20274199

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore ComplexBrowyn Kara Conrad Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Oxford, UK and Malden, USATSQThe Sociological Quarterly0038-02532006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2006472305331SOCIAL MOVEMENT CULTURES
The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253
NEO-INSTITUTIONALISM, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, AND THE CULTURAL REPRODUCTION OF A MENTALIT: Promise Keepers Reconstruct the Madonna/Whore Complex
Browyn Kara Conrad*
Pittsburg State University
Theorizing the linkages between culture and social movements has proven elusive, as available theories are ill-equipped to move beyond agent-centered producerist accounts of culture-movement dynamics. In a departure from the popular framing perspective, which treats culture as a repertoire of resources, this research draws upon neo-institutionalism and the notion of a mentalit to demonstrate that Promise Keepers leadership reproduces a culturally ascendant sexual script, one that juxtaposes a bipolar Madonna/Whore image of female sexuality against a biologically driven, uncontrollable male sexual drive, without resorting to the strategic claims-making that characterizes much of the rest of their gender discourse.
INTRODUCTION Consistent with what has been dubbed the cultural turn, for the past two decades, social movements scholars have been making concerted efforts to bring culture back in to social movements theory (e.g., Morris and Mueller 1992; Laraa, Johnston, and Guseld 1994; Johnston and Klandermans 1995a; Oliver and Johnston 2000). The result is a rapidly expanding literature that focuses on movements as culture producers, illustrating the ways in which these oppositional subcultures appropriate existing culture, transform it, and ultimately create new culture by introducing unconventional ideas that, over time, become part and parcel of the broader stock of cultural knowledge (e.g., Snow et al. 1986; Snow and Benford 1988, 1992; McAdam 1994; Billig 1995; Fantasia and Hirsch 1995; Fine 1995; Gamson 1995; Steinberg 1999; Broad, Crawley, and Foley 2004). Much of this scholarship adopts what Johnston and Klandermans (1995b:6) refer to as a performative view of culture. This view, which stresses the internal contradictions and malleability of cultural meanings, treats culture as a sphere of practical activity, a staging area within which a diverse collection of cultural tools are willfully appropriated, adapted, and deployed in order to achieve specic political (and often personal) ends. Stated differently, the performative view treats culture as a repertoire of resources utilized by collective actors in ways that reect vested interests.
*Direct all correspondence to Browyn Kara Conrad, Department of Social Sciences, Pittsburg State University, 1701 S. Broadway, Pittsburg, KS 66762; e-mail: browyn@pittstate.edu
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 305331 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
305
Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex
Browyn Kara Conrad
Ann Swidler (1995:31, 38), a staunch proponent of the performative view of culture, has pointed out that, as social movements scholars have become increasingly wedded to the performative (i.e., Weberian) view of culture (or, what I have elsewhere called the culture-as-resource model; Conrad 1998, 2000), cultural theory has been moving in the other directiontoward a more global, impersonal, institutional, and discursive assertion of cultural power (i.e., toward a more systemic or Durkheimian emphasis). Her point is an important reminder that social movements are not simply makers of meaning (i.e., culture producers); they are also carriers of what Tarrow (1992:181) has termed mentalits, long term, unfocused, and passive popular beliefs about existing society [that] are not oriented toward action in the public arena.1 Unfortunately, social movements scholars have rarely sought to analyze the ways in which movements reproduce these pervasive, unfocused, taken-for-granted cultural forms because, as Tarrow (1992:196) notes, mentalits are far too diffuse, too detached from actual historical agents, and too distant from collective action situations to use effectively in understanding how movements construct meaning. For every issue a movement deliberately constructs, however, other ideas are reproduced, often unwittingly, because they are widely assumed to be true. These commonsense notions are signicant because they obscure and naturalize existing hierarchies of power (Bourdieu 1984, 1990). Given that social movements are important arenas within which struggles for power are waged, cultural mentalits, the ways in which they surface in movement discourse, and their impact on activism warrant thorough consideration. In short, to fully chart the complex relationship between culture and movement activism, we must seek to understand both the active, strategic production of culture and the largely nonreexive reproduction of preexisting cultural forms. In this article, I focus on the nonstrategic process of cultural reproduction by examining how Promise Keepers, an all-male organization of evangelical Christians, talks about male and female sexuality. This sex talk mirrors a larger cultural script or account that contrasts womens good and bad sexual behaviors with mens unruly sexual drives. By comparing this talk to movement rhetoric on the matter of male headship, I show that this sexual script is communicated without debate. That is, I show that it exists and operates as a mentalit. I ground my analysis not in the popular performative tradition, but rather in an as yet undeveloped literature that explores culture-movement dynamics using neo-institutional thought, a collection of perspectives that reect the systemic emphasis of which Swidler (1995) speaks. In addition to illustrating how Promise Keepers reproduces a familiar cultural account of mens and womens sexuality, then, this analysis seeks to move beyond the limitations of a performative or tool kit model of culture. THEORETICAL ISSUES Arguably, one of the more popular cultural approaches in the social movements literature today is represented in the work of Snow and his associates (Snow et al. 1986; Snow and Benford 1988, 1992; Benford 1993; Hunt, Benford, and Snow 1994; Benford and Snow
306
Browyn Kara Conrad
2000), who borrow Goffmans (1974) notion of frames to discuss the processes by which movements articulate their grievances. A frame is a schemata of interpretation that enables individuals to locate, perceive, identify, and label occurrences within their life space and the world at large (Snow et al. 1986:464). By rendering events meaningful, these schemata function to organize experience and guide action. For movement frames to be successful at mobilizing recruits and support, the leadership of a movement must engage in various alignment strategies, the calculated and willful construction of grievances in such a way that the interpretive orientations of individuals and those of the social movement organization become linked. By bridging, amplifying, extending, or transforming activities, events, and biographies, movement leaders attempt to ensure that the interests of the organization align with those of the potential constituency (for a complete discussion, see Snow et al. 1986). Framing is thus the strategic, negotiated, and potentially contentious interpretive process by which movements identify a problem (diagnostic framing); suggest possible solutions (prognostic framing); and provide the rationale for action (motivational framing; Benford 1993; Snow and Benford 2000). Over time, the framing approach has been applied to questions of identity, political opportunity structures, and cycles of protest, which has led to a mystifying proliferation of additional frame types (Snow and Benford 1992; Hunt et al. 1994; Swart 1995; Babb 1996; Diani 1996; Stanbridge 2002). Although these expansionary efforts better link the meso-level process of framing to social psychological processes, political developments, and larger cultural codes, a majority view movements as strategic producers of culture. As Swidler (1995:25) puts it, they focus on how a movement qua actor utilizes and shapes culture from the inside out, rather than on the ways preexisting cultural forms shape movement activism from the outside in.2 An exception is Gamson and associates work on media discourse, which argues that movement frames are constructed within a preexisting issue culture (or, political culture; Tarrow 1992) that provides the meaning systems and cultural themesin the form of ideological packagesfor talking about political issues (Gamson 1988, 1995; Gamson and Modigliani 1989). Once disseminated, however, these media-made packages still operate as tools that movement leaders purposively appropriate and use to achieve political ends. What those working within a framing perspective have not so far accomplished involves the difcult task of closing the gap at the institutional level, the level where politics and strategy meets the taken-for-granted world of myth and ritual. A key question for social movements theory at this level of analysis revolves around the notion of vested interests. Specically, when movement leaders articulate their message, are they always seeking to promote a specic worldview? Or are they simply reiterating what they already know to be unquestionably true? How do we begin to link the interpretive frames of movements, as well as the preexisting political cultures from which leaders draw the tools used to construct these frames, to larger cultural templates, the kinds of beliefs and understandings that are widely taken-for-granted as expressing the natural order of things?
307
Browyn Kara Conrad
According to neo-institutionalists, individual choices and preferences, including the preferences that inform grievances, neither spring willy-nilly from the subconscious mind nor erupt spontaneously from the interactive construction of reality (as suggested by the term emergent norm; Turner and Killian 1997). Instead, impressions and choices are shaped in crucial ways by the institutional context in which they arise, a context which provides the vocabularies of motives, the repertoire of solutions, the resources, and the very categories of perception needed to make any line of action appear meaningful and legitimate (Friedland and Alford 1991:251). This and other components of neo-institutional thinking make it a particularly compelling perspective for nishing the work the framing approach has begunthat is, the work of linking both movement frames and political cultures to the larger cultural terrain. Neo-institutionalists view this terrain as an interinstitutional realm, with institutions dened as intersecting social structures consisting of loosely bounded constellations of symbolic (i.e., codes, conventions, scripts) and material or behavioral (i.e., rituals, habits, practices) forms (see, e.g., Friedland and Alford 1991).3 According to Friedland and Alford (1991:251), political mobilization, as well as the claims-making that accompanies it, arises out of the violation of the codes that make life meaningful, codes that are institutionally grounded. The sources of the violations, and hence of conict and activism, can be interinstitutional, as when contradictions exist between the logics of different institutions, or intra-institutional, as when contradictions exist within an institution whose constituent acts or codes vary in their relative durability or resistance to change; while codes low on durability are vulnerable to contest and challenge, those high on durability are accepted without question as expressing the natural order of things (Zucker 1991; Sewell 1992).4 Together, the twin notions of institutional contradictions and sets of bounded, moreor-less durable institutional codes constitute a framework of considerable conceptual power. One immediate benet for social movements research lies in the compelling rationale neo-institutionalism provides for incorporating analyses of nonstrategic action into the empirical agenda. Neo-institutionalists suggest that some scripts, values, and rules, particularly those that are more durable or more central to an institution (more tightly bound to its logic) are often so widely held to be true that they escape challenge at the level of public discourse. These deep and durable notions exist as pre-reexive doxic assumptions whose legitimacy is not dependent on discursive persuasion (Crossley 2002:184) and whose persistence over time is not dependent . . . upon recurrent collective mobilization (i.e., articulation or framing; Jepperson 1991:145). As Bourdieu (1990) makes abundantly clear, it is often these same codes that privilege certain segments of the population at the expense of others. In fact, for Bourdieu, it is institutions that provide the authoritative regularities that transform difference into natural distinction (1990:58; see also Sewell 1992; Hart 1996). Additionally, by grounding action in an interinstitutional terrain, neo-institutional theory provides clues as to the conditions under which strategy is more likely to operate. For neo-institutional theorists, conicts are borne out of institutionally based contradictions that violate the taken-for-granted. Codes that are more durable (i.e., institutionalized) tend to be enacted while those that are less durable are vulnerable to being willfully
308
Browyn Kara Conrad
appropriated, or acted toward or against (for some work that moves in this direction, see Young 2002). These ideas are especially important for correcting the voluntarist, agent-centered bias that characterizes much of the cultural scholarship in the social movements area (Oliver and Johnston 2000). Most published work on Promise Keepers, for example, has focused on the rich variation in belief among the individual keepers of the movements promises, arguing that this variation renders invalid any research that presents an overarching portrait of the movement or grounds it in a larger sociohistorical context. Mens studies scholars, in particular, are criticized as having prematurely pegged Promise Keepers as part of the anti-feminist backlash (see, e.g., Bartkowski 1997, 2001; and especially, Lockhart 2001:73, 87). While I agree with Williams (2001) that it is important to chart the internal diversity of a movement, unless its multiple voices are linked to the larger cultural context within which movement messages are formed, disseminated, and, as the case may be, differentially interpreted, the picture remains incomplete. To link movement rhetoric to cultural templates is to recognize, as Williams admits, that movements such as Promise Keepers can play a role in reinforcing the current gender [and other institutional] order[s]5 (p. 8). One area that has begun to recognize the utility of neo-institutional thinking is the sociology of gender, which has been particularly sensitive to the diversity of which Williams (2001) speaks. Against the backdrop of what is called the problem of difference (i.e., how do we generate knowledge about women while remaining sensitive to the differences among them?), are a number of efforts designed to reconceptualize gender in ways that include womens many voices without diverting attention from the impact of gender on their lived experiences. Although these efforts often do not refer to neoinstitutional theory, its inuence can be seen not only in the work of Lorber (1994), who asserts that gender itself is an institution, but also in the increasing number of references that are made to the gender order and logic of gender (see, e.g., Connell 1987, 1995; Ferree, Lorber, and Hess 1999).6 Not only does this work emphasize both the material relations of gender (e.g., the sex-based division of labor) and its symbolic components (e.g., gender essentialism), but it suggests that the variations in the interpretation and practice of gender that appear in face-to-face interactions fall away at the level of the whole society (Connell 1987:183). At this levelthe cultural levelgender takes on a more simplied, skeletal, and ordered form. This argument forms the basis of Connells (1987, 1995) analysis of hegemonic masculinity, a type of masculinity that is profoundly heterosexual and centered on male dominance. By hegemonic, Connell means culturally ascendant, in the sense that this form of masculinity supersedes vested interests and contests for power. As he explains it, the ascendancy is not achieved by force but rather by the embeddedness of gendered practices and meanings in religious doctrine, media content, wage structures, and the like.7 This article demonstrates that when it comes to sexuality, there is a culturally ascendant or hegemonic script for men and womena dominant cultural code or mentalit that shapes perceptions and understandings of their sexual natures. This mentalit is thoroughly heterosexist and strongly tied to contemporary understandings of gender. It
309
Browyn Kara Conrad
is founded, for example, on the differentiation of masculine and feminine and the elevation of maleness over its counterpart. At the cultural level, this establishes the masculine as the standard against which all things feminine, including the female body and female sexuality, are dened and understood.8 As many gender scholars have noted, this denition of woman as Other is a prerequisite to the reproduction of the gender order. De Beauvoir (1952:xvi) writes, for example, that [woman] is dened and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is Subject; he is the Absoluteshe is Other. As a result, the script centers on the ways men accomplish their manhood through the sexual conquest of women (Lorber 1994:69). This narrative is so pervasive that by the time a boy begins to learn about his body, he already knows that to successfully traverse the rite of passage that will make him a man, he must discard his virgin status by actualizing his sexual potential and skill. As sex is usually a private act, he is pressured into public displays that can prove his manly attainment (boasting about sex acts before an audience, for example; Lorber 1994:69). Then, his achievements are quantied such that the more sex he has, the more manly he becomes. Those who attain excellence in their quest by racking up the most scores are granted the prestigious title of stud. Finally, the narrative is given a biological basis: his unruly desire and his many conquests are reducible to and explainable by raging levels of testosterone, which renders his sexual aggression a natural fact. The meaning and signicance of female sexuality, in contrast, is dened in relation to and against the natural sexual aggression and prowess of a man. Her body and sexuality are passive objects, the bait on a (story)line that revolves around the shing expeditions of men. As a consequence, womans sexuality is fragmented into opposite possibilities: good girls submit themselves to a male-dened double standard that says women should not consummate a sexual relationship too often, too quickly, with too many men, or under the wrong circumstances, while bad girls proudly defy this standard, only to nd they have been played as pawns in a sexual game conceived and controlled by men. The existence of this bipolar sexual code for women is by no means a new observation. Feminist scholars have long referred to it as the Madonna/Whore complex (or duality). This label stems, in part, from the provocative work of Ruether (1974a), who argues that Western ideas about sexuality have been strongly inuenced by Christian thought, which has fused ideas about sex and the body with essentialist notions of gender from the start. According to the well-known story of creation, for example, Eves moral weakness is exploited by Satan, who seduces her into eating from the tree of knowledge, from which she learns about carnal pleasures. She then passes this knowledge to Adam. Their deance of Gods law curses all of humanity. Eve was of course punished for her sin. God came to her and said, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you (Genesis 3:16; New Oxford Edition). Adam was punished indirectly through Gods curse upon the soil. Ruether (1974b) explains how the interpretation of this and other biblical passages by early church forefathers intermixed a belief in essential sex differences, a belief that is
310
Browyn Kara Conrad
central to the gender order, with a religious dichotomy between body and soul, and since the soul was the better of the two, the body was gendered feminine. This assimilation of malefemale dualism into soulbody dualism in patristic theology, she writes, conditions . . . the denition of woman, both in terms of her subordination to the male in the order of nature and her carnality in the disorder of sin (Ruether 1974b:156). As body, women must be subject, as esh must be subject to spirit in the right ordering of nature (p. 157, emphasis in original).9 Categorizing women according to (1) their degree of removal from carnal knowledge and (2) their degree of obedience to male authority thus results in a polarity between the Madonna, whose grace derives from her marital chastity, and the Whore, who, as an unmarried woman, exudes sexuality; she is the very incarnation of the eshy principle in revolt against its head (Ruether 1974b:164; Tannahill 1980). Men, in contrast, are not seen as carnal, with the notable exception of the penis, the embodiment of the law in the members that wars against the law of the mind (Ruether 1974b:162). From a neo-institutional perspective, Ruethers (1974a,b) work highlights the discursive strategies by which two different institutional logics were historically aligned: the soulbody dualism so central to Christianity and the malefemale dualism that is the fulcrum of the institution of gender. Once aligned, however, these logics subsequently diffused as a taken-for-granted cultural form. Indeed, as its familiarity makes clear, this sexual code is now culturally ascendant, confronting both men and women as a natural reality to which they are held hostage (Crawford and Unger 2000). Its ascendancy does not mean that, when it comes to the personal expression of sexuality, individuals will not hold views contrary to the code, or act in ways that subvert the order; reality is always much more variable and complicated than dominant cultural codes suggest. It means that, at the cultural level, sexuality, like gender, takes a simplied form, a form that operates as legitimate myth. This article demonstrates that the reproduction of this myth in the discourse of Promise Keepers is not the product of conscious, strategic design. It is reproducedunwittinglybecause it embodies what everyone already knows. METHODS My analysis rests on the treatment of Promise Keepers gendered discourses as a singular cultural object observable in the movements explanatory apparatus (Mueller 1994:256). Data are thus textual and consist of eld notes from two regional conferences (Seattle, WA, 1997; Eugene, OR, 1998) as well as the Stand in the Gap (Washington, DC, 1997); transcripts from interviews (N = 25); and, most importantly for my purposes here, a substantial body of archival materials collected over a ve-year period (19952000). These data encompass a number of texts, including Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper (Janssen and Weeden 1994); The Power of a Promise Kept (Lewis 1995); Go the Distance (Trent 1996); The Hidden Value of a Man (Smalley and Trent 1992); One Home at a Time (Rainey 1997); Double Bind (Cooper 1996); Bonds of Iron (Osterhaus 1994); Strategies for a Successful Marriage (Wagner 1994); Tender Warrior (Weber 1993) and The Stand in the Gap Commemorative Edition New Testament (1997); several issues of Men of Integrity and
311
Browyn Kara Conrad
The Promise Keeper; audiotapes; press releases, solicitations, and handbooks; 110 newspaper editorials and online sources; critical commentary from the National Organization for Women, The Feminist Majority, and the Center for Democracy Studies; and announcements, testimonials, and other facts updated regularly on PKNet, Promise Keepers ofcial Web site. Initially, these data were collected as part of a much larger project designed not to investigate Promise Keepers sex talk, but rather to unpack the institutional logics of gender, religion, and sport as reproduced in the rhetoric and practice of Promise Keepers, with the aim of revealing the ways in which movements reconstruct a series of cultural myths and rituals that, together, fuel and sustain existing systems of inequality (Conrad 2000:3). From the outset of the project, however, it was clear that sexuality and sexual expression were strong themes in Promise Keepers discourse and, more importantly, were themes that t well within the initial projects task of separating the construction of the movements frames from the reproduction of commonsense accounts. This task presented an intriguing methodological dilemma: How does one separate a message that is strategically crafted from one that is taken-for-granted? My solution to this problem takes a cue from Billigs (1995) discussion of the ideology of nationhood, in which he asserts that nationalistic disputes are premised on a tacit acceptance of the naturalness of a world comprised of nations. To argue on one theme, he writes, means to be silent on others (p. 80). Taking this as a starting point, I suggest that, where there is analysis and argument, there are actors engaged in the strategic appropriation and transformation of a contested cultural code. Where there is silence, there is tacit acknowledgment of the legitimacy of an extant code. A mentalit is thus marked by what is marginalized. My analysis thus rests on the systematic comparison of themes that are carefully scrutinized and rationalized with those that are not. This comparison generated emergent criteria used to approximate strategic claims-making, including (1) the volume of talk devoted to explaining a specic issue (e.g., why male leadership is important); (2) the backing up of potentially disputable or unpopular claims with selective citations of scientic or, more commonly, biblical evidence (e.g., Webers [1993:85] contention that men must lead because in I Corinthians 11:3, God said: the man is the head of woman); (3) the identication of enemies whose views challenge Promise Keepers stance on the issue (e.g., feminists for opposing male leadership); and (4) the discrediting of these enemies via name-calling (e.g., referring to feminists as spinsters). If all these rhetorical devices were in play simultaneously, I considered the issue in question integral to Promise Keepers mission. However, any theme that repeatedly surfaced in the absence of all of these devices was taken to mean that Promise Keepers accepted its truthfulness as a matter of fact. By denition, this methodological strategy for separating out the abundant strategic discourses from the less prevalent commonsense accounts invites a detailed content analysis of themes that are underrepresented in the data. As a result, the analysis that follows gives special treatment to key resources, namely the few that address womens sexual natures. To illustrate the striking difference between the discourses in these resources and
312
Browyn Kara Conrad
the strategic narratives that characterize movement resources generally, I begin with a brief analysis of the leaderships claims-making on the issue of male leadership. Both this rhetoric and Promise Keepers sexual narratives are interpreted through a gendered lens reective of current feminist scholarship.10 Additionally, by linking both discourses to neo-institutional premises, I underscore theoretical questions concerning intentionality, interests, and the discursive reproduction of cultural power, thus illustrating the possibilities neo-institutional theory offers for shaping the ways social movements scholars do cultural research. PROMISE KEEPERS RHETORIC OF MALE HEADSHIP Promise Keepers was founded in 1990 by Bill McCartney, then Head Coach of the University of Colorados football team, and rst began to capture the media spotlight in 1994 when questions were raised about its true intent. While the movements stance on racial reconciliation, homosexuality, and ecumenicism garnered smatterings of media attention, most public commentary revolved around the movements central mission: The Making of Godly Men (e.g., Minkowitz 1995; Conason, Ross, and Cokorinos 1996; Novasad 1996). According to the movements leadership, men become Godly, in large part, by reclaiming their rightful positions as the spiritual leaders of their communities and homes. Not surprisingly, Promise Keepers emphasis on the virtues of male spiritual leadership raised a number of related concerns about what this movement meant for women. Contrary to Promise Keepers Ofcial Statement on the Position of Women, which claims that the organization is dedicated entirely to men and takes no formal stance on matters relating to womens lives, movement leaders often discuss the appropriate roles and responsibilities of women, especially wives (PKNet 1999). As noted by supporters and critics alike, the leadership believes that women are nurturers and developers of life called to be their husbands helpmates (Weber 1993:104, 113). For this reason, when husbands reclaim their leadership role, wives, who have been forced to take it up, are instructed to Give it back! For the sake of your family and the survival of our culture, let your man be a man if hes willing (Evans 1994:80, emphasis in original). In the case of Promise Keepers, this evangelical discourse of male headship and wifely submission is driven by an overriding concern with societys moral meltdown (Rainey 1997:28). As I have elsewhere demonstrated (Conrad 2000, 2003), Promise Keepers is very much at war with an enemy that is cutting away at the spiritual heritage of America (Phillips 1994:9). As an advertisement for the 1999 conferences conrms, the leadership believes that: In this day of compromised values, where popular thought denies the existence of absolute truth, our world is crying out for someone to take a standfor holiness, righteousness, family and Christ! Promise Keepers understands the urgency of our times and strongly believes that you have a critical role to play in reversing the current moral and spiritual downfall our nation is facing. (The Promise Keeper 1999:3, emphasis added)
313
Browyn Kara Conrad
Although the goal is a Christian America, maintaining the integrity of the traditional Christian family, complete with its covenant marriages and clearly dened gender roles, is important, for it is a critical gateway through which Christian values enter the mainstream. According to the leadership, however, todays high divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and other markers of decay demonstrate that this family form is under assault, disparaged by the maladjusted meddlers who have convinced a generation that tolerance, the new supreme national virtue, and the pagan sissy way of thinking associated with todays consumer culture are preferable to Christianitys absolutes (Evans 1994:77, 81; Rainey 1997:24). Promise Keepers leadership is fully aware of the contentiousness of its quite radical agenda, which amounts to orchestrating a values revolution led by an army of Godly men. Weber (1993:90) atly admits, for example, that in todays equality-conscious world, a person might be shot for saying that [men should be in charge,] or certainly vilied in the media as a small-minded bigot and sexist. Like it or not, though, society is in trouble and it needs tender warriors to rescue it from the forces of feminization (Weber 1993). Given societys perceived turn toward a more progressive, tolerant, and egalitarian cultural climate, the movements call for the resurrection of responsible male leadership must be strategically packaged and sold in ways that appeal to the widest possible segment of the population. The leaderships most common persuasive tactic is the persistent use of biblical passages, interspersed among counseling or self-help narratives, which provide justication for this leadership. Occasionally, writers also draw upon the tools of science, quoting studies that, together with the Word, provide irrefutable proof that male dominance reects the right ordering of the sexes in nature (e.g., Smalley and Trent 1992:9091; Weber 1993:100; Rainey 1997:104). They also identify and then systematically dismantle, usually by engaging in name-calling, the claims of the antimale leadership villains, which include the liberal media, secular humanists in the academic and political spheres and, especially, feminists. For example, Raineys (1997:98) One Home at a Time includes a section entitled The Gaping Jaws of Feminism, in which he asserts that feminism has devoured families and imperiled children. Christians must denounce, and even root out, the tenets of feminist ideology, he asserts, because the feminist Trojan horse called equality has meant that a thousand lies have invaded . . . families, paralyzing men and seducing women (pp. 49, 98100). This is tragic, he laments, because both Betty Freidan and Germaine Greer had openly rejecting mothers and Gloria Steinems mother was emotionally ill (p. 101). In a position letter on the United Nations Conference on Women, the popular James Dobson (1995), whose Focus on the Family is formally allied with Promise Keepers and has also published many of its key texts, echoes these sentiments. What these radical feminists want to impose on the . . . family, he proclaims, is Satans trump card if I have ever seen it. It represent[s] the most radical, atheistic, and anti-family crusade in the history of the world. When it comes to male headship, then, the issue that best denes Promise Keepers, movement discourse illustrates the features I associate with claims-making: preoccupation, vociferous defensiveness, and the identication and discrediting of foes. When it
314
Browyn Kara Conrad
comes to sexuality, however, the tenor of the discourse shifts. There are two things worth noting about this discourse from the start. First, despite the fact that sexuality is implicated in one of the movements seven promises (i.e., a Promise Keeper is committed to maintaining sexual purity), the movements leadership rarely talks about it. This is perhaps not surprising given the movements evangelical roots. Second, when sexuality is mentioned, it is mainly cast as a thing to be controlled and channeled in productive, God-given directions (i.e., toward the marital bed; Kirk 1994:95). This, too, is not surprising, especially when viewed in light of the leaderships concern with the waning inuence of biblical values. In fact, when placed in the context of a larger issue culture comprised of opposing constituencies actively debating the meaning of family values, a culture that reveals a deep contradiction between secular relativism and religions moral absolutes, the leaderships occasional condemnations of indelity as well as their practical advice on how to maintain sexual purity (see, e.g., Kirks [1994:9798] tips for the traveling man) make perfect sense. Within this discourse, however, one nds a deeper, less changeable, and far less contentious sexual code, one that is reproduced without concerted attempts to persuade. THE OTHER WOMAN AS SEXUAL SIREN Understanding the content and contours of this code is best achieved through an examination of what the movement says about women. It bears repeating that Promise Keepers gender discourse is almost always focused on the relationship between husbands and wives. On the rare occasion that women occupying nonfamilial roles (e.g., coworker or friend) are mentioned, however, the discussion nearly always turns from an emphasis on honor to a cautionary tale. In Bonds of Iron, for example, a book dedicated to the strong friendships that men can build with other men, Osterhaus (1994) devotes a few paragraphs to the unique challenge that friendships with women pose for Christian men: Always lurking in the shadows is the danger of sexual attraction and encounter. . . . Men nd it difcult to draw close to a woman, to be intimate with her, without having sexual attraction as a prominent part of that encounter. Women, in an attempt to hold on to a friendship that they have found satisfying, may be more willing to go along with a sexual encounter, even though they realize this is not the type of relationship they wanted. The tension is there, and it ebbs and ows for as long as the relationship exists . . . there is obviously a danger here. (p. 177) Contained in this brief passage are two themes that surface repeatedly in movement sex talk. One concerns the widely held assumption that any normal, healthy male thinks about sex several times a day and that, as a consequence of this natural male tendency, a man is quite likely to view many of the adult women with whom he interacts in a sexual way as, for example, potential sexual partners. The other relates to the age-old idea that there are really two kinds of women: the ones men want to marry, and the ones they want to sleep with. Evidently, the latter kind are particularly troublesome for the Christian male, because, on account of a mans inherent sexual predisposition, which is an outgrowth of his chemical makeup (specically, his possession of testosterone), he may nd
315
Browyn Kara Conrad
himself powerless to resist their charms. Taken together, these themes reproduce a familiar message: because of his primal sexual urges, a man is naturally predisposed to all sorts of questionable sexual escapades, but he is not to be faulted if he succumbs to these forces of nature, for he would have done nothing were it not for the provocations of a wanton woman. Such a woman, it seems, is always ready and willing to engage in a sexual encounter with any available man. Because she threatens the integrity of the martial bond, this other woman is to be approached with caution. Again, given the paucity of discussions of women in roles other than that of wife, Promise Keepers resources contain a surprising number of suggestions on how to handle the other woman, including an assortment of daily devotionals appearing in Promise Keepers version of the Bible, specically, the Stand in the Gap Commemorative Edition New Testament (1997). In these devotionals, which number 88 in all, wives are mentioned 22 times, while women who are not wives are mentioned 10 times. In contrast to the devotionals that reference wives, only 3 of which are about sex and none of which portray wives as sexual beings, in 7 of the 10 devotionals that reference women who are not wives, or 70 percent of the time, the other woman is cast as a seductress with special powers that summon male lust.11 Three contain biblical accounts of seduction (e.g., of Samson by Delilah) while the remaining four focus on the contemporary problem of women who purposefully tempt men into sexual sin. Typical of these devotionals is the following, which describes the overwhelming powerlessness that an ordinary man feels in the presence of the Other womans charms: She was beautiful! There she was, about ten years younger than Sam and applying for the job of his administrative assistant. During the interview, everything seemed to go well and she appeared to be quite business-like. But as the months passed and they were continually working together, his respect for her gradually changed into something more intimate. Though he hadnt pursued her, he was sensing a gentle nudge from her. His fantasies soared. As a married Christian man, his conscience was tormented. How could he have let this happen. He was completely under her spell. So much so that, while his wife and children were preparing dinner, he was in the bedroom contemplating divorce. (p. 49, emphasis added) Another devotional, conspicuously entitled Dealing with a Temptress, includes a suggestion for what men should be thinking about when they are confronted by a captivating but dangerous sexual siren: You nd that the new ofce that youve been transferred to has a secretary that is a total come-on. This isnt really a problem because youre committed entirely to your wife. But it sure would be easier if shed dress differently, and contain herself a little. Knowing the right thing to do seems easy enough. But every time you have determined to look the other way, there she is, right in your face. It seems to you like she knows, like she does it purposely. In all honesty, its difcult not to lust after her every time you see her. You determine that you will not let this get to you. Now would be a good time to ask yourself: To whom can I go for help? (p. 62) The intent of such messages, of course, is to counsel Christian men on how to deal with sexual temptations, which 1997 Kingdome conference goers were quick to identify as the
316
Browyn Kara Conrad
sin they struggled with the most (Field notes, Kingdome). But, the backdrop against which these stories are told is one that assumes that (1) the male is locked in a perpetual battle with his natural sexual urges, and (2) by provoking him through her actions and especially her appearance, the other woman is responsible for his lust. Because Promise Keepers leadership subscribes to these pervasive cultural views, they unthinkingly reproduce the myth that says it will be difcult for men to stay faithful to their wives. Indeed, whether or not a man is a Christian makes little difference when it comes to stemming a mans volcanic sexual desire. Kirk (1994:94, 98) writes, for example, that few if any Christian men are without . . . sexual sin and one is sometimes hard pressed to distinguish the sexual behavior of Christian men from that of nonbelievers. Weber (1996:83) goes even further, lamenting several fallen Christian comrades as among the many casualties of unfettered male desire: the man who dumped his wife of two decades who was losing her youthful gure for a younger model, another who fell into a summertime infatuation with an old ame, and a third who decided he was happier with one of his female co-workers than with his wife. The female Other is ever-present in these woeful tales. And she is cast not as a maiden but as a whore: a home-wrecker, a temptress, an awakener of male lust. Although the leaderships rst line of counsel to men in cases of actual or emotional adultery (e.g., consumption of pornography)that he remain sexually faithful to his wife and pray for strength when temptedis altogether consistent with the movements principles, some suggestions on how to handle such female Others are a bit more controversial. For example, Kirk (1994:96) writes: I dont recommend that every man confess every detail of every sexual sin to his wife. That can be more harmful than helpful. The best thing to do is to subscribe to the following guidelines, outlined in yet another daily devotional: Pastor John conded his weakness to his close friend. Im totally committed to my wife. Weve been married for years and I really love her. But Im just not attracted to her any more. His friend . . . set him straight. But you dont understand, John objected. Theres forty more pounds of her than what I married. Its . . . a struggle. And then theres . . . Cynthia, my church secretary. Shes so sweet. The time came for clear thinking. Pastor, youre not playing on an even eld. When you see your wife in the morning, shes not yet brushed her hair or teeth; she has no make-up on. But when you see Cynthia, shes all done up. You see her with no aws . . . this is what you need to do. First, realize . . . you are at the end of your rope . . . Confess to God your weakness. Ask him for help in seeing the beautiful wife he gave you. Concentrate on her good points. And as far as Cynthia . . . get yourself another secretary. Dont even put that stumbling block in front of you. (1997:31, emphasis added) The message here is clear. There is no room in Promise Keepers Garden of Eden for Eve. The ease with which these gendered themes are reproduced in Promise Keepers rhetoric should come as no surprise to those who study gender issues. The twin notions of mens uncontrollable sexual desire and the threat of the other woman are widely taken for granted in our culture. A recent review of 30 studies published since 1980, for example, found considerable evidence for the continued existence of a sexual double standard for males and females (Crawford and Popp 2003). Indeed, the authors conclude that,
317
Browyn Kara Conrad
although some women are allowed somewhat more freedom than in the past, the double standard, which represents a covert means of controlling womens sexuality by judging its expression more harshly than males is very much alive in the modern era (p. 23). From a neo-institutional perspective, however, what is most instructive about Promise Keepers sex narratives stems from what they do not say. That they do not say the other woman is a temptress becausell in the appropriate scientic evidence or biblical quoteis interesting. Her carnality is clearly not universal to women, for of the 22 daily devotionals that reference wives, only 3 of which are about sex, none of the wives are actually having sex; their husbands are and they are having it without their wives. Similarly, that Promise Keepers does not attempt to offer an explanation for mens unruly lust is informative. In a world that accepts the naturalness of mens substantial sexual appetites, there are no enemies to oppose, no philosophies to discredit, and no political battles to be waged. The leadership is content instead to offer practical advice for coping with the natural facts of wanton women and intractable male desire. This failure to ask questions, analyze or assess, explain or rationalize, defend or discredit, constitutes a signicant social act. It means something. It means that, culturally speaking, we tend to agree. THE WIFE AS SEXLESS HARPY When Promise Keepers literature shifts to the matter of female sexuality within the context of the marital union, the message changes again. Unlike the Other woman, wives are not always ready for sexual encounters with any available man. In fact, they are almost never ready for sexual encounters of any kind, even with their husbands. The reason seems to be that wives are self-absorbed, sexless, and perpetually angry with their husbands for never doing what they are told. Indeed, sexuality enters into the personae of a Promise Keepers wife only in one of two ways: either she needs to be cajoled into sex because she is never in the mood, or she uses sex as a weapon, withholding it from a man in order to manipulate him. Smalley and Trent (1992) take up both views in The Hidden Value of a Man, a book that contains the most extensive discussion of sexuality by the slate of evangelical authors whose works are routinely hocked at Promise Keepers conferences. The book devotes itself to the virtues of a mans dual swords: his silver sword, which pertains to his provider role, and the more important gold sword, which relates to his leadership role. For a man to be an effective leader, the authors claim, he must take charge of the family business, including the bedroom business. Indeed, the authors explain that while a man is an inherently sexual creature who needs to express himself sexually, his wife is liable to be, also quite naturally, unresponsive. No Promise Keeper should fear, however, since, according to Smalley and Trent, there are ways that men can warm their cold wives hearts: Men . . . have testosterone-driven desires that need to be expressed regularly in the marriage. The scriptures are clear that regular sexual involvement is crucial not only to ensure the marriage, but also to protect a couple from temptation and sexual sin. However, quoting Bible verses to our wives about how they arent to deny us usually isnt helpful in increasing a womans sexual response . . . a woman needs to
318
Browyn Kara Conrad
be treated with honor, respect and warmth, and then she is almost always ready to respond. (p. 72) This passage is especially noteworthy, for it demonstrates a key aspect of neo-institutional thinking: that one does need to say what is already known. That men have testosteronedriven desires, for example, is presented here as an undisputable truth. Thus, there is no need to examine what the scientic literature says about the relationship between testosterone and desire. After all, everyone knows there will be numerous times in a marriage where, as a naturally sexual creature, he is going to want some and, as a generally asexual one, she is not. And the reverse equationshe wants it, he does notis so unthinkable, it is not even discussed. Indeed, nowhere in any of the sources I examined did I nd wives portrayed as sexually interested. Moreover, in no source did I nd any practical advice on what men should do about erectile dysfunction or a low sex drive. Clearly, it is wives that have the sexual problem and it is one that can be cured with a little romance. Most of the time, that is. Later in their book, for example, Smalley and Trent (1992) insist that no matter what a husband does, his wife may still be reluctant. In a chapter entitled Women Who Hide Our Swords, they outline some of the reasons wives routinely withhold sex. The chapter begins with a story of a couple returning from a Smalley and Trent seminar on relationships and the family. Just when the couple is headed to bed, a falling-out occurs: You slip into the bathroom and slap on a little wild musk cologne. Youve already agreed with her earlier that night that tonights going to be the night. You crawl into bed with her, get close, and . . . she totally freezes. Youre in bed with a plastic mannequin. It begins to dawn on you that nothinga capital N nothingis going to happen tonight. And you cant believe it. You react. She reacts. You think, wait a minute. Ive done all the right things. Now she tears up and starts crying. You say, whats wrong? She says, I dont know. . . . Women! you say. I suppose its that time of the month or something. I dont like you bringing that up! Well, I can see that pimple on your face. So it must be that time, or close to it. I cant believe women! The comment elicits a volley of angry words and results in an even colder shoulder. Your hormones have been pumping throughout your body, and you were about as excited as you can get . . . and now youre . . . as frustrated as you can get. Why is she reacting this way? Why has she grabbed the gold sword out of your hands and run you through with it? Why do women sometimes take a mans gold sword and hide it somewhere, just as he discovers it and begins to learn how to handle it? There are four main reasons. (P. 104) The rst reason can be found in a womans past. One obvious reason, for example, is that wives may have been victims of previous sexual or verbal abuse. Such victimization, Smalley and Trent explain, can turn a woman away from a man, no matter how caring he is. The second reason has to do with a variety of womens natural tendencies (Smalley and Trent 1992:105). Smalley and Trent explain, for example, that women have superior abilities when it comes to building meaningful relationships and because of this, they will
319
Browyn Kara Conrad
often make light of mens attempts to use their personal power (p. 105). [W]ithout realizing it, they contend, women can make us feel . . . inept when it comes to relationships (p. 107). In addition, we are told that wives are unresponsive for certain biological reasons. Some women naturally tend to hide our swords during their physical cycle, the authors explain (p. 107). During this time, a woman can knock the sword right out of our hands (p. 108). A man can handle this, the authors explain, by asking her questions like: What are some of the best ways I can help you make it through those days? Maybe we can do some special sword polishing during those times (p. 108). A nal natural tendency has to do with personality. Some women, Smalley and Trent insist, have a certain personality makeup that is detrimental to men. Specically, a woman who has the lionbeaver temperament is a strong leader and a perfectionist. Smalley and Trent argue that, inevitably, these women tend to marry golden retrievers, men who are faithful, loyal, friendly, sensitive, and weak. This is a dangerous combination, they insist, because the strong-minded woman can blast the gold sword right out of her husbands grip by being too heavy-handed, too critical, too nit picky, or too overbearing (p. 108). Beyond the implicit suggestion that some women have an asexual bitchiness about them that can be a real mood-killer, this latter passage does not have much to do with female sexuality. In fact, the tendency toward name-calling provides a perfect textual moment within which to see the authors drift from a counseling narrative that focuses on the how of dealing with wives sexual unresponsiveness, which the authors assume will be a problem, toward an argumentative narrative which, by issuing judgments about the faults of strong women, is designed to endorse male headship. A third reason that women are sexually unresponsive to their husbands, according to Smalley and Trent, is that they may be angry at their husbands, and this anger can close a womans heart. Then, without elaborating on this third reason, the authors move quickly on to reason number four, where, nally, we learn that women are constantly frustrating mens efforts to be effective leaders, including their efforts to effectively lead in the bedroom, because of the fall. God cursed women, the authors explain. He ensured that in her nature, in her knee-jerk reaction to a million life situations, she would be faced with a constant temptation to take control and exercise authority over [her] husband (Smalley and Trent 1992:109). Here again the discourse shifts toward the argumentative. In fact, at this point in the text, the authors abruptly abandon the how to dialogue on contending with a wifes cold shoulder and return instead to the topic of the gold sword (i.e., leadership). Chapter 12, they assert, is a key to solving this problem of a womans natural tendency to take over and ram through her own agenda (p. 109). Interestingly, chapter 12, which is devoted entirely to the importance of forming small accountability groups for added support in dealing with lifes problems, makes no references to this particular feminine ailment at all. Elsewhere in their book, however, Smalley and Trent (1992) give some indication of the nature of the agenda wives want to ram through, which entails manipulating men into performing chores in return for sexual payment. To illustrate this, the authors tell the story of Norm and his wife, Bobbie. Norm is frustrated because, for some time, Bobbie has been playing the shell game when it comes to their sex life. In this game, the very
320
Browyn Kara Conrad
small bean represents her sexual responsiveness. The problem for Norm is that while he is out working all day, she moves the shell with the bean under it around such that when Norm goes to pick up the shell he thinks the bean is under, it is no longer there. When Norm tells this story to Bobbie, she responds by drawing an analogy to shing, Norms favorite pastime. Over the years, she explains, youve shed me in saltwater time and again, and youve never once washed me off with a hose . . . and the eyelets . . . are bent, the tip is cracked and rust has made the crank really hard to turn . . . youve spent little time oiling or cleaning or putting on a new line (p. 77). Norm asks Bobbie what she means. She explains: Oiling the reel for me would mean that when you come in the door at night, you dont immediately head to the television set. Come and nd me, ask how my day went, and really listen to me. Maybe even hug me or sit and hold my hand while we talk. . . . I can do that! said Norm, nally getting the picture. They went on to talk about washing off the saltwater, which might be playing with the kids. Other ways of repairing the line might be helping with the dishes or helping the kids with their schoolwork, their baths, or getting ready for bed, school, or even church. (P. 77) As this passage illustrates, from the point of view of Promise Keepers leadership, a wife is a nonsexual person. If men want to engage in sexual relations with such a woman, they have to get her in the mood, which might mean that they have trade for her sexual favors in chores. Collectively, these data illustrate that Promise Keepers dichotomizes the sexuality of women into versions of good and bad while uniformly representing the sexuality of men as the product of some deep-seated biological urge. Interestingly, the leadership makes no effort to defend these ideas from the lies of their enemies, nor do they seek to lend them legitimacy by tapping the tools of science or religion. Rather than analyze, they assume. And rather than debate, they offer advice. Their sexual narratives thus demonstrate that when the issue in question is one everyone presumably knows, it is not necessary to frame it. THE EMBEDDEDNESS OF A DOMINANT SEXUAL SCRIPT The question then becomes, how does everyone know these things? The idea of a mentalit, an unfocused, popular belief that exists over the long dure, provides an answer to this question. A mentalit is not a cultural product, in the sense that it is crafted in the course of action by strategic actors who appropriate and transform cultural discourses in an effort to dene some yet to be realized version of the public good (Williams 1995). This simply reverts back to a framing argument wherein actors with vested interests mobilize this or that culturally available resource in an effort to realize specic ends. A mentalit is a historical product that, although formed through previous contests for power, has taken on a commonsense reality that is particularly resistant to change. Neo-institutionalism helps to make sense of the relationship between such mentalits, issue cultures, and movement frames because it acknowledges that while culture is far from being monolithic and is best understood as a contested terrain, many of the
321
Browyn Kara Conrad
contests that take place are historically contingent and occur at the system level: between already legitimated institutions (Jepperson and Meyer 1991:229). According to Friedland and Alford (1991:256), for example, some of the most important political struggles taking place in society today are, in reality, battles over the relationship between institutions and their power to dene persons and regulate activity. Should education, for instance, be controlled by the family, the church, or the state? Debates over school vouchers or prayer at school sporting events are driven by these institutional contradictions. Similarly, dening marriage as a sacrament or a contract speaks to a larger politics of institutional contradiction, that, from a neo-institutional point of view, drives contention, strategic deployment of culturally available tools and the construction of both political cultures and movement frames. In contrast, mentalits embody deeper and more durable cultural notions, ones that are not easily transformed into political tools, even by challenger groups seeking to resist their ascendancy. They operate as exterior and constraining elements of the system, already normalized to such a degree that, for many, they are simply accepted as fact. Hence, while frames are strategically crafted cultural products, mentalits mark cultures unreexive reproduction. Framing creates culture; mentalits carry it. By analyzing the relative combativeness of movement discourse, this analysis speaks to the relationship between mentalits, political cultures, and movement frames. The ways in which Promise Keepers frames male headship, for example, as well as their vociferous defense of it, takes place within a larger issue culture that revolves around family values. As a political discourse, this debate is less about the family than it is about the preservation of a certain version of Christian hegemony. Indeed, as long as it remains intact, the traditional, nuclear, Christian family can counter the authoritativeness of the states secularism, which has encouraged value relativism and muddied the lines between right and wrong. The movements sexual narratives, in contrast, particularly as they relate to mens and womens sexual natures, fail to speak to the contradiction between religions absolute truths and modern ideals of tolerance. As this analysis demonstrates, Promise Keepers sex talk reproduces a mentalit that naturalizes a sexual double standard. Embedded within this talk is a familiar separation between available, enticing female others and nonavailable, resistant wives. This Madonna/Whore complex is reproduced in relation to and against an imaginary of consumptive male desire. There is nothing necessarily unique about Promise Keepers in its reproduction of this mentalit, for it transcends the particular habitus with which the movements participants operate. After all, although dominant cultural codes are never fully shared, the idea that it is not necessary to buy the cow when one can get the milk for free is widely understood (Crawford and Unger 2000:288).12 Furthermore, the assumption that real men do not need Viagra is not especially rare. Its taken-for-grantedness explains why so many of us laugh at the commercials (and why the advertisers want us to). Indeed, this also explains the laughter of conference-goers to speaker Mike Silvas account of the dating applications he gives his daughters adolescent male suitors, which necessarily ask do you own a van? and describe in fty words or less what the word no means (Field notes, Kingdome).
322
Browyn Kara Conrad
Identifying the existence of this mentalit in movement discourse is nonetheless important, because while public attention is diverted to the dispute over headship, a fundamental aspect of gender (the malefemale dualism) and religion (the soulbody dualism) and their historical fusion into a now ascendant sexual code is being uncritically reproduced. Failing to observe and attend to its reproduction ignores the fact that sometimes the sexism is in the code and not in the hearts and minds of religious fanatics seeking, in accordance with vested interests, to impose upon others a patriarchal reading of ancient texts. It is in this sense that a neo-institutional framework becomes especially relevant to social movements scholarship. First, it provides the theoretical tools for acknowledging the importance of mentalits to the reproduction of existing institutional structures. Lukers (1984) brilliant analysis of the rhetorical battle over abortion, for example, elaborates at one level on a tension between conservative and liberal constituencies, who actively construct frames through a language of rights (i.e., the rights of mother vs. fetus). On another level, her examination of the different meanings these constituencies attach to motherhood (as a sacred calling vs. an individual choice) begins to reveal a larger contradiction between religious and secular values. What is not explored is the assumption that only women reproduce. This feminization of parenthood, however, is an important cultural mentalit, the identication of which has pivotal implications for understanding the politics of gender. Analyses that chart its reproduction by a variety of different groups and movements help to identify the unspoken myths that work together to sustain the larger gender order. Second, as previously mentioned, neo-institutionalism raises the important question of intentionality, a question that points to a signicant weakness in framing theory and in other approaches that rely on a tool kit conceptualization of culture. Framing analyses tend to focus not only on the content of frames, but also on how purposeful actors use tools derived from a larger repertoire to craft their message. Beyond the impoverished contention that some cultural tools have more resonance than others, however, they often do not tell us why movement leaders self-consciously choose the resources they choose. Why a particular narrative and not some other? Because it considers ideas movements unwittingly reproduce, neo-institutionalism brings issues of choice, strategy, and the production of culture into relief, which, in turn, helps to position movement discourse in a larger interinstitutional terrain. Consider, for example, the many ways in which current debates both for and against gay families, including marriages, are playing themselves out in a discursive eld dominated by a state-centered discourse of discrimination and rights. In an interesting recent piece that incorporates ethnomethodological insights into framing analysis, Broad et al. (2004) examine how the Parents, Friends, and Families of Lesbians and Gays Movement (PFLAG) abandons this discourse, opting instead to frame their cause in terms of family values. The analysis provides a rather nice illustration of how the movement purposefully appropriates this language from the religious right and turns it to its own ends, in part by engaging in family talk and in part by issuing Christian corrections of biblical teachings and tapping the metaphor of faith. In the end, it speaks to the ways the PFLAG
323
Browyn Kara Conrad
uses the enemies tools against them in its attempt to reframe the debate. What is not examined is the PFLAGs failure to interrogate the preexisting narrative that links morality to faith. Clearly, this narrative exists. After all, the authors use it, also without interrogating it, and their argument resonates perfectly. When they invoke religious themes, PFLAG members accomplish the taken-for-granted assumption that religion is the legitimate keeper of moral codes. What neo-institutionalism adds to the ethnomethodological contention that action is scripted and justied, after the fact, by reference to a stock of culturally available legitimating accounts (i.e., mentalits; see DiMaggio and Powell 1991:21), is the idea that these accounts are rooted in and reproduce preexisting institutional forms (in this case, religions ownership of morality). Stated differently, by turning cultural analysis on its head, focusing on the ways in which culture shapes movement discourse rather than the reverse, neo-institutionalism offers an important corrective to constructionist accounts. Johnston and Oliver (2000:62) criticize such accounts for trapping scholars in an interactionist bubble from which they are unable to penetrate and unpack the contents and contours of the larger discursive eld. Without the kind of structuralist approach neo-institutionalism provides, one capable of absorbing agent-centered approaches while also attending to the institutionalized patterns of privilege and inequality within which social movements invent themselves, culture is reduced to an epiphenomena of interaction, which limits its power as an explanatory construct. CONCLUSIONS Despite the renewed interest in the cultural features of movement activism, culture remains, to a large extent, the black box of social movements theory. The currently popular framing approach, for example, which views culture as a resource repertoire and movements as strategic producers of culture, fails to theorize the culture that is willfully appropriated by movement actors, implying instead that if it is in movement discourse, it must have been a particularly useful tool-in-the-box. In contrast, neo-institutionalism provides a means for understanding both the kinds of meaning structures that are in the box and when and why some of them become resources. By suggesting that discourse is grounded in the institutions that shape perception and action, that this talk is sometimes taken-for-granted as common sense (cultural reproduction), and that the contradictions between and within institutions provide the fuel for change, neo-institutionalism begins to integrate the different levels of ideation of which Tarrow (1992) speaks: frames, political cultures, and mentalits. Through a comparative analysis that contrasts Promise Keepers strategic discourses with its nonreexive sex talk, this research foregrounds a mentalit that is unwittingly reproduced in Promise Keepers narratives and tales. Although such mentalits have been thought to be superuous when it comes to mapping the culture-movement relationship, this analysis shows that mentalits matter. Specically, despite frequent claims that there is nothing political about their movement, this research demonstrates that what Promise Keepers says about male and female sexuality works to reinforce male privilege,
324
Browyn Kara Conrad
even in the absence of conscious intent. This is why mentalits matter. They matter because they have everything to do with who hasand is entitled to havepower. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS An early version of this article was presented at the 2002 Annual Meetings of the Midwest Sociological Society. The research from which it derives was partly supported through a grant from Washington State Universitys Department of Sociology and an award for outstanding qualitative scholarship. Thanks are owed to Dr. Donald Viney and to the editors and anonymous reviewers of The Sociological Quarterly for their helpful comments. NOTES
1
Tarrows (1992:176) work, which delineates mentalits, political cultures, and collective action frames, as nested levels of ideation embodying successively declining generality and increasing purposiveness is a remarkable piece that does much to round out our understanding of the culture-movement relationship. In this article, my debt to this pathbreaking work is self-evident. 2 For additional criticisms of the framing approach, see Benford (1997); Steinberg (1999); Buechler (2000); Johnston and Oliver (2000); Oliver and Johnston (2000). 3 This interinstitutional conceptualization of culture will provoke social movements scholars, many of whom cast movements as extra-institutional, regard the institutional and the cultural as separate elds, or restrict the institutional or institutionalized politics to matters pertaining solely to the legal bureaucratic state, the passage of laws, and/or the power of political elites (e.g., McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald 1996; Della Porta and Diani 1999; McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 2001). This understanding of institutions is largely an artifact of the resource mobilization perspective, which has viewed social movements as politics by other [i.e., noninstitutionalized] means because of the tendency of challenger movements to operate outside courts and legislatures and to adopt tactics involving civil disobedience. The view that what is institutional is what is legal or political and that culture and institutions are distinct is generally inconsistent with the ways in which neo-institutionalists have talked about institutions, institutionalization, and institutional analysis (see, e.g., the edited volume by Powell and DiMaggio 1991). 4 The latter part of this statement represents a departure from Friedland and Alfords (1991) work, which concentrates on interinstitutional contradictions while relegating intra-institutional contradictions to a footnote. Friedland and Alfords idea of institutional logics and their insistence that as one moves from the societal [i.e., cultural] to the individual or organizational level of analysis, instrumental images of rationalizing, maximizing, satiscing, or scheming behavior are more appropriate (pp. 25566), however, seems to me to be roughly commensurate with Sewells (1992) mutable at the surface but durable at the core argument as regards deep structures. Indeed, Sewells work is relevant because while most neo-institutionalists regard institutions as supra-individual social structures, relatively stable patterns comprised of ordered practices and meanings, there is a recognition that the boundaries of these practice-meaning sets are fuzzy and that some institutional components may be more vulnerable to intervention (and hence, to deinstitutionalization) than others (for this reason, Zucker [1991] de-reies institution as an analytic construct and speaks instead of relative degrees of institutionalization).
325

5
Browyn Kara Conrad
According to Williams (2001:8, emphasis added), research with the latter agenda glosses internal movement diversity in order to create an overly unied PK ideology. Such criticisms are rooted more in methodological differences than in substantive ones. All qualitative research totalizes discourse; it is simply a matter of to what degree and, more importantly, to what end. 6 The sociology of gender suffers from the same structureagency dualism that characterizes other areas of sociological scholarship. For example, those who assert that gender is an institution (e.g., Lorber 1994) tend to be somewhat more structuralist in their approach than those who conceptualize gender as a process (e.g., Acker 1990) that involves agents who, in doing gender, imbue other structures with gender signicance. In other words, there is a difference between the gender-as-an-institution scholars and the gendered institutions scholars. 7 Connell (1987:183) argues that there is no corollary hegemonic femininity that exists at the cultural level; there is only an emphasized femininity that is dened around compliance and is oriented to accommodating the interests and desires of men. 8 Psychoanalytic theorists like Chodorow (1978) root mens knowledge of this cultural code in a process of differentiation that stems from childhood, when boys develop their understanding of masculinity by distancing themselves from their mothers and the femininity they embody. 9 One of the best historical examples of this woman-as-body-and-thus-carnal thinking can be seen in the Malleus Malecarum, the Hammer of Witches, which offers the following explanation for the greater tendency toward heresy and witchcraft in women: As for the rst question, why a greater number of witches is found in the fragile feminine sex . . . they are more credulous, and since the chief aim of the devil is to corrupt faith . . . he attacks them . . . the second reason is that women are naturally more impressionable and . . . the third reason is that they have slippery tongues and are unable to conceal from their fellow-women those things which by evil arts they know . . . but the natural reason is that she is more carnal than a man, as is clear from her many carnal abominations. And it should be noted that there was a defect in the formation of the rst woman, since she was formed from a bent rib . . . which is bent . . . in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives . . . to conclude: all witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable. (Kramer and Sprenger 1971:417, emphasis added) 10 In general, feminist empiricism holds that the trained eye of an experienced gender scholar sees gendered patterns that are invisible to a naive observer and that the process of producing libratory knowledge about and for women not only improves our understanding of gender but also challenges the epistemological and methodological androcentrism of conventional science. 11 The remaining three include a reference to Joan Rivers, a story about a man who helps a woman change a at tire, and an account of a young woman who forgives her rapist. 12 As an example, consider the recent blockbuster Someone Like You, whose central character impersonates a 65-year-old European psychiatrist in order to publicly disseminate her popular cow theory on why it is that heterosexual relationships so often fail to work out. All men are bulls, this theory suggests, who are not interested in old cows (i.e., used women) because, in an instinctually driven effort to spread their seed, they will only mate once with any given cow.
REFERENCES
Acker, Joan. 1990. Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender and Society 4: 13958.
326
Browyn Kara Conrad
Babb, Sarah. 1996. A True American System of Finance: Frames in the US Labor Movement, 1866 to 1886. American Sociological Review 61: 103352. Bartkowski, John P. 1997. Debating Patriarchy: Discursive Disputes over Spousal Authority among Evangelical Family Commentators. Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion 36: 393410. . 2001. Breaking Walls, Raising Fences: Masculinity, Intimacy, and Accountability among the Promise Keepers. Pp. 3354 in Promise Keepers and the New Masculinity, edited by Rhys Williams. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Benford, Robert D. 1993. Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement. Social Forces 71(3): 677701. . 1997. An Insiders Critique of the Social Movement Framing Perspective. Sociological Inquiry 67(4): 40930. Benford, Robert D. and David A. Snow. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 61139. Billig, Michael. 1995. Rhetorical Psychology, Ideological Thinking, and Imagining Nationhood. Pp. 6484 in Social Movements and Culture, edited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. . 1990. The Logic of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Broad, K. L., Sarah L. Crawley, and Lara Foley. 2004. Doing Family Values: Social Movement Framing, Discourse, and Interpretive Practice. The Sociological Quarterly 45(3): 50927. Buechler, Steven. 2000. Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism: The Political Economy and Cultural Construction of Social Activism. New York: Oxford University Press. Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press. Conason, Joe, Alfred Ross, and Lee Cokorinos. 1996. The Promise Keepers Are Coming: The Third Wave of the Religious Right. The Nation, October 7, pp. 1119. Connell, Robert W. 1987. Gender and Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. . 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press. Conrad, Browyn. 1998. In the Name of the Father: A Cultural Analysis of Promise Keepers Rhetoric and Practice. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, August 2125, San Francisco, CA. . 2000. Promise Keepers: Gender Politics, Godly Men, and the Contemporary American Culture Wars. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. . 2003. American Jihad? A Neo-Institutional Analysis of Promise Keepers Just War for the Nations Soul. Unpublished Manuscript. Cooper, Rodney L. 1996. Double Bind: Escaping the Contradictory Demands of Manhood. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Crawford, Mary and Danielle Popp. 2003. Sexual Double Standards: A Review and Methodological Critique of Two Decades of Research. The Journal of Sex Research 40(1): 1326. Crawford, Mary and Rhoda Unger. 2000. Women and Gender: A Feminist Psychology. 3d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Crossley, Nick. 2002. Making Sense of Social Movements. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. De Beauvoir, Simone. 1952. The Second Sex. New York: Bantam Books.
327
Browyn Kara Conrad
Della Porta, Donatella and Mario Diani. 1999. Social Movements: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Diani, Mario. 1996. Linking Mobilization Frames and Political Opportunities: Insights from Regional Populism in Italy. American Sociological Review 61: 105369. DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell. 1991. Introduction. Pp. 138 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dobson, James. 1995. Position Paper on United Nations Conference on Women. Focus on the Family Retrieved March 22, 2000 (http://www.dolphin.gulf.net/aug28/United). Evans, Tony. 1994. Spiritual Purity. Pp. 7382 in Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, edited by Al Janssen and Larry K. Weeden. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Publishing. Fantasia, Rick and Eric L. Hirsch. 1995. Culture in Rebellion: The Appropriation and Transformation of the Veil in the Algerian Revolution. Pp. 14462 in Social Movements and Culture, edited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ferree, Myra Marx, Judith Lorber, and Beth B. Hess, eds. 1999. Revisioning Gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fine, Gary Allen. 1995. Public Narration and Group Culture: Discerning Discourse in Social Movements. Pp. 12743 in Social Movements and Culture, edited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Friedland, Roger and Robert K. Alford. 1991. Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions. Pp. 24356 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gamson, William. 1988. Political Discourse and Collective Action. Pp. 21944 in International Social Movement Research, vol. 1, From Structure to Action, edited by Bert Klandermans, Hanspeter Kriesi, and Sidney Tarrow. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. . 1995. Constructing Social Protest. Pp. 85106 in Social Movements and Culture, edited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gamson, William and Andre Modigliani. 1989. Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of Sociology 95: 137. Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper Colophon. Hart, Stephen. 1996. The Cultural Dimensions of Social Movements: A Theoretical Assessment and Literature Review. Sociology of Religion 57: 87100. Hunt, Scott A., Robert D. Benford, and David A. Snow. 1994. Identity Fields: Framing Processes and the Social Construction of Movement Identities. Pp. 185208 in New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, edited by Enrique Laraa, Hank Johnston, and Joseph Guseld. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Janssen, Al and Larry K. Weeden, eds. 1994. Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Publishing. Jepperson, Ronald L. 1991. Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism. Pp. 14363 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Jepperson, Ronald L. and John W. Meyer. 1991. The Public Order and the Construction of Formal Organizations. Pp. 20431 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analy-
328
Browyn Kara Conrad
sis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Johnston, Hank and Bert Klandermans, eds. 1995a. Social Movements and Culture: Social Movements, Protest, and Contention. Vol. 4. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. . 1995b. The Cultural Analysis of Social Movements. Pp. 324 in Social Movements and Culture: Social Movements, Protest, and Contention, edited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Johnston, Hank and Pamela E. Oliver. 2000. Mobilization Forum: Reply to Snow and Benford. Mobilization 5(1): 6163. Kirk, Jerry. 1994. Gods Call to Sexual Purity. Pp. 9198 in Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, edited by Al Janssen and Larry K. Weeden. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Publishing. Kramer, Heinrich and James Sprenger. 1971. The Malleus Malecarum. Translated by Montague Summers. New York: Dover. Laraa, Enrique, Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Guseld, eds. 1994. New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Lewis, Greg. 1995. The Power of a Promise Kept. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Publishing. Lockhart, William H. 2001. We Are One Life, but Not of One Gender Ideology: Unity, Ambiguity, and the Promise Keepers. Pp. 7392 in Promise Keepers and the New Masculinity, edited by Rhys Williams. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Lorber, Judith. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Luker, Kristin. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press. McAdam, Doug. 1994. Culture and Social Movements. Pp. 3657 in New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, edited by Enrique Laraa, Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Guseld. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. 1996. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Minkowitz, Donna. 1995. In the Name of the Father. Ms. Magazine 6, pp. 6471. Morris, Aldon D. and Carol McClurg Mueller, eds. 1992. Frontiers in Social Movements Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Mueller, Carol. 1994. Conict Networks and the Origins of Womens Liberation. Pp. 23463 in New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, edited by Enrique Laraa, Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Guseld. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Novasad, Nancy. 1996. God Squad. The Progressive 60(8): 2527. Oliver, Pamela E. and Hank Johnston. 2000. What a Good Idea! Frames and Ideologies in Social Movement Research. Mobilization 5(1): 3754. Osterhaus, James. 1994. Bonds of Iron: Forging Lasting Male Relationships. Chicago, IL: Moody Press. Phillips, Randy. 1994. Seize the Moment. Pp. 112 in Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, edited by Al Janssen and Larry K. Weeden. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Publishing.
329
Browyn Kara Conrad
PKNet, Ofcial Promise Keepers Website. 1999. FAQs: What Does PK Think the Role of Women Should Be? Retrieved September 17, 1999 (http://www.promise-keepers.org/faq/ what-women.htm). Promise Keeper, The. 1999. Choose This Day (Conference Advertisement). 2(3): 3. Rainey, Dennis. 1997. One Home at a Time: Restoring the Soul of America through Gods Plan for Your Marriage and Family. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House. Ruether, Rosemary Radford, ed. 1974a. Religion and Sexism: Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions. New York: Simon & Schuster. . 1974b. Misogynism and Virginal Feminism in the Fathers of the Church. Pp. 15083 in Religion and Sexism: Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, edited by Rosemary Radford Ruether. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sewell, William H. 1992. A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology 98(1): 129. Smalley, Gary and John Trent. 1992. The Hidden Value of a Man. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Publishing. Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1988. Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization. International Social Movement Research 1: 197217. . 1992. Master Frames and Cycles of Protest. Pp. 13355 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. . 2000. Clarifying the Relationship between Framing and Ideology. Mobilization 5(1): 5560. Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review 51: 46481. Stanbridge, Karen. 2002. Master Frames, Political Opportunities, and Self-Determination: The land Islands in the Post-WWI Period. The Sociological Quarterly 43(4): 52752. Stand in the Gap: A Sacred Assembly of Men Commemorative Edition New Testament. 1997. New York: American Bible Society. Steinberg, Marc W. 1999. The Talk and Back Talk of Collective Action: A Dialogic Analysis of Repertoires of Discourse among Nineteenth Century Cotton Spinners. American Journal of Sociology 105(3): 73680. Swart, William J. 1995. The League of Nations and the Irish Question: Master Frames, Cycles of Protest, and Master Frame Alignment. The Sociological Quarterly 36(3): 46581. Swidler, Ann. 1995. Cultural Power and Social Movements. Pp. 2540 in Social Movements and Culture, edited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tannahill, Reay. 1980. Sex in History. New York: Stein and Day. Tarrow, Sidney. 1992. Mentalities, Political Cultures, and Collective Action Frames: Constructing Meaning through Action. Pp. 174201 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Trent, John. 1996. Go the Distance: The Making of a Promise Keeper. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Publishing. Turner, Ralph and Lewis Killian. 1997. Toward a Theory of Social Movements. Pp. 11934 in Social Movements: Perspectives and Issues, edited by Steven M. Buechler and F. Kurt Cylke, Jr. Mountain View, CA: Mayeld.
330
Browyn Kara Conrad
Wagner, Glenn E. 1994. Strategies for a Successful Marriage: A Study Guide for Men. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress. Weber, Stu. 1993. Tender Warrior: Gods Intention for a Man. Sisters, OR: Multanomah Books. . 1996. A Man and His Mentors. Pp. 7998 in Go the Distance, edited by Larry K. Weeden. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Publishing. Williams, Rhys H. 1995. Constructing the Public Good: Social Movements and Cultural Resources. Social Problems 42(1): 12444. . 2001. Promise Keepers: A Comment on Religion and Social Movements. Pp. 110 in Promise Keepers and the New Masculinity: Private Lives and Public Morality, edited by Rhys H. Williams. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Young, Michael P. 2002. Confessional Protest: The Religious Birth of U.S. National Social Movements. American Sociological Review 67(5): 66088. Zucker, Lynne G. 1991. The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence. Pp. 83107 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
331

20274199

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

20274199

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore ComplexBrowyn Kara Conrad Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 305331 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 305331 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 305331 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 305331 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 305331 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

Browyn Kara Conrad

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 305331 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Browyn Kara Conrad

Reconstructing the Madonna/Whore Complex

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 305331 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Você também pode gostar