|
Print-friendly version
BEYOND
DAMSELS AND WHITE STEEDS
By Brian Howell
It is rare to encounter people in the United
States who understand what I do. “You’re an anthropologist?”
They say. “How interesting! Is that like Indiana Jones or more
like Jurassic Park?”
I exaggerate (a bit), but anthropology is not
a widely understood discipline in this country. I would also
say, based on my highly unscientific study, that it is even less
understood in the church. Anthropology’s traditional
anti-missionary bias, combined with a general distrust of
“-ologies” of various sorts, has led anthropology to be a weak
voice in U.S. Christianity.
I am sure it would not surprise anyone that I
think this is a shame, particularly when it comes to
conversations about gender. Anthropology has a long and
illustrious tradition of popping pompous generalizations. Just
when someone thinks they have some human trait all figured out,
the anthropologist pokes her head out to declare, “Not in my
tribe!” For the U.S. church, where generalizations about gender
abound, it seems that it could be rather useful to provide a few
of these counterexamples.
First, the very concept of gender needs a bit
of complicating. Social scientists use the terms “sex” and
“gender” to distinguish the biological differences between males
and females (sex) from the meanings people attach to those
differences (gender). To even speak of “gender and culture” is,
in this sense, redundant because the category of gender
presupposes a particular cultural context.
|
It is
very easy to see that there are problems with
characterizing all men or all women as having a
particular essence that can be pinned down. |
In this way, it is very easy to see that
there are problems with characterizing all men or all women as
having a particular essence that can be pinned down, such as
declaring that all men have medieval battle fantasies or that
all women crave more foot wear. Many women may love their flirty
heels, but it is not hard to see how this requires a fairly
specific cultural—not to mention economic—context.
But in everyday life we believe that our
biology does matter. It matters a lot. If you have ever
accidentally identified your friend’s baby as a boy when it is a
girl (or vice versa) and faced the uncomfortable—or even
hostile—response, you know that we place a great deal of
importance on these biological differences between males and
females. We dress our babies in tiny baseball uniforms or pierce
their infant ears to make sure people know what biology they
have under their diapers and, most importantly, that they
respond accordingly. People everywhere place a great deal of
importance on these biological differences; however, the
specific expression of that importance is driven not by biology;
but by culture.
Dating and Marriage in Cultural Terms
For instance, at the
Christian college where I teach, dating
and marriage are topics of endless interest to our students. The
discussion often starts with, “Is it okay for a girl to ask out
a boy?” Answers range from “heck yeah!” to “heavens no!” Some
young women find themselves caught between their egalitarian
commitments and a feeling that somehow, they just don’t want to
date a boy if he is not pursuing them in some way. Their
commitment to independence seems undermined by their desire to
have a boy call them up for a “proper date.” Their inability to
reconcile their feelings with their theological commitments
makes some question if there might be something innate, even
God-given, in their desire to be pursued. Likewise, some young
men committed to egalitarian principles are uncomfortable with
the idea of a woman taking romantic initiative. Surely, they
reason, if gender was so culturally-formed, they could adapt
their emotions to their intellectual commitments with ease.
I point out to them that the issue goes
beyond rejecting images of helpless damsels and men on white
steeds, to some wider cultural implications of dating.
Anthropologically, I emphasize the principle of holism, which is
the idea that cultural features are not isolated from other
cultural norms and ideas. Then I provide a counterexample:
Dating is culturally rather new in human history and, until very
recently, the profound exception around the world. Arranged
marriages were the norm. In those cultures, then and now, a
boy’s pursuit of a girl may be unseemly. It is up to his mother
(or uncle, or father, or some other proxy) to do the pursuing.
For the groom himself to pursue his own bride suggests that he
is selfish, disloyal to his family, and a renegade who cannot
acknowledge his youth and inexperience. In those contexts, women
and men would have quite different reactions to the idea of
“pursuit” or “response.” Commitment to egalitarian theology
would not necessarily contradict the right of the parents to
“pursue” marriages for their children.
|
The actions of
the boy to initiate a date are surely rooted in a
cultural norm of men as the sexual aggressor, but it
has wider implications for the young women of the
twenty-first century. |
In the U.S., for a boy not to pursue a girl
may also have implications beyond his lack of a wild heart or
her insufficient feminine allure. If he is not willing to ask a
girl out, does he lack initiative? Is he socially inept?
Immature? Or perhaps he’s just not that into her. The actions of
the boy to initiate a date are surely rooted in a cultural norm
of men as the sexual aggressor, but it has wider implications
for the young women of the twenty-first century. Placing her
feelings in her specific cultural context (“For a guy raised in
this culture, maybe his unwillingness to initiate the date does
mean something about him”) allows her to see that her own views
of femininity and masculinity have more of a cultural context
than simply sexism on the one hand or human nature on the other.
Church Leadership in Cultural Terms
In the same way, reactions within the church
to the roles of men and women in leadership must be understood
as embedded in the cultural context in which they occur. The
very notion of a “head pastor” is a culturally-specific—and even
a theologically-specific—innovation related to the Protestant
and American heritage of evangelicalism. In some denominations,
the pastor has become a combination of CEO, president, and Chief
Development Officer. Some are discomfited to think of a woman
there, not because of any particular theological commitment, but
because it just does not seem right. The pastor is a person who
tells you what to do, the decider, the disciplinarian. It is no
fluke that in the Western tradition we have called this person
“father.” In images of the shepherd, we like to see a man
carrying a sheep (preferably a big heavy one) back to the fold.
Even as some come to be convinced by the theological and
scriptural arguments in favor of egalitarianism, they may find
themselves held back only by the cultural connotations of these
images and ideas of the leader as “father.”
|
The metaphor of
the family is a powerful one in Scripture and in the
church. Most families in
the United States operate on a fairly distinct
division of gendered labor...Other
families, however, have other cultural traditions. |
The metaphor of the family is a powerful one
in Scripture and in the church. Most families in the United
States operate on a fairly distinct division of gendered labor.
I admit that in my home, I do the taxes, load the car, clean the
gutters, and mow the lawn—or I did until our daughter turned
eleven and involuntarily took that over. My wife does more
laundry than I do, makes Halloween costumes for the kids, and
arranges their dentist appointments. It is no surprise that in
the church, women often get the job of organizing the nursery
while men manage the finances; our families
often run very similarly.
Other families, however, have other cultural
traditions. Indonesian families do not trust men with money. Men
are too easily swayed by their emotions, they say. Men are full
of passion and behave erratically. Women are more stable, better
able to think rationally and handle money or business
transactions. In this case, it would be the women of the church
who are more likely to sit on the finance committee. Perhaps men
would be selected for arranging the entertainment at the
church’s anniversary celebration.
Understanding and Changing Culture
I do not say all this to argue that some
cultures are better than others. What an understanding of
culture’s influence should do is put gross generalizations about
the nature of men and women out of reach. Moreover, it
challenges us to think about how and why we value particular
attributes connected to these gender stereotypes. So often we
believe that we are reacting to Scripture or that the powerful
feelings we have about particular gender activities are our
created nature. Rather, we need to realize that we are
exhibiting the cultural context in which we live.
|
So often we
believe that we are reacting to Scripture or that
the powerful feelings we have about particular
gender activities are our created nature. Rather, we
need to realize that we are exhibiting the cultural
context in which we live. |
The good news is that our deep involvement in
our culture means that we can also be involved in its change. As
people embedded in culture, we can be—must be—agents of change
as salt and light. We do not stand outside culture, in some
culture-free zone; the American church is every bit as much a
part of American culture as MTV, “Friends,” and Hamburger
Helper.
Nor can we claim some universal Christian
culture issuing forth directly from God. To imagine that there
is a singular Christian culture would be to think that all
Christians in the world live (or should live) in a single way.
Not only does that go against what we all know to be true about
the beauty of Christian diversity throughout the world, but it
also goes against the words of Scripture (e.g., Acts 15:1-21).
Just as family roles or dating relationships exist in diverse
and complex webs of beliefs and assumptions, so too must our
lives in the church be lived out in culturally meaningful and
diverse ways.
Working together, with brothers and sisters
around the world and throughout the ages, we must continue to
come back to the Scriptures. This is our source of truth to
understand gender in the light of the gospel that has set the
captive free and loosed the chains of the oppressed (Luke 4:18).
Understanding, challenging, and critiquing the
culturally-specific terms used by some to pronounce universal
gender norms is one way to see Christ bring that freedom. |
Brian
M. Howell
