For this month’s column, I spoke with Patricia A. Adler, Professor of Sociology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. She and her husband Peter Adler, Professor of Sociology at the University of Denver, co-authored a new book that offers an ethnographic perspective on a controversial health topic. The Tender Cut: Inside the Hidden World of Self-Injury (NYU Press) invites readers to go beyond predominant medical and psychological perspectives by offering a nuanced analysis of self-injury as a sociological phenomenon.

Their book is the culmination of 135 in-depth, life-history interviews conducted over ten years with self-injurers from across the world, as well as analysis of tens of thousands of emails and Internet messages. Their participants were engaging in self-injury, the intentional non-suicidal harm of one’s own body, including but not limited to include cutting, branding, burning, branding, and scratching.

AN: In your book, you describe a broad range of motivations for self-injury. Can you explain the most typical reasons?

PA: Most of the people we interviewed saw it as a way to cope, to function when they were facing tough times. Many started in their teens when they were trying to cope with negative life circumstances.

AN: Did you find that sex and gender made a difference – did the self-injury types or reasons differ between men and women?

PA: Yes, men and women differed in the ways that they self-injured and their motivations. Men were injuring their bodies because of feelings of rage and anger and were more likely to use dull or rusted instruments to make bigger injuries on parts of their body that would be easily visible. If a man did small self-injuries and tried to hide them, then other guys would be likely to ridicule him. Women were more likely to use sharp, small blades on parts of their body that they could easily conceal because society judges women’s bodies, and they wanted to be able to hide it. They tended to self-injure because of negative feelings about themselves.

AN: It’s fascinating that sex and gender factors into others’ reactions to the self-injurers: that those who acted in ways that matched their gender norms – who were seen as being appropriately masculine or feminine – received less ridicule. Do you think mental health and medical practitioners understand self-injury as a gendered phenomenon?

PA: I think that mental health practitioners probably regard self-injury as they do eating disorders, as a generally female behavior. They may see a guy here and there, but I doubt that any practitioner sees enough to recognize this pattern. And some of the books I’ve read from the clinic people who do see larger numbers have presented cases of men who injure in ’feminine’ ways. So I don’t think they’re attuned to this gendered pattern.

AN: Most media coverage of self-injury approaches it as a psychological problem, often as a physically dangerous type of addiction. Can you explain the sociological perspective you present on self-injury?

PA: It is common for self-injurers to be told that they have a mental disorder and that it is an addictive practice. We looked at a range of people who self-injure and found that their motivations did not necessarily reflect mental illness. A lot of regular teenagers and adults who were structurally disadvantaged were using it to find relief. Then there are those who have severe mental disorders before they start self-injuring. Some of the people we interviewed were mentally ill, but our research suggests that many of them are not. We intentionally chose the word “tender” in the book’s title because cutting may be a coping mechanism that makes some people feel empowered with a sense of control over their pain. The self-injury gave some people relief from emotional pain that they needed to get through challenging times. Our book is nonjudgmental, providing a “voice” for the experiences of a broad population of self-injurers: comprising people who have genuine mental disorders, as well as those who just have temporary situational life troubles, and everything in between.

AN: From the medical and psychological perspectives, a key focus in on how to help self-injurers stop “dangerous” behaviors. So, what did you learn about the ways and reasons why self-injurers stop?

PA: Many self-injurers stop when they are able to escape from the circumstance that caused them to initially start. So, transitioning from high school to college can be a time when young people stop. For others, it takes getting a good job, finding a partner who will not tolerate it, or becoming a parent and not wanting their children to see them self-injuring.

AN: In other published interviews, you’ve made the somewhat controversial point that not every self-injurer will need to invest in professional medical and mental health treatment in order to quit. What are some of the other ways that those you interviewed found to be helpful when they decided they wanted to stop self-injuring?

PA: Solutions from the medical-psychological community include everything from specialized clinics, which can be very expensive, to outpatient therapy, and drugs. Those who found therapy to be effective were those whose therapists addressed the reasons the person began self-injuring in the first place, rather than those who focused on self-injuring as the problem to be treated. Most of the people who self-injure are not trying to self-destruct; they’re trying to self-soothe. And, we also found many turning to free online support groups to connect with people like themselves who had either stopped self-injuring or could give advice on how to better manage the negative aspects of self-injury. In addition, some people just stopped on their own or with the encouragement and support of friends.

AN: As experts on deviant subcultures, would you say that the Internet has helped to create communities of self-injurers?

PA: Yes, the Internet has helped to build a kind of self-help community for self-injurers. Peer support groups have emerged organically, and people are sharing their experiences with each other in cyber-communities. These online relationships help them manage stress so that they function better in their daily lives.

AN: What role do you think the media played in transforming self-injury into a sociological phenomenon?

PA: It was initially shocking but not necessarily more shocking that the many other ways the people try to relieve their pain. The stories often showed that self-injury was not a suicide attempt and wasn’t necessarily because the person had serious psychological problems. Once the media started to cover self-injury stories of celebrities, then it became more acceptable because young people could relate to these people. Now, it’s so common in high schools that teens are more willing to disclose their self-injuries to their friends, and their friends often see it as “that thing that people do” if they’re unhappy, as a temporary coping mechanism. We see this behavior as highly “socially contagious”—the media, along with word of mouth, has contributed to its spread.

In The Tender Cut, we describe how media coverage of celebrities who self-injured, the accessibility of the Internet, and shifts in cultural norms made it possible for loner deviants to join Internet self-injury subcultures. These subcultures represent a range of levels of acceptance of self-injury and often help people to realize that their behaviors do not necessarily mean that they are mentally ill or bad people. This helps them manage the stigma of society judging people negatively for relieving emotional pain by inflicting physical pain on themselves. Our longitudinal data shows that many who began self-injuring as teenagers eventually outgrow it and lead functional lives.

Maythee Rojas is a teacher, critic, and writer. Author of the new book Women of Color and Feminism (Seal Press), she is currently an associate professor in women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at California State University, Long Beach.  The book is a fascinating overview of feminist history and the construction of identity politics within feminist movements, with a diverse representation of notable icons, which includes not only Anna Mae Pictou-Aquash and Saartjie Baartman, but Tracy Chapman and Laura Aguilar as well. It’s a smart, page-turning read that offers numerous examples to illustrate powerful points. The book easily belongs in the hands of the many online feminists today who are in search of a book to start the critical journey of self-education on the connections between race, class, sexuality and gender.

Over phone and email, I recently spoke with Maythee Rojas about intersectionality, resisting multiple oppressions within feminist movements, and the hopes for her new book in addressing important issues of race, class, gender, and sexuality in feminism(s) today:

Allison McCarthy:Â What led you to working on a book focused on women of color and feminism?

Maythee Rojas: I have been teaching a course on the subject for the last nine years and the literature and theory by women of color is something I have studied closely as a scholar. However, when I set out to write this book, I wanted to avoid writing something that could be construed as the authoritative book on women of color. There’s no such thing, nor should there be. I respect Seal for taking something academic and making a commitment to developing it as part of a mainstream series. It helps create bridges with the academic world and find new audiences beyond the Ivory Tower. My hope is that this book will lead other presses – mainstream and academic — to publish more works on women of color.

AM:Â In what ways did your academic research on Chicana/o and Latina/o literature contribute to your literary vision for Women of Color and Feminism?
MR: In the book, I consciously attempt to focus on multiple groups and communities. Learning about Chicana/o and Latina/o culture has never been in isolation for me. In fact, if you look at the history, experiences, and creative expressions of Chicana/os and Latina/os, you’ll find that other communities of color have often influenced them. There’s a lot of overlap in terms of the messages relayed and socio-political issues addressed. As a scholar, I have the same approach: having a specialization in Chicana/o and Latina/o literature requires me to think about other groups in an intersectional manner.

AM:Â Why do you see the theory of intersectionality as critical for all feminists when addressing issues raised by women of color?
MR: Intersectionality applies to everyone, period. We all have multiple facets of identity. However, intersectionality is often applied only to those who do not fit mainstream categories of identity. Much of it has to do with people’s lack of deep introspection; or, whether they are willing to think about their positions of privilege on a daily basis and the effect of their actions upon others. It’s a journey of integrity and honesty that’s a part of self-actualization in our lives. If feminism is truly going to produce the result of equality for women and opportunities in a less biased society, we have to think about how women from different communities can reach that success. We’re not all on the same level in any place. What factors and what privileges stand in the way?  It’s really about working collectively. It requires reflecting on people around you: their lives, opportunities, limitations. If you’re working in a social justice movement or a place of transformation, you have to take those factors into account or it’s going to be a flawed attempt. It does require those things.

AM:Â How have women of color, outside of global feminist movements, contributed to a greater public understanding of gender, race, class, and sexuality?
MR: I think it’s through daily actions. The interactions of everyday life are bound to challenge us. So often, we have perceptions of others based on media, politics, and education. However, when we encounter people who embody particular markers of race and class and sexuality and we interact with them, those markers fall away to flesh and bone individuals. I also think our interactions with non-academics – our families and friends– teach us as much about culture as they do about them. It’s more about what we are willing to open ourselves up to. Does what we what learn about others connect with what we assumed about their background, sexuality, culture? To more specifically answer your question, I believe women of color contribute to life through their daily interactions in public spaces, through the ways they raise their families, through the challenges they make to a system, a classroom, a workplace, etc. For creatively minded individuals, it’s also through their cultural production (art, film, music, etc) and how they shape these expressions to share with other people. I think a lot of people aren’t actually part of organized social movements, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t part of social change.

AM:Â Have the feminist movements of past and present failed to address the needs and lives of women of color?
MR: I don’t think they’ve outright failed. If I believed that, I would have to rethink why I am in Women’s Studies. Have they had their shortcomings? Yeah. But that’s part of understanding that we haven’t accomplished all the goals of feminism and there’s a lot left to do. I think it’s important that we’re critical of these shortcomings and that we register our disappointments. We can use that as a preventive measure. The book is rather critical at times of past movements, but I don’t think it argues that they haven’t worked at all. The people who have been responsible for writing about feminism and promoting feminism have been remiss in their inclusion of women of color and that’s important to take into account. How willing are feminists to really self-interrogate, to really consider what they’ve gained at the expense of others, what hasn’t been achieved in the ongoing project of feminism? For us to stay abreast of what hasn’t worked, what hasn’t been done, and whose voices are missing keeps us alive and moving forward toward an ideal. Even if it’s not achieved in our lifetime, it shouldn’t be something we stop striving for.

AM: Who did you envision as the audience for this book? Have any of the responses to the book thus far surprised you?
MR: I kind of thought about it in two ways. One of the audiences it’s geared towards is obviously college students, both graduate and undergraduate, and I think you can hear that in the classroom descriptions I use. I was also encouraged to learn that it would be available in independent and mainstream bookstores, so that anyone could find her/his way to the book. You might think that a book on women of color is only for women of color. I can’t stop anyone from thinking that, but I hope that for anyone who reads past the first few lines, the reader will see that it’s for anyone who is interested in knowing themselves better and knowing more about the world around them.

AM: What projects are you currently working on?
MR: I have three projects that I’d like to see happen. First, I want to finish my book, Following the Flesh: Embodied Transgressions in Chicana Literature, which looks at literary characters who are cast as “bad” women (mistresses, murderers, lesbians) and are maligned by society, and help us rethink what “bad” means. Examining these issues within both US and Latin American contexts, the book addresses crossing not only social borders, but also physical ones. The next project I would like to pursue is a cultural history of Latinos and dogs. Drawn by my own passion for animals, I’m really interested in looking at how dogs show up in Latino culture. Living in L.A. with a large Latino population and a dog-friendly attitude, there have been several race and class bias in the city’s laws that have been passed and I wanted to address those biases. I’m also interested in immigration issues in terms of how they relate to cultural shifts about pets as immigrants become more assimilated to the US. A third project, which is much farther down the line, is a cultural history on feminism in Costa Rica. My grandmother is nearing her 104th birthday and I would like to parallel her personal experiences as a woman (she has lived a very nontraditional life) with the development of women’s lives and issues in Costa Rica over the past century. I imagine describing the historical and social changes of my family’s country vis-à -vis my grandmother’s own life.

Kathryn Joyce is a journalist and author of the new release Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement (Beacon Press). A graduate of both Hampshire College and New York University, her freelance writing has appeared in Newsweek, The Nation, Mother Jones, and many other publications. Joyce recently spoke to Girl with Pen about her research experiences, intersectional conflicts within the Quiverfull movement, and the public’s response to her groundbreaking new work:

What experiences in your journalism career prompted a deeper exploration of the Quiverfull patriarchal movement?

I first came across the Quiverfull movement while researching the anti-contraception movement among pro-life pharmacists claiming “conscientious objections” to dispensing birth control. I had been unaware of anti-abortion claims that birth control functions as abortion, and hadn’t known that opposition to contraception had become an important issue among Protestants and evangelicals in addition to traditional opponents among Catholic and LDS churches. Looking into some of the groups that were supportive of the pharmacists’ movement, though, I came across a surprisingly well-organized coalition of evangelical anti-contraception groups, some of whom were arguing that Christians should leave their family size and spacing in the hands of God. As I began to read a number of books that shaped the community and conviction, particularly early movement texts like Mary Pride’s The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality, and Rick and Jan Hess’ Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ, I began to see a vehement anti-feminism and another, startling motivation for large Christian families as well, as the Quiverfull authors told readers that by having very large families, and teaching their children to do the same, they could win the culture wars through numbers alone.

The oppositions between feminism and Quiverfull Christianity are rooted in the patriarchal traditions of this sect. In your research, did you find any subversive femininst actions taken by former or current Quiverfull followers?

Quiverfull is not a sect of Christianity, but a grassroots movement that spans numerous denominations and church traditions.

That said, there is certainly a feminist subversiveness among women who have left the movement, such as Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, Vyckie Garrison and Laura Sutton, as well as other evangelical women who did not follow the Quiverfull conviction but did faithfully believe in the patriarchy doctrines they were taught in their churches. A number of women taught to follow these beliefs have responded by either leaving the faith and conviction entirely, or by attempting to reshape the teachings to fight abuse. However, I think the common thread of all the women I’ve spoken to who contended with these issues is the overwhelming pressure against their leaving these communities, and the financial, emotional and spiritual obstacles they have to overcome in order to do so.

My working title for Quiverfull was “Trust and Obey,” the name of an 1800s Presbyterian hymn that is frequently referenced by Quiverfull supporters as the foundation for their role in life. It reads: “Trust and Obey, for there’s no other way/ to be happy in Jesus but to trust and obey.” The sentiment of the hymn really sums up the role of faith and obedience, or submission, in this movement—that, beyond the demographic dreams of leaders with a vision of thousands of Christian children taking over the country, this movement tells women they must have a faith strong enough to have children they may not necessarily be able to provide for, but to trust instead that God will take care of them if they are obedient to the authorities “he’s placed over them.” It’s a deceptively simple challenge to any woman who is having second thoughts about giving up so much self-determination.

How would you describe the demographics of the Quiverfull movement? In what ways are Quiverfull Christians defined by gender, race, class, and other forms of social and personal privilege?

Quiverfull is largely white, but not entirely so. There are families of color within the movement, as well as prominent biracial couples. I think there are racial undertones to a number of aspects of the movement, particularly its preoccupation with demography and population, and leaders utilizing falling fertility in European countries as a warning that countries that embrace family planning end up “invaded” by hordes of immigrants. Similarly, there are questionable ties between some movement leaders and far-right fringe groups that embrace neo-Confederate notions about slavery and race or immigration. Additionally, one movement author, Charles Provan, author of The Bible and Birth Control, was also notably a Holocaust revisionist. And a very popular author and women’s leader, Nancy Campbell, author of Be Fruitful and Multiply and publisher of the long-running Above Rubies magazine, frequently makes a pitch for large families in order to out-breed Muslims. I don’t think that all Quiverfull people are motivated by racist thinking whatsoever, or even that there’s more racism within the movement than in American culture at large, but I do think that there are troubling undertones to a lot of the messages that the leadership of the movement advances, and the way in which they seem to appeal to people’s racial or immigration fears or biases as a third motivation for having large families beyond obedience to God and the idea of Christian dominion through numbers.

In terms of gender, however, there is absolutely no pretense at equality between the sexes except, as many leaders are fond of repeating, equality under God. Men and women are equal in the eyes of God, they say, but have different roles here on earth. What that translates to in reality is a system of often strict male headship and female submissiveness, where Christian women are never supposed to be out from under the “protective covering” of a male authority any time in their life. Founders of the movement, including Mary Pride, made it clear that the ultimate target of the movement was feministic ideas of equality, and that in order to be good Christian wives, women had to subordinate themselves to their husbands as army privates submit to officers, so that a well-organized Christian army stands a better chance of winning. Other teachers of “biblical womanhood” – the total lifestyle patriarchy advocates promote as an antidote to feminism - include rising early to feed the family, being available anytime to satisfy a husband’s desires (barring a few “ungodly” or “homosexual” acts), seeking his approval regarding work, appearance, and leisure, and accepting that he has the “burden” of final say in arguments. After a wife has respectfully appealed her spouse’s decision — a privilege she should not abuse — she must accept his final answer as “God’s will for her at that time.”

How have the families you interviewed for this book responded to its publication?

I haven’t heard from all of the families I’ve spoken with. Those who have contacted me have generally found the book fair and respectful, although they of course disagree with the position I’m coming from. That’s been the reaction of a lot of reviewers, from Bitch magazine to Christianity Today. And I’ve heard from more women who have left Quiverfull or patriarchal churches, and they’ve remarked that they were surprised a secular outsider could understand the movement so well.

Although I haven’t heard from many critics yet, I think that one response that both I and exited Quiverfull women have heard a lot is that to have a negative experience of this lifestyle means that the woman or her family weren’t “doing it right,” or weren’t following the conviction with the right Christian spirit, but with a “legalistic” spirit concerned more with rules than with following Jesus. While I understand where this response comes from, I have to disagree. While apologists for Quiverfull or patriarchy teachings say that both can be wonderful things if practiced with the correct Christian heart and motivations – with an eye towards glorifying God, and not being mired in “legalistic” rules – in my observation, many, many women described beginning to follow the conviction out of a sense of faith, and very soon found that the lifestyle was one of hard and fast rules, and unforgiving standards that few women could keep up with.

Does the Quiverfull movement have a future? Do you feel that changes in American politics or the economy will impact the success of this growing movement?

I think of Quiverfull as a purist vanguard of the antiabortion and anti-contraception movements. I think there has certainly been a growth in the visibility of very large families following these convictions and lifestyles, but I don’t imagine that huge swaths of the country will begin having 18 children next year. Instead, however, I think they will continue to exist and grow as an ideal of the Christian right family: institutionalized already in the “Natural Family Manifesto” that’s promoted by the World Congress of Families: an interdenominational coalition of religious right groups that includes almost every major religious right political organization in the country. They explicitly endorse women having a “full quiver” of children, and have taken their message to Europe, where they tell countries with declining fertility to fight it (and immigration) by encouraging every woman to have 3-4 children each. Likewise, major denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention, which has 16 million members, have begun making sympathetic statements in recent years (to complement their existing “complementarian” stance on wifely submission), saying that deliberate childlessness among Christians is moral rebellion against God. So I think they will have a trickle-down influence on religious right standards in that way, and will serve as inspiration to the anti-contraception groups that are trying to promote anti-birth control policy.

Allison McCarthy is back with this month’s author interview featuring Kyria Abrahams, who recently published I’m Perfect, You’re Doomed: Tales from a Jehovah’s Witness Upbringing. Allison is a freelance writer based in Maryland and a recent graduate of Goucher College. Her work has been published in The Baltimore Review, ColorsNW, Girlistic, JMWW, Scribble, Dark Sky, and The Write-Side Up. –Kristen

Kyria Abrahams is a New York-based poet and performer who recently published her first memoir, I’m Perfect, You’re Doomed: Tales from a Jehovah’s Witness Upbringing. Her work has previously been featured in the books Not Quite What I Was Planning: Six-Word Memoirs by Writers Famous and Obscure (Harper Perennial, 2007) and The Book Of Zines: Reading From the Fringe (Owl Books, 1997). I’m Perfect, You’re Doomed recounts her childhood and adolescence raised in a religion where she experienced tri-weekly meetings, door-to-door humiliation, and was told to avoid any “worldly” materials that might have had contact with demons.

She is one of the first writers to break a long silence by publishing on this secluded, cult-like group, and her depictions of life in the religion are uncannily accurate. I ought to know: I was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness until the age of 13. It’s a unique life experience, and one that I’m now inspired to write about in more detail.

Abrahams recently took time out from her busy promotions tour and blogging to talk about Jehovah’s Witnesses with a fellow ex-Jehovah’s Witness. Over email, she shared her thoughts on outlining life as a Jehovah’s Witness, intersecting oppressions within the religion, and life after leaving this fundamentalist organization:

1.) Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t generally a subject for mainstream literature. Why did you decide to broach this topic for your first book?

I think it started by talking to jaded hipsters in bars. At some point, I stopped being embarrassed about my childhood and became more open and honest about it. I would tell otherwise disenchanted New Yorkers that I was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness, and they would immediately become interested in my story. When I mentioned I might be writing a book about it, people would say, “I can’t wait to read that!” and they genuinely meant it. So I realized there was a gap in the available information about what it’s like to be a Jehovah’s Witnesses versus general interest in the religion, and I wanted to fill it. At the same time, I also recognized that people weren’t interested in a scholarly, academic tome; they just wanted a general outline and an engaging story.

Continue Reading »