Author Archives: Christopher Rush

Unknown's avatar

About Christopher Rush

Christopher Rush graduated from Emmaus in 2003. After 15 years teaching high school in Virginia, he has returned to Emmaus and Dubuque to take over the English Department. His wife, Amy, is also an Emmaus graduate (2000). They have two children, Julia and Ethan.

Che Guevara’s Travels and Writings: Inequality, Power Transitions, Revolutions, and Ideals

Leave a reply

Nicole Moore Sanborn

Ernesto “Che” Guevara transitioned from a medical student to a world-renowned guerilla leader and socialist. His journey through Latin America changed him and shaped his ideas. The film Motorcycle Diaries, analyzed in conjunction with Guevara’s writings, “Guerilla Warfare: A Method” and “Man and Socialism” provide insight into Che’s transition. The people Che met along his journey in Motorcycle Diaries, specifically the men trying to find work at the mining company, experiences with the leper colony in Peru, encounters with Incan culture and society in Peru, and works he read over his journey were key encounters that shaped Guevara’s thoughts on inequality, exploitation, capitalism, and imperialism, thoughts that echo in his writings.

An underlying concern of Guevara’s is the inequality he sees along his journey. His writings reflect the goal to remove inequality and elevate the poor masses. In Motorcycle Diaries, Guevara became angry with the mining company for not taking all of the men for work and not giving them water when they were thirsty and in the desert. Another instance of inequality that influences Che is inequality in the leper colony. The nuns, nurses, and doctors all wear gloves when interacting with the lepers, despite the fact leprosy cannot be spread by contact. The glove rule combined with the nuns refusing dinner to those who do not attend mass anger Guevara. The separation between religious and non-religious, the natural separation of the leper colony from the “clean” by the Amazon river, and the message wearing gloves sends to the patients, spark realization of inequality throughout Latin America.

Guevara becomes a man of the people during his journey. In “Guerilla Warfare: A Method,” Guevara references the Second Declaration of Havana and declares the rural population is the majority of the population of Latin America and that it lives under horrible conditions of oppression and exploitation (144). Guevara argues guerilla warfare is a means to the end goal of the seizure of power (142), necessary to level inequality. Directly referencing the Second Declaration of Havana, Guevara supports the claim revolution is inevitable and argues the necessity of a revolution is determined by conditions of exploitation in the nation he saw present (145). Guevara also fights inequality in his writing “Man and Socialism.” Che believes in a capitalist society, man is tied to society as a whole and one can win only at the cost of others (370-371). Specifically, Che references the capitalistic United States’ elevation of Rockefeller. Guevara sees Rockefeller not as an example of the success of capitalism, but as a prime example of inequality. He poignantly reminds readers few mention or give thought to the depravity, suffering of others, and poverty Rockefeller caused and required to acquire his fortune (371). Capitalism, then, is a root cause of inequality and must be replaced by socialism.

Imperialism, also evil in Guevara’s eyes, rears its ugly head in the film and both of Guevara’s writings. Motorcycle Diaries depicts a scene where Guevara is sitting in Machu Picchu and comparing it to Lima. He notes the Incas had math and science and built an empire and beautiful Machu Picchu, now a ruin for the ages. The Spanish defeated the Incas because they had gunpowder and built Lima, living out their exploitatively imperialist ways and building a much less beautiful city. Guevara also talks to an indigenous woman who tells her story of working with livestock, not being able to attend school, and only knowing Quechua, the language of the Incas. Because she does not know the Spanish language and is indigenous by blood, she is not able to either attain the same resources of an education or earn the same amount of money as Spaniards. Drawing from his experiences, in “Guerilla Warfare: A Method,” Che discusses how in an agrarian feudal system and society, guerilla warfare may develop to destroy imperialism (143). Che mentions the “worldwide crisis of imperialism” (145) and states his observation of a “reactionary alliance between the bourgeoisie and the landowning class of each country which has a greater or lesser preponderance of feudalism” (146). The dictatorship oppresses the proletariat (146) and is therefore imperialistic in nature. Most importantly, Che provides reasons for the masses to agree with the necessity of guerilla action to win their struggle. His second reason of three in favor of guerilla warfare is the struggle of the poor masses is fighting an “alliance between local and foreign exploiters” (151).

In conjunction with Guevara’s belief in an alliance of exploiters, in “Guerilla Warfare: A Method,” Che later states the national bourgeoisie has united with North American imperialism, which inevitably leads to the clash of the exploited and the exploiters though guerilla warfare fighting traditional warfare (157). North American imperialism appears to be a specific reference to the United States, which entertains his writings in “Man and Socialism” of the dangers of a capitalist (in his mind, also imperialist) economic system. “Man and Socialism” says, “the commodity is the economic cell of capitalist society” (371). Guevara’s “new man” has transitioned from being a slave of capitalism. Man as a commodity ceases to exist in Guevara’s ideal. In Che’s new society, man acquires a new status where he is not working as a commodity, but works for the fulfillment of his social duty (372). “Man and Socialism” also states “man truly reaches his full human condition when he produces without being compelled by physical necessity to sell himself as a commodity” (373). In his writings, he fights against the feudal system rampant with exploitation, feudalism, and imperialism. Imperialism, feudal systems (wealth of landowners and therefore exploitation of rural masses), and capitalism must cease to exist. Guerilla warfare will transition societies from feudal, capitalist, and imperialistic to one of proletariat dictatorship (Guerilla Warfare 145), equality, and working not as a commodity but for the good of society and of the masses.

Motorcycle Diaries shows Guevara reading Marx and Marti. Subtle, yet significant, Che’s readings on his journey ultimately influence his writings. Guevara read works written by Marti, Marx, and Lenin, all arguing for a new socialist society. Guevara connects the ideas he reads with the stories of the people he encounters, thereby justifying (in his mind) a call to arms in the form of guerilla warfare. In his writings, he references and quotes these men. “Guerilla Warfare: A Method” quotes Lenin and Marti. Guevara quotes Lenin saying class antagonisms are irreconcilable and immediately argues for a complete and total revolution and the total elimination of bourgeois legality, otherwise the nation will once again be enslaved (146-147). Che also quotes Marti discussing when to wage war in a country. Guevara uses this to further fuel his argument violence and revolution in the form of guerilla warfare ought to be used when the moment arrives, and that moment is now (147). Marxist-Leninism influences his thoughts in “Man and Socialism” when Che discusses the Marxist ideal of man reaching his human potential when he ceases to sell himself as a commodity.

Che Guevara was a man who had to reconcile his seemingly compassionate nature with his ideological belief in the need for guerilla warfare and violence in revolution. His compassion is evident in his interactions with and listening to the stories of the people he encounters. Che has compassion on the sick in Motorcycle Diaries, despite the fact they are dying. The medical side of him shows his innate desire to cure humanity. Guevara’s ruthlessness, however, is evident in his writings, especially in “Guerilla Warfare: A Method.” Che’s innate desire to cure humanity, his inspiration by Marti, Marx, and Lenin, and his alignment of ideological views with those writers causes him to desire a violent overthrowing of the current state. Guerilla warfare is a necessary means to an end. The oppressive landholders, feudalism, imperialism, capitalism, and inequality must be reversed and overthrown. Che’s ultimate ideological shift remains rooted in his innate desire to cure, and though he clearly prescribes a violent revolution, he sincerely believes it is the only means to an end he believes will cure his continent.

The Rise of the Proletariat

Leave a reply

Jared Emry

Due to the irrational and deadly nature of the first great world war, the Russian proletariat was more than dissatisfied with their current governance; this and the cultural and aesthetic status previously existing allowed the Bolsheviks to rise to power. The British Ministry of Information successfully frothed the British into an anti-German frenzy with propaganda detailing mostly fictional German atrocities, thus demonstrating for the billionth time the undeniable and empirical correlation between empathy and violence (as empathy is easily weaponized and the empathetic are more like to endorse and be violent against that which they perceive to violate their culturally dictated moral norms without any evidence of violation), as all good propaganda does. British protestors, such as Rosa Luxemburg, Bertrand Russell, and Eugene Debs, were jailed for questioning and silenced. (Chomsky 69). Nicholas II of Russia and the subsequent administrations of state failed to have such effective propaganda and failed to imprison the Russian equivalents of the dissidents previously mentioned. The Bolshevik’s propaganda was supplemented by leaked documents that seemed to show a continued dedication to the war, and the war in itself provided the Bolshevik’s ladder to power.

The primary rigor to be endured in interpreting the events of the Russian Revolution is to know the political climate and the ideologies that drive it. The first and foremost significantly pertinent ideology appeared in the mid-19th century and it was called Nihilism. Russian Nihilism isn’t quite the same as the Nihilism Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and other existentialist philosophers spoke of. The nihilism the existentialists talked of is an abstract condition of tension between what we desire to value and what reality demands — a trait of the modern age. It is a process of levelling in which the individual is made to conform to society (that social phenomena including, but not limited to, both higher and lower education, state religion, psychiatry, and other such phenomena, that abstractly facilitate and organize the destruction of the individual for the sake of social stability) and the individual is left meaningless in a stillness worse than the death (Kierkegaard 51–53). The existentialist philosopher asks how return the value of our own life — the intent here is to avoid nihilism at all costs. The Russian Nihilists appeared as Kierkegaard first spoke of levelling but are radically different in some significant aspects. Russian Nihilism was an ideologically-driven movement driven by a desire to annihilate the social order that imposed the abstract levelling. Russian Nihilism railed against the repressions of the Tsar. The seemingly contradictory value system, “Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!” became fairly popular amongst a certain kind of people in Russia (Bukanin, Die Reaktion). The Nihilists formed secret societies, such as The Organization, and conducted themselves with tactics that could be called terrorism (although you could say the same about John Brown; it seems things are only terroristic if the right people like the outcomes) (Edie et al.). Russian Nihilism viewed the society as having positivists and negativists or those who conform to and support the status quo and those who don’t. The tenants of socialism were already present in Russian Nihilism with Nikolay Chernyshevsky, who formed the idea of a struggle between bourgeoisie and the proletariat long before Marx’s words reached Russia (Chernyshevsky).

The second major pertinent philosophy is Marxism. Marxism is an economic ideology that believes economic need begins with the populous base and a system must be constructed onto the base that will provide for those needs. Interestingly enough, the Nihilists were incredibly hostile to Marxism as they believed such a top-down approach is authoritarian and calls for a strong hand (a dictator) to guide the construction. The Nihilist believed a dictator called for by the Marxists could only be corrupted by self-perpetuation at the cost of universal slavery. This conflict is probably best seen in the debates between Marx and Bakunin, both of whom were major philosophers between the two distinct ideologies. However, the Russian Government cracked down on the Nihilists decades prior to the revolution and left a vacuum for Marxism. The Nihilists were exiled to Siberia for even the most minor infractions, but the aesthetic sensibilities and value system were left behind for the Marxism of the Bolsheviks.

Bolshevik Propaganda did not require much to levy the support of the people. Underground support had simply drifted from the Nihilists to the Marxists; the change was only in what might be considered to be insignificant details and so the aesthetic needed not to change for the people. One such Russian Marxist was Vladimir Lenin, whose writings formed the foundation of the October Revolution and the foundations of the Soviet Union. 100,000 copies of Pravda were printed daily and more than 350,000 leaflets were distributed by the Bolsheviks around St. Petersburg to promote Bolshevik ideals. As far as election results go, the Bolshevik Party gained two-thirds of the votes in only three months. The shift toward the Bolsheviks was both quick and popular, thanks partially to the significant and pre-existing Nihilist aesthetic (Lenin). Their propaganda, among other things, portrayed Lenin or Leon Trotsky as a St. George, a knight that slays the foul beast. This also hit to another core of Russian culture, that of the Russian Orthodox Church that has always held St. George to a particular esteem set apart a little further than other saints. St. George was and continues to be a very popular subject on Russian iconography.  Coinciding with the Bolshevik propaganda, the movements of western nations that supported the anti-Bolsheviks fed right into the propaganda and seemed to validate Bolshevik claims concerning the legitimacy of their current government and the evils of Western imperialism (Carmichael).

Through the use of propaganda the Marxist Bolsheviks managed to gain power via the hijacking of Russian Nihilism; however, they failed to realize the state is antithetical to the people, and where the people still exists, it hates the state and cannot understand it. The Nihilist fear of the Marxist leader would be realized with rise of Stalin. The authoritarian came down as a Saint, almost like that of a false prophet, and lead the revolution, but the ideals set out to be achieved were not and possibly could not be achieved. 

Bibliography

Bakunin, Mikhail Aleksandrovich. God and the State. New York: Dover Publications, 1970. Print.

—. Die Reaktion in Deutschland. Thesis. Deutsche Jahrbucher Fur Wissenchaft, 1842. N.p.: n.d. Print.

Carmichael, Joel. A Short History of the Russian Revolution. London: Nelson, 1966. Print.

Chernyshevsky, Nikolay. A Criticism of Philosophical Prejudices Against the Obshchina. N.p.: 1858. Print.

Chomsky, Noam. 9-11. New York: Seven Stories, 2001. Print.

Cohen, Stephen F. Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography. Pretoria: Van Schaik, 1980. Print.

Edie, James M., James P. Scanlan, and Mary-Barbara Zeldin. Russian Philosophy: The Nihilists, The Populists, Critics of Religion and Culture. Vol. II. Knoxville, TN: U of Tennessee, 1994. Print.

Kierkegaard, Søren. The Present Age: And Of the Difference between a Genius and an Apostle. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print.

Lenin, Vladimir Ilʹich. The State and Revolution: The Marxist Teaching on the State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution. Peking: Foreign Languages, 1976. Print.

Prawdin, Michael. The Unmentionable Nechaev: A Key to Bolshevism. London: Allen and Unwin, 1961. Print.

Report of the Petrograd Okhrana to the Special Department of the Department of the Police. N.p.: October 1916. Print.

Ullman, Richard H. Intervention and the War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1961. Print.

Wildman, Allan K. The End of the Russian Imperial Army. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1980. Print.

Civil Disobedience

Leave a reply

Christian Tullos

Throughout the course of history, mankind has possessed a unique need. Faced with turmoil, instability, and injustice, man has searched persistently for the cure. A tool men have turned to through the ages has been government. Men seek to find structure, order, and stability in its confines. Government has been interwoven into the fabric of society. Government is a constant in the world of man. The only inconsistency remains the constant inconsistency of the form the government takes.

Many sages, philosophers, and thinkers have proposed forms of government hoping to find the proper balance of power, freedom, and security. The balance has been elusive and many great ideas for government have not withstood the strain of society. The governments of past and present have proved corrupt, failures, and warped. Yet many men have perpetually struggled, and still do, making vigorous effort to provide a solution to the problems government and societies have. Henry Thoreau proved to be one of these men.

A Transcendentalist, Thoreau espoused many radical ideas for his time. Outspoken, logical, and insightful into the nature of man, he attempted to rectify what government is, into what it should eventually become. His ideas for and about government are captured in his work, “Civil Disobedience.”

Immediately opening his work he erects his core pillars: “I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — ‘That government is best which governs not at all’; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” Diving headlong into the fray, Thoreau opens with excessively strong words. He believes the best form of government is a detached one; one that doesn’t interfere with man and his relations.

Following up this statement Thoreau states, “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.” In plain language, he is saying government is a tool, a means to a certain end. Government ought to better society easing the lives of men, but it failed drastically. Government now hinders their lives. Governments, according to Thoreau, have defeated their own purpose.

Next he says, “The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.” Government being composed of the people should be controlled by the people, not a select few in authority. Thoreau leads one to believe in order for government to be good it must be controlled by the good people.

Thoreau then lays out his thoughts on the American Government. He addresses his countrymen stating their country is corroding. It started out well but is regressing into the trends of the Old World. He points out the accomplishments of the people saying they didn’t need the government to achieve great things, and, in fact, the government hindered their progress in many ways with their rules, regulations, and delegations.

He then challenges the reader: “But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” Thoreau isn’t saying immediately abolish government but immediately strive to make it better. In many ways, the hardest part of change is starting the change, so he gives men a starting block. He wishes for people to make their opinions known.

Consistent with his Transcendentalist views, Thoreau believes men should be self-reliant. Men should not tie themselves to a certain group, state, or government as it could limit their potential to become truly great. He believes a good and wise man is one who is independent, who has transcended the restraining structure of society. Man should seek to ascend the impediments and constraints of society and government.

“A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be ‘clay,’ and ‘stop a hole to keep the wind away,’ but leave that office to his dust at least.”  Man should be careful to attach to any form of government as it will seek to use and mold him into what it desires or needs. If he desires freedom, he will seek it outside of the confines of government, Thoreau concludes.

Through his writing he cites the mistakes of the government. He sees error in their morals, their views, and their actions. He disagrees with the war, slavery, and legislation government has engaged in. In some ways Thoreau blames the government for the state of turmoil he believes the nation to be in. He sees government as oppressive to minorities and the general population as well. He sees it as a corrupt system passing corrupt law, evil begetting evil.

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth — certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

Here Thoreau condemns government commanding those who will not stand for it to not vainly follow, but to stand against it. He wishes to change man’s disposition: that all men would see the evil he believes it has caused and to strive to amend the wrongs it has done.

Throughout Thoreau’s work, he has some keen insights. The government is not perfect nor has any form of government under any kingdom or civilization been perfect. It has been used for evil, it has been a platform for injustice, and it has been oppressive; yet Thoreau forgets a key point. Government is not intrinsically good or evil. The government is only a tool — a tool that can be used for good or ill. It is a powerful tool and, if put to its proper purpose, can accomplish great things. The reason governments fail is because of the people who lead them. What Thoreau and many other philosophers have failed to realize is mankind is a fallen being. He is sinful, fallen, and prone to temptation. It is because man doesn’t have a tendency toward good that governments become corrupt and do unjust things.

The fact man is fallen also negates his proposed solution. As men are not innately good, they will not create a better society with the absence of government. Power, lust, greed, would consume people. Government is made to restrain the very thing Thoreau is proposing to loose. In a perfect world where man is good, there would not be a need for government, and man could live in peace without restrictions. However, man will not have that privilege on this side of the grave. Thus, governments should primarily be used to protect the God-given rights and liberties with which every man is endowed, the liberties that need protecting from men who chose to abuse their own.

Ultimately, Thoreau’s idea of each man acting autonomously and free from government rests on a faulty and dangerous premise. His recipe, rather than promoting prosperity and peace, would lead to anarchy and chaos. As Thoreau states, there may be a time for civil disobedience, but not for the reasons Thoreau indicates. When a government oppresses citizens in a way that compromises their God-given freedoms, people have the liberty, and even the duty, to disobey a government out of loyalty to their higher authority.

A Sociological Examination of Christian Dominionism

Leave a reply

E. J. Erichsen Tench

When people think of cults, the initial ideas may be doomsday cults, cults that end in mass suicide, orgies, and brainwashed drones.  The mainstream idea can be isolating and dangerous for survivors of less insidious and violent cults.  Left trying to find answers in a world that imagines cults only as massively violent, bizarre, and insulated, survivors of less radical cults find themselves cut off from help and support groups.  Some cults are doomsday cults, while others disguise themselves in the guise of religious movements with hundreds of members.  These such cults have a benign outside that can reach thousands of people, while a rotten inside holds sway over smaller, more tightly-controlled groups.  These more subtle cults are sometimes referred to as “new religious movement[s];” cults that “do not result from schisms or breaks with established ecclesiae or denominations,” but instead function for a time as another denomination within a larger religion (Schaefer, 2015, p. 357).

One such cult is best described by the overarching title of Christian Dominionism, a Neo-Calvinist interpretation that stresses full obedience to patriarchal leadership with the end goal of setting up a theocratic state through political activism and outbreeding the enemy (the Quiverful movement).  While some of its branches are prone to bigoted and unscientific teaching as opposed to cult behavior (such as Focus on the Family), both benign and harmful aspects of Christian Dominionism can trace their origin to an attempt by some Christian leaders to address the moral dilemmas of the 1960s.  Some of these such leaders are Doug Phillips (Vision Forum Ministries), Michael Pearl (No Greater Joy Ministries), Doug Wilson (Theology That Bites Back), James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Geoffrey Botkin (Western Conservatory) and the most influential figure Bill Gothard (Institute in Basic Life Principles).  I will demonstrate through sociological terms Christian Dominionism fulfills the requirements for a cult, or new religious movement, by focusing on five main criteria: a “Benign Outside, Rotten Inside,” a “Basis of Authority,” “Isolation,” the tools to “Establish Control,” and the need to “Maintain Control.”

Alex Jones (2009) provides an, if darkly humored, explanation of each criteria.  The first criterion, “Benign Outside, Rotten Inside,” refers to a cult leader’s attempt to structure their “cult like an onion, with the most benign and helpful features on the outside and the most controlling, kooky, and evil parts in the secret evil core.”  The success of Christian Dominionism can be attributed to this very criterion.  On the outside, Christian Dominionism presents a rational, scientific, and historical framework by which any Christian can gain the tools and knowledge necessary to influence their culture for good, starting with the church and family unit.  Through mainstream organizations such as Focus on the Family, Christian Dominionism hardly appears to be cult-like.

The Institute in Basic Life Principles (Gothard recently resigned due to his sexual scandals) offer a clearer look at the “evil core” of the Christian Dominionist movement.  Functioning under the same goals as Focus on the Family, Gothard founded the organization (originally called the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts) to “reach the troubled youth of the turbulent ’60s.  Parents obviously appreciated Gothard’s teachings as an antidote to the rebellious anti-authoritarian attitudes of the hippie culture, and soon his seminar attendance swelled, and unfortunately, so did Gothard’s head” (Sue 2008).  As his power and influence grew, Gothard developed key Christian Dominionist teachings, such as the “Umbrella of Authority,” the Quiverful movement, and a theocratic vision of the “Christian faith [as] a religion of world conquest” in a “world at war” (Wilson, 2001, pp. 104, 170).

Survivors of Christian Dominionism are most familiar with the emphasis on authority.  The appeal to an established “Basis of Authority” is the second criterion noted by Jones (2009).  Cult leaders “claim authority from a divine source, bogus scientific research [or] special knowledge.”  In addition, the “person with the most power resources is in control” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 168).  Cult leaders, like abusers, flex their authority over a group by emphasizing their power through “money, presents, trips, more knowledge, experience, a better vocabulary, and superior status” (p. 169).  This special knowledge and status has to come from somewhere; for the Christian Dominionist, the source of all authority derives not from “scientific findings” but through whoever is interpreting the Bible, “the Standard of all faith and practice.  The Scriptures, therefore, are the basis, and contain the criteria by which … to make every judgment” (Adams, 1970, p. xxi).

The Christian Bible clearly states some rules, but the Christian Dominionist movement encompasses a bizarre authoritarian bent, where (most notably) Gothard’s “personal opinions” on the Bible have risen to the “status” of actual “scriptural authority” (Veinot, 2002, p. 102).  Gothard’s abuse of Scripture “extends into medical advice (Cabbage Patch dolls interfering with the birth of children), adoption (tracing family lineage to bind ancestral demons), and other mystical elements (hedge of thorns, umbrella of authority/protection, sins of the father).”  How the Christian Dominionist leader can convince followers to hold personal opinions on the same authority level of Scripture is related to the idea of Biblically directed rules versus Biblically derived rules.  Lou Priolo (1997) notes “Biblically directed rules are those which all men are obligated to obey because God commands them in His Word. … On the other hand, biblically derived rules are those which are based on biblical principles; but which I am obligated to obey only as long as I am under God-ordained authority” (p. 36).

It is this emphasis on Biblically derived rules as determined by a spiritual authority that grants Gothard (and the other leaders) their power.  Jones’s fourth and fifth criteria will examine the cult leader’s use of control through this authority, but at the moment it is important to emphasize the patriarchal aspect of authority.  Not only are Biblically directed rules determined by only men interpreting Scripture, but Biblically derived rules are also only given authority when issued by men.  The Christian Dominionist is an inherently authoritarian patriarchal movement that teaches men are created to exercise dominion over the earth; they are fitted to be husbandman, tilling the earth; they are equipped to be saviors, delivering from evil; they are expected grow up into wisdom, becoming sages; and they are designed to reflect the image and glory of God” (Wilson, 2001, p. 13).  Women are left out of “this mandate” as it is “a masculine vocation in this world” (p. 31).  This emphasis on the isolation of women will be explored by the third criterion.

Jones’s third criterion is “Isolation.”  He notes cult leaders must “encourage separation from … family and friends.”  Relationships with nonbelievers are inherently “unhealthy” and most be “cut off” in order to ensure the spiritual well-being of cult practitioners.  This emphasis on isolation is a tactic cult leaders use to ensure members “tighten [their] bond[s]” through viewing all “outsiders as wrong.”  One survivor of a Dutch Dominionist church recalls how the “‘church dictated our entire social life, school, clubs, and acquaintances.  Friends were allowed to come home with us as long as they were from the same church’” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 54).  Jones (2009) emphasizes how even former members of the cult are not exempt from this characterization of “outside” and are treated as “enemies” once they leave.  The Dutch survivor remembers when she left the church and “‘received a letter telling me that I was damned.  My parents dropped me, too’” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 54).

In particular for Christian Dominionism, patriarchy “predominates in very narrow, sectarian ‘Christian’ practice.  As patriarchy comes to expression in the home schooling movement, there is a tendency to have an inbred, tribal approach to relationships” (Zens, 2011, p. 54).  This is especially true for daughters, whose fathers, encouraged by the “stay-at-home-daughters movements” of Botkins, ensure “young lad[ies] stay at home serving [their] father until a husband is chosen for [them] by him” (Zens, 2011, p. 45).  Proponents of this ideology “even use the word ‘helpmeet’ — a word in Scripture exclusively connected to the wife — to describe the daughter’s relationship to her dad.”  In many cases, daughters are forbidden to attend college (if permitted, they take online courses) and are instead “given ‘the tools for dominion,’ that is, kitchen and homemaking supplies.  Many home-schooled girls are not taught academics beyond the eighth grade.”  This idea ties into the Quiverful cult, where daughters must remain docile in order to accept their role as broodmares for Christianity’s eventual cultural domination.  Thankfully, not every Christian Dominionist family forbids their daughters to seek higher education.  However, children are still raised in a patriarchal structure in order to establish and maintain control of the family unit.

A cult leader’s success depends on how well he can establish control, Jones’s fourth criterion.  The methods used to establish control can vary immensely, from mandated devotionals, readings, and prayer to creating a “rigid schedule,” keeping members “active” and with “little sleep,” and controlling thoughts and emotions through “induc[ed] guilt and fear of the enemy” (Jones, 2009).  These latter examples most frequently occur at Gothard’s youth retraining camps, including his ALERT Academy for wayward males and the Hepzibah House for rebellious females.  While the Hepzibah House closed down many years ago, it was home to incredible abuse committed by staff against underage girls, including forced feedings, mandatory isolation, regular beatings, and stringent work.  Both ALERT and Hepzibah ensure the youth are kept on a tight schedule with little sleep, menial tasks, and devotions, all to ensure a rebellious spirit is destroyed.  A more mainstream, if less extreme, example is Summit Ministries in Colorado, a Christian worldview training camp for Christian high schoolers and college students.  Camp attendees (some of whom are forced to attend by parents) must conform to a regimented schedule, little sleep, mandatory seminars they cannot leave (even to use the bathroom), and are assigned physical labor as punishments for either breaking rules or not maintaining a clean dorm room (this includes picking lint off the floor).  Once youth are physically and mentally broken down, they are more susceptible to the religious teachings.  At Summit Ministries, this takes the form of biased and outright false teaching on other worldviews and religion, proponents of gay-conversion therapy, members of the radical religious and political Right, and a mandatory Bible-knowledge quiz that must be repeated until an acceptable score is attained.

In day-to-day life, Christian Dominionist leaders establish control through the appeal to authority.  Gothard developed the “Umbrella of Authority” concept to illustrate God’s use of authority for life and protection from sin.  At the top of the Umbrella is God, who ordains all authority and circumstances.  Next come Christian authorities (such as Gothard), who are the mouth-speakers of God.  Next come men fathers, the heads of the home, who have authority to lead and control and act as prophets of God in their children’s lives.  Next come wives, who have some authority over children.  At the bottom are children.  Individuals who submit to their God-ordained authority are assured blessings, while those who breach the Umbrella are no longer considered under God’s protection; they are no longer under God’s ordained shield of protection.  Christian Dominionism results in a retributive God, where curses and punishment are the natural consequences of removing oneself from under authority, but blessings and protection are offered to those who obey.

The Umbrella, while not present in Scripture, is a derived concept Gothard has used “to bring his legalistic teachings into all areas of life” (Sue, 2008).  Once a derived concept is law is made and implemented by an authority figure, disobedience now results in breaking of the Umbrella.  Laws not explicitly laid out in Scripture now become God’s laws and disobedience brings punishment.  Using the Umbrella, Gothard and other leaders gain power to control every aspect of life, including “use of cosmetics, clothing, beards, sleep schedules, homeschooling, courtship and marriage, and even medical advice.”  All “precepts, commandments, instruction, words, reproofs, discipline, and correction” derive from this “outside source imposed upon” the members (Adams, 1970, p. 100).

Once the cult and patriarchal leader’s teaching is considered God’s authority, “autonomous thoughts and actions” can be controlled (Jones, 2009).  Church and family members are taught “God’s desires are exalted over everyone else’s.  Everyone in the [unit] may be expected to sacrifice personal pleasures if God’s will requires it” (Priolo, 1997, pp. 26-7).  Personal autonomy in thought and action is restricted; instead, complete obedience to God’s will is the mandate and God’s will becomes whatever the present authority interprets it as.  “Males will necessarily be dominant in any given culture,” according to Wilson, so women are never granted spiritual authority and cannot interpret Scripture (2001, p. 24).  Since “in a scriptural worship service, both masculine and feminine elements will be present, but the masculine will be dominant, in a position of leadership” women’s interpretation of Scripture can never be personal, but must always be subject to the authority of the men in her life (Wilson, 2001, p. 95).  Women are not only forbidden from interpreting Scripture, but they are also forbidden from exercising personal authority.  “The most important message a woman hears in church is obedience” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 140).  Since “Eve was disobedient and [brought] sin … into the world,” women are considered naturally deceptive and weak-willed.

Once cult leaders have created a benign outside and a structured, isolated inside where control is established through authority, they must “Maintain Control.”  The fifth criterion is often the most difficult, as cult leaders must fight the “resistance [and] critical thoughts” of their members (Jones, 2009).  While the men in power in Christian Dominionism are comfortable, members can experience extreme discomfort as their autonomous thoughts conflict with the stringent legalism of their God-ordained authority figures.  Gothard and his ilk have developed techniques to subdue members by using common cult tactics, such as creating “guilt” and creating self-doubt through accusations of bitterness and “negativ[ity].”  “Critical thoughts are [presented as] evidence of crimes” by focusing on man’s depravity.  Nouthetic counselor Jay E Adams (1970) builds upon this framework, teaching that “unpleasant visceral and other bodily warning devices” are activated when a man “sins” (p. 94).  Christian Dominionist members are reminded time again by their authorities the physical and mental conflict they feel is a result of sin; questioning God-ordained authorities and rules disturbs a good conscience and results in “misery, defeat and ruin” (p. 105).  The only way to feel at peace is obedience to authority and confession.  For members of these churches who are mentally ill, the answer is the same.  Psychiatric diseases are treated as a manifestation of unconfessed sin since “God in the ordering and disciplining of his church frequently uses sickness as a rod of chastisement” (p. 109).  To this day, Nouthetic counselors deride the American Psychological Association and contend the Bible is the only mental health book required (p. xxi).

Not only does the Christian Dominionist ensure obedience through punishment of questions, but facial expressions and body language are considered accurate reflections of a sinful or righteous state of mind.  Members and children must interact or respond with the correct “verbal and non-verbal communication [that] reflect both submission to and respect for authority” (Priolo, 1997, p. 170).  Priolo includes asking “why” as a sign of disrespect, worthy of punishment (p. 131).  Children are punished by corporal methods.  The most common punishments are taken from the teachings of Michael Pearl and Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, who lay out detailed instructions for corporal punishment.  These techniques include spanking infants, purposefully testing if infants and children will obey a command, switching children with wooden switches and spanking them with wooden or metal rods, and resuming punishment if a child expresses too much pain.  The severity of the punishments and the range of physical punishment to mental manipulation vary from household to household.  Christian Dominionist punishment methods have come under more recent scrutiny since the deaths of Lidia Shatz, Hana Williams, and other children disciplined in Quiverful homes. 

For offspring raised in Christian Dominionism, legal adulthood is not recognized.  Obedience to parents is required for those still living at home, regardless of the age.  Male offspring experience more freedom while living at home, while female children are not expected to leave until marriage.  After all, not “only are these children different from one another, these differences reflect the wisdom of God, who intends for them to serve Him differently” (Wilson, 2001, p. 85).  While boys are encouraged to be visionaries and leaders, girls can “only honor God by doing whatever [their] father says” (Zens, 2011, p. 26).  Ultimately, women and daughters are forced to “repress [their] feelings, desires, and natural talents (which are not appropriate to her role), and to make these subservient to the feelings, desires and talents of men, specifically fathers and brothers” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 257).

Through these methods of control maintenance, Christian Dominionist leaders squelch critiques, “instill a fear of divine retribution or earthly punishment,” and “keep” their members “doubting” their own consciences (Jones, 2009).  It is no wonder the cult has managed to survive for decades, reaching thousands of members, and entwining itself with patriarchal Christianity, the political Right, the Quiverful movement, and homeschooling movements.  In order to break from these churches, survivors must first “overcome” a “very difficult” mindset where questioning “‘God’s appointed man’ is tantamount to questioning God” Himself (Veinot, 2002, p. 316).  Those who “recognize some signs of spiritual abuse, hypocrisy, or oppression” are conditioned to “reject this input out of fear of reprisal or condemnation for presuming to judge the leader or leaders supposedly anointed or specially anointed by God” (p. 315).  Children are especially vulnerable, as the stringent “‘obedience’” called for feels [increasingly] instinctively wrong to the youth” (Zens, 2011, p. 30).  For those who leave or who try to expose corruption, church leaders silence their voices through accusations of bitterness and sin (Adams, 1970, p. 167).

The Christian Dominionist movement fulfills five main sociological requirements for a new religious movement (cult).  While mass suicides do not occur, orgies are unheard of, sacrifice is unacceptable, and those influenced through various degrees are in the thousands, those who follow the teachings of Gothard, Wilson, and others subscribe to an authoritarian version of Christianity that traps its members in an isolated belief system built upon complete subjugation to derived patriarchal interpretation of Scripture.  With such a wide audience, church pastors and heads of homes vary in the severity of the practices, but the basic theology is stifling, harmful, and spiritually abusive across the board.  Those who, through exposure to new ideas and more moderate Christians, reject the teachings of Christian Dominionism are disowned and branded as trouble makers.  With the continual rise of the digital age and social media, survivors of this lesser known cult can now find healing and answers in Internet communities.  The Wartburg Watch, Homeschoolers Anonymous, No Longer Quivering, Under Much Grace, and Libby Anne of Patheos (among others) are continuing the survivors’ mission to educate and bring freedom to the adults and children still trapped under the Umbrella of Authority.

References

Adams, Jay E. 1970. Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Imbens, Annie and Ineke Jonker. 1992. Christianity and Incest. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Jones, Alex. 2009. “How to Start A Cult.” YouTube Web site. Retrieved November 15, 2015. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBK5aKOr2Fw).

Priolo, Lou. 1997. The Heart of Anger: Practical Help for the Prevention and Cure of Anger in Children. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press.

Schaefer, Richard T. 2015. Sociology in Modules, 3rd Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Sue, Paul. 2008. The Blinding and Binding Teachings of Bill Gothard. Battered Sheep. Retrieved December 4, 2015 (http://www.batteredsheep.com/gothard.html).

Veiont, Don and Joy Veiont. 2002. A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard & the Christian Life. Buffalo, NY: 21st Century Press.

Wilson, Douglas. 2001. Future Men. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press.

Zens, Jon. 2011. No Will of My Own: How Patriarchy Smothers Female Dignity & Personhood. Omaha, NE: Ekklesia Press.

The Controversy of Gender Politics in The Taming of the Shrew vs. 10 Things I Hate About You

Leave a reply

Hannah Moonis

From A Comedy of Errors to Much Ado About Nothing, William Shakespeare composed many comedies throughout the years. Perhaps one of the greatest comedies of his time was The Taming of the Shrew, one of his first plays. This comedy follows the tale of sisters Katharina and Bianca and their various suitors. The elder sister, Katharina, (the “shrew”) is pursued by Petruchio, a man from Verona on a mission to wed and make money. Bianca is courted by many men, but most noticeably, Lucentio (disguised as a tutor) and Hortensio (a friend of Petruchio). Through a series of events, Katharina weds Petruchio and is successfully “tamed” by her new husband. Bianca married Lucentio after Tranio, Lucentio’s servant who disguised himself as Lucentio to convince Bianca’s father to let her marry Lucentio, disguised as her tutor. All ends well for everyone and as a final test, Petruchio shows the other men how obedient his once-wild wife now was. In its modern day film adaptation, 10 Things I Hate About You, the plot similarly follows the story of sisters Kat and Bianca. In a modern day high school a new student, Cameron, arrives and immediately falls in love with Bianca. The girls’ father has a rule Bianca can’t date until Kat starts dating, which Kat claims will never happen. In order to date Bianca, Cameron must pay “bad-boy” Patrick to date her older, quick-tempered sister Kat. Though the two are quite similar in the storyline, the two tales diverge at particular parts. There are two main differences in the plots of these two stories: how Katharina or Kat is “tamed” and the role of gender politics.

The Taming of the Shrew has brought up many controversial topics throughout its long history. One of the most debated topics is whether or not Katharina’s taming was emotional abuse or merely a less violent way to control Petruchio’s wild wife. During Shakespeare’s time, beating one’s wife was becoming more and more frowned upon by society, leading many to argue Petruchio’s psychological methods of taming were more humane and gentle. Katharina is eventually “tamed” and submits to her husband. There are many theories as to what her final speech in Act 5 means; most commonly believed is Katharina is sincere and has been successfully “tamed” by Petruchio. It is unknown if they truly love each other. Quite contrary to the original story, in 10 Things I Hate About You, Patrick “tames” Kat, quite on accident, through the power of love. Only after falling in love with Patrick does she become a more calm and loving person. Though both Petruchio and Patrick pursue Katharina (Kat) for money, Patrick’s actions become much more sincere as the movie progresses. It is up to the reader to determine if Petruchio and Katharina truly loved each other in the end, or if it was simply a woman’s submission to her husband through nonviolent means.

Gender politics plays a huge role in the story of Katharina and Petruchio or Kat and Patrick. Many critics debate whether or not Petruchio’s treatment of Katharina was emotional abuse. Emily Detmer, author of “Civilizing Subordination: Domestic Violence and Taming of the Shrew,” suggests in her book the final speech made by Katharina was a result of Stockholm Syndrome, saying, “Her surrender and obedience signify her emotional bondage as a survival strategy; she aims to please because her life depends upon it.” Other critics such as David Beauregard, author of Catholic Theologies in Shakespeare’s Plays, argues Katharina and Petruchio’s relationship takes on the characteristics of an Aristotelian story and is in no way abusive, but in fact, beneficial to both parties. Beauregard believes Petruchio was acting as a light to Katharina, bringing her into harmony with her own nature, thus teaching her obedience. In the reverse, Katharina also helps Petruchio understand happiness and fortune through her taming according to Beauregard. The gender politics in 10 Things I Hate About You  is decreased in importance from the original story. Kat is portrayed as an angry feminist who finds social constructs to be restricting, hence her reluctance to date. Patrick doesn’t use relatively abusive psychological methods on Kat to make her date him. He may be motivated by money in the beginning, but over time, Patrick shows he actually cares about her, contrary to her previous notions about men. In the end, both Patrick and Kat are happier and much nicer people. Their relationship becomes a symbiotic one, much like Beauregard’s description of Katharina and Petruchio’s relationship, which is definitely not emotionally abusive.

The Taming of the Shrew is responsible for many gender role-based debates. Some say Shakespeare is warming against the cruelty of submissive techniques, even non-physical ones. Others argue Shakespeare is portraying the change in social civility as Petruchio doesn’t physically abuse Katharina. But almost everyone can agree The Taming of the Shrew is controversial. Is it misogynistic? Is it sexist? The debate continues. 10 Things I Hate About You stays largely away from the gender politics portrayed in its source material, possibly because The Taming of the Shrew offends so many people, not just women, in this day and age. George Bernard Shaw in a letter to the Pall Mall Gazette describes the play as “one vile insult to womanhood and manhood from the first word to the last.”

The contrasts between these two stories, The Taming of the Shrew and 10 Things I Hate About You, are a little drastic, the latter taking out what many critics say to be the most important part of the story: the role of gender in society and marriage and the controversial cruelty of men against their wives and women in general. The two tales seems to both send different messages to their audiences. The Taming of the Shrew portrays a woman’s role in life is to submit to her husband with blind obedience. 10 Things I Hate About You shows how love and acceptance reveal one’s true self and essentially makes you a better person.           

Bibliography

Detmer, Emily. “Civilizing Subordination: Domestic Violence and the Taming of the Shrew.” Shakespeare Quarterly 48.3 (1997): 273–294. Web.

Junger, Gil, dir. 10 Things I Hate About You. Perf. Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles. Touchstone Pictures, 1999. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare: The Taming of the Shrew. Mumbai, India: Wilco Publishing House, 2005. 224-47. Print.

Cinderella

Leave a reply

Tarah Leake

Written by (among others) the Brothers Grimm, the story of Cinderella has survived for decades. About one hundred twenty-five years later, Disney produced a film based on the Grimms’ tale. Today, Cinderella presents a beautiful princess who marries a charming man and lives happily ever after. However, this story is not to be taken casually; rather, the telling of Cinderella’s family, trials, and outcome holds intrinsic educational value for the real world. In both versions, characters demonstrate inverse and similar characteristics, themes of humility and judgment transpire, and symbolism is apparent.

After her mother dies of ailment, young Ella is lost in a world with her dreadful stepsisters and stepmother. She is treated awfully and forced to sleep by the fireplace, covering her in cinders and deriving the nickname, “Cinderella.” Even after this, Cinderella remains humble and grateful for what she does possess. The stepsisters and stepmother, on the other hand, are selfish and arrogant. In the Grimms’ tale, when Cinderella’s father goes to a fair, he promises to bring back gifts for the girls. The stepsisters request dresses, pearls, and jewels. Cinderella, however, simply asks for the first branch that knocks off her father’s hat. This demonstrates Cinderella accepts her life and is not concerned with obtaining carnal, materialistic desires. When the stepsisters are preparing for the ball, Cinderella helps them with their hair and dresses instead of focusing on herself. This shows maturity, because the stepsisters would never help Cinderella prepare for the ball; they treat her like a slave, and yet she still offers up her assistance.

The stepmother is conceited and demanding. She places her personal satisfaction above others’ needs. She marries Cinderella’s father, not because she loves him, but rather she loves his money. She does everything in her power to eliminate competition for the prince’s hand in marriage; in her mind, forcing Cinderella to stay home and do chores confirms the choosing of one of her daughters. This shows the stepmother recognizes Cinderella’s elegance and feels threatened by it. Disney makes a point of highlighting the stepmother’s extreme jealousy of Cinderella’s beauty and her hatred of the young girl. The Grimm Brothers demonstrate this hatred by the stepmother’s constant attempt at the humiliation of Ella. When Cinderella asked if she could go to the ball, the stepmother reprimanded her for even considering going to the ball looking as vile as she does. The stepsisters assumed their mother was trying to help them; however, once again the stepmother was conceited and wanted her daughters to marry the prince so she could be recognized and respected. The stepmother was also quite demanding and cruel in both stories. According to the Grimm Brothers, the stepmother poured lentils into the hearth and told Cinderella she must pick all of the lentils out if she desired to go to the ball. In Disney’s story, she forced Cinderella to cook all of their meals, do their laundry, and clean the house. Even with how dreadful she treated Cinderella, Cinderella never disrespected her. Not only was the stepmother demanding of Cinderella, but even to her own daughters. In the Grimms’ tale, when the messenger arrived with the golden shoe looking for the owner, the stepsisters’ feet were too large. The mother was so determined to have her daughters marry the prince, she forced them to cut off parts of their feet so the shoe would fit, finishing with the cruel demand to swallow the pain. This is far removed from anything Cinderella would do especially to her own children. This shows, yet again, the inverses of characters’ morals in this classic.

Along with these varying morals and aspirations, two major themes are scattered throughout the story: sacrifice and judgment. Self-sacrifice was seen with the stepsisters when they brutally removed portions of their body in order to be accepted by the prince, which proved useless in the end. Cinderella made self-sacrifices by choosing to be humble and respectful to her stepmother and by choosing to help the stepsisters with their dresses rather than make her own. This theme pairs perfectly with Christ’s words in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The second major theme is judgment. The stepsisters’ hearts were full of arrogance and conceit, and they were judged accordingly. The Grimm Brothers describe the haunting event where the stepsisters’ eyes were plucked out by the bird on Cinderella’s shoulder during the wedding. Judgment is not always bad, simply a conclusion based on one’s choices. Cinderella was humble, kind, and a servant to others and was ultimately rewarded for her actions. The Bible often announces the rewards of humility and kindness; James 4:10 says, “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.” Proverbs 22:4 explains the wages of humility are riches, honor, and life. This is applicable to eternal life as well: Matthew 20:16 says, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” In the end, the sacrifices and responses of Cinderella were judged accordingly, and she was granted a beautiful life and husband. The stepsisters and stepmother, however, who desired only to please themselves, paid the ultimate price in the end.

The use of symbolism is frequent in both versions of Cinderella. In many ways, Cinderella represents a Christ-like attitude. She was rejected and terribly punished in her own home, yet continued to serve others with love, willingness, and humility. Christ also came to the world to serve others and demonstrate love and humility even when persecuted. When the stepsisters arrived at Cinderella’s wedding in the original, they desired to befriend Cinderella so they could share in her wealth and recognition. They attempted to beg Cinderella for forgiveness, however, Cinderella ignored the sisters, and the once beautiful girls lived in pain and blindness the remainder of their lives. This is symbolic of people in the world who choose to neglect God’s word and live out their carnal desires. When the bird removed the sisters’ eyes, Proverbs 30:17 comes to mind. It reads, “The eye that mocks a father, that scorns an aged mother, will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley, will be eaten by the vultures.” Just as Cinderella ignored the sisters, so will Christ ignore the evil on the Day of Judgment. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 reads, “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” Matthew 7:23 reads, “Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” Another example of symbolism is the likeness of Cinderella’s relationship with her stepsisters to the Biblical story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Luke 16:19-31 describes the story of how a rich man mistreats poor Lazarus. When both men die, the rich man calls up to Lazarus from Hell and requests just a drop of water to quench his thirst. Likewise, in the story of Cinderella, the stepsisters were tormented by their judgment and sought refuge in the very individual they disgraced. The final demonstration of symbolism is the false promises of the stepmother. Three times the stepmother promised Cinderella permission to attend the ball as long as she completed her tasks.  Each time, however, Cinderella was met with rejection and disappointment. This represents how Satan can promise individuals their innermost desires in exchange for something else; however, he never fulfills his agreements and many are left disappointed like Cinderella.

Although written during different centuries and varying in minor details, both the Grimm and Walt Disney versions share similar values and lessons. Cinderella is often regarded as a light-hearted fairytale with the classic happy ending; however, when truly analyzed, it outlines many real-life applications of consequences and judgment, humility and reward, and biblical symbolisms. Cinderella showed humility and respect in the presence of cruelty and arrogance. The stepsisters chose selfish desires over good morals and were judged accordingly, spending the rest of their lives as cripples. The stepmother was the epitome of jealous hatred and conceit, the opposite of Cinderella’s gentle nature. Elements of the story symbolize the rewards God honors the humble with, judgment upon the wicked, and deceitful promises of the Devil. Cinderella is not simply a fairy-tale for children; rather it is comprised of moral lessons that individuals of any age can benefit from.

Bibliography

BibleGateway.com: A Searchable Online Bible in over 100 Versions and 50 Languages. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.

“Cinderella.” Grimms’ Fairy Tales. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. <https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/grimmtmp/016.txt&gt;.

“Cinderella’s Story — Disney Princess.” Disney Princess. Disney Entertainment. Web. 22 Nov. 2015. <http://princess.disney.com/cinderellas-story&gt;.

The Depiction and Ideals of Women in Fairytales

Leave a reply

Melissa Yeh

In the classic stories of the poor maiden girl who turns into a princess, or the frail, beautiful girl rescued by the prince, the typical archetype takes a particular form paired with specific attributes.  Fairytales build characters to inspire children, as the female protagonists become a role model to young girls.  For these protagonists, the usual stages of the their life are the good girl, the good wife, and the good mother.  Their behavior sets an ideal in beauty and innocence, usually remaining passive in nature.  This leads to their dependence on other characters.

Fairytales are designed to leave an impression on children.  They are designed to teach children how they should behave regularly each day.  Through the interactions of the characters, a framework or model is created to shape the belief system of the child at a young age.  At the same time, the journey the characters go through present a sense of life; they invoke curiosity, “their spirit of wonder,” as well as a growing anticipation to know the outcome.  The natural response of the child is to root for poetic justice and to have a desire for a sense of adventure, all woven into the child’s imagination, creating a lasting impression.  The characters themselves express a range of emotions, attitudes, and feelings.  These include heartfelt love, compassion, faithfulness, and tenderness; the hero figure promotes justice and resolve but also carries virtues such as mercy and diligence.  The characteristics the female protagonist holds also impact the reader at the same level.  Her standards and attitude toward not only other characters but also herself leave an impression and provide an example to the child.  Eventually it leads to developing ideas about family life, what priorities should be determined, and the most important values in life.  However, these personalities have constantly changed along history from the moment they were first written.  As history changes, the standards people uphold also change.  This paper only analyzes how the original fairytale descriptions and plots depict women.   The fairytales reflect the behavior of ideal women in a different time frame, while expressing fantasy and teaching moral lessons to children.

When describing the gender ideology of the main female character, the components can be divided into three highlighted stages in her life: the good girl, the good wife, and the good mother (Erum para. 10).  Not every fairytale covers each stage, yet recurring aspects in different stories build the model of the ideal character.  The good girl stage is the most frequently seen in fairytales.  The stereotype promotes qualities where the young girl is obedient, submissive, and gentle.  Take Cinderella, for instance: she begins with a perfect life with her father and mother, and tragedy befalls her; her mother becomes ill and passes away (Beust & Hale 74).  Her response in significant as she proceeds to continuously listen to instruction and prays to God daily.  Her submissiveness withstands the torment the stepsisters and stepmother put her through.  She remains humble and diligent, never complaining and waiting patiently.  Obedience is emphasized; Cinderella is rewarded for hers through a supernatural agent.  In the Charles Perrault version (and the Disney version), her anguish of being unable to attend the ball is answered by the appearance of a fairy godmother (Beust & Hale 76).  She gives Cinderella a beautiful gown, a coach, and glass slippers.  In the Brothers Grimm version, Cinderella runs to the tree by her mother’s grave, where a white bird flies by to drop anything she wishes for.  In this case, the bird drops a gold and silver dress.  On the other hand, a famous example of disobedience is Red Riding Hood.  Her mother specifically tells her to stay on the path to her grandmother’s house.  As the story goes, she strays off the path and as a result, gets eaten by the wolf.  As children do, Red Riding Hood learns from her mistake, knowing not to repeat it in the future.  The second time another wolf appears she ignores him to avoid his evil intentions (Beust & Hale 315).  Another part of the typical responsibilities the good girl has is taking care of household chores.  She has this expectation, which is meant to influence readers, being young girls, to have the same expectation.  Cinderella worked morning until night; she carried heavy pails filled with water, cooked meals, and washed the floors (Beust & Hale 75).  Snow White was expected to cook food for the dwarves, make their beds, wash, sew, and knit; the home is her responsibility (Beust & Hale 304).

The next stage the female character encounters is the good wife (Erum para. 17).  She is subordinate to her husband and passive.  This does not mean she is unhappy; she is perfectly content with her life and never complains.  Shortly after, she enters the stage of being a good mother (Erum para. 18).  The goal in her marriage is to give birth to healthy children.  In Sleeping Beauty, the king and queen long for children.  The queen especially feels shame for being unable to bear a child.  When they receive the princess, they are overjoyed (Beust & Hale 272).  Rapunzel also has the similar situation where the king and queen desperately want a child.  The mother figure is symbolic toward a good household.  Cinderella’s godmother was helping and caring toward her (Beust & Hale 76).  The absence of a good mother disrupts the harmony of the household.  In Hansel and Gretel, when the good mother dies, the loss affects their lives, as their stepmother wants to leave them to starve in the forest (Beust & Hale 202).  The cycle starts from the good girl to the good wife to the good mother who parents another girl, so the cycle restarts.

General characteristics a female protagonist has are beauty, grace, honesty, and forgiveness.  Another underlying message is it is a prerequisite for a lady to attract a gentleman.  Snow White is known as the “fairest if the land” according to the fairytale; her beauty invokes jealousy especially in the evil queen (Beust & Hale 300).  At the same time, it saved her from the huntsman sent to kill her.  It also influences the reaction of the dwarves, no anger when she was in their home, and the prince who never even talked once to her.  For Cinderella, her stepsisters tried to guarantee she would not go to the ball, to eliminate the competition for the prince’s hand in marriage (Beust & Hale 78).  Even at the ball, she catches the attention of everyone around her.  Specifically her small feet define her femininity and no other girl could fit into the glass slippers (Nanda para. 7).  Masculine traits were less desirable.  Another major characteristic is her passive roles.  She mainly waits patiently for the male lead to come and rescue her from her life.  She is submissive and self-sacrificing as a wife and then a mother.  Rapunzel is stuck inside her tower.  Sleeping Beauty is immovable under her spell.  Cinderella must wait until the prince finds her with the other glass slipper.

These characters teach a lesson, each reflecting that of the women and ideals in the time periods of when the original plots were written.  They define beauty and what is attractive; the move in grace in peaceful manner.  They represent the shape of a role model for young girls.

Bibliography

Beust, Nora E. and Jeanne Hale. Mostly Magic. Eau Claire, WI: E.M. Hale, 1958. Print.

Erum, Tazreen. “The History of Gender Ideology in Brothers Grimm’s Fairy Tales.” The History of Gender Ideology in Brothers Grimm’s Fairy Tales. Academia, n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

Nanda, Silima, Dr. “The Oxford Companion to Fairy Tales.” (2002): n. p. Valleyinternational.net. IGNOU. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

Summer Reading 2015

Leave a reply

Christopher Rush

Hello, friends.  Welcome to Volume 5!  Pretty exciting stuff.  As indicated the last time we were together, a good deal of the past summer was spent board-gaming and not much of it was spent reading.  Caverna, Le Havre, Lords of Waterdeep, Bohnanza, Mage Wars, Keyflower, Nations: The Dice Game, Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small, Chinatown, and probably a few others were played for the first time and several more times after that.  In this sense, it was a good summer.  I even got to take a day to play a four-person game of Through the Ages, currently my favorite board game.  Part of the fun of that day was listening to some ’70s-era Beach Boys albums  all the while, which was part of the inspiration for a forthcoming article this season.

Even so, I did manage to squeeze in some time for a few books here and there — almost none of them on my proposed reading list or the books I started years ago and really need to get back to someday.  Since a lot of you are, understandably and correctly, eager to know my reactions to every book I read, I added a few books I read before the summer began, just for giggles.

There you have it — a good deal of my summer reading (with a bit of springtime reading sprinkled in for fun).  I read a few Star Wars books I will include next issue, and I finally got the gumption up to read the Chronicles of Prydain again for the first time in donkey’s years, and they have held up unsurprisingly well.  I will also include my reviews for them next issue.  They certainly deserve more than just terse book reviews, possibly a series of papers, but we’ll see how the time goes in the months ahead.  You never know what the kids are going to write about, or what analytical mood will strike me in the close of 2015.

Certainly some more intentional discussion should be given to many of the fine games we have been playing this year, especially the games mentioned at the outset of this collection of reviews.  I did play some wargames with Dad over the summer, don’t get me wrong: we worked through the Battles of the Ardennes quadrigame, and we had a nice time dabbling with the Crimean War during their visit in late July.  Recently we have reenacted the battle of Raphia as well.  Naturally, I lost most of those games, but a decent amount of good times were had all in all.  I don’t mean to give you the impression I’m losing the fire for historical conflict simulations — that’s not the case, indeed, but boardgames have come along way since Milton Bradley’s heyday (where, apparently, most of the population of Summit Christian Academy still resides), so it’s time you were made aware of the delights out there.

Anyway, that’s all another story.  Enjoy those pumpkin-spice flavored everythings for a few more weeks, friends.  Christmas bells are on the horizon!  Until then!

Two Books that Have Nothing In Common (Other than I Read Them in the Summer of 2015)

1 Reply

Christopher Rush

In Love with Norma Loquendi, William Safire ⭐⭐⭐

That was a whole lot of Safire, that’s for sure.  It was good, but the heft of it all gets to you somewhere in the middle and you realize why people would read this day by day in the paper (or week by week — it’s not really clear, since it was published at a time when everyone just knew it, very unhelpful for posterity) and not all in one lump sum.  His cleverness and facility with language are enjoyable, certainly, which is likely why he had the various positions in society he held for so long.  Sadly, much of it is rather dated, especially the political entries, which may be a significant drawback, especially to people younger than me (which accounts for most of the world’s population, apparently).  Many of the entries deal with people whose time on the world stage ended almost 25 years ago (I was about to type “15,” but, yeah, well…), so their currency has dwindled.  How many Secretaries of State from the 1980s can you name?  Exactly.  Many names rang the tocsins of long-distant memories, but that’s about it (not to be confused with “toxins”).  Some may enjoy this for the response letters included, hearing from such used-to-be-famous people such as Jacques Barzun, George Carlin, Colin Powell, Mrs. John Steinbeck, and others you may or may not recognize.  I enjoyed many of the linguistically-driven entries, of course, being me, and I’m glad I read it, but it’s a total package that today may be slightly less than the sum of its parts, no disrespect intended to Mr. Safire who is today, years after he died, still far more intelligent than I am.

Goldfinger, Ian Fleming ⭐⭐⭐

Most of the book deserves a 2.5 stars, perhaps maybe just 2, but the intensity of the last few chapters and the double-ending motivated me to round it up a bit.  The book is mostly dull.  There’s a lot of watching Bond do fairly simple, almost routine things: he’s driving, he’s golfing, he’s checking out a house, he’s doing office work.  Yes, there’s a patina of tension and suspense and intrigue, but it’s also very rough going for much of the middle.  Once again Bond is the big hero thanks to a good deal of coincidence, happenstance, and luck.  Also, his attitudes are far less admirable in this than in Doctor No (which gets too much flack for this issue): he’s quite a bit racist and misogynistic in this one, and Fleming’s take on Ms. Galore and her “turn” to Bond at the end is likely rather cringe-worthy (and not just because “it’s the 21st century”).  Yes, Tilly Masterson does help bring about her own demise, but Fleming also transmogrifies her from a competent, intelligent woman to a panicky dolt just before her end, which was disappointing.

The eponymous character certainly steals the show, especially in the latter half of the story.  We don’t necessarily want Goldfinger to win or get away, but Fleming does present him as a worthwhile opponent for Bond (who has apparently become very famous and even his secret code number is recognizable all over America, which seems a bit detrimental to a secret agent!).  His self-made empire is nearly impregnable, especially with his second-in-command, Oddjob.  The resurgence of Smersh doesn’t really add anything, especially since most of us would prefer SPECTRE instead of Smersh, but there it is. The real highlight is certainly the end, and the pacing helps make it even more impressive (even if it is a tough slog to get there), especially in the way it ends twice.  The double ending helps us forgive the almost outlandishly fortuitous nature of how Bond single-handedly (sort of) crumbles Operation Grand Slam (thanks to the timely nature of the airport cleaning service and the uber-fortunate travel plans of Felix Leiter).  The real ending is top-notch Bond (other than the Ms. Galore stuff), even, ironically, in the way he has to become totally unlike himself (as he’s had to do that for most of it) to get the job done.  The psychological component of whether Bond is responsible for all the Fort Knox deaths or not (could he have done more?) is also a refreshing component to this mid-career Bond adventure.  Does it completely erase all the flaws?  No, not at all, but it does salvage the entire work well.

Book Reviews: Three Books Purporting to be Christian Scholarship

1 Reply

Christopher Rush

Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, Mark A. Noll ⭐⭐

This was supposed to be the year I focused on reading good books, books I knew I was going to enjoy, the high-quality books I haven’t gotten around to yet that would make my life much better.  Yet here we are.  This really isn’t that good of a book, no offense to Mr. Noll or his family or friends or publishing team.  Diction-wise, I have no clue for what audience this is addressed: even for a book that’s supposed to be a tier or two above the usual common level, it’s such an ungainly use of language reading it is too difficult to either enjoy or be challenged by it.  Most of the book feels like Mr. Noll is trying not to say “here are three books I’ve read recently, so I’m working my book reviews into a sort of analytical book” or something to that effect.  It suffers from an absence of cohesion and unity, despite the purported attempt to apply “Christian-minded scholarly enthusiasm” (not his term) to various branches of human intellectual endeavor.  In one section, we are led to believe the hero is classical Creeds and Confessions (nothing wrong with that), in another B.B. Warfield (nothing wrong with that, either), and in another the hero is Peter Enns (no one is sure why).  Despite the generally fine subject matter upon which Noll treats, the absence of coherent and meaningful (and useful) interaction makes the work as a whole unhelpful and unnecessary.  As usual, Noll refers us constantly to other things he has written, as if his oeuvre is the only one worth exploring.  Yes, he has a decent suggested reading list at the end, but that only underscores the frustration of “why am I reading this book when I could be reading them instead?”

For no clear reason, Noll wants us to shove Theology over to make room for post-Darwinian evolutionary schema.  He doesn’t want us to understand one in light of the other (though he pretends to say that sporadically) — no, we are to make sure Theology moves out of the way for whatever Science has to say, ensuring we interpret the Bible to accommodate science.  Hmm.  Likewise, especially almost 5 years later, we can quite easily dismiss his apologetic for Peter Enns (again, no offense to the Enns family and circle of friends) based on what all involved have done recently.

Finally, Noll rides his 1-trick pony of “the state of Evangelicalism” with a half-hearted attempt to show “well, you know, when I wrote that book 20 years ago I guess I didn’t do any significant research about what Evangelical schools, churches, magazines, or enterprises were actually doing, since most of my book was based on observations of people I met one Thursday night at a Bible study.”  Again, that is not a direct quotation, but that is the impression we get from his epilogue (which was also not a wholly new creation for this book, but a twice- or thrice-warmed over reworking of an earlier article recycled every 5 or 10 years).

I don’t know what purpose this book serves for any portion of the Christian community.  If any facet of contemporary Christianity still thinks “we shouldn’t think or use our brains for Jesus,” this book certainly won’t address that problem.  Nor is it a helpful “here’s what to do next now that you’ve embraced thinking as an avocation.”  Skip it.

The Past as Pilgrimage: Narrative, Tradition, and the Renewal of Catholic History, Christopher Shannon and Christopher Blum ⭐⭐

I admit wholeheartedly from the beginning a significant percentage of my low rating may come from simply not being a member of the intended audience, which seems to consist mainly of fellow Catholic historians.  The final paragraph in the conclusion attempts to include the rest of us as the audience, but it is insufficient and too late for a meaningful embrace of us non-Catholic historians.  My disappointment with it, though, is not driven by not being a member of the target audience, but more so because the promises made on the book’s covers are not fulfilled by the pages within those covers.  They don’t truly “argue for the compatibility of faith and reason in the study of the past.”  That thought is mentioned a couple of times, yes, but it is not a major focus in a way to mention it on the cover.  Likewise, we are told by the back cover “[t]heir argument seeks to foster a conversation about the ways in which Catholic historians can integrate their faith traditions into their professional work while still remaining open to and engaged with the best of contemporary, non-Catholic thinking and writing about history,” yet this, too, has percentage-wise little to do with the book.  Yes, they do mention those ideas, indeed, but it is not a significant area of focus.

So what is the book about?  The beginning is about lesser-known saints and their stories, which is fine, but no attempt is made to explain things about them for people whom the book purports to be outside of Catholic historians.  We are not given enough reason to understand what is being said about these saints or why they should be principle characters in whatever this book is supposed to be about.  Indeed, the diversity of topics and lack of coherency throughout the book is a significant deterrent to recommending, following, or even enjoying the book.  From this we are led through a perplexing series of “here are some historians who may or many not be Catholic with whom we may or may not agree” sketches.  One gets the impression Shannon and Blum are trying to reassure us they are knowledgeable about the field of historians, yet they communicate that knowledge in a way as to make their comments and intended message muddled and outright lost.

Further into the book, we are deluged with “members-only” terminology, distancing those of us who are neither Catholic nor post-graduate study card-carrying historians.  Again, this would have been more acceptable if the book didn’t purport to be more inclusive than that.  It turns out to be more like minutes of an invitation-only meeting: either you know what they are talking about (and whom) or not — no explanation or context are given.  This is all the more bizarre, considering they seem at times to be arguing for the writing of history more accessible to the people as a whole, whether Catholic or not!  This book may be a call for that sort of thing, but it certainly is not an exemplar of it.

Adding to the perplexity, the authors even specifically mention in a not-too-veiled derisive way their disapprobation for “popular” historians such as David McCullough.  Which is it, fellows?  Should history reach a wide audience or not?  Can it cross religious “boundary” lines or not?  I’m more bemused by this book than encouraged or refreshed, which is highly unlikely their purpose.  Adding to the frustration, Shannon and Blum end up being all-too-typical “read all the other things we’ve written” authors, as the final two chapters of the book are redressed papers previously published (and thus as ill-fitting to the book in hand as the Thane of Cawdor’s robes on MacBeth) and many footnotes encourage us to read more about this diverse topics mostly out of works these two have published elsewhere.  What purported to be something fresh and meaningful ends up being typical tenure-track recycled self-referential palaver, made all the more disheartening by their own claims of disapprobation against that very same practice.

The solution to all this, apparently, is for Catholic historians to return to guilds instead of endlessly churning out degree-ed, unemployable History majors.  No insight is given as to how the guilds should function, where they should function, what their purposes should be (beyond the amorphous “make it all better” sort of idea).  Even the cautions against unhelpful historical practices such as Postmodernism are diluted by notions such as “well, we can still learn something from their ideas, though” or some such conciliatory talk.  On one hand, we are apparently to uphold fine examples such as Bossuet and possibly Cardinal Newman, but on the other we are to avoid “Victorian” models.  Wasn’t Cardinal Newman in the Victorian era?  It’s a confusing, muddled book that can’t decide what its purpose is or its audience is … and if it does, it certainly was not clear to me (and I read it).  I very much wanted to enjoy it and be refreshed by it, but those didn’t happen.  Feel free to respond differently to it.

Seeing Beauty and Saying Beautifully: The Power of Poetic Effect in the Work of George Herbert, George Whitefield, and C.S. Lewis, John Piper ⭐⭐

I have now read four John Piper books in my lifetime.  If some country doesn’t make me their king soon I will have lost all faith in civilization.  Perhaps you are wondering initially why the generous rating of 2 entire stars instead of the usual 1, or perhaps you are wondering why I even bothered to read yet another John Piper book when so many alternative life choices are available.  Well, I’m an incredibly generous person, let’s get that straight, plus it was a gift more for the subject matter than the author, I’m sure.  So I read it.  I read it quickly and relatively effortlessly, but that’s to be expected from most of Mr. Piper’s oeuvre, I have come to believe.  The second star: because he quotes so many outstanding poems by George Herbert, the book gets a second star — but it’s not a very good book, at least the parts generated by Mr. Piper.  The quotations from Herbert, Whitefield, and Lewis are certainly top-notch, and the worthwhile portions of the book, but that’s about it.

Once again Mr. Piper confuses “sheer repetition” with “proving and supporting one’s point.”  Though this is fortunately a comparatively short book, most of it is redundant.  Piper quotes an author toward the beginning of the chapter, then a few pages later he quotes the same passage, acting as if it is new material we have never seen before.  At times in the following chapters, the same earlier citations will briefly reappear often without warrant.  Later, in the wholly unnecessary conclusion, the same passages are referenced yet again and the same observations about them rehashed.  The conclusion of the book is of the same caliber as junior high book reports whose conclusions are copied-and-pasted from their introductions, yet lacking the trenchant insights often found in such material.

Early in the book Mr. Piper wants us to believe his main purpose is about “seeing and saying and savoring,” but he never explains what those mean in the book in any meaningful way, as is his wont.  He says that slogan again and again, never supporting it, never cogently defining it, always effectively assuming we know what he means.  Of course, we do, making the entire book unnecessary.  Mr. Piper spends an inordinate amount of time talking about what he is not talking about, as if there is a single Christian alive today who could possibly be under the impressions “Saint Paul is not a fan of eloquent words, and the Bible hates poetry.”  Where he gets the notion those need refuting is beyond me, but then again so is the reputation of Mr. Piper as a quality communicator of needed ideas.  I don’t mean that as negatively as it likely sounds, but it’s been a strange day and I am rather perplexed by the people who think this is a good book.  It isn’t.

Most of the chapters dedicated to the three not-silent Swans are biographical sketches.  Mr. Piper spends comparatively little time drawing conclusions from the lives and works of these people.  He does it a bit, to be fair, but most of the book is information that doesn’t really help whatever point he is purportedly making coupled with irritatingly-recycled snippets and quotations without apparent purpose (as, I freely admit, I have already indicated).  Not terribly surprisingly, Mr. Piper defeats some of his own purpose by claiming the main thesis is “poetic effort,” but then he has to modify it with “well, George Whitefield wasn’t a poet, so his ‘poetic effort’ was more like ‘skilled sermonizing’” (or something to that effect).  He can’t even generate a unifying device that binds the three subjects together without apologizing for it and transmogrifying it multiple times.  I don’t get it. Read the poems of George Herbert.  They truly are some of the best the world has ever been given.  Read the sermons of George Whitefield, even if they are theatrical and emotionally-driven.  Read the works of C.S. Lewis (your suspicions of Mr. Piper in choosing Lewis so he could rehash stuff he’s already said multiple times over the last forty-some years instead of drawing our attention to someone “new” we should know about are likely well-founded) — we all know we should do that.  This book, however, will not tell you anything you need to know or can’t get from some other more coherent, enjoyable source.