhaps other reasons as well, persistently repudiate what they take to be established feminism” (p. 205). As this study has shown, such religious women have complex, nuanced, and
315
paradoxical views on matters of headship, egalitarianism, and feminism, and the exploration of these matters is productive and valuable: Still, I remain convinced of the need to bridge disparate worlds, to translate the lives of evangelical women in terms nonevangelicals can understand, insofar as such an enterprise is possible. If properly executed, such translation ought to contribute to what I take to be a central feminist goal: a heightened understanding of “other”—read “nonfeminist”—women, who challenge particular assumptions and constructions within feminist thought and thereby help both to expand and to refine feminism‟s possibilities. (p. 12) A world such as this—a world in which the Other is respected—is the world in which I want my daughter to grow up to be a strong, powerful, proud woman.
316
THE LAST WORD
Taking the idea from Magolda and Gross (2009), I have offered my participants the opportunity to have the “last word” of my dissertation.37 Providing my participants with the opportunity to respond to my writing in any way that they wish privileges and respects their views while giving them a unique opportunity to make meaning of the researcher’s words, for so often it is only the researcher who has this power: The intent of this unusual chapter is to continue the conversation and to fully capture all participants’ enriched understanding of this complex research phenomenon. Our intent is not to engage in a point-counterpoint debate to determine the “right” interpretation. Too often researchers and authors—by virtue of the power of the pen (or computer)—get the last word. (Magolda & Gross, 2009, p. 316)
There is power in having the final say, making the last point, drawing research to a close; the finality of the last word has substantial clout. By providing participants with the opportunity to have the final word, I am intentionally dislocating and upending what is traditionally the researcher’s privilege. Doing so is consistent with my poststructural commitments to troubling traditional power structures. What follows is the unedited, unchanged response of Gretchen.
Gretchen: In Her Own Words I have to say that now that I am reading my quotes from Chapter 6 on agreeing with some parts of scripture more than other parts relating to women in the Bible, or seeing that God adheres to certain parts of the Bible more than to other parts of the Bible - I think that God adheres to all
37 Not long after my data collection, I lost contact with Nina. Although I am confident that I could reinstate contact with her, I felt that doing so for the sole purpose of asking her to read and respond to my writing would be self-serving and insensitive. As such, I invited only Kelly, Gretchen, and Sam to respond to my writing. To date, I have only received a response from Gretchen, although Sam and Kelly have stated that their responses are in process. 317
parts of the Bible. However, I do have to wonder if the Bible were written today rather than when it was written a long time ago, if it would sound very different due to the people writing the Bible. I do know that the Bible is the "inspired word of God", but I can't help but to think that it was written by people, and we know that whenever people are involved in anything, there is subjectivity that depends upon the time period, culture, and environmental factors that are taking place. This is true in any book that has ever been written. The time period, culture, etc. have to be taken into account to fully understand the story line and to appreciate where the author is coming from in his viewpoints. If Timothy had written I Timothy in today's world, would it have sounded the same? Would his wording have changed? I can't help but to think about this. As far as the feminist versus the nonfeminist views and which one I adhere more to, I have to summarize "Gretchen's" thought process as this: I think that women were created in a way that men were not. We were created to bare children for a reason rather than men doing this. Women were created to feed their babies milk rather than men taking on these duties! I think that God made no mistake in deliberately planning it this way. These "duties" that a women has go right along with the duties of nurture. While women nurture, they can also be strong members of society with bold, strong views of the world and what they want. I think that in today's world, Timothy would see this viewpoint, but maybe not back then. I think that whenever you put -ist at the end of any word, it automatically creates an active view of the person behind it, feminist, psychologist, pacifist, motorist. If you were to say "womanist", it would hold an active view as well. What makes a women different from a man? - all of the qualities that make us bare (sic) children and nurture them. The very things that make us different are what make us uniquely valued, and we should be active and proud of this!
318
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aichele G., Burnett, F., Castelli, E., Fowler, R., Jobling, D., Moore, S., et al. (1995). The postmodern bible. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Allison, A. W., Barrows, H., Blake, C. R., Carr, A. J., Eastman, A. M., & English, H. M. (Eds.). (1983). The Norton anthology of poetry (3rd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Amos, V., & Parmar, P. (2001). Challenging imperial feminism. In K. Bhavnani (Ed.), Feminism and 'race' (pp. 17-32). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12- 21. Arslanian-Engoren, C. (2002). Feminist poststructuralism: A methodological paradigm for examining clinical decision-making. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(6), 512-517. Association of Religion Data Archives. (2006). National profiles. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from www.thearda.com August, M., Barovick, H., Lee-St. John, J., & Martens, E. (2006, November 5). Milestones. TIME. Retrieved September 2, 2007, from http://www.time.com. Balmer, R. (1994). American fundamentalism: The ideal of femininity. In J. S. Hawley (Ed.), Fundamentalism and gender (pp. 47-62). New York: Oxford University Press. Balmer, R. (2006). Thy kingdom come: An evangelical's lament. New York: Basic Books. Balmer, R. (2006). Mine eyes have seen the glory: A journey into the evangelical subculture in America (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Balmer, R. (2006). Jesus is not a republican. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(42), B6. Banerjee, N. (2006, July 29). Families challenging religious influence in Delaware schools. New York Times. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/us/29delaware.html Bartkowski, J. P. (1997). Debating patriarchy: Discursive disputes over spousal authority among Evangelical family commentators. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(3), 393-410. Bartkowski, J. P. (2001). Remaking the Godly marriage: Gender negotiation in evangelical families. New Brunswick, NY: Rutgers University Press. 319
Bendroth, M. L. (1993). Fundamentalism and gender, 1875 to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bennett, J. (2007). Introduction to Enlightenment thought and the French Revolution. Retrieved July 5, 2007, from wwww.associatedcontent.com. Beste, J. (2006). The limits of poststructuralism for feminist theology. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 22(1), 5-19. Bhavnani, K. (2001). Introduction. In K. Bhavnani (Ed.), Feminism and 'race' (pp. 1-13). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bilezikian, G. (1985). Beyond sex roles: What the bible says about a woman's place in church and family (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker House Books. Bineham, J. L. (1993). Theological hegemony and oppositional interpretive codes: The case of evangelical Christian feminism. Western Journal of Communication, 57(Fall), 515-529. Blackwell, A. S. (1923). Woman's 75-year fight. The Nation, 117(3028), 53-54. Boisvert, R. D. (1998). John Dewey: Rethinking our time. New York: State University of New York Press. Boston, G. H., & Baxley, T. (2007). Living the Literature. Urban Education, 42(6), 560-581. Brasher, B. E. (1998). Godly women: Fundamentalism and female power. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Brokaw, T. (Writer) & MSNBC (Producer). (2005). Spreading the word: NBC's Tom Brokaw goes inside the world of Christian evangelicals [Television broadcast]. New York: National Broadcasting Corporation. Brown, J. C. (1995). Protestant women and social reform. In R. S. Keller & R. R. Ruether (Eds.), In our own voices: Four centuries of American women's religious writing (pp. 247-290). San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Brown, K. M. (1994). Fundamentalism and the control of women. In J. S. Hawley (Ed.), Fundamentalism and gender (pp. 175-201). New York: Oxford University Press. Burrus, V. (2006). Contested terms: History, feminism, religion. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 22(1), 53-59. Butler, J. (1996). Imitation and gender insubordination. In A. Garry & M. Pearsall (Eds.), Women, knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist philosophy (2nd ed., pp. 371- 387). New York: Routledge Kegan Paul. Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
320
Caputo, J. D. (Ed.). (1997). Deconstruction in a nutshell. New York: Fordham University Press. Carpenter, J. (1998). Fundamentalist institutions and the rise of evangelical Protestantism, 1929- 1942. In H. W. Bowden & P. C. Kemeny (Eds.), American church history: A reader (pp. 391-400). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Christian Coalition of America. (2005). About us. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from www.cc.org. Christian Research Institute. (2007). The essentials of Christianity. Retrieved July 2, 2007, from http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2548387/k.98C0/The_Essentials.htm. Christians, C. G. (2005). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 139-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Christians for Biblical Equality. (2007). Christians for biblical equality: Who we are. Retrieved April 6, 2007, from www.cbeinternational.org. Cochran, P. D. H. (2005). Evangelical feminism: A history. New York: New York University Press. Collins, P. H. (2000). What's going on? Black feminist thought and the politics of postmodernism. In E. A. St. Pierre & W. S. Pillow (Eds.), Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education (pp. 41-73). New York: Routledge. Connell, R. (2008). Masculinity construction and sports in boys' education: a framework for thinking about the issue. Sport, Education & Society, 13(2), 131-145. Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2004, Fall). Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening in colonial America. Bill of Rights in Action, 20, 1-5. Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2006, Spring). The Scopes trial: Who decides what gets taught in the classroom? Bill of Rights in Action, 22, 1-5. Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2006, Spring). More monkey trials: The evolution debate goes back to court. Bill of Rights in Action, 22, 6-9. Crossroads. (2007). 24 million and change. Cincinnati, OH: Crossroads. Crossroads. (2008). Crossroads context: Who we are and why we do what we do. Cincinnati, OH: Crossroads. Crossroads. (2009). You are here. Cincinnati, OH: Crossroads. Crossroads. (2009). Seven hills we die on. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from www.Crossroads.net. Davies, B. (2000). A body of writing: 1990-1999. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. 321
Davies, B. (2004). Introduction: Poststructuralist lines of flight in Australia. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(1), 3-9. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Derkacz, E. (2006). Updated: Dobson slammed on "fictional[al]" anti-gay Time mag column. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from http://www.alternet.org. Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Derrida, J. (1997). Deconstruction in a nutshell: A conversation with Jacques Derrida [edited by J. D. Caputo]. New York: Fordham University Press. Derrida, J. (2005). Justices. Critical Inquiry, 31(3), 689-721. Derrida, J. (2005). Women in the beehive: A seminar with Jacques Derrida. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 16(3), 138-157. Dill, B. T. (2009, Spring). Intersections. Ms. Magazine, xix, 65. Dobson, J. (1982). Dr. Dobson answers your questions. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Dobson, J. (1988). What wives wish their husbands knew about women. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. Dobson, J. (1993). Love for a lifetime: Building a marriage that will go the distance. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Books. Dobson, J. (2005). What is Focus on the Family Action? Retrieved November 21, 2005, from www.focusaction.org Dobson, J. (2006, December 12). Two mommies is one too many. Time. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.time.com. Dobson, J. (2007). Straight talk to men: Timeless principles for leading your family. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. EEWC. (2003). About EEWC. Retrieved May 28, 2008, from www.eewc.com. Eisner, E. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan College Publishing Company. Eldredge, J., & Eldredge, S. (2005). Captivating: Unveiling the mystery of a woman's soul. Nashville, TN: Nelson Books.
322
Fairclough, N. (1993). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman. Fax, J. (1990). Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. In L. J. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 39-62). New York: Routledge. Fitzgerald, M. (1993). The religious is personal is political: Foreward to the 1993 edition of The Woman's Bible. In M. Fitzgerald (Ed.), The woman's bible. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Foh, S. (1979). Women and the word of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, Vol. I: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. (1980). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge (pp. 37-52). Brighton: Harvester. Foucault, M. (1990). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972- 1977/Michael Foucault [edited by C. Gordon]. (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham & K. Soper, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Francis, B. (2008). Teaching manfully? Exploring gendered subjectivities and power via analysis of men teachers' gender performance. Gender & Education, 20(2), 109-122. Freidan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York: Dell books. Gallagher, S. K. (2003). Evangelical identity and gendered family life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Gavey, N. (1989). Feminist poststructuralism and discourse analysis: Contributions to feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 459-475. Gilgoff, D. (2005, January 1). The Dobson way: An evangelical leader steps squarely into the political ring. Retrieved November 7, 2005, from www.usnews.com. Giroux, H. A. (1995). Teachers, public life, and curriculum reform. In L. S. Behar-Horenstein, E. F. Pajak & A. C. Ornstein (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Goldman, P. E. (1991). Feminist movement (1960 through early 1970). In H. Tierney (Ed.), Women's studies encyclopedia (Vol. III, pp. 142-146). New York: Greenwood Press.
323
Gordon, C. (1980). Afterword (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham & K. Soper, Trans.). In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 (pp. 229-259). New York: Pantheon Books. Grace to You. (2005). Grace to you: Unleashing God's truth one verse at a time. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from www.gty.com. Griffith, R. M. (1997). God's daughters: Evangelical women and the power of submission. Berkley: University of California Press. Hammond, P. E., & Hunter, J. D. (1984). On maintaining plausibility: The worldview of Evangelical college students. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 23(3), 221-238. Haraway, D. (2001). The persistence of vision. In K. Bhavnani (Ed.), Feminism and "race" (pp. 145-160). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hardesty, N. A. (1995). Evangelical women. In R. S. Keller & R. R. Ruether (Eds.), In our own voices: Four centuries of American women's religious writing (pp. 207-245). San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Harlan, J. (1998). Feminism: A reference handbook. Oxford, UK: ABC-CLIO. Hart, D. G. (2002). That old-time religion in modern America. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee. Hawley, J. S. (1994). Fundamentalism and gender. New York: Oxford University Press. Hawley, J. S., & Proudfoot, W. (1994). Introduction. In J. S. Hawley (Ed.), Fundamentalism and gender. New York: Oxford University Press. Holt, K. (2005). List of evangelical power brokers heavy on authors—and those who should be authors. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://thebookstandard.com. Hooker, R. (1996, June 6). The European Enlightenment. Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT. hooks, B. (2001). Black women: Shaping feminist thought. In K. Bhavnani (Ed.), Feminism and 'race' (pp. 33-47). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hunter, J. D. (1987). Evangelicalism: The coming generation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ingersoll, J. (2003). Evangelical Christian women: War stories in the gender battles. New York: New York University Press. Jackson, A. Y. (2004). Performativity identified. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(5), 673-690. Johansson, U. (2001). Education and social justice: gender lessons of the past. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2/3), 265-280.
324
Jones, K. B. (1989). Feminist theory. In H. Tierney (Ed.), Women's studies encyclopedia (Vol. I, pp. 139-142). New York: Greenwood Press. King, D. (1989). Black women and feminism. In H. Tierney (Ed.), Women's studies encyclopedia (Vol. I, pp. 42-44). New York: Greenwood Press. Kinser, A. E. (2004). Negotiating spaces for/through third-wave feminism. NWSA Journal, 16(3), 124-153. Kliebard, H. (1992). The Tyler rationale. In H. Kliebard (Ed.), Forging the American curriculum: Essays in curriculum history and theory (pp. 153-167). New York: Routledge. Lambert, F. (1998). The Great Awakening as artifact: George Whitefield and the construction of intercolonial revival, 1739-1745. In H. W. Bowden & P. C. Kemeny (Eds.), American church history: A reader (pp. 73-83). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, 17(4), 63-84. Lather, P. (1994). Critical inquiry in qualitative research: Feminist and poststructural perspectives: Science "after truth". In B. E. A. Crabtree (Ed.), Exploring collaborative research in primary care (pp. 103-114). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Lather, P. (1997). Validity as an incitement to discourse: Qualitative research and the crisis of legitimation. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 241- 250). Washington, D. C.: AERA. Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35-57. Lather, P., & Smithies, C. (1997). Troubling the angels: Women living with HIV/AIDS. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Leaming, J. (2006, August 4). Bridgeport battle: West Virginia school board keeps fight over Jesus display alive. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from http://glog.au.org. Lechner, F. J. (1990). Fundamentalism revisited. In T. Robbins & D. Anthony (Eds.), In gods we trust: New patterns of religious pluralism in America (2nd ed., pp. 77-97). New Brunswick, NY: Transaction Publishers. Lederhouse, J. N. (1997). Caught in the middle: Evangelical public elementary educators. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 28(2), 182-203. Leighton, C. M. (2006). Contending with a polemical tradition: The rhetorical art of Christian self-definition. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.icjs.org/scholars/polemics.html.
325
Leistyna, P., Woodrum, A., & Sherblom, S. (1996). Breaking free: Transformative power of critical pedagogy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. Lincoln, Y. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275-289. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. In Y. S. Lincoln & E. G. Guba (Eds.), Naturalistic Inquiry (pp. 289-331). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Lugg, C. A. (2000). Reading, writing, and Reconstruction: The Christian Right and the politics of public education. Educational Policy, 14(5), 622-637. MacArthur, J. (2005). The proverbs 31 woman. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from http://www.gty.org/resources.hph?print. Mack-Canty, C. (2004). Third-wave feminism and the need to reweave the nature/culture duality. NWSA Journal, 16(3), 154-179. MacLeod, A. E. (1992). Hegemonic relations and gender resistance: The new veiling as accommodating protest in Cairo. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 17(3), 533-557. Magolda, P. (1999). Mystories about alternative discourses in a qualitative inquiry seminar. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(2), 208-243. Magolda, P. (2000). Being at the wrong place, wrong time: Rethinking trust in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 138-145. Magolda, P. & Weems, L. (2002). Doing harm: An unintended consequence of qualitative inquiry? Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 490-507. Magolda, P. & Gross, K. E. (2009). It's all about Jesus: Faith as an oppositional collegiate subculture. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Mann, S. A., & Huffman, D. J. (2005). The decentering of second wave feminism and the rise of the third wave. Science & Society, 69(1), 56-91. Martusewicz, R. A. (2001). Seeking Passage: Post-Structuralism, pedagogy, ethics. New York: Teachers College Press. Mattison, M. M. (2007). What is a Christian? Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/christian.html. McCarthy, M. M. (1993). Challenges to the public school curriculum: New targets and strategies. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(1), 55-59. Meyer, J. (1995). Battlefield of the mind. Fenton, MO: Life in the Word, Inc. Miles, M. R. (2006). Roundtable discussion: Feminist religious history. Journal of Feminist 326
Studies in Religion, 22(1), 45-74. Mills, S. (2003). Michel Foucault. London: Routledge. Morgan, W. (2000). Electronic tools for dismantling the Master's House: Poststructuralist feminist research and hypertext poetics. In E. A. St. Pierre & W. S. Pillow (Eds.), Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education. New York: Routledge. Murphy, C. (1998). The word according to Eve:Women and the Bible in ancient times and our own. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. National Center for Science Education. (2006, June). Evolution/creationism news. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from http://www.natcenscied.org. Neal, L. S. (2006). Romancing God: Evangelical women and inspirational fiction. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Olesen, V. (2005). Early millennial feminist qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 235-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Padgett, A. G. (2002). What is biblical equality. Priscilla Papers, 16(3), 22-25. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Pevey, C., Williams, C. L., & Ellison, C. G. (1996). Male God imagery and female submission: Lessons from a Southern Baptist ladies' bible class. Qualitative Sociology, 19(2), 173- 193. Piper, J. (2006). A vision of biblical complementarity: Manhood and womanhood defined according to the bible. In J. Piper & W. Grudem (Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood: A response to evangelical feminism (pp. 31-59). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. Poetter, T., & Badiali, B. (2001). Teacher leader. Franksville, WI: Eye on Education. Pohli, C. V. (1983). Church closets and back doors: A feminist view of Moral Majority women. Feminist Studies, 9(3), 529-558. Publishers Weekly. (2007). Bestseller lists: Nonfiction. Retrieved August 2, 2007, from http://www.publishersweekly.com. Read, B., Francis, B., & Robson, J. (2005). Gender, 'bias', assessment and feedback: analyzing the written assessment of undergraduate history essays. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 241-260. Religious Tolerence.org. (2006). The cardinal doctrines of Protestant Christianity. Retrieved 327
July 1, 2007, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrcarddoc.htm. Richardson, L. (1990). Writing strategies: Reaching diverse audiences. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rose, S. D. (1987). Women warriors: The negotiation of gender in a charismatic community. Sociological Analysis, 48(3), 245-258. Rose, S. D. (1989). Gender, education and the new Christian Right. Society, 26(2), 59-66. Sadker, D. (1999). Gender equity: Still knocking at the classroom door. Educational Leadership, 56(7), 22. Sadker, D., & Zittleman, K. (2005). Gender bias lives, for both sexes. Education Digest, 70(8), 27-30. Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books. Scanzoni, L. D., & Hardesty, N. A. (1992). All we're meant to be: Biblical feminism for today. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Scheurich, J. J. (1996). The masks of validity: A deconstructive investigation. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(1), 1-12. Scholz, S. (2005). The Christian Right's discourse on gender and the bible. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 21(1), 81-100. Simonds, B. (2001). Rescue 2010 strategy. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from www.nace- cee.org/eestrategy.htm. Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1997). Race, class, gender, and disability in current textbooks. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 279-305). New York: Routledge. Smith, B. J. (2001). An interpretation of juvenile parolees' ender constructions at school. High School Journal, 85(2), 43. Smith, C. (1998). American evangelicalism: Embattled and thriving. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Smith, C. (2000). Christian America: What evangelicals really want. Berkeley: University of California Press. St. Pierre, E. A. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 477-515. 328
St. Pierre, E. A., & Pillow, W. S. (2000). Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education. New York: Routledge. Stacey, J. (1998). Brave new families: Stories of domestic upheaval in late-twentieth century America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Stacey, J., & Gerard, S. E. (1990). “We are not doormats”: The influence of feminism on contemporary evangelicals in the United States. In F. Ginsburg & A. L. Tsing (Eds.), Uncertain terms (pp. 98-117). Boston: Beacon Press. Stanton, E. C. (1993). The woman's bible. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Starratt, R. J. (1993). The drama of leadership. London: The Falmer Press. Steinberg, S. R. (1999). Early education as a gendered construction. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Contemporary curriculum discourses: Twenty years of JCT (pp. 474-482). New York: Peter Lang. Stone, M. (1976). When God was a woman. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Stronach, I. (2007). On promoting rigour in education research: The example of the RAE. Journal of Education Policy, 2(3), 343-352. Ulmer, G. L. (1994). Heuretics: The logic of invention. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Van Biema, D., Booth-Thomas, C., Calabresi, M., Dickerson, J. F., Cloud, J., Winters, R., et al. (2005, February 7). The twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America. TIME. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://www.time.com. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Veerman, D. R. (1991). Why the Life Application Study Bible is unique. In R. A. Beers, B. B. Barton, J. C. Galvin, L. Neff, L. C. Taylor & D. R. Veerman (Eds.), Life application study bible: New international version (pp. xv-xvi). Wheaton, IL and Grand Rapids, MI: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. and Zondervan Publishing House. Visweswaran, K. (1994). Fictions of feminist ethnography. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Webb, W. J. (2001). Slaves, women, and homosexuals: Exploring the hermeneutics of cultural analysis. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice & poststructural theory (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Weems, L. (2004). Troubling professionalism: Narratives of family, race, and nation in education reform. In B. M. Baker & K. E. Heyning (Eds.), Dangerous coagulations?: 329
The uses of Foucault in the study of education (pp. 225-260). New York: Peter Lang. Weems, L. (2006). Unsettling politics, locating ethics: Representations of reciprocity in postpositivist inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(5), 994-1011. Wells, B. (2005). Personal interview. Cincinnati, OH. Wharton, S. (2005). Invisible females, incapable males: gender construction in a children's reading scheme. Language & Education: An International Journal, 19(3), 238-251. Williams, P. W. (1990). America's religions: Traditions and cultures. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Winner, L. F. (2000, November 13). The man behind the megachurch. Christianity Today. Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (2007). Closing the Gender Gap? Issues of gender equity in English secondary schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(2), 219-242. Zerubavel, E. (1979). Patterns of time in hospital life: A sociological perspective. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
330
Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
IRB Application for New Protocol Review
Kimberly Kappler, P.I. Graduate Student, Educational Leadership
Project: How Evangelical Christian Women Negotiate Discourses in the Construction of Self: A Feminist Poststructural Analysis
1. Purpose:
For my dissertation research, I am interested in exploring the intersection of religion, gender, and identity. Specifically, I want to ask: How do Evangelical Christian women negotiate, resist, and embrace the multiple and conflicting discourses through which they are constituted and constitute themselves? Key to my research is the role of language in constituting social reality and one‟s sense of self or subjectivity:
Language does not „reflect‟ social reality, but produces meaning, creates social reality. Different languages and different discourses within a given language divide up the world and give it meaning in ways that are not reducible to one another. Language is how social organization and power are defined and contested and the place where our sense of selves, our subjectivity, is constructed. Understanding language as competing discourses, competing ways of giving meaning and of organizing the world, makes language a site of exploration, struggle. (Richardson, 2000, p. 518)
Women feel the push and pull of the multiple, overlapping, and competing discourses (or worlds) in which they live, those of their Evangelical Christian faith, their professions, their families, their romantic relationships, their social circles, etc. I want to learn how Evangelical Christian women navigate and negotiate the discourses that inform who they are, and I want to explore the ways in which women are agentic, complicitous, active, and passive in the development of their sense of self.
My research will consist of participants creating some type of textual production (e.g. video diary, photo montage, poem, sketch, clay sculpture, etc.) in response to a prompt which is intended to encourage participants to think about the different worlds in which they live and how these different worlds inform who they are, using materials provided to them by me. I will then conduct follow-up interviews with each participant, using her textual production as a point of departure for exploring the ways in which the woman‟s world informs who she is.
331 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
Expected outcomes include an analysis of participants‟ textual productions as well as analysis of participant interviews. These analyses will help me to address the aforementioned research question. I hope that my study will help people think about the ways in which religion informs who women are as gendered people.
2. Subject Population
I would like to invite five women to participate in this study. Each of the women, as did I, participated in a fall, 2005, informal book study of Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Women’s Soul by John and Stasi Eldredge. (The book study was organized by two women who invited some of their various friends to participate. A total of 8 women, including myself, participated in the book study.38 The study ended in late winter of 2006.) Each of the women is between 28 and 35 years of age, white, middle class, attends an Evangelical Church, and considers faith to be a central concern in her life. Each of the five women is in some way connected to the field of education (principal, teacher, corporate trainer, etc.).
3. Recruitment and Selection of Subjects
I will invite five women to participate in my research project. These women are a subset of the aforementioned fall, 2005, book study group. The five were selected because each of them is involved in education in some capacity (teacher, administrator, corporate trainer, etc.). While being connected to education is not mandatory for the specific research question articulated above, in my dissertation I will argue that my research has implications for the field of education. I will meet with each of the five women separately and give each a recruitment letter (see attached), inviting them to participate in the study. I will address any questions that they have and provide them with any additional information that they request.
4. Potential Risks and Discomforts
Risks to participants will be minimal, and I anticipate no greater harm or discomfort than engaging in everyday activities. Due to my friendship with each participant, there is the possibility that participating in this study will change the dynamics between a participant and me. I will maintain sensitivity to and awareness of this possibility and guard against any discomfort or uneasiness that
38 Per the request of the IRB, all changes to my original drafts of the documents in this Appendix have been bolded and underlined. 332 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW participating in this study may cause for participants. I will keep a reflexive journal that will help me to reflect on these matters.
333 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
5. Potential Benefits
For my project, writing (or more inclusively creating) is a way for participants as well as myself to find out what we think about things, ourselves, our topic. As the adage goes, I cannot know what I think until I read what I have written. Some participants may find joy, pride, and meaning in the process of creating. Further, I like to think that any time we as humans think deeply and authentically about our lives, experiences, and identities that we are doing good work for ourselves. As such, perhaps the women of this study will find value in their participation.
6. Informed Consent
Each of the five women will be given a recruitment letter (see attached). Any woman who indicates interest in participating in the project will be given a consent form (see attached). Each woman who elects to participate in the study will sign a consent form before the study begins. Participants will have the opportunity to withdraw from the study at any time or decline to answer questions.
I believe that my friendship with these five women will increase their willingness to participate in my study as intended. I believe that their willingness to participate will not be borne of a sense of obligation or coercion. Rather, I think that their interest in participation will be a combined function of their willingness to share/express their views, their interest in helping with my dissertation research, and their interest in the topic and the idea of creating something that represents their experiences.
Although the women are perhaps more likely to agree to participate because they know and trust me, conducting a study involving friends as participants creates many challenges. While I list a few of these challenges below, I cannot foresee all challenges that may arise. “Even the most responsible research cannot possible anticipate what might happen until he or she is in the thick of dealing with actual people and actual situations” (Magolda & Weems, 2002, p. 496). Nonetheless, in the paragraphs below I attempt to point out some of the potential challenges that I may encounter because of my friendships with participants.
First, I must be ever vigilant to ensure that I am not leveraging my friendship with them to pressure them to initially participate or to continue to participate in the study if they feel uncomfortable and would like to quit.
Second, always in mind my will be questions such as, “How will S feel if I say this about her textual production or question what she said about T? What
334 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW if what I say about her or her textual production hurts her? What if she disagrees with what I say about her textual production or interview responses?” While these are questions that all researchers should consider regardless of who their participants are, such questions are more immediate, more personal, and have greater potential for long-lasting effects because of my friendship with these women. My duty goes beyond the ethics of researcher-participant to the even greater commitment of friend-friend. In a sense, my friendships with these women hold me to an even greater standard of ethics and integrity than even that of the IRB.
Third, because these women not only know me but know each other, there is the potential that they will discuss the project—and their textual productions--amongst themselves. This could have all sorts of unintended, unforeseeable effects. For example, even though the women will be asked to choose a pseudonym for themselves in the research, they might share their pseudonyms with one another and then regret the vulnerability that such disclosure might create. Or perhaps they do not share their pseudonyms with each other, but they each use what they know about each other to figure out who is who in the dissertation. Perhaps several wish to share their pseudonyms but the others do not. Therefore even though each woman’s participation in the project is individual and nothing will be done as a group, there is the potential that participants may pressure or influence one another. Again, I must be vigilant, observant, and responsive, should such pressure occur.
While these potential challenges are significant, they are not insurmountable. Rather, part of what excites me about this project is the intimacy of it, the challenge and opportunity of being in meaningful relationships with participants, of truly, deeply valuing their experiences and perspectives. Such challenges are “productive discomfort” (Herzfeld, 1996).
The fact that I know these women and they know each other creates a number of possible challenges to the research. As such, I am required to carefully and ethically navigate each challenge as it arises and take even greater care in what I say and do not say in the dissertation. Such qualitative research dissolves the “hard boundaries between rigor and ethics [and] in turn signals that the new research is a relational research—a research grounded in the recognition and a valuing of connectedness between research and researched” (Lincoln, 1995, p. 287).
Lincoln, Y. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275-289.
Herzfeld, M. (1996). Productive discomfort: Anthropological fieldwork and the dislocation of etiquette. In M. Garber, P. Franklin, & R. Walkowitz (Eds.), Field Work: Sites in Literacy and Cultural Studies (pp. 41-51). New York: 335 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
Routledge.
Magolda, P. & Weems, L. (2002). Doing harm: An unintended consequence of qualitative inquiry? Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 490-507.
7. Exempt Status Request
NA
8. Research Procedures/Methods
My dissertation work will be interpretive and qualitative. I would like to invite five young, professional, Evangelical women to participate in this study. Each of the women, as did I, participated this past year in a book study of Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman’s Soul by John and Stasi Eldredge. Each of the women attends an Evangelical church and considers faith to be of central concern in her life.
To explore the ways in which these women both constitute their identity through and are constituted by their multiple discourses, I would like to create a Representations Box (think large, plastic tub). It will be filled with various accoutrements to be used by a participant to speak about the multiple discourses through which she constitutes herself and is constituted. Materials in the box will include: . Magnetic poetry tiles . Magazines, glue, scissors (materials for constructing a collage) . Various types of paper/pens . Tape recorder and cassette tapes . Digital video camera and tapes . Digial still camera . Polaroid camera . Sketch book . Clay . Other
Each participant will have the Representations Box for one week and will be asked to respond to this prompt:
Think about all of the seats in your life (favorite chair at home, your chair at work, your car seat, a chair at your favorite bar, your seat at the dinner table at your parents’ house, chair at your salon, chair at church, etc.). Identify each of the seats in your life. Then consider: . What does each of the seats in your life say about who you are as a woman? . Could these chairs be friends with each other? Which chairs would get along and which couldn’t? Why/why not? 336 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
. If these chairs were to fight with each other, which would win? Why? . Do these chairs ever get moved? When, how, and why are they moved? . How do these chairs change with time?
The prompt is an attempt to concretize and physically situate the various discourses available to each woman. Each chair represents a discourse through which participants constitute themselves and are constituted. The prompt seeks to explore how each discourse informs the woman‟s sense of self, the extent to which the various discourses are congruent or conflicting, which discourse(s) are privileged by the woman, and how the discourses shift and change over time.
In response to the prompt, each participant would create some kind of text:
Poststructuralists define text as any set of symbolic objects (not just words) through which we try to communicate something and through which we thus create meaning. . . Moreover, they do so because not only do we create them, we also “read” them. This means that texts are never simply the objective results of an author‟s intention, but include those excess meanings manifested in our personal and collective interpretations of them. (Martusewicz, 2001, p. 11-12)
Participants‟ texts might include a skit acted out and recorded via the video camera, stream of consciousness recorded on an audiocassette, sculpture, drawings, poetry, a photomontage, etc. The purpose of a participant‟s textual production is not to have a polished, finished product but rather to represent her ideas and feelings, no matter how “rough” or “unfinished” the representation may look.
These textual productions will serve as the launching point for follow-up interviews that I will have with each participant, which will be audiotaped. The interviews will explore the various discourses represented in participants‟ textual productions and how those discourses inform each woman‟s sense of self. Each interview will begin with the participant explaining what she did in her textual production and why. Some possible interview questions may include (see attached for a full list of possible interview questions):
. Why did you select this medium/media to represent your response to the prompt?
. What does your textual production “say”? / What meanings or ideas were you trying to communicate through your textual production?
337 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
. Talk to me about (insert a specific aspect of the textual production) . . .
. In looking at and reflecting upon your textual production, does it “say” anything that you had not originally intended?
. What, if anything, did you learn (e.g. about yourself) from the process of creating and/or through the product that you created?
Each participant will have the Representations Box for one week. I anticipate that participants will spend approximately 3-5 hours during that week actually working on their textual production. The follow-up interview, which will take place during the following week, is expected to last about 90 minutes.
As principal investigator, I will take the Representations Box to each participant, explain the directions, answer any questions, pick up the box, and conduct the interview.
Participants will receive no financial compensation for their participation in the research. Each participant will receive a copy of the completed dissertation as well as any publications based on the dissertation research.
9. Research Location
Participants will create their response to the aforementioned prompt at their own homes. Follow-up interviews will be conducted in either the participant‟s home or my own home, which ever the participant prefers.
10. Procedures for Safeguarding Confidentiality of Information
Data collected during this project will be held confidential. Only I will have access to identifiable data. Participants‟ textual productions and interview data will not be shared amongst participants.
All quotations from, descriptions of, or photographs of participants‟ textual productions will be coded with pseudonyms. All interview transcripts will also be coded with pseudonyms and will be kept on my computer, which is password protected. Further, the pseudonym code list and interview data will be kept in separate, password-protected files.
Interview tapes will be kept for two years after transcription; then they will be destroyed. Participants‟ textual productions will also be kept for two years; then they will be returned to participants. Until destroyed, all audiotapes and textual productions by participants will be kept in my private home study.
11. Deception
338 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
NA
12. Reproduction Rights
There is the potential that participants’ textual productions would be reproduced in a published piece(s) beyond my dissertation. In order to facilitate potential future publication, I will ask in my Research Participation Consent form that participants provide me with complete reproduction rights to their textual productions. In signing the consent, participants will provide me with permission to edit, publish, and reproduce their textual productions not only in the dissertation but in other publications that are based on the dissertation research (see Research Participation Consent form).
Further, if participants choose to use other people in some form of media as part of their textual production, participants will procure from such third party participants a signed Media Consent and Release form (see attached).
339 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
Dear Kelly,
As you know, I am beginning my dissertation research. I would like to invite you to participate in my project. During our fall book study, I learned that women in our group feel the push and pull of their multiple worlds—those of their Evangelical Christian faith, their professions, their families, their romantic relationships, their social circles, etc. I want to learn how Evangelical Christian women navigate and negotiate these worlds and how these worlds inform women’s sense of self. Feminist theory is informing my project; I am interested in learning more about the dynamics of gender.
If you choose to participate in this study, you will receive a Representations Box. You will have the box for one week. The box will be filled with various materials, such as magnetic poetry tiles, magazines, glue, scissors (materials for constructing a collage), various types of paper/pens, tape recorder, video camera, Polaroid camera, sketch book, clay, etc. You will have a week to use any of these materials (and any other materials you choose) to respond to a prompt about your different worlds by creating some kind of textual production. After the week ends, I will pick up the box and whatever you have created. Sometime during the following week, I will interview you about your textual production and what it means. The interview will last approximately 90 minutes and will be audiotaped.
Once I have completed my dissertation, I will provide you with a copy of it. Additionally, should my dissertation research be published part or whole, I will provide you with a copy of any published piece in which your textual production appears.
Please know that your decision whether or not to participate in this study will in no way impact our friendship. I value our friendship above this research project.
If you would like to freely volunteer for this research project, please let me know (405- 4551 or [email protected]). You are under absolutely no obligation to participate. If you elect to participate, you can discontinue participation at any time with no negative ramifications.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Kappler Kimberly Kappler
340 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
Research Participation Consent How Evangelical Christian Women Negotiate Discourses in the Construction of Self: A Feminist Poststructural Analysis
Kimberly Kappler, Principal Investigator
Description of Research and Procedures For my dissertation research, I am studying how Evangelical Christian women navigate and negotiate their worlds and how these worlds inform women’s sense of self. Feminist theory is informing my project; I am interested in learning more about the dynamics of gender.
As a participant in this study, you will receive a Representations Box. You will have the box for one week. The box will be filled with various materials, such as magnetic poetry tiles, magazines, glue, scissors (materials for constructing a collage), various types of paper/pens, tape recorder, video camera, Polaroid camera, sketch book, clay, etc. You will have a week to use any of these materials to respond to a prompt about your different worlds by creating some kind of textual production. After the week ends, I will pick up the box and whatever you have created. Sometime during the following week, I will interview you about your textual production and what it means. The interview will last approximately 90 minutes and will be audiotaped. Both your textual production(s) and your interview will be analyzed for this research.
If you choose to include other people in your textual production (e.g. video, digital pictures, etc.), please have each person complete a Media Consent and Release form (see attached).
Time Commitment As a participant in this study, you will be involved with this project for approximately two weeks. During week one, I anticipate that you will spend 3-5 hours during the week responding to the prompt by creating some kind of textual production (e.g. photomontage, poem, video diary, etc.). During week two, I will interview you; the interview will last approximately 90 minutes.
Risks Researchers, by law, must inform participants of potential risks involved with a research project. For my research, your risks as a participant will be minimal, and I anticipate no greater harm or discomfort than engaging in everyday activities. There is the possibility that participating in this study will change dynamics between you and me. Please know,
341 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW however, that I value our friendship above this project, and I will guard against any discomfort or uneasiness that participating in this study may cause for you.
Benefits For my project, writing (or more inclusively creating) is a way for participants as well as myself to find out what we think about things, ourselves, our topic. As the adage goes, I cannot know what I think until I read what I have written. You may find joy, pride, and meaning in the process of creating. Further, I like to think that any time we as humans think deeply and authentically about our lives, experiences, and identities that we are doing good work for ourselves. As such, perhaps you will find value in your participation.
Confidentiality Data collected during this project will be held confidential. Only I will have access to identifiable data. All quotations from, descriptions of, or photographs of your textual production(s) will be coded with a pseudonym. All interview transcripts will also be coded with a pseudonym and will be kept on my computer, which is password protected.
Interview tapes will be kept for two years after transcription; then they will be destroyed. Your textual production(s) will also be kept for two years; then your textual production(s) will be returned to you. Until destroyed or returned, all audiotapes and textual productions by participants will be kept in my private home study.
Voluntary Participation Participation in this research project is voluntary. If you elect not to participate, there will be no penalty, negative ramifications, or hard feelings. You may discontinue participation at any time or refuse to answer specific questions without penalty, negative ramifications, or hard feelings.
Publication and Reproduction Rights Once I have completed my dissertation, I will provide you with a copy of it.
Additionally, there is the potential that your textual production would be reproduced in a published piece(s) beyond my dissertation. In order to facilitate potential future publication, I ask that you grant permission to me to reproduce, use, edit, distribute, digitize and transcribe your textual production, in whole or part, for the purposes of research and publication.
Further, I ask that you consent and grant permission that your textual production may be used free and clear of any claim to compensation or ownership thereto.
Further, I ask that you release me from any claims or liability regarding any use that may be made of your textual production.
342 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
Should my dissertation research be published part or whole, I will provide you with a copy of any published piece in which your textual production appears.
Questions about the Study If you have any questions about this study or your participation in it, please contact me (405-4551 or [email protected]) or my dissertation advisor, Dr. Lisa Weems (513- 529-6825 or "[email protected]" [email protected]).
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for the Advancement of Research and Scholarship (513-529-3734 or [email protected]).
343 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
Consent to Participate
I, , voluntarily agree to participate in the dissertation research study of Kimberly Kappler, entitled, “How Evangelical Christian Women Negotiate Discourses in the Construction of Self: A Feminist Poststructural Analysis.”
Further, I have read through the Research Participation Consent document and understand the research procedures, my rights as a participant, and whom to contact regarding questions that I may have. Further, I understand that I am releasing to Kimberly Kappler reproduction rights to my textual production. Additionally, I understand that I may discontinue participation in this research project at any time, without negative ramifications.
Signature Date
***Please return this page to Kimberly Kappler.*** ***Please keep the Research Participation Consent document for your records.***
344 Appendix A: IRB APPLICATION FOR NEW PROTOCOL REVIEW
Media Consent and Release
I hereby consent and grant permission for Kimberly Kappler to use any images, audio/visual clips, video, photographs, or other media in which I appear/participate for her dissertation and any other publications, presentations, broadcasts, etc. related to her dissertation research.
Further, I consent and grant permission for Kimberly Kappler to reproduce, edit, distribute, digitize, and transcribe such media, in whole or part, for the purposes of research and publication.
Further, I consent and grant permission that such media may be used free and clear of any claim whatsoever on my part, and I waive any rights of compensation or ownership thereto.
Further, I hereby release Kimberly Kappler from any claims or liability regarding any use that may be made of such media.
Further, I agree that I have read and understand the contents hereof, and I have the right and authority to execute this Release.
Printed Name
Signature Date
345 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW DATA
Table 1: Interview questions referenced
ORIGINAL NEW CATEGORY ORDER QUESTION NOTES ITEM # ITEM # 1 ARTIFACT QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO What questions arise from ARTIFACT textual analysis and deconstruction of artifact? 1 2 CHRISTIAN Describe to me your Looking for participant to frame DISCOURSE background as a Christian and her religious experience and as a religious person. For how identity. Conversion experience? long have you been a Proselytizing? Parachurch Christian? How did you group influence? Discourses: become a Christian (Did you family, church, parachurch org, have a conversion etc. (Three questions are from experience?)? Do you Smith's [1998, App. C) "Quick consider yourself a "born Ice-Breaker," p. 251.) again Christian"? How would you characterize your Christian life over the years? Have you ever had what some might call a "religious experience"? 10 3 CHRISTIAN 1 Would you describe yourself Gallagher, App. A; How are DISCOURSE as any of the following: these concepts constructed by fundamentalist, evangelical, participant? (Smith, 1998, App. mainline Protestant, or C: What are the characteristic theologically liberal? What traits of . . .?") does fundamentalist mean to you? Evangelical? Liberal (theological liberal)? ASK PARTICIPANT TO COMPLETE EVANGELICAL INDEX. 2 4 FAMILY 1 Tell me about your family. Family discourse. DISCOURSE How has your family informed who you are as a woman? 2 5 FAMILY 2 Was your family religious Family discourse. Parts taken DISCOURSE when you were growing up? from Smith, 1998, App. C (p. Did your family attend church 255), "Spiritual Context" section. when you were growing up? Did your family have family devotions, Bible reading, or prayer time together when you were young? Did your parents encourage you spiritually? 6 6 DISCOURSE OF 1 Where did you go to college? Discourse of "the educated." "COLLEGE Why? What did you study in EDUCATED" college? Why? How did your college experience inform who you are as a woman?
346 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW DATA
7 7 DISCOURSE OF 2 Were you religious in college? Discourse of "the educated." "COLLEGE Did you participate in any Influence of parachurch orgs? EDUCATED" Christian groups in college (e.g. Campus Crusade)? How accepting of your faith were people at your college? 8 8 PROFESSIONAL 1 What is your profession? Professional discourse. DISCOURSE Why did you choose this Relationship to education. profession? How has this profession informed who you are as a woman? 70 9 PROFESSIONAL 2 Annual governmental reports from Brasher (1998) interview DISCOURSE indicate that women are paid guide, App. B, p. 195, "Political less than men in most World/Women's Political Issues" occupations. Assuming that section. these reports are accurate, what do you think of this pay difference? Have you experienced a gender-based pay difference in your job? 9 10 PROFESSIONAL 3 To what extent--and in what Professional discourse. Parts DISCOURSE ways--do your religious taken from Smith, 1998, App. C, beliefs influence your work? p. 253, "Work/Career/Calling" Do you view your job as section. contributing to God's kingdom or God's glory in some way? If so, how? Or is it mostly just a way to earn a living? How, if at all, do you see your Christian faith affecting your life at work on the job? Do your work colleagues know you are a Christian? How do they know that? How do they respond to that? 58 11 CLASS 1 With which social "class" do The intersection of class and DISCOURSE you identify (e.g. generational Christian discourse has not been poverty, working class, a central focus of the other middle class, upper-middle qualitative studies of evangelical class, professional class, upper Christian women. My study class/affluent)? Why? How looks at the intersection of has being in this class various discourses through which influenced who you are? the women are constituted and What you drive? Where you constitute themselves. eat? Where you get your hair done? What you wear? Where you live? What church is your "home church"? Who your friends are? Where you work? Whether/where you vacation? 58 12 CLASS 2 Where all have you lived This question gets at the DISCOURSE (cities/states/countries)? How situatedness of truth, norms, has living in these different expectations. It is somewhat 347 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW DATA
places informed who you are? similar to a question in Brasher's In what part(s) of Cincinnati interview guide (1998), App. B, have you lived? Why did you p. 186, "Personal Life" section. choose to live there you Also connected to class did/do? How has living in this discourse. part of Cincinnati informed who you are? 72 13 FEMINIST 1 What, if any, all-females From Brasher's (1998) interview DISCOURSE activities do you participate in guide, App. B, "Women and the (in or out of church)? How do Enclaves" section (p. 195-196). these inform who you are as a woman? 17 14 FEMINIST 2 These two pieces of paper Concrete way to get respondent DISCOURSE represent two different talking about discursively women. One is a feminist; produced binary categories of one is not. Please select a non-feminist and feminist and card to represent the feminist. hypothesizes the interaction The non-feminist. Why did between categories. This you select as you did? How question does, however, reify the do you describe each? What non-feminist/feminist binary and does one think of the other? caricaturizes it. What would each say to the other? 15 15 FEMINIST 3 What does feminism mean to Gallagher, App. A; How is this DISCOURSE you? Do you consider your concept constructed by self a feminist? Is feminism participant? Does participant bad? self-identify? What is the participant's connotation of feminism? Discourse influencers? 69 16 FEMINIST 4 Has the women's movement of Brasher (1998) interview guide, DISCOURSE the last 30 years impacted App. B, p. 194, "Practices and your life? If so, how? Experiences of Faith" section. ASK PARTICIPANT TO COMPLETE EEWC LIKERT SCALE. 53 17 DISCOURSE OF 1 What questions do you have To what extent and in what ways GOD for God? does participant question religious/theological discourses? Identify tensions, uncertainties, etc.? To what extent is there a "discourse of God" that is different from Christian discourse and specific "church home" discourse? 73 18 DISCOURSE OF 2 What does God think of the To what extent is there a GOD Bible? Of Christianity? What distinguishable difference does God think of your between a discourse of God, "church home"? Christianity, Bible, and "church home"? 68 19 DISCOURSE OF 3 Does God treat women Brasher (1998) interview guide, GOD differently than men? App. B, p. 193, "Practices and Experiences of Faith" section.
348 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW DATA
67 20 DISCOURSE OF 4 At most of the churches that I From Brasher (1998) interview GOD have attended, I've heard God guide, App. B, p. 193, "Practices most often addressed as and Experiences of Faith" "father." How would you section. respond if you heard God addressed as "mother" during a service? 22 21 CHRISTIAN 1 How involved are you in Evangelical discourse of DISCOURSE: politics? evangelism and socio/political POLITICAL/ influence. INFLUENCE 23 22 CHRISTIAN 2 To what extent--and in what Evangelical discourse of DISCOURSE: ways--do your religious evangelism and socio/political POLITICAL/ beliefs influence whether and influence. INFLUENCE how you vote? 49 23 CHRISTIAN 3 How often have you relied on How influential is the DISCOURSE: Christian leaders or Christian Conservative Christian Right on POLITICAL/ organizations such as the participant? INFLUENCE Christian Coalition, to help you decide about political candidates or social issues? 26 24 CHRISTIAN 4 Are there things going on in Evangelical discourse of DISCOURSE: our society today that you evangelism and socio/political POLITICAL/ think should be big concerns influence. Parts taken from INFLUENCE for Christians? Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 249, "Christian Influence" section. What, specifically, are the most important issues about which Christians should be concerned about making an impact (e.g. Gender relations, education of children, wealth/materialism/consumeri sm, homosexuality, justice, media's power, judicial activism, racism, poverty)? Why should Christians be concerned about them? What you think Christians should be doing with their concerns about these things? 19 25 CHRISTIAN 5 Who are the most important From Smith, 1998, App. C, p. DISCOURSE: Christian leaders today? 248, "Religious Identity" section. POLITICAL/ INFLUENCE 43 26 CHRISTIAN 1 Are most of your friends From Smith, 1998, App. C, p. DISCOURSE: IN Christian? Extended family? 255, "Spiritual Context" section. BUT NOT OF Is your family positive or I changed "evangelicals" to THE WORLD negative about your Christian Christian, since my background faith? Your friends? Person with participants suggests that at with whom you are in a least some will not self-identify dating/married relationship? as evangelicals and/or have a negative connotation of 349 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW DATA
"evangelical."
20 27 CHRISTIAN 2 To what extent--and in what DISCOURSE: IN ways--is being a Christian in BUT NOT OF our society difficult? THE WORLD 28 28 CHRISTIAN 3 Do you feel comfortable Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 250, DISCOURSE: IN expressing your Christian "Perceptions of Outsiders/Status BUT NOT OF views in public discussions? Decline." THE WORLD In which arenas of life (work, friends, etc.)? Why there and not elsewhere? 50 29 CHRISTIAN 4 Thinking about all the people Insider/outsider binary. DISCOURSE: IN in America who consider BUT NOT OF themselves Christians, how THE WORLD different do you think their values and lifestyles are from the rest of the American society today? 18 30 CHRISTIAN 5 How does being a Christian From Smith, 1998, App. C, p. DISCOURSE: IN distinguish you from other 252, "Christian Distinctiveness" BUT NOT OF people? What specific things section. THE WORLD make Christians different from other people in the world? 33 31 CHRISTIAN 6 If you met someone for the From Smith, 1998, App. C, p. DISCOURSE: IN first time, how would you 248, "The World" section. BUT NOT OF know if that person were a Binaries (Christian, non- THE WORLD Christian? What things would Christian), Othering, "in but not you look for? How would you of world." know if that person were not a Christian? 46 32 CHRISTIAN 7 Are there any Christian From Smith, 1998, App. C, p. DISCOURSE: IN magazines that you enjoy 255, "Spiritual Context" section. BUT NOT OF reading? Christian radio THE WORLD programs you listen to? Christian music you buy or listen to? Christian television programs? Books? ASK PARTICIPANT TO IDENTIFY W/COMPLEM. OR EGAL. 52 33 BIBLE 1 In a marriage, who should From Smith, 1998, App. C, p. DISCOURSE: have more say so when it 254, "Gender Relations" section. HEADSHIP comes to making decisions about important financial matters? About child rearing? About how to spend leisure time? About who should work outside the home? If you and your spouse were to disagree about important 350 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW DATA
decisions that need to be made, who should give in and go along with what the other thinks?
41 34 BIBLE 2 The bible refers to man as the From Smith, 1998, App. C, p. DISCOURSE: "head" in a marriage. What 254, "Gender Relations" section. HEADSHIP exactly does it mean to be head? Can you give me a concrete example of how that works? Does it mean that the husband should be responsible to give spiritual direction for the family? Does it mean that the husband should be the final authority and decision- making? Does it mean that the husband should be the primary breadwinner? 35 BIBLE 3 Do you think that husbands From Smith, 1998, App. C, p. DISCOURSE: and wives should be mutual, 254, "Gender Relations" section. HEADSHIP equal partners in everything? What does that mean? How does that relate to the idea that the husband is the head? 36 BIBLE 4 In your mind, what would be From Smith, 1998, App. C, p. DISCOURSE: lost or go wrong if Christians 254, "Gender Relations" section. HEADSHIP stopped talking or thinking about the headship of husbands? Why would that be bad? How do you see these ideals of men and women that you described being worked out in your own life? 32 37 BIBLE How do you see these ideas of Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 250, DISCOURSE: men and women that you "Gender Relations" section. HEADSHIP describe being worked out in your own life? 65 38 BIBLE 1 Are there separate roles for Probes participants for DISCOURSE: women and men in the home? essentialist or complementarian ROLES In parenting? In church? In views. See Brasher (1998), App. education? In the workplace? B, p. 190, "Philosophical In government? In a Questions about Women and relationship? In a family? Men" section. 38 39 BIBLE 2 What are your thoughts about Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 254, DISCOURSE: the role of men and women in "Gender Relations" section. ROLES families? To what extent do you think women and men have different responsibilities when it comes to raising children and earning a living?
351 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW DATA
40 40 BIBLE 3 Some women are stay-at- Evangelical gender discourse. DISCOURSE: home moms. Other women What are participants' thoughts ROLES choose not to have children on intersection of but instead focus on their career/profession and child- careers. Other women raise rearing? children and work outside of the home. What are your thoughts on this? Is there an ideal? What do you want? What would these women say to each other? 54 41 BIBLE 4 What are your beliefs about Headship. Evangelical gender DISCOURSE: women in church leadership? discourse. Better to use Bible ROLES Should women be allowed to passages and ask for response? become pastors? Teaching Couple with bible passages? pastor? Head pastor? Do you think that women should be a church elder? 59 42 BIBLE 1 Are you currently involved in These questions probe DISCOURSE: a romantic relationship with participants' romantic SUBMISSION someone? relationships and the ways in which they are informed by their religious/theological discourses, particularly in the area of headship and submission. Brasher's (1998) interview guide questions on "Relationships with Men" and "Submission" helped inform my questions (App. B, p. 187-189). 60 43 BIBLE 2 If married: How does being a These questions probe DISCOURSE: Christian inform your married participants' romantic SUBMISSION life? In your marriage, do you relationships and the ways in submit to your husband? If which they are informed by their so, what does that look like? religious/theological discourses, Does the practice of particularly in the area of submission make your headship and submission. marriage different from the Brasher's (1998) interview guide marriages of people who do questions on "Relationships with not practice it? Are there Men" and "Submission" helped ways in which you would not inform my questions (App. B, p. submit to your husband? In 187-189) and Gallagher, App. A, your marriage, is your p. 185. husband the "head"? If so, what does this look like? In your marriage, who usually takes the lead in spiritual matters? Who has more say? Pays the bills? Plans the activities? Does the cooking? Does the laundry? Cleaning? Yard work? How are major family decisions made, such as having children, buying a 352 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW DATA
car, moving, etc.? How will having children impact your marriage?
61 44 BIBLE 3 If in relationship: How does These questions probe DISCOURSE: being a Christian impact your participants' romantic SUBMISSION relationship? Are you willing relationships and the ways in to seriously date someone who which they are informed by their is not a Christian? Do you religious/theological discourses, submit in your relationship? particularly in the area of If so, what does that look like? headship and submission. Are there ways in which you Brasher's (1998) interview guide would not submit to your questions on "Relationships with significant other? In your Men" and "Submission" helped relationship, is your inform my questions (App. B, p. significant other the head? If 187-189). so, what does this look like? In your relationship, has the most say? Who takes the lead in spiritual matters? Who phones/emails whom? Who makes the plans? Who pays for the dates? Who determines the seriousness of the relationship? Who sets the boundaries on the physical aspect of the relationship? 62 45 BIBLE 4 If not in relationship: How These questions probe DISCOURSE: does being a Christian impact participants' romantic SUBMISSION potential relationships? Are relationships and the ways in you willing to seriously date which they are informed by their someone who is not a religious/theological discourses, Christian? If you were to particularly in the area of begin a serious relationship headship and submission. and/or marry, would you Brasher's (1998) interview guide submit to your significant questions on "Relationships with other/spouse? What might Men" and "Submission" helped that look like? Would your inform my questions (App. B, p. significant other/spouse be the 187-189). head? If so, what would that look like? Would roles within the relationship be decided by gender? ASK PARTICIPANT TO RESPOND TO BIBLE PASSAGES. 66 46 "CHURCH 1 What is your church home? Seeks participants' perspectives HOME" In what ways are you satisfied on their church discourse. DISCOURSE or not with your church? Informed by Smith and Brasher. 353 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW DATA
Have you switched churches To what extent is "church home" in the past? Why? How does a distinguishable discourse from your church home inform who a discourse of the Bible, you are as a woman? Christianity, God? 47 "CHURCH 2 Are you currently part of a Seeks participants' perspectives HOME" small group? Who leads your on their church discourse. DISCOURSE small group? Is it Informed by Smith and Brasher. coeducational? What is the To what extent is "church home" topic or focus of your small a distinguishable discourse from group? What does your small a discourse of the Bible, group mean to you? How Christianity, God? does your small group inform who you are as a woman? 48 "CHURCH 3 Do you serve at your church? Seeks participants' perspectives HOME" Are you involved in any other on their church discourse. DISCOURSE organizations/groups within Informed by Smith and Brasher. your church? How does your To what extent is "church home" participation inform who you a distinguishable discourse from are as a woman? a discourse of the Bible, Christianity, God? 31 49 "CHURCH 4 In what ways, if at all, do you Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 250, HOME" see similarities or differences "Gender Relations" section. DISCOURSE between men and women evidenced in the life of your church? 55 50 RESEARCH 1 Why did you decide to How does relationship between DISCOURSE participate in this study? participant and researcher influence participation? 56 51 RESEARCH 2 What do you believe about my How does relationship between DISCOURSE beliefs? Did your beliefs participant and researcher about my beliefs color/censor influence data? anything that you shared? 57 52 RESEARCH 3 How does our relationship as How does relationship between DISCOURSE friends color and nuance this participant and researcher project/interview? influence data? 53 RESEARCH 4 Do you have any other How does relationship between DISCOURSE thoughts about this research participant and data influence project (e.g. hopes, fears, project? questions, concerns, excitement)?
354 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW DATA
Table 2: Unused interview questions
ITE CATEG ORD QUESTION NOTES M # ORY ER 1 Describe to me your background as a Looking for participant to frame her Christian and as a religious person. For how religious experience and identity. long have you been a Christian? How did Conversion experience? Proselytizing? you become a Christian (Did you have a Parachurch group influence? Discourses: conversion experience?)? Do you consider family, church, parachurch org, etc. (Three yourself a "born again Christian"? How questions are from Smith's [1998, App. C) would you characterize your Christian life "Quick Ice-Breaker," p. 251.) over the years? Have you ever had what some might call a "religious experience"? 3 Have you ever had doubts about your Taken from "belief plausibility" section of Christian beliefs? What was going on in Smith, 1998, App. C (p. 255). your life at that time? Were your doubts resolved? If so, how? 4 Family discourse. 5 Discourse of "the educated." 21 To what extent should evangelicals influence Evangelical discourse of evangelism and society (none, little, lot)? How? socio/political influence. Parts taken from Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 249, "Christian Influence" section. 24 Should Evangelicals participate in political or Evangelical discourse of evangelism and legislative reform? socio/political influence. Parts taken from Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 249, "Christian Influence" section. 25 Should Evangelicals engage in religious Evangelical discourse of evangelism and conversion of others? socio/political influence. Parts taken from Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 249, "Christian Influence" section. 29 What are your thoughts about the place of Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 254, "Gender men and women in families? Relations" section. 30 What are your thoughts about the place of Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 250, "Gender women in the paid workforce? Relations" section. 34 To what extent do you think Americans are Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 252, "Christian open or resistant to Christians exerting a Influence" section. Christian influence in society? What about the non-Christians you know in your daily life? Do they seem open to Christian influence from you? 35 How do you think Christians should relate to Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 252, "Pluralism and others in society who don't except Christian Morality" section. beliefs and morals? 36 How would you respond to people who say Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 253, "Pluralism and that America is a pluralistic nation, and Morality" section. Christians shouldn't impose their beliefs and morality on others? 37 How would you respond to people who say Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 253, "Pluralism and there is one true God and one morality that Morality" section. applies to everyone for their own good, whether they know it or like it or not. So 355 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW DATA
those morals and not others should govern our society?
39 What are your thoughts about the extent to Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 254, "Gender which and how men should be involved in Relations" section. their families? How should that relate to their jobs in the outside world? 42 Do you believe in hell? How do your beliefs From Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 255, "Belief in hell shape the way you think about your Plausibility" section. neighbors, colleagues, other people you know? How does the idea of them maybe going to hell affect your relationship with them in daily life? 45 Can you think of any national Christian From Smith, 1998, App. C, p. 255, "Spiritual leaders who represent the kind of Christian Context" section. you are? In what ways? 48 Do you think that if enough people became Inspired by Smith's 1998, App. C, p. 249, Christians many of America's social "Christian Influence" section. problems with naturally begin to solve themselves? 63 One pastor--from the pulpit--said that a These questions probe participants' romantic woman should not have to live with a relationships and the ways in which they are physically abusive spouse, and if any woman informed by their religious/theological in the congregation was being abused, he discourses, particularly in the area of personally would go to her house and help headship and submission. Brasher's (1998) her pack and leave. What do you think about interview guide questions on "Relationships this? Do you think that this is something that with Men" and "Submission" helped inform a pastor should say from the pulpit? Why or my questions (App. B, p. 187-189). This why not? question is very similar to a Brasher question from p. 189. 64 In what ways are women and men the same? From Brasher (1998) interview guide, App. Different? How do you know this? Are B, p. 190, "Philosophical Questions about these similarities and differences the same Women and Men" section. everywhere in the world? Example? Do these every change in history? Example? 71 What are the most important issues Brasher (1998) interview guide, App. B, p. confronting Christian women today? 195, "Political World/Women's Political Issues" section.
356