1

The Odd Couple: Religious Eastern Sociological Society Conference, NYC 2015

Authors Jessica Finnigan, Kings College London ​[email protected] Kari Waters, ​Syracuse ​University ​[email protected] Nancy Ross, Dixie State University ​[email protected]

Religious feminists are in the difficult position of navigating multiple borderlands. The most obvious of these borders is the challenging middle ground between feminism and conservative religious institutions, which want to define and maintain their own boundaries and protect their faith traditions from change. Religious feminists are in the awkward position of insisting on change and want these institutions to broaden their religious framework to include those with heterodox beliefs and experiences. But this isn’t the only contested space that religious feminists must negotiate. Modern feminism, defined as second and third wave feminism, or feminism from the 1960s onward, is often seen as inherently secular. Religious feminists push back against this idea and seek to reclaim their own space and acceptance within the the broader . This study looks at the way in which various religious feminist groups build upon the agency work of Mahmood (2005) and Avishai et al (2012). We found that those who participate in religious feminism present compelling questions of agency, identity, social movements, and organizational change.

The past decade has brought new approaches for studying conservative religious women without resorting to the two most common stereotypes of 1) dominated women who do not question or 2) women who are unconsciously subverting the patriarchal structure of their faith.

The work of Mahmood (2005) and others suggests that docility within a conservative religion 2

can be a conscience choice, and those who choose docility should not be condemned as

“doormats,” but seen as women who are using their agency (Mahmood 2005; Jouili and

Amir­Moazami 2006). Avishai, Gerber, and Randles (2012) take it further and propose that feminist researchers must look past the political aspirations of feminism and look at how conservative religious women use their agency to live their religion, not only because of social benefits they may gain, but simply because it is part of their identity.

We applaud this leap forward in feminist ethnography when looking at conservative religion, but want to take it further. There is a growing number of studies looking at conservative religious women, but religious feminists are almost entirely absent from the literature

(Israeli­Cohen, 2012). Religious feminists, are keenly aware of the way in which their often revolutionary and progressive foremothers have been written out of religious institutional religious narratives. We can document this happening in Catholicism (Macy 2007),

(Basquiat 2001; Hanks 1992), Judaism (​Plaskow, 1990) Christianity (​DeConick, 201), and Islam

(Ferina, 2010)​. But this is not the only erasure that religious feminists have experienced. We have been written out of feminist narratives, though current scholarship does not address this

(Woodhead, 2002; ​Zwissler, 2012)​.

For example, within popular media, Courtney from Feministing (2011) identified four

“common problems that come up when feminists talk about .” These include

1­ “making monolithic statements about women and religious traditions,” 2­ assuming that

“religion is inherently irrational,” 3­ letting “loud fundamentalists define what a religious tradition is,” and 4­ being “too dogmatic about… feminism.” This list is missing an important fifth item. That the stories of religious feminists within religion are not the only victims of 3

institutional editing. Because the contributions of religious feminists have been written out of the narratives of first and second wave feminism, third wave feminists question whether or not feminists can authentically participate in patriarchal religion (Gupta 2011) or even to say that any gender advances in religion are owed to secular feminism (Jones 2012). Claims like these are deeply offensive to religious feminists because it undermines their agency and activist efforts.

I can best illustrate this erasure with a personal story. As a teenager and young adult reading books with titles like “Introduction to Feminism,” I was introduced to the ideas of Mary

Wollstonecraft, Virginia Woolf, and Susan B, Anthony. In these texts, religion was always the patriarchal enemy and never a source of empowerment for women. So I was surprised when I was recently watching Ken Burns’ documentary titled ​Prohibition (2011), which talked about the role of religious women in organizing for the cause of Prohibition in an effort to reduce family poverty and domestic violence. The documentary also mentioned that the same religious women who were using their church networks to organize for Prohibition were the same women who were using their church networks to organize for women’s suffrage. I was surprised and wondered why I was not already familiar with this story. I knew that Mormon women in Utah had campaigned for suffrage, as I had learned about that in a Mormon feminist podcast, but I was unaware that other religious women had as well.

The dismissal of patriarchal religion by second wave feminists led to an erasure of the role of religious women or an erasure of some feminists’ religious identity. Online, the term

“Modern Feminism,” another term for second wave feminism, is often used interchangeably with

“secular feminism.” Numerous online overviews of feminism, citing scholarly articles, ignore religious feminists or the religious identity of some feminists. 4

In a Google search for “,” the nine sites that appear on the front page demonstrate this erasure. Within the nine websites, two reference the ’s Christian

Temperance Union in relation to first wave feminism and another only talks about religion in reference to . The remaining six articles do not reference religion or the religious identity of the women involved.

Create a slide with the following listed: ● A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft (1792) ● A Room of One’s Own by Virginia Woolf (1929) ● Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston (1937) ● by Simone de Beauvoir (1949) ● by (1963) ● by (1970) ● The Female Eunuch by (1970) ● The Color Purple by Alice Walker (1982) ● The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf (1991) ● The Vagina Monologues by Eve Ensler (1996) In looking at some of the foundational texts for feminism, these feminist authors discussed the issues of their day through their own feminist lense. Many of these authors, like

Simone de Beauvoir, had difficult relationships with organized religion and moved away from it in their early years. Some, like Virginia Woolf, grew to detest religion and Christianity in particular. In later works, many of these women describe religion only in terms of and they way that patriarchy oppresses women. While these claims were not without merit they were however overly simplistic and reductionary.

These books and their authors shaped the discourse on feminism and one of the products of their secular feminism was a large gap with religious feminists. Today, religious feminists are presented as a paradox, with the assumption that it would be impossible for a person to embrace 5

both the ideas of feminism and the tenets of a conservative religion (Basquiat 2001; Bell 1976;

Dodwell 2003; Stack 1991).

Because religious feminism is an example of women proactively using agency it should fit well into standard social movement literature, but it often dismissed, seen as overly passive because they choose to operate within a restrictive space. While there is a growing body of literature on religious women being free agents (Bartkowski and Read 2003; Avishai 2008; Cite), the study of religious feminists adds the dimension of how women can operate with agency inside of patriarchal organizations while trying to proactively change those institutions.

According to Casanova and Phillips (2009), the active participation of these groups within religion fundamentally changes what religion does and what it will become. However, because many of these movements run parallel to mainstream feminist movements, religious feminism is often marginalized and dismissed as less feminist than secular actions.

Today, though, discussions of “Modern Feminism” often leave out those references to religious women or erase their religious ties, as religion is more frequently represented as a patriarchal oppressor (​Zwissler 2012​). The term “Modern Feminism” often refers to Second and

Third Wave feminism and, in its usage, is often synonymous with secular feminism. Critiques of

Second Wave feminism often identify this wave’s lack of with race and LGBT issues as problematic. This movement also failed at intersectionality with regard to religion.

Intersectionality was first used by Kimberlé Crenshaw when discussing the interconnected difficulties faced by black women as they were both black and women. She explored the idea that there were “intersecting oppressions” (Crenshaw 1989) in black women’s lives, and how the two worked together to affect their experiences. Since then, many different 6

have been investigated in feminist research, including gender, race, class, ethnicity, social and cultural practices, and institutional arrangements (Davis 2008; Yuval Davis

2006). One researcher, Helma Lutz, argues for 14 different social sites of intersectionality including sexuality, disability, North­South and religion (Lutz 2002). Intersectionality has been very important to feminist research, even called by one scholar the most important (McCall

2005), because it has allowed feminist research to not be unduly reductive when analyzing social relations and power structures.

What can and cannot be called an intersectionality has been under debate (Ludwig 2006;

Lutz 2002) as well as how to use intersectionality in research (Anthias 2012; Choo and Feree

2010; McCall 2005; Winker and Degele 2011; Yuval­Davis 2006). One scholar has even questioned the usefulness of intersectionality, wondering whether the theory would be a long lasting tool (Davis 2008). Despite these debates, the use of intersectionality as an analytical tool of researchers has grown over the last two decades, especially in regard to feminist research

(Anthias 2012).

As discussed by Jones et. al, intersectionality has made it’s way into sociological research. They report that 16.7% of articles published in top sociological journals in 2009 included intersectional research. They broke this number down into intersectional categories including the most discussed: sex and gender, and race and ethnicity (Jones, Misra and McCurley

YEAR?). While those intersectionalities are clearly very important to address, as religious feminists, we were disappointed to see that articles addressing the intersectionality of religion made up only 4% of published papers (Jones, Misra and McCurley YEAR?). This low 7

percentage leads of us to believe that religion as an intersectionality has been neglected in sociological research.

While religion does indeed show up in lists about different areas of intersectionality (Lutz

2002), there has been little research actually using religion as an intersectionality (Weber 2015).

One very recent exception was Beverly M. Weber’s paper on German Muslim women’s movements, where she calls on researchers to carefully incorporate religion and faith into intersectional analysis. Her paper discusses the importance of not ignoring other intersectionalities, especially that of race, but to add religion into intersectional frameworks because religion is another way that German Muslim women have been excluded, in this case, from political participation (Weber 2015). Weber writes about how one particular group of

German Muslim Feminists carefully negotiates with both their religious community and their secular community. She rightly concludes that by taking women’s religious choices as ones that are autonomously made, for whatever reason they choose, along with other intersectionalities like race, one can better work with them to achieve (Weber 2015).

We echo Weber’s challenge to engage in more discussions about the intersectionality of religion, and suggest that it is the interconnected nature of religion and identity that lends itself to a valid intersection in academic research. One of religions strengths is to create and maintain individual and collective identity (​Stark and Bainbridge 1985​). While some religious communities such as Judaism and Islam are discussed in the context of identity, we posit that the potential for religious communities to shape identity, and specifically when combined strict ingroup/outgroup dynamics such as Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity to shape a person’s personal and interpersonal and and communal identity and must not be ignored or minimized 8

when discussing religious women and in particular religious feminist (Davidman 1991;

Woodhead 2002).

Today, the internet is bridging the chasm between secular and religious feminists. Just as religious feminists are, and have been, using feminist theology to reinterpret sacred texts in light of women’s experiences and desire for equality, religious feminists are using feminist theology to re­envision feminism to include previously excluded groups. Religious feminists are using the internet and social media to engage in activist campaigns to raise awareness of gender issues within their conservative religious institutions but also to educate secular feminists on the complexity of religious issues.

Works Cited

Avishai, Orit. 2008. “Doing Religion in a Secular World: Women in Conservative Religions and the Question of Agency.” ​Gender and Society​ 22:409­33. Avishai, Orit, Lynne Gerber, and Jennifer Randles. 2012. “The Feminist Ethnographer’s Dilemma: Reconciling Progressive Research Agendas with Fieldwork Realities.” J​ournal of Contemporary Ethnography​ XX(X), 1­33. Badran, Margot. 2005. “Between Secular and /s: Reflections on the Middle East and Beyond.” ​Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies​ 1(1): 6­28. Basquiat, Jennifer Huss. 2001. “Reproducing Patriarchy and Erasing Feminism: The Selective Construction of History Within the Mormon Community.”​ Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion ​17: 5– 37. Bartkowski, John P., and Jen’nan Ghazal Read. 2008. “Veiled Submission: Gender, Power and Identity Among Evangelical and Muslim Women in the United States.” ​Qualitative Sociology ​26 (1): 71­92. Bell, Elouise. 1976. “The Implications of Feminism for BYU.”​ BYU Studies​ 16: 527­540. Burns, Ken. 2011. ​Prohibition​ (documentary). Courtney. 2001. “Faith & Feminism: A Message to Secular Sisters.” Feministing. Available at http://feministing.com/2010/12/10/faith­feminism­a­message­to­secular­sisters/ Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, and Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum​ 138­67. Davidman, Lynn. 1991. ​Tradition in a rootless world: Women turn to Orthodox Judaism​. Univ of California Press. 9

Davis, Kathy. 2008. “Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful.” ​Feminist Theory​ 9 (1): 67­85. DeConick, April D. ​Holy : why the sex and gender conflicts in the early Church still matter​. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2011. Dodwell, Karen. 2003. “Marketing and Teaching a Women’s Literature Course to Culturally Conservative Students.”​ Feminist Teacher ​14: 234– 247. Fernea, Elizabeth Warnock. 2010. ​In search of Islamic feminism​. Anchor. Gupta, Rahila. 2011. “Feminism and the soul of .” 50.50: inclusive democracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila­gupta/feminism­and­soul­of­secularism Hanks, Maxine (ed). 1992. ​Women and Authority: Re­emerging Mormon Feminism​. Signature Books. Israel­Cohen, Yael. 2012.​ Between Feminism and Orthodox Judaism: Resistance, identity, and Religious Change in Israel​. Boston: Brill. Jones, Nelson. 2012. “What the church owes to secular feminism.” New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/nelson­jones/2012/10/what­church­owes­secular­feminism Jouili J.S. and S. Amir­Moazami. 2006. “Knowledge, empowerment and religious authority among pious Muslim women in France and Germany.” ​The Muslim World​ 96: 617­642. Ludwig, A. 2006. “Differences Between Women? Intersecting Voices in a Female Narrative.” European Journal of Women’s Studies ​13(3): 245–58. Mahmood, Saba. 2005. ​Politics of piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject​. Princeton University Press. Macy, Gary. 2007. ​The Hidden history of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West​. Oxford University Press. McCall, Leslie. 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” ​Signs​ 30 (3): 1771­1800. Plaskow, Judith. 1990. "Standing again at Sinai: Judaism from a feminist perspective." ​San Francisco​ 123: 127. Phillips, Anne and Casanova, Jose. 2009. “A debate on the public role of religion and its social and gender implications Gender and development programme papers, PP­GD­5.” ​United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD)​, Geneva, Switzerland. Stack, Peggy Fletcher. 1991. “ Mormonism and Feminism?” ​Wilson Quarterly​ 15:30 – 32. Stark, Rodney, and William Sims Bainbridge. 1985. ​The future of religion: Secularization, revival, and cult formation​. Univ of California Press. Yuval­Davis, Nira. DATE “Intersectionality and Feminist Politics.” ​European Journal of Women’s Studies ​13 (3): 193­209. Weber, Beverly M. 2015. “Gender, race, religion, faith? Rethinking intersectionality in German .” ​European Journal of Women’s Studies​ 22 (1): 22­36. Winker, Gabriele and Nina Degele. 2011. “Intersectionality as multi­level analysis: Dealing with social inequality.” ​European Journal of Women’s Studies​ 18 (1): 51­66. Woodhead, Linda. 2002. “Women and religion.” ​Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations​ 384. Zwissler, Laurel. 2012. “Feminism and religion: Intersections between Western activism, theology and theory.” ​Religion Compass​ 6(7): 354­368. 10