Remaking the Godly Marriage: Gender Negotiation in Evangelical Families
Author:
John P. Bartkowski
Publisher:
Rutgers University Press
Date of Publication:
2001
ISBN:
0813529190
Rating:
5
Summary:
This book attempts to examine the processes involved in determining gender roles in evangelical families. To explore this process the author first gives a brief history on evangelicals, focusing on family life. He then moves to an analysis of popular, evangelical ‘advice’ books by people like Tim LaHaye and examines their content, trying to tease out the gender roles that are encouraged among evangelicals. Finally, the author spent about a year visiting an evangelical church in Texas and interviewing both the leadership of the church and the congregants. The observations and interviews combine to give the author a unique perspective as to how gender roles are negotiated among evangelicals.
Bartkowski recognizes from the literature he reviews that there are two poles on a continuum within evangelical thought as regards gender roles: The first camp is made up of the extreme essentialists who believe men and women were created different and unequal and should formulate their relationships that way. The second camp is made up of the Biblical feminists who believe that men are only to be the head of the woman insofar as Christ was the head of the Church – they should serve their wife and treat her with great care. But as this is a continuum, the majority of evangelicals are likely going to fall somewhere between these two extremes.
As a result of his observations and interviews, what the author ultimately concludes is that, even though the stereotype of evangelicals is that they primarily have patriarchal gender roles (husband is the head of the household, wife is subordinate to him), this isn’t always the case and, as a matter of fact, is much less the norm than it is the exception in this particular congregation. Even though by name and/or title the men in these families are the ‘heads’ of the houses, in actuality this really only means that if the couple were at loggerheads on a particular decision, the male would ultimately be the deciding voice. But, caveat after caveat precludes this outcome – men and women should negotiate and work together, resulting in relatively equal roles for men and women.
Review:
not clearly written; not surprising findings
In summary form (my summary, not Bartkowski’s), this seems like a straightforward and clear plan of action: see what the leadership of Christian evangelicals is saying then see what evangelicals are doing. It makes sense, even if the results aren’t particularly surprising. But the process of getting to point A, the review of the literature, and then to point B, the interviews and observations, and finally using those to come up with C, the conclusion, is a fairly agonizing process for the reader of this text.
Hands down the biggest problem, which is actually composed of a number of smaller problems, is the writing. I’m not sure how come it is so difficult for Bartkowski to clearly state what it is he is trying to do, but he doesn’t seem to be able to get his points across very well. I could understand if this were limited to the more theoretical discussions, which are generally abstract and difficult, as this is fairly common. But even Bartkowski’s accounts of his interviews are occasionally unintelligible.
Two of the biggest contributors to the lack of clarity were the lack of summary paragraphs and the point-of-view employed in writing the book. With the exception of the introduction and the conclusion (the two shortest chapters in the book), there are no summary paragraphs in any of the other chapters. The chapters just end, abruptly, as though the author realized he had nothing more to say on the topic and wasn’t going to recapitulate what he just spent twenty pages trying to explain. Based on my previous experience reading academic-oriented books, this is very, very unusual. Most texts in this vein are more summary than content. Perhaps Bartkowski is refusing to summarize in protest, but regardless of why he chose not to include summary paragraphs, I think it was a bad decision.
As for the author’s point-of-view (POV), it’s just plain odd. I’ve never experienced anything quite like it (except in some poorly written short stories I read recently). Essentially, the POV varies between two perspectives: the third person academic perspective, which essentially removes all personal pronouns from the writing; and a bizarre, first person POV. When Bartkowski switches to the first person perspective he seems to portray himself as actually learning the information at the same time as the reader, as though you are supposed to be in the same room with him interviewing the same people. Even when academics turn to the first person perspective to present information or clarify their agenda, it very seldom comes across as though you are sitting on their shoulder but more like a voice over explaining what is going to be happening next. I’m not sure what Bartkowski was trying to accomplish by writing about some of his interviews this way (or even if it was intentional), but it was certainly out of the ordinary and made for awkward reading.
I have but one additional criticism of the book: the findings aren’t surprising (combined, these two criticisms are so broad they really cover the entire book). I will admit that Bartkowski’s approach to firming up what most people would just assume (i.e. not everyone follows everything) was admirable and required a dedicated effort. But how many people with experience in any sort of congregation (with the exception of extremist cults/New Religious Movements) have found that everyone in the congregation adheres firmly and strictly to the guidelines of the leadership of the organization? Mormons, who are known for being automatons of behavioral obedience, aren’t even lacking in variable levels of adherence to the norms and regulations. This just isn’t surprising.
Now, with the criticisms out of the way, there are a couple of good points about this book. First, even though the primary findings aren’t very surprising, there is a secondary finding, which seems primarily over-looked in the text, that I found very interesting: the leadership of the organization itself was mixed on the ideal roles for men and women and this came across in their teachings and sermons. Bartkowski does address this point, but, and perhaps this is a clarity issue, it doesn’t seem to be the focus of any intense scrutiny. I think conflicted leaders are more interesting than adherents that follow the suggestions of the leaders to varying degrees. Bartkowski could have done more to address this issue.
Also, and this could be seen as a criticism but I’m choosing to see it as a point that could have warranted additional discussion like the one noted above, I found it very interesting that the congregation was middle-class and upwardly mobile. Though Bartkowski admits that this demographic feature of the congregation likely has something to do with the fact that gender roles are more equal in this congregation than they might be in other congregations (attributable to the fact that many of the women work), this is another very interesting issue that could have benefitted from additional scrutiny.
Overall, I can’t really fault Bartkowski too much for researching a ‘common-sensical’ issue – that religious adherents don’t always follow the guidelines of the leadership to the ‘T.’ Sociology is often the science of commonsense, and Bartkowski has really just affirmed the common-sensical understanding that there is variability in adherence to rules. But where Bartkowski can be faulted is in his writing. I don’t mean to harp on this fact, especially if Bartkowski just happens to have a hard time writing clearly, but clear writing does make a big difference when it comes to the intelligibility of one’s work. Perhaps the book would have been both more engaging and revealed more interesting findings had it been better written.
