2007: A Sociologist’s Perspective on Beck’s Talk / Armand Mauss

This is a response from Armand Mauss to the ripples that accompanied the talk by Sister Julie B.Beck, the General Relief Society President, on the subject of the importance of homemaking. All I can say is that, in this case, the “middle way” that Brother Mauss demonstrates in many approaches to the gospel shows great wisdom and understanding in this particular case.

See the original at Exponent II at this link.

Love and thanks,
Steve St.Clair
==================
Guest Post: A Sociologist’s Perspective on Beck’s Talk and ‘What Women Know’
(Armand Mauss is a professor emeritus of Sociology and a Mormon Studies scholar. He has written several articles and books on Mormon topics, most notably his book on Mormonism and race entitled
All Abraham’s Children.

Armand wrote the following in a personal email to me and a few others who were discussing What Women Know.)

Sister Beck’s talk, and the response to it that was circulated to us (“What Women Know”), simply present us a case in which BOTH parties are in GENERAL agreement, but the one party (Sister Beck, representing the Church leadership) is emphasizing ONE important aspect of a woman’s life (motherhood), while the other party (the sisters signing the circulated statement) are emphasizing OTHER important aspects. I doubt that either party would dismiss the concerns of the others as unimportant.

When I hear or read talks like Sister Beck’s (or similar ones from the general authorities), I take them as expressions of sincere and legitimate concern over the “decline and fall” of motherhood and the family since the1960s. I DON’T understand such messages as in any way gainsaying equality for the sexes, or as rejecting extra-domestic development of women’s talents, aspirations, or opportunities. Rather, I understand Sister Beck and others as voicing a belief that in recent decades, the value placed on mothers and motherhood, both in the Church and in the world, has seriously declined, while the value placed on equality of different kinds has greatly increased.

We can all rejoice in what has increased, but we must not forget the importance of the one thing that only women can do, which is to bear children if they are able to do so, nor can we turn over to others the nurturing of children, which is the joint responsibility of both parents.

Considering the shattering of the family, the loss of childhood innocence, and the drastic decline in birthrates in much of the world, it is hard to deny that fathers and mothers both have abdicated family responsibilities on a large scale. I understand Sister Beck et al. as simply calling on women to raise the priority on motherhood back to the level that it once had.

I DO NOT understand her as calling on women to forego all the other important things in life. I find it hard to criticize her for that message, just as I find it hard to disagree with the desirability of all the other kinds of activities and accomplishments of women that the circulated statement enumerates. Women and couples in our society now have more choices and more options than ever before in our history.

It is up to each woman and couple to make those choices that seem to work best for them (respectively). It is NOT a matter of simply choosing motherhood (or anything else) to the exclusion or detriment of everything else. But it IS a matter of getting PRIORITIES straight.

That’s how I read talks like Sister Beck’s. I would add that men must make the same kinds of choices, and that most of us men ought to be giving a higher priority to fatherhood than we have done. Ultimately,though, each couple must choose career and family arrangements that are comfortable for the couple itself, freely accepted by both husband and wife.

No one is entitled to pass judgment on the decisions made by a given couple in this process.

All that Sister Beck is saying, it seems to me, is that if we truly understand the gospel, we will place parenthood first whenever possible, and her message to mothers is to maintain (and, where necessary, to restore) motherhood to its rightful place in planning our futures as couples. Men in the church, it seems to me, get similar messages regularly about fatherhood.All in all, then, it appears… that Sister Beck and the sisters who circulated that statement (“What Women Know”) are not disagreeing with each other so much as talking past each other.

Comment:
Amen, Brother Mauss. As a medical student working mostly in the inner-city, it is devastatingly clear to me, sometimes on a daily basis, that functional parentlessness is the gravest social problem facing our country. Young mothers with absentee fathers are often forced to work to earn a meager living which then necessitates the abdication of parental responsibilities to a loose and ineffectual alliance of daycare, extended family, and latchkey older siblings (if to anyone at all). This results in a generation with shaky social grounding, many of whom become young mothers with the cycle perpetuating itself–wending its way downward. I do not subscribe to the easy rhetoric of “family values,” but the essence of Sister Beck’s message–that motherhood is the most important calling a woman can have (just as is the case for fatherfood for a man)–is vitally needed. In addition, as you point out, I do not believe there is conflict between Sister Beck’s talk and the worthy goals women pursue outside the home; the negotiation of conflicts between the two forces is, in large part, a matter of choosing between “good, better, and best.”

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under LDS Scholarship

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s