By Tanya Spackman
The other night at Home, Family, and Personal Enrichment meeting, we had a Relief Society birthday party, which included hearing short bios of all of the general RS presidents. I was asked to cover Clarissa Williams, a wonderful woman. While listening to these bios one after another, there seemed to be a definite shift in the community activity (much of it quite political) of these women the last two to three decades, which also seems to correlate to a change in their overall message to the sisters of the church.
Let me state here that I don’t necessarily think these changes are bad or good. I believe all of the women who have served in the general presidencies, past and current, have served well and are great women. It is simply a noticeable difference and I’m trying to see the reasons.
Using Sister Williams as an example (since she’s the one I know best through my research), she was involved in Daughters of the American Revolution and the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers. She was president of the Author’s Club and a member of the Friendship Circle, both literary clubs. During World War I, she served as state chairman of the Woman’s Committee of the National Council of Defense and on the Red Cross Civilian Committee. The other presidents up to recent seemed to be equally, if not more, involved. For example, other general RS presidents were very involved in the suffrage movement. Even up to the 1970s, the community/political trend continued: the general RS president was involved in the anti-ERA activities. Some of these activities were part of their lives before they became involved in the general presidencies or boards, and others seemed to be a part of their duties in those callings.
Their messages seemed to reflect their intense community involvement. Again going to Sister Williams, she focused maternal and infant health, emphasizing (very successfully) education and financing that greatly reduced mortality within a decade. She also emphasized higher education for women as a necessity rather than a luxury. The other presidents seemed to be similarly practical and proactive, though their specific messages and actions varied.
But since the 1970 there seems to be quite a difference. The presidents no longer seem to have much activity outside of family, church, or work. Their messages seem to be gentler, less of a call to action. Now it is “you fit in – you are a part of Relief Society” and “continue to be strong in your roles as women”. However, I also see a strong “come unto Christ” message, which did not seem to be emphasised earlier.
Why the change?
Obviously the world is different now, so the specific community and political activities would be different. Since the presidencies all have come from the U.S., even Utah, are they simply reflecting a general cultural trend toward non-involvement? Was involvement in the past much more common for everyone?
As for the shift in message, is the world so chaotic that we need Relief Society to be a haven rather than a place of action? Is it a focus on things that matter more (i.e., Christ and the gospel) over practical things that are more transitory from an eternal perspective? (This is also seen in the change from Homemaking, where crafts and canning were normal, to Enrichment, where spirituality is more the theme.)
Or is it something totally different? And are these two shifts (involvement and message) really related, or is it just a coincidental concurrent shift? Ideas?
Tanya Spackman is single and lives in Dugway, Utah. She served a mission in Chicago, and graduated from BYU in 1998 with a degree in molecular biology. She currently works for a contractor as a technical writer and editor at Dugway Proving Ground.
I think that might be a big part of it. With people moving so much, with the loss of a lot of “natural” community, church really does serve as a social anchor. I think more and more people look to church for that. As a kind of safe harbor from the world in a fashion that extended families offered once upon a time.
Further, to add to the above, I think more and more people leave church because they don’t feel church to be making them feel a part. I think back to my late 20’s and the role church had for me along with the anxiety of not feeling a part of it due to not really being the young single anymore but also not being the married couple.
I suspect this is the greatest challenge for the church in the 21st century. But if we cease doing that other activity – our works – then I think we’ll lose something important. Further, I think it is through service and charity that we achieve that sense of community.
I have also noticed the difference in political (and community) involvement between past members of the Relief Society, and Relief Society members post-1970s. There are no doubt many reasons for this shift, but one came to mind for me: the ERA-movement/1970s backlash.
In reviewing General Conference comments from the 70s and 80s, it is clear that the Church was pretty traumatized by the ERA movement. Nowhere in our church history is more emphasis placed on encouraging women to work in the home and to bear children early (at the expense of education, financial security, etc.). In my estimation, progress in the area of gender equality really took a beating after the 1970s, mainly because the philosophies and methods of speaking out for feminism were so harsh and intemperate at the time. To this day, most members of the Church cringe at the word “feminist.” I can’t count the number of meetings or conversations I have been in where the woman begins with, “I am not a feminist, but…”
Anyway, because of this “trauma” regarding the identity and roles of women, it seems like all moderation was lost. Now there is a silent war between women who choose to work and women who choose to work at home with their children. And from my observation, it seems like the choice to work at home is one that women maybe view as an all or nothing decision. Which means, when they have been presented with this hard choice to work or to work at home, and they have determined that working at home is what God wants them to do, the decision cements them to that task. Thus, we do not see much of a balance in working at home, and also being politically and socially active.
Obviously it’s hard to generalize for all women, but that’s just one angle I’ve observed.
While this might not be the whole picture, there is definitely less outside involvement among people in general. For example, my grandparents were members of all sorts of clubs, leagues, etc. My parents’ generation didn’t really do that, and I don’t think much even exists today.
It always makes me sad, especially the decline in ‘visiting’ and entertaining. I think we’ve (largely) lost something precious.
Julie’s got a very good point. I’m sad that our generation aren’t “joiners” like so many used to be. I suppose it’s got something to do with urbanization, and the loss of the small-town feel to so many communities.
On the other hand, there are now thousands more kinds of organizations to join, it’s just that they rarely have much impact on one’s community. Back when women had three or four total choices for civic involvement, they were probably more likely to do something that noticeably helped someone.
Boy, I sure need a haven.
You know, Elaine Jack was a happening kind of woman. I will never forget her “get a life” talk in conference. I laughed aloud and thought what guts it took to say that, but I agreed with her. She skiied and did a lot of things outside the home.
I guess it’s, like all things, a matter of balance.
I agree that is is sad we’ve lost so much of our sense of community.
Perhaps one reason for the shift in message is the need to focus more time, effort and energy into raising and teaching and protecting our children. My parents and even me and my siblings were able to roam around outside all summer long. That simply is not an option today. The moral and cultural climate were so different 50 years ago. Most outside influences most often worked for parents in raising children. I don’t think that’s the case today.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t or can’t be involved in doing good outside our home (I think most us can and should do more) but that child-rearing is and needs to be much more consuming and therefore being in 10 different clubs is just not an option for me right now.
Great post, Tanya! It also seems the the RS General Presidency’s tenure has become shorter (but still irregular and unsystematic, right?) in recent years.
I think Chelsea’s got it when she point to feminism: the temporal coincidence of the shift with the rise of the women’s movement in the 1970s seems too convenient to ignore.
Andrea,
That is an excellent point–my guess is that the bios of newer General authorities or mission presidents might show a similar shift in involvement from the public/political to the home for exactly the same reason, in other words, I think this might be church-wide. I have noticed a shift in talks in Priesthood meetings since I was 12–they are much more focused on the home–being husbands and fathers, etc., than they were previously.
I am curious if this shift, while most pronounced after the ERA movement started earlier, in response to Pres. McKay and Pres. Lee’s famous quotes about no success can compensate and most important work you’ll ever do.
One factor no one has mentioned is the advent of Correlation in the 60s. Relief Society changed a lot when the sisters no longer had any control over their budget or curriculum materials (!) Yes, the backlash against feminism in the late 70s and 80s intensified the process, but LDS women were losing autonomy and visibility well before that. I think the retreat from community activities may be in part a reaction to the sense that the RS is now supposed to take direction from Priesthood leaders and not undertake alliances and projects on its own.
I think another possible reason for the change also has to do with correlation. In the growing global church I think the role of Relief Society is less about community and more about teaching Christian/LDS values, lessons, norms, etc. In the 1920s Church you had a mainly Utah community where the RS president was as much a civic leader as a religious leader. Instead of Olene Walker encouraging us to care for children’s issues, etc. you had the RS president doing that. With the shift away from the Utah civic responsibilities of the RS, I think we saw a shift away from the general civic nature of the RS.
One factor no one has mentioned is the advent of Correlation in the 60s
That really made a difference. Elders Quorums used to have dues and budgets and activities and many owned property and projects. Now, none of them do. The original “rather die than pay tithing” story actually is about quorum dues.
Sunday Schools used to have complete seperate organizations. Now, a Sunday School presidency is optional with all the core duties handled by the bishopric and class presidents perhaps taking roll or perhaps just a position for those whose egos require expression.
It isn’t just the Relief Society that changed.
Though when you read Jan Shipps or listen to her, her strong belief is that correlation saved the Church as a Church and that the centralized budgets are all that prevented class and status issues from taking us the way of the Nephites.
Stephen, I’m inclined to agree with Shipps that Correlation was (is) a necessary step in the church’s development. And of course things changed for all of the auxilliaries and the quorums. However, I think it can be argued that the change was most dramatic for RS and for women in the church, because they lost their *only* access to independent decision-making and significant leadership opportunities. Moreover, Correlation solidified the notion that men are always to be in charge of women–when the RS was truly independent, it occasionally happened that the RS President supervised men in the construction of the Relief Society Hall, for instance, and the “boss” of the Ward RS President was the Stake RS President, not a male Priesthood leader. The subtle shifts in the org. chart had a big effect on the degree to which women could perceive themselves as autonomous agents within the organization. Now women never supervise men, and every woman’s decision can be overturned by a man–I think that’s psychologically powerful, even if it doesn’t make much difference in the quotidian workings of the church.
Oh, Kris I’m so disappointed to see the word “auxilliaries” used in partial reference to the Relief Society in your post. Of course, other people do it and such terminology has become common practice but you know better. That you would use the term in a comment bemoaning the results of correlation is rather ironic, no?
Melissa, yes, I thought of that, but figured an explanation was too cumbersome for a blog comment. Also, as Laurel Thatcher Ulrich has pointed out, even the quorums are “appendages” to the Priesthood, and there’s not a great difference between “appendage” and “auxilliary.” Still, you’re right that the common usage takes “auxilliary” to be something lesser, a nice little club for the ladies.
Kristine,
I understand your point, and I certainly don’t want to seem as if I am trying to invalidate your feelings about the status of women in the church, so what I am saying is not arguing with your perception or how you feel. I just want to respectfully throw out a few things that occured to me as I read your post.
You said: “Correlation solidified the notion that men are always to be in charge of women”
While I understand your point, I would submit that correlation solidified the notion that those who hold priesthood keys are in charge of women (and everyone else, including men) in the ward. That might seem to be putting a fine point on it, but I think it is a profound difference.
I’m currently the EQ pres–and although I hold keys myself, everything I do has to be approved by the Bishop–calling teachers, changing home teaching, even calling a secretary. I sometimes disagree with him and tell him when I do. The fact that we are men doesn’t make us monolithic or see eye to eye on everything. I don’t see this as a gender issue but one of order in the church.
Braden, you’re right, of course. But there is still a difference because you may well be a bishop someday, and can identify with leadership in a completely different way than I can. There’s a huge difference between “I’m not in charge of this right now” and “I’ll never be in charge.” When you go to PEC, you look around and see a lot of people who look like you who are making decisions. I don’t.
I’m not saying that PEC ought to be a representative parliamentary body, or even that it ought to be different than it currently is, only that we probably can’t interpret the Relief Society’s move toward the private sphere as entirely self-directed or voluntary.