Permissible Heresies
Kathy’s post reminded me of our earlier exchange, on the occasion of Segullah’s introduction to the bloggernacle. Rereading, I had two thoughts:
1) I am not very nice when I’m feeling defensive. (Sorry, Kathy)
2) The problem of branding in Mormon publications is a very strange beast.
Let’s take Segullah and Exponent II as examples. I still haven’t seen anything in Segullah that the editors of Exponent wouldn’t have been delighted to have had as a submission. I have seen enough sass and gentle irreverence in Segullah’s writers to think they would be people I’d like to see at an Exponent retreat, and that they might even have a good time. It still pains me that they felt excluded/put off/offended/unwelcome/unreached/??? by Exponent II and didn’t join the party. It hurts me, too, that women I know to be faithful, participating, thoughtful, and committed Latter-day Saints are regarded as unacceptably divergent from some ill-defined “mainstream”–so much so that some of their sisters are unwilling to consider their words or appear in the same pages with them.
There are similar issues in practically every genre of Mo publishing–lots of folks won’t even consider reading Dialogue, but are perfectly happy with JMH (even though JMH prints its fair share of things that ought to be controversial). People publish things in Irreantum that I think are too dark or difficult for Dialogue, but Irreantum never comes up in anyone’s list of “alternate voices.” BYU professors can publish things in Element that would never pass orthodoxy muster for BYU Studies, but they feel their status may be jeopardized by publishing them in Dialogue. And poor Sunstone gets the rap for everything, even though (for instance) Dialogue published most of the articles that got the September Six in trouble. When I asked on the AML list what makes an Irreantum story different from a Sunstone story different from a Dialogue story, the only answers were about people’s comfort with the relative orthodoxy of the other things that were published in a particular outlet. That’s understandable, but it says disturbing things about the development of a robust aesthetic sense within Mormon culture. If we only define “good art” as not containing whatever it is we regard as “bad”, whether that is profanity or sex or heresies that diverge from our own pet heterodoxies, the pursuit of excellence may be subsumed by the pursuit of the unobjectionable. I can’t think of anything less authentically Mormon than such timidity.
I guess what I’m wondering is whether, now that the late 80s/early 90s are well behind us, we can come up with some more vivid and interesting way to define our publications’ niches besides on some spectrum of orthodoxy that really doesn’t describe much of anything useful anymore (if it ever did).
Subscribe to RSS
October 27th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
“When I asked on the AML list what makes an Irreantum story different from a Sunstone story different from a Dialogue story, the only answers were about people’s comfort with the relative orthodoxy of the other things that were published in a particular outlet. That’s understandable, but it says disturbing things about the development of a robust aesthetic sense within Mormon culture.”
Wait a second — what do Dialogue or Sunstone’s brand problems and editorial choices have to do with a an robust aesthetic sense within Mormon culture? Why should we be required to conflate the creative work the journals publish* (most of which isn’t objectionable to someone like me — who considers himself to be part of the radical middle or the liberal orthodox or whatever you want to call it) with their other work — some of which is fine, but some of which expresses an anti-instutional activism that not everyone is comfortable with?
Or to put it bluntly: what if we like your aesthetics just fine, but don’t like your politics?
Now, I’ve recently decided that I personally am going to support Dialogue by submitting creative work to it. And if in the budget, subscribing to it. But I completely understand those writers that want to stick with Segullah and Irreantum (although I think Irreantum should be split into a creative narrative work magazine and a separate journal for literary and cultural criticism).
I’m also not sure why the spectrum of orthodoxy isn’t useful. The various publications have editorial policies and preferences and those are very much in relation to the actions and doctrines of the institutional church. Sure, those may have changed over the years. But it’s very difficult to change brand associations. I realize that that may not be fair to those who are now editors. But at the same time, those who work on the publications need to make their cases — both in terms of direct communications and the editorial work that they do.
So I guess I’m not really sure what your asking for here, Kristine. What would be a vivid and interesting way to define the various publications? Aren’t they defined by what they publish and the public discourse their editors engage in?
“If we only define “good art” as not containing whatever it is we regard as “bad”, whether that is profanity or sex or heresies that diverge from our own pet heterodoxies, the pursuit of excellence may be subsumed by the pursuit of the unobjectionable. I can’t think of anything less authentically Mormon than such timidity.”
I’m not sure that this is the right crowd for this. I don’t think that any of the Mormon publications are pursuing the unobjectionable. Not unless you broaden the field to include Covenant/Deseret Book. I also am not sure what sort of boldness you are looking for. How is bold to include profanity or sex or heresies? It’s not like any of those are in short supply in this world. Nor am I sure what any of that has to do with excellence. In fact, if anything, Mormon short fiction is plagued by the New Yorker-style story — indeed, to my mind the timidity in Mormon fiction is a lack of robust engagement with Mormon orthodox experience and doctrine (and by orthodox, I mean the rather wide range of beliefs and personalities and even minor doctrinal disputes represented by active, believing members of the LDS Church).
October 27th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Oh, yikes. Dialogue is expensive. How do you Mormon publications that are still putting out print versions stay alive?
The electronic option might work though — although I’d prefer a PDF to being able to view it online. With a PDF I could load it on to my PDA.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Great post, Kristine. I’ll share a few thoughts now, and hopefully more later.
One issue is that many readers or would-be readers of independent mags think it a virtue to abandon/avoid any objectionable material, no matter what its artistic merit might be. This will never change, and I’m not so sure it should.
Also, these publications aren’t purely about art. So those who have a committment to excellence in aesthetics (and therefore tolerate what would otherwise be objectionable material) may find themselves with mixed feelings. Maybe they can more easily make concessions for personal and/or creative writing than scholarly writing. I am much more open to (what I deem) edginess when it’s couched in personal experience rather than intellectual exercise.
gotta run…more later.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I think don’t think it’s possible or even necessarily desirable to avoid the issue of orthodoxy. And just because the is some overlap in the niches of various publications does not mean that there are not distinct differences as well. I would like to see writers and editors who come from different ideological perspectives accept those differences with grace and understanding and move on to other areas, rather than trying to ignore the elephant in the room. I don’t believe Kathy is on the attack in stating that some things published by Ex would not make it into Segullah, nor do I see a reason for defensiveness when the obvious is articulated. It’s fine that there are publications with different comfort levels in what they choose to publish. In fact, I think creating space for a range of voices that might not otherwise be heard helps in the development of a “robust aesthetic sense.”
October 27th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
William,
I’ve not asked my question very well–thanks for pushing back.
I guess I’m wondering whether politics have to impinge on artistic/scholarly judgment. It seems to me that the audience for Mormon art and scholarship is still small enough that segregating ourselves into narrowly and politically defined niches makes it harder to create the kind of free exchange of ideas out of which cultures tend most often to produce good art (and history and science). I’d like it if people thought of Dialogue as the place for longer fiction, Sunstone as the place for very short poetry, Irreantum as the place for generically slippery work, etc. (And those are just slapdash possibilities, not reflective of any real wishes on my part). I’d like it if JMH were the place for history articles and Element for philosophical pieces requiring disciplinary specialization and Dialogue the place for interdisciplinary work. Whatever–I just wish we were asking those kinds of questions instead of endlessly parsing the politics of editors who are long gone. And I’d like to hope that my own politics would not be discernible from the content of Dialogue. (I realize that’s likely impossible–in fact, I’ve already turned down one really excellent short story for what I would label “political” reasons, so one can at least draw inferences from what is NOT in Dialogue, I guess).
HOWEVER, I’m inclined to agree with you, actually, that real engagement with Mormon theology, practice, and cultural ideals is likely to be more fruitful than work that tries to borrow some derivative “edginess” from the broader American culture (like some of Doug Thayer’s earliest stuff?).
I’m not sure what sort of boldness I’m looking for, either, really, and it’s different for fiction than, say, sociology. Still, it seems to me that the best stuff is not politically motivated, that somehow too much worry about one’s place vis-a-vis the institution is deadening. One of the things I love about interacting with the current crop of grad students who do Mormon stuff is their relative lack of fearfulness. They are faithful and engaged and seem to take it as a given that they can pursue work they find interesting within the rules of their discipline without worrying about their ecclesiastical status. That seems very different than the generation of scholars I grew up with, who felt the need to take very political stances in their work.
ok, I’m babbling now. I’m still thinking these things through.
Kathryn, I was just thinking about your last sentence. I think I might be exactly the opposite–I find detached intellectual wrestling with controversy less threatening than someone’s passionate retelling of their experience of that wrestle. Of course, people are less likely to reach for normative generalizations in that kind of work, so maybe that helps steer away from the “anti-institutional activism” William was talking about.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“I would like to see writers and editors who come from different ideological perspectives accept those differences with grace and understanding and move on to other areas, rather than trying to ignore the elephant in the room.”
Angie, that’s really astute, and I think I’d like to be graceful that way. Maybe I just haven’t articulated my own ideological perspective well enough to be comfortable with what I’m doing and not worry about people’s perception of the various brands. But it does bug me when that perception seems inaccurate or uninformed by actual reading of the publications in question. And to the extent that those perceptions of brands make it easy for people to choose what is least challenging for them, I think they are potentially limiting aesthetically as well as in terms of relation to doctrine, Mormon culture, etc.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
grrrrrr–I am really doing my level best to convince everyone I’m an idiot. Sorry.
What I meant by that last sentence is that I think it’s fine for people to isolate themselves from work they fear will be detrimental to their spiritual health, as long as that fear is somewhat realistic and doesn’t become an entrenched habit of mind that stymies growth.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I think one of the reasons Sunstone has been a whipping boy in the past is because we have our symposiums. I love the symposiums. There’s a sense of community that builds up during those few days that I just love.
But the symposiums are also kind of a threshing ground. It’s where people take their ideas out for a test run to see if they have what it takes to get published eventually. So the sessions are often a little raw and unrehearsed. I like to compare symposium sessions with the way General Conference went during the early Utah period. Have you ever read those conference reports from the late 18th and early 19th century? They’re a blast! The GAs take an idea and run with it; you never know where they’ll end up. Nothing like the closely scripted talks of today’s General Conferences.
But then we (meaning Sunstone and Dialogue, usually) take the best stuff from the symposiums and refine it so that the insights the author has can be presented as clearly and artfully as possible.
So, the symposium = rough draft, and magazine = final draft. But the press only reports on the symposium, so that is often all folks know about us.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I like Exponent. But though I’m reading current issues, I’m still judging it by Scott’s article published around 1993 recommending that women be ordained. I like Scott, and he was very kind to me when I was in the same ward, but at the time it just came off as very “I’m the bishop, I’m the man, and I’ll tell you what’s good for you–you should get ordained.” I know it was very publishable to get that message from that source, but for me it was like the feminism I expected wasn’t delivered when I needed it.
Like I said, I’m enjoying Ex2, I haven’t made it out to the retreats because they’re on the east coast. Segullah just feels more like home, which is why I volunteered to help put it out after I read the first issue. If some of the personal voices in Segullah are more conservative than I am, well, maybe that’s just something I’m already accustomed to.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
The other thing that’s funny–back in my ward, ANY independent publication is somewhat suspect. I got my ward book club to do the missionary issue (Spring 2006) as our reading one month, and that helped a lot with what people though of me. But even this month, a very bright and capable woman in the ward expressed near-shock to me that Deseret Book was publishing the Mother in Me, an anthology by Segullah authors. Apparently she had been thinking we weren’t clean enough.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Okay, I’ll bite. I don’t know why, because Kristine always kicks my trash in these types of conversations, but I’ll add my two cents, as a member of Segullah who, yes, I’ll admit it, avoids Exponent.
“Let’s take Segullah and Exponent II as examples. I still haven’t seen anything in Segullah that the editors of Exponent wouldn’t have been delighted to have had as a submission. I have seen enough sass and gentle irreverence in Segullah’s writers to think they would be people I’d like to see at an Exponent retreat.”
I will say up front that I know and love dearly many people who are involved with Exponent, Deborah Kris being on the top of the list. But just because we are all interesting women who would, undoubtedly, have a blast at a retreat, doesn’t mean we are comfortable with the same things, or comfortable seeing an emotional personal testimony in print alongside a more controversial article that doesn’t jive with our own heterdoxies. Going along with what Kathryn said about abandoning publications, I have read things in Exponent, particularly the blog, that have made me uncomfortable. Not everybody on the board, I’m sure, agrees with everything that is said or blogged by every single person there, but it speaks about the general environment and attitudes of editors and blog administrators when certain ideas, topics, blogs posts, etc go unchecked.
The same goes for Sunstone. I’ve read Sunstone editions that have articles that are uplifting, inspiring, and interesting. In the same edition there are also articles that were the exact opposite, where things were written that were hurtful about beliefs I happen to hold sacred. Again, a publication that publishes anything that condemns or questions my beliefs, even if that article stands along something that I’m perfectly fine with, is not a publication that I want on my coffee table. I understand the argument that you shouldn’t always surround yourself with mediums that only reinforce your own ideas, the dangers of developing intellectual habits that stymy growth. I really do understand that, but when it comes to things that we hold sacred, it’s hard to accept or spend limited energy and time on something that might be hurtful on that score. Especially when there are other publications to choose from.
I also am wondering why these differences upset you so. It seems that having difficult publications where different people feel comfortable would show that Mormon intellectualism is more robust, rather than less. For how long was Sunstone the only game in town? I’m not familiar with the history of Sunstone (although given who I married, it seems I should be, eh?), but I’m unaware of other publications that competed with it in its time. I would think that the very nature of competition would, like it does in free markets (ahh, yes, more evidence of who I married and his influence), be a sign of intellectual and artistic strength, not the other way around.
Or is this just your way of saying it bugs you when people dismiss Sunstone as an edgy heretic magazine without even picking up a copy?
October 27th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Also, I want to point out that sometimes I don’t read other publications not because I find them objectionable, but that they are addressing topics that, well, to be blunt, I don’t find all that interesting. That has nothing to do with Mormonism aesthetics or heresy–it’s just personal taste.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
“Or is this just your way of saying it bugs you when people dismiss Sunstone as an edgy heretic magazine without even picking up a copy?”
Yeah, maybe that’s all it is. I think I don’t mind so much that people choose not to read it; I do mind when they gossip about it and poison the well for people who might otherwise be curious.
Also, I’m not convinced that the market for Mormon cultural products (horrid phrase, but you know what I mean) is large enough to stand the kind of fragmentation you describe as healthy competition. Part of what makes me sad about Segullah is that its birth parallels Exponent’s giving up the print magazine and the consequent loss of voices I cherished (mostly older women who don’t do blogs or online anything)–maybe it’s just the changing of the guard and a shift in the Zeitgeist and I am being fuddy-duddy and nostalgic before my time.
(And that sounds weird–I’m not sad about Segullah except for the division it either highlights or reinforces. Everything about Segullah now that it does exist really makes me happy!)
Finally (“thank heavens,” I hear you sigh, gentle reader), I’m uncertain about the notion that we should abandon things that are a mixed bag. I think you would exhort me to keep going to Relief Society even though I frequently find it boring and often feel that beliefs I cherish are attacked or ridiculed. Of course it’s a stretch to think of independent Mormon publications as having anything like the same importance, but, to the extent that Mormonism is a community of belief as well as an institution or a theology, I have to think that what we’re doing is important, and that our capacity to persevere with one another with good will matters. Maybe not as much as I wish it could…
October 27th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Kristine:
Excellent comment. I agree. And I too may be totally wrong but I also think that creative work and academic work are safer areas for exploration (and more interesting ones, imo) than personal expressions. But a big part of that may be that I’ve just never been that interested in creative nonfiction and confessional fiction.
“It seems to me that the audience for Mormon art and scholarship is still small enough that segregating ourselves into narrowly and politically defined niches makes it harder to create the kind of free exchange of ideas out of which cultures tend most often to produce good art (and history and science).”
I pretty much agree. But at the same time it seems like its not quite the free exchange of ideas, but rather the heated exchange of ideas that create environments. Which is not to say that I want more rancor in the world of Mormon Studies. But I do think that it can be good for people to carve out niches and have agendas and manifestos and strong editorial styles. It gets people engaged. To be honest, I’ve always been rather lukewarm towards Dialogue. Granted, it’s been a couple of years since I read it because I no longer have access to an academic library. But there was nothing about it that really grabbed me. I’m beginning to feel the same way about Irreantum. And that is not to fault either publication — as Heather notes, sometimes it’s just a matter of personal taste.
Now: lately I’ve begun to repent of those attitudes and am trying to re-engage. But sometimes I think that even the Mormon publications that we have are a little too big — that we need to get some energy going with smaller schools/groups, etc. For example, I have no idea about the quality of their work, but I greatly admire what the New Play Project has been doing. It’s existence is spurring a whole group of writers — many of them in their twenties — to produce work for production. And because they have a good chance of seeing their plays produced within six months or less, there’s a lot of motivation to put pen to paper. And because they all are involved in the productions and read each others scripts, there’s a certain amount of interplay.
I think Segullah has a lot of that same energy.
I’m not sure I feel that with the older Mormon Studies projects (and it could be just me). Although we (hopefully) have a few homies that we share stuff with, there isn’t quite the level of engagement that I’d like to see. For me, it always sad when an issue of Irreantum comes out and nobody says a word about it on the AML-List or in the Bloggernacle. I’m going to try and remedy that (and already have). But with all the words that get published every day in various Mormon electronic settings, it seems like a few more of them should be about what’s being published in the Mormon journals.
And I don’t just mean discussion and reviews either. I also mean engagement with ideas and styles and forms — more formal and creative responses. Conversations that carry across issues and even across publications.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
But Relief Society is not the same thing as putting your name in print. You don’t attend Relief Society because you want to discuss personal heterdoxies. You attend Relief Society because it is part and parcel of the gospel. You expect differences because people are different, but your mere attendance doesn’t mean that you actually agree with everything that is said and done there. In the case of a print journal, there is a sense in which submitting an essay or article, or even just subscribing to it, means that you embrace and agree with the entire culture of that publication. That may or may not be true, but there is a genuine perception that what lies on your coffee table defines who you are, and that doesn’t just apply to Mormon stuff. I can’t tell you the number of political conversations I’ve had with people in DC where it was said, “Well, they take the Washington Times, and you know what THAT means.” It’s been a while since I’ve lived in Utah, but I remember similar conversations there, only instead of “The Washington Times”, it was “The Tribune”. I’m sure Peggy Fletcher Stack understands the problems of publication branding all too well.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
William–yes, yes, yes! The New Plays project is the first thing that has ever made me really wish I could move to Utah. And I agree about disagreement and intellectual foment. However, that has to happen without calling people with whom one disagrees faithless or naive, doesn’t it? I’m thinking about the incredibly unproductive bitterness generated by the FARMS review around Book of Mormon studies, which to me highlights the danger of trying to peg a publication’s or an author’s precise spot on the orthodoxy spectrum rather than engaging with the ideas as they’re presented.
And I will also try to do better at blogging about all the good stuff that’s out there.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
uh, it has to be noted that the rancor goes both ways between FARMS and Signature et al. Didn’t mean to leave anyone out!
October 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
“In the case of a print journal, there is a sense in which submitting an essay or article, or even just subscribing to it, means that you embrace and agree with the entire culture of that publication”
Really??? Wow, maybe I’m just weird, then, because I make it a point to subscribe to things that I disagree with, sometimes violently. In my (overflowing) magazine bin: Ensign, Better Homes and Gardens, Sunstone, Dialogue, New Republic, American Scholar, Atlantic, Economist, First Things, Weekly Standard.
Oh, yeah, and Glamour.
So, who am I?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Kristine, you don’t really think that Segullah pushed ExII out of the print market, do you? Because that’s certainly not the case. Rather than claiming a slice of the existing reader/contributor pie, I believe we made the pie bigger, and brought our own readers into the mix, rather than luring them from elsewhere. But I can imagine how hard it must be to see the end of an era.
I certainly felt welcomed and even embraced by ExII–heck, they published my very first essay! I even got PAID! I want to make it clear that ExII did nothing “wrong.” They simply were what they were. But that ontology wasn’t a good fit for a significant population of LDS women. Again, I don’t think this is bad. I really, really don’t think we can expect one publication to meet the wants/needs of the full spectrum of readers.
Now, stereotypes and reputations can certainly be damaging. I imagine the majority of people who shy away from Dialogue and Sunstone have never actually read an issue. But reputations are always at least partially earned. If our publication is turning over a new leaf (or if it’s hampered by a truly unfair or past-due stereotype), we shouldn’t fault those who remain suspicious. Rather, we should provide incentives for non-readers to take a peek and see what’s actually going on. Sharing material on this blog is one way of doing that.
I think you already understand this, Kristine, but I’ll say it (again) anyway. When Segullah made its debut, we talked a lot amongst ourselves about marginalization. We understood the disadvantages of drawing boundaries. But our primary outreach was and is to the women who, for whatever reason, didn’t/don’t want to read other independent pubs. We made a conscious choice to create a particular kind of space, and it has become a welcome place for many who don’t feel comfortable elsewhere. I won’t apologize for that, even though our boundary lines do cause division. We can’t serve those whom we set out to serve without that division.
That being said, I certainly want to highlight and celebrate the common ground between Segullah and ExII, Segullah and Irreantum, Segullah and Dialogue. But not Sunstone.
(Kidding, kidding.)
October 27th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
No, Kathy, I don’t see causation, only temporal correlation. I’m mostly just trying to figure out where and how those lines get drawn–they don’t make sense to me, but I have no doubt there’s a logic there that works for lots of people. I think it’s partly a result of not having grown up around lots of Mormons. I was never anywhere where anyone had leisure to criticize other members’ politics or personal theology–in most of the wards I’ve lived in any male who showed up 6 weeks in a row was likely to get called as bishop. I honestly had no idea until I got to college that not everyone subscribed to Dialogue and BYU Studies. I thought they came with the Ensign. Reading lots of divergent views always seemed like the normal thing to do.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
p.s. About the word “faithful.”
When I re-read that T&S post about Segullah from last summer, I flinched a bit at my use of that word. I can see how my usage implied that ExII fans were faithless. I didn’t mean to imply that.
“Faithful” can connote “full of faith” (its opposite being faithless). But imo, the more common connotation is “loyal.” In that post I was referring to Segullah’s committment to not challenge or question key elements of the establishment. There are certain things we just don’t mess with. I think people can question and challenge and still have faith. But some varieties of questioning and challenging, particularly in public forums, strike me as disloyal. In the pages of Segullah we don’t criticize church leaders, question core doctrines, challenge basic standards, etc. That’s one big piece of what I meant by “faithful.”
The other piece has to do with hope. One of our founding members commented that she didn’t read anything really questionable in terms of doctrine or practice in ExII, but she simply didn’t feel uplifted by its overall tone. In Segullah we take on some tough issues and raw emotions, but we’re careful to keep hope alive in every piece we print. Tidy, happy endings are not required, but some evident degree of hope in Christ is.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
“Tidy, happy endings are not required, but some evident degree of hope in Christ is.”
I think that’s a fair critique of ExII–it has gone through some pretty bleak phases.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I was never anywhere where anyone had leisure to criticize other members’ politics or personal theology…
Well, there’s some gray area around the edges that we play with as we please, but when it comes down to our fundamental boundaries, we don’t create them. We borrow them from the church. We don’t take it upon ourselves to actively criticize the theology and politics of others. We simply uphold the pre-established norms that we’re committed to.
I think the practice of reading a wide array of divergent views is relatively uncommon among LDS. From what I can tell, that’s part of your lament. I can see why. But as Heather pointed out, even those of us who enjoy divergence have to set priorities. And some of us who enjoy divergence in other areas of our lives don’t appreciate it when it comes to the sacred.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
“We simply uphold the pre-established norms that we’re committed to.”
Can you elaborate some of them for me? Because I missed it when they were pre-established. (I’m being flip, but only a little–I really sincerely would love to know what you have perceived as fundamental).
October 27th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Kristine, this is a great discussion–thank you.
For me, a pre-established norm is that you don’t mess with the Brethren. I know I’m undermining the idea of “pre-established norm” when I preface it with “for me,” but I’m doing it anyway, in part because I want an out if I’m not articulating this correctly
. So, at Segullah, we don’t critique what the Prophet or the Apostles say. We may struggle with application of a certain instruction or commandment, but we’re not going to dither over whether the Apostles were going too far in giving the commandment in the first place.
As I’ve become more familiar with the bloggernacle over the last year, I’ve realized that this is not a norm for everyone. But I think there’s a lot of room for faithful exploration and probing while still remaining loyal to our leaders.
This is not to say that individual readers and editors of Segullah might have issues with things the Brethren have taught. That may be. But there’s a difference between private disagreement and public discussion, and we have chosen not to cross that line with our publication.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Okay, I’m a little late to the party. Had a house full of kids making Halloween sugar cookies, but now it’s quiet and I can think.
As far as Irreantum is concerned, I don’t think we have an identifiable brand right now. I’m hoping to change that, of course, and look forward to using this blog as a way to highlight some of those changes.
During the Chris Bigelow years, Irreantum had a consistent tone and mission (and was consistently published on time!). The magazine shifted tone under Laraine Wilkins’ editorship as it attempted to become more scholarly and academic. Under Scott and Valerie and (now) me, I think the journal began to focus more on creative literary work, although there have been some good critical pieces published too.
And, FWIW, I agree with William: I would love to see the AML split their publications into two journals, one focusing on criticism, and the other focusing on creative work. I’m not going to delve deeply into this idea here, but it is my opinion that since Chris Bigelow left, Irreantum has been too similar to Dialogue. We don’t need another Dialogue; that magazine is already doing its job quite well. What Mormon letters needs (and doesn’t have) is a literary magazine in the traditional sense: a journal that publishes excellent poetry, creative nonfiction, fiction, a few interviews, and reviews. I believe that if Irreantum can both focus its mission and become a reliable place to publish quality LDS literature, it will fill a void in Mormon letters and grow its readership.
As far as how Irreantum positions itself politically, Kristine said this:
“Still, it seems to me that the best stuff is not politically motivated, that somehow too much worry about one’s place vis-a-vis the institution is deadening.”
This is my philosophy, too. From my perspective, political motivations can kill good art. Not always, but almost always. As an editor, I am interested in honesty, communication, finding common ground. And, of course, artistic vision and literary talent. But agenda-driven creative work (be it a conversion mentality on the one hand, or an “expose” mentality on the other) gets suffocated by its politics. Of course, I have my own ideas about what qualifies as agenda-driven, but I like to think I can usually sniff it out.
Finally, I would hope that Irreantum can find a very broad audience within the subset of Mormons who are interested in quality literary expression. Of course, each editor here hopes our magazine will reach a broad audience, but the truth is none of us will reach every corner of the room. But what I don’t cover, Segullah does, or Sunstone or Dialogue or Exponent II. In that light, our quirky little differences (political or no) are to be celebrated, I think.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
What does “don’t mess with the Brethren” mean? Does it mean you never disagree with a General Conference talk by a current GA? Or is it ok to disagree with the idea if you don’t name the speaker and you’re very respectful? (As in CJane’s cute post on “modest earrings”). What if you can cite another one of the Brethren to support your view? And how far back in time does the prohibition on “messing with” go? Presumably it would be OK to disagree with B. H. Roberts on women’s suffrage, right? And how far down the hierarchical ladder do you go? Can you question a bishop? A Stake President? The Young Men’s President who ALWAYS forgets refreshments? Do the opinions of members of all the quorums of 70 carry equal weight with the First Presidency’s? And, of course, one has to wonder if it extends to the Sistern…
These questions can get ridiculous, and I’m honestly not trying to be obtuse, but “don’t mess with the Brethren” is not a self-evident standard. As a matter of editorial practice, you probably don’t have to deal too precisely with these questions, but maybe you can see why I think such line-drawing is fraught.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Kristine, amongst our staff we debate over nuances on a regular basis. We purposefully choose staff members to keep a nice balance of personalities and perspectives and politics–a microcosm of our audience–and we give a lot of weight to group consensus when we’re interpreting how our mission statement applies in certain situations. Like I said before, there’s grey area that needs navigating, and there’s pretty strong diversity of opinion, but unilateral committment to common goals. We work things out on a case-by-case basis.
But when I refer to core principles, it drives me crazy when people say “what norms?” It’s hardly a mystery. The norms are spelled out in many places, from the Articles of Faith to “The Family: A Proclamation” to “For the Strength of Youth.” The Brethren made a formal statement regarding Prop 8–we’re not going to publicly question or criticize that statement on our blog or in our journal, even if some of us personally disagree with it.
And you’re right, we don’t need to do a lot of line-drawing as editors, because we focus on personal writing, and our contributors haven’t seemed interested in challenging or questioning or criticizing the establishment in their poems and personal essays. There’s little need to answer questions like yours above, because the genres of writing we publish simply don’t cover that ground. Nobody writes personal essays that compare and contrast GA statements. Nobody writes poems about B.H. Roberts’ views on suffrage. This is simply not our territory.
As far as having greater ease with expressions of personal experience than intellectual inquiry, here’s a good example: If someone writes an academic-style essay about why they think the brethren are wrong about gay marriage, I’ll likely perceive it as confrontational, and probably disloyal. If someone writes a personal essay about their struggles with this issue, and tells me about the people they know and the experiences they’ve had, and how and why they feel so conflicted, I will have an entirely different reaction.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:45 am
What Kathy said.
To my knowledge, we have not received a submission that we’ve rejected for content that “messes with” (love that technical term) the Brethren. But I think there’s value, for us as an organization, in knowing that staying supportive of Church leaders and policies is our goal. I feel like it unites us, even though each staff member has a different vision of what that means. It makes our publication… feel like a haven. At least that’s how it felt to me.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:31 am
May I offer a perspective from the peanut gallery? I say this as a guy who wishes he had enough scratch to subscribe to all youralls’ journals.
First, we need to keep in mind that from the perspective of 99% of the English-speaking church membership, you are ALL alternate voices and therefore borderline heretics. Most Mormons see only Ensign/NonEnsign, and that is that. So it is kind of amusing to see the emphasis on line-drawing and boundary maintenance, as if you are saying “We are only 99.1% apostate, unlike those people over there who are definitely, definitely at least 99.6% apostate”. You all have a lot in common, beginning with many of your readers. Would it be such a bad thing to acknowledge that now and then?
Second, You are all able to build on the work that has already been done, regardless of the venue. It is worth asking if Segullah would have even been possible without the work of an earlier generation at EXII, just as a for instance. I don’t know the answer, but the fact that the answer is not obvious indicates that we ought to be careful about building the wall too high. As a reader, I would like to see you all throw an occasional bone to each other now and then.
Third, we need to be very careful not to make hasty decisions about what helps or hurts the church or undermines The Brethren. I think a very good argument could be made that without the work done by Lester Bush and published in Dialogue concerning Mormons and race, Official Declaration 2 would not have been possible, or at least that it would have happened later than it did. If that is true, Bush’s work is the most important thing that has been published in any Mormon venue in the past 50 years, with the possible exception of conference issues of The Ensign.
Kathryn, far be it from me to drive you crazy (crazier? heh heh), but while I agree with you that the norms aren’t a mystery, I would suggest that there is a lot of gray area, too. Exhibit A is The Mother in Me. I know two women, and have had e-conversations with them, who think the sub-title is objectionable. They think that the suggestion that a woman must “grow” into motherhood is antithetical to the notion that females are naturally mothers which has been propounded in the Proclamation and at GC, BYU woman’s conference, etc. Don’t worry though, I’ve been sticking up for your honor.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:52 am
And I should follow up and say that I see the establishment of theredbrickstore as a very positive thing. Please continue!
Paz y Amor to all!
October 28th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Kristine: I, too, would like to see branding have more to do with genre and less to do with perceived orthodoxy (although I think that issue will always be a part of things, and rightly so). I think it would increase good will, and I’m all for that. Also, it would greatly help potential contributors to know which publications focus on what.
I know the kind of fearlessness you describe, and I think it’s valuable. But I don’t think it should be expected as a matter of course. There are lots of intelligent people out there who simply don’t subscribe to wide-open intellectual inquiry when it comes to the spiritual, and I believe their boundaries should be respected rather than lamented. But the door swings both ways. If someone has a wider range of exploration than I do, I needn’t jump to the conclusion that they’re heretical. (Although, I maintain that there’s plenty of material out there in independent land that is heretical.)
We recently had a debate on Blog Segullah about standards in literature (particularly in book clubs) that captured this dynamic exactly. It was very evident that “righteous” in these matters tends to mean “whatever I think is proper.” I think it’s vital for “mainstream” LDS to recognize the degree of relativism in their staked-out stances, and to come to understand that those who think and feel differently than themselves may be just as (or even more) “faithful” than they perceive themselves to be. One of the things I’m most grateful for re Segullah is that it has expanded my perspective of what it means to be a faithful LDS woman. At the time of our debut, my view was much more narrow than it is now. Much of that has to do with the relationships I enjoy with staff members, but it also has to do with exposure to a multitude of voices on our blog and in our inbox.
But I also think it’s vital for “edgy” LDS to admit that there are some objective standards in the church, and that if they choose to challenge those standards, they’re positioning themselves as outsiders to one degree or another, and shouldn’t complain if they’re perceived as such.
imo, the core of objective standards is pretty small, and there are layers upon layers of interpretation and cultural baggage surrounding that core (as your series of queries about “messing with the brethren” illustrated). I think it’s good for people to recognize that some (or many) of the things they consider black-and-white are actually in the grey area. But we differ in how many layers removed from the core we’re willing to venture. If caution in that regard can’t be respected, the perceived divide between “inside” and “outside” will only become more entrenched.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Howdy, Mark!!
Thanks so much for your comments. I’ll respond later today. Must go be a mother now…
October 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Emily,
I really like your viewpoint of what publications within the Mormon sphere should do: unite us. I’m interested, though, if our definitions of unity are similar.
For me, unity is when a group of people listen to and respond authentically with each other. It’s when people approach the conversation with the premise that they are there to learn from each other. Unity breaks down when one of us, or many of us, shut another, or the others, out. It’s sown when one of us, or many of us, insist that our version is the correct version.
The Mormon worldview, to me, is that we are at once irrevocably individual and irrevocably social. Our salvation depends totally on ourselves (with a bit of help from on high), but we also cannot be saved alone. This situation makes it imperative that the community authentically encounter the individual, and the individual authentically encounter the community. If the relationship between them (going both ways) is living and creative, there is unity.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I appreciate that different publications have a different flavor. I don’t think there is a need to be all thrown into the same tent. I applaud the efforts to create a more vibrant culture of writing and art. Each group uses different aesthetic lenses to judge/edit against. I am an artist so I will use an art metaphor. If you were excited about an exhibit of Willem de Kooning might be disappointed if the bulk of the exhibit were John Singer Sargent pieces and vice versa. Much can be done in the name of art or scholarship but it doesn’t mean it is understood or appreciated by all. We seek different things. Just as with any gallery I go to I naturally gravity toward that which touches me (maybe in message, composition, it’s beauty, or it’s ability to evoke emotion). I don’t think it’s all about orthodoxy. Personally I appreciate Segullah for it’s celebration of womens voices/experiences. While I venture into other spheres and do not fear a healthy discussion of ideas, I find the tone at Segullah warm and expressive. I think it fills a niche perviously void. You could view it from a goldilocks perspective of orthodoxy as hot, cold, or just right. While temperature is a factor in what I eat, it’s less about temperature and more about flavor. Some like it with raisins, some with honey, some with brown sugar, some with cinnamon. I appreciate finding something that tastes right to me.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:29 am
In my perspective as a reader, there is a difference in these publications. (Segullah/Exponent II) I have read both. I prefer Segullah over Exponent II. Why? Segullah (the journal and the blog) speaks to me. I am lifted, challenged, encouraged and entertained. I usually feel good about what I have read. With the Exponent II I rarely feel that. I have read many things from the Exponent II journal and enjoyed most of them. But I don’t enjoy the blog. I rarely feel lifted, challenged, or encourage there. And I don’t feel as if I (and my feelings and beliefs) are welcome there. That makes me not want to spend time or money on Exponent II journal. (I do realize it is all online now) I put Segullah on favorites and participate in their blog discussions. I subscribe to the Segullah journal. This is personal preference. I have many things going on in my life (as do we all!) and I choose to read things that will help me with what I am dealing with in a positive way.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
thats’ gravitate and previously
So much for mothering and commenting at the same time, where’s edit when I need it!
October 28th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Les writes: “We seek different things.”
I think this an important point to make. There’s a tendency to want to say “hey — I think this incredibly important! Everybody look over here!” and then to get mad when people don’t or they do but don’t see it as important or interesting as you do. It’s something that I used to struggle with with A Motley Vision. I’d read a blog post or a news story or an AML-List post and I’d be like “Hello! I’ve already talked about that.” or “Oh my heck — does some background reading before you spout off.” Or even more: “This is absolutely brilliant. How come none of you are recognizing that!”
But then I realized that it did no good to think that way. That what I find important and interesting isn’t what other people find important and interesting. And that what I really need to do is refine my own thinking and writing and engage with anybody who surfaces and wants to talk and let them help me refine my thinking and writing. I’ve been a much happier blogger since that realization. Nobody owes me anything. And if I’m going to expend time and energy on writing it has to be because it makes me happy, and I publish it only because I hope that somebody else out there finds value in it. And if they don’t — maybe it’s just simply because they are seeking different things.
Stephen writes:
“Unity breaks down when one of us, or many of us, shut another, or the others, out. It’s sown when one of us, or many of us, insist that our version is the correct version.”
I think that we don’t need unity at all — we need civility. And along with that we need compelling, well-written content that expresses our versions of Mormon culture. And if you want to be included in the conversation, you should conduct yourself with civility and intelligence and produce stuff that others get something out of. I don’t know why we should expect people to not assert that their version isn’t the correct version. Where’s the passion in that?
However, because we’re mainly talking about cultural and academic discourses here, the beautiful thing is that, in my opinion, if we produce works that show a certain amount of civility (e.g. aren’t screeds, aren’t didactic) and that exhibit signs of craftsmanship, then those of us who are interested in the field are likely to want to engage with such work — even if we don’t agree with that particular version. [Or maybe that's just me.]
October 28th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Ah, unity. I think that’s not quite what I meant, unity among publications. That may be your vision, and one purpose of this blog, and that’s a great idea. But when I mentioned unity, I was referring to the unity between staffers (and audience, I guess) of Segullah. And it comes because we can put aside our differences to work together for a common vision.
I don’t think I’m “insisting that our version is the correct version;” I’m sorry if that’s how I’ve come across. I was trying to answer Kristine’s question about what norms we follow. Our version is our version, and like William Morris says, if people find it compelling they will read it. I’ve met many people who aren’t that into Segullah, or really any independent LDS publication. The vast majority of Mormons just don’t really care about what we’re doing. They’re just not that into us. And so be it. (including this very funny blog post from a while back, here.)
And amen to William Morris’s last paragraph. Well spoken.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am
A few more quick comments.
First, Mark, how dare you call me a heretic! (And if I am a heretic, does that mean I don’t have to substitute in Primary anymore??)
.
I understand what Mark is trying to say, though. The truth of it is, the audience for all these journals is quite small. We all hope to grow this audience, but many people aren’t interested in discussing *anything* church related outside of officially sanctioned venues (church meetings, visiting teaching, conference, the Ensign, etc.).
I think the book club discussion on Segullah’s blog that Kathy mentioned is an interesting illustration of this. (I’m on Segullah’s board, so I feel like I can speak to Segullah at least a little bit.) Although Segullah defines itself as a rather safe place for believing Mormon women to share ideas, almost every single woman who commented on that book club thread was interested in reading challenging literature, even if it contained some sex or language. Many individuals drew the line in different places, but most of these women were bemoaning the fact that Mormon women wouldn’t be interested in reading books like The Kite Runner. One woman, in fact, who argued against reading such books was amazed that she seemed find herself “alone” in her stand against reading anything with language or sex on a blog like Segullah.
The truth is, people who are attracted to Segullah (or Irreantum, a magazine that I believe tries to keep an audience of believing Mormons firmly in mind) are not representative of the strictly conservative membership of the church. These are people who are looking for conversation or art that they can’t always find in the officially sanctioned venues I mentioned above. In every ward, there are a handful of active, believing women who raise their hands and say mildly astonishing things in Relief Society; who read The Kite Runner; who listen to Nirvana songs really loud in the van, even when the kids are present; who might even (gasp!) vote for Barack Obama. But these women aren’t (usually) overtly political; they aren’t interested in upsetting any apple carts; they are interested in how to maintain rather than why they should be questioning their testimonies. Of course, this is a generalization . . . but overall, this is the community of women that has congregated around Segullah. It’s a vibrant, exciting, wonderful community–but it’s only a slice of the Mormon pie.
At any rate, all of our publications are trying to provide community and a means of expression for specific subsets of the Mormon population. These populations probably overlap more than they diverge–but the small divergences are important, because they help us reach more Mormons who are looking for a certain kind of conversation. But all of us, I think, have the intention of providing a safe place for the exchange of ideas and a way to foster unity. Stephen said, “It’s when people approach the conversation with the premise that they are there to learn from each other. Unity breaks down when one of us, or many of us, shut another, or the others, out. It’s sown when one of us, or many of us, insist that our version is the correct version.” And I agree.
Back to the woman on the Segullah blog who was astonished by all of us and our reading choices. She used the phrase “those of us who have chosen the better part” as a way to describe people who’ve decided never to read books with what she deemed objectionable material. It was in the use of a phrase like that that the conversation began to break down a little (although some of the passionate Kite Runner readers were being judgmental of the non-Kite Runner readers, too. It went both ways). But it’s that kind of attitude–one of judgment and even condemnation–that I try to keep out of Irreantum’s pages. And that judgment and condemnation can come at you from both sides of the Mormon political spectrum.
In my mind, a story or essay in Irreantum can be “about” almost anything. It’s the intention of the author that counts. Is he/she writing from a place of curiosity, generosity–a place of seeking to understand? Or does the piece have at its core a didacticism that alienates and marginalizes? The fact that some of Irreantum’s pieces may be about difficult or dark things might (well, will) turn some Mormon readers away, but it is my hope that those same pieces will be nourishing to other Mormon readers’ souls because of the generosity and honesty with which they are treated.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Don’t worry, Emily. You weren’t coming across as being parochial at all. I didn’t realize you were talking about staff relations.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I missed William’s and Emily’s comments when I was posting. (And Stephen’s unity quote must have been a keeper, since we all referred to it.)
You know, I see what William means, vis a vis the difference between unity and civility. Sometimes, though, the word “civility” connotes a restrained anger or indignation seething beneath the surface, whereas “unity” connotes a kind of serene acceptance of our differences. I can see where “unity” might connote conformity though . . . but that’s not the way I meant it.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“‘don’t mess with the brethren’ is not a self-evident standard”
But for most Mormons it is. And even if the contours of the standard aren’t totally self-evident, the standard itself is.
I think your kicking against the pricks again, the pricks being the fact that most Mormons have views that diverge from yours and also have divergent views from you about what kinds of divergent views are acceptable and what expressions of them are acceptable.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
<i?You all have a lot in common, beginning with many of your readers. Would it be such a bad thing to acknowledge that now and then?
Absolutely. If you are on the borderline in the eyes of many of the Saints, it is imperative that you not find alternate community in those who you yourself percieve to be over the border. It makes it far less likely that the Saints will be able to understand and incorporate your perspective into their unity.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I know I keep saying one more comment, but . . . one more comment.
As far as “don’t mess with the brethren” being a self-evident standard, it reminds me of a conversation I had with a non-Mormon neighbor when I was living in Minnesota. She was trying to figure out what our “rules” were as far as keeping the sabbath day holy.
“So can you go boating?” she asked.
“Umm, no,” I said.
“Can you drive a car?”
“Of course!”
“Can you go on a bike ride?”
“Yeah, probably, if it’s just around the neighborhood and with your family.”
“So boating, absolutely not. Biking, kinda, under certain circumstances. Driving a car, definitely okay. I’m sorry, but I don’t see much of a difference between all these things. Is there some kind of a code you learn or something like that?”
“Nope,” I said. “You just kinda figure it out.”
Almost all Mormons have a sense of what is crossing the line when it comes to questioning the brethren. This doesn’t mean that sometimes this line is arbitrary or cultural or changes with the generations. But we all still *know* it because, as a part of our culture, we can read its cues.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“Sometimes, though, the word “civility” connotes a restrained anger or indignation seething beneath the surface, whereas “unity” connotes a kind of serene acceptance of our differences.”
That’s funny. To me unity connotes a glossing over of differences, a sort of gauzy liberal “we’re all okay and unique in our own way” thing that really means that nobody really wants you to open your mouth. Whereas civility connotes an acknowledgment of differences but the willingness to at listen to others and expressing yourself within the boundaries of civil discourse. There’s no need for seething indignation if you are comfortable in your beliefs. And if you aren’t comfortable in your own beliefs then civil discussion can help you figure out where you really stand.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Regarding the 99%. Perhaps it’s just because I’ve mainly lived in wards with a fairly high percentage of college-educated members, but although I do agree with much of what Mark, Adam and Angela (and others) have said about “not messing with the Brethren” and the unity of the Saints, I do think there’s actually quite a bit of diversity (political and cultural) within the boundaries of orthodoxy and with that comes room for some very interesting cultural production. I also think that our perceptions may be warped slightly by the fact that most of our interactions with other members are in Church-y contexts.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
There you go again, Adam, messing with the brethren.
Just a few weeks ago, Elder Eyring stressed the importance of emphasizing the common ground we share instead of focusing on the differences. Why would that principle not apply to independent Mormon publishing? Or are you one of those mess hall Mormons who like to pick and choose their beliefs?
October 28th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Response to Mark:
I say this as a guy who wishes he had enough scratch to subscribe to all youralls’ journals.
Hey, ours is free online! Go read.
First, we need to keep in mind that from the perspective of 99% of the English-speaking church membership, you are ALL alternate voices and therefore borderline heretics. Most Mormons see only Ensign/NonEnsign, and that is that. So it is kind of amusing to see the emphasis on line-drawing and boundary maintenance, as if you are saying “We are only 99.1% apostate, unlike those people over there who are definitely, definitely at least 99.6% apostate”. You all have a lot in common, beginning with many of your readers. Would it be such a bad thing to acknowledge that now and then?
Not a bad thing at all. We’re hoping this blog will help accomplish that very thing.
Second, You are all able to build on the work that has already been done, regardless of the venue. It is worth asking if Segullah would have even been possible without the work of an earlier generation at EXII, just as a for instance. I don’t know the answer, but the fact that the answer is not obvious indicates that we ought to be careful about building the wall too high. As a reader, I would like to see you all throw an occasional bone to each other now and then.
It’s absolutely true that Segullah is building on the tradition of ExII. We don’t intend to be antagonistic in any way. We have some crossover (some of our staff participating on their blog, and vice versa). Deborah K. and I are friends. We’ve talked about starting a round-table blog very much like RBS, except run by reps from all the LDS womens’ group blogs, but we just haven’t had time.
Third, we need to be very careful not to make hasty decisions about what helps or hurts the church or undermines The Brethren. I think a very good argument could be made that without the work done by Lester Bush and published in Dialogue concerning Mormons and race, Official Declaration 2 would not have been possible, or at least that it would have happened later than it did. If that is true, Bush’s work is the most important thing that has been published in any Mormon venue in the past 50 years, with the possible exception of conference issues of The Ensign.
I don’t know enough about that specific example to respond, but as far as the general issue goes: I agree that arrogance is never a good thing, but I’d say challenging the brethren rarely-if-ever is, and that those exceptions (if indeed there are any) could only be identified in retrospect. If I’m going to err on one side or the other, I’d much rather err on the side of trust than doubt.
Kathryn, far be it from me to drive you crazy (crazier? heh heh), but while I agree with you that the norms aren’t a mystery, I would suggest that there is a lot of gray area, too.
Yes. I was typing my comment about that when you were typing yours…
Exhibit A is The Mother in Me. I know two women, and have had e-conversations with them, who think the sub-title is objectionable. They think that the suggestion that a woman must “grow” into motherhood is antithetical to the notion that females are naturally mothers which has been propounded in the Proclamation and at GC, BYU woman’s conference, etc.
HA!
Well, it’s probably good for us to take a turn on the other side of the fence.
We address the danger of very assumptions in the book. Several essays touch upon the distress of not feeling like a natural mother when you’ve heard all your life that you were born to be one.
Don’t worry though, I’ve been sticking up for your honor.
Thanks, pal. We owe you one!
October 29th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I know I’m coming in very, very late to the discussion. I read the post for the first time several days ago, and between my houseguests and my kids, couldn’t find a second to respond.
Anyway, I just wanted to add another perspective. Several months ago, a friend asked me to guest blog at Feminist Mormon Housewives. That two-week stint as a guest blogger turned into a permanent gig and another old friend, working at Segullah, recognized me and asked me if I’d be interested in working with them. Up until that point, I’d been keeping my own little Mommy blog and dreaming of the day when I could find time to write. Suddenly, I was writing and editing and feeling more intellectual fulfillment than I’d felt since I finished my MA almost a decade ago.
The wealth of independent Mormon publications allows for a wider variety of Mormon voices to be heard and developed. I feel like I’ve learned so much as a writer over the last six months from Kathy and Emily and Angela and the other women at Segullah. Without a lot of different avenues for LDS voices to be heard, we might be missing out on people whose voices could be developed and from whom we have a lot to learn.
October 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
For what it is worth, I have more or less current subscriptions to BYU Studies, JMH, and Dialogue. I used to subscribe to Sunstone, but I don’t anymore.
I ditched Sunstone because I didn’t care much for the format — I want something in book pages with footnotes — and the quality was too uneven. Life is just too short and I have too many other things that I want to read.
As for the ideological issue, I think that the fact that Segullah says something like “We don’t mess with the Brethren” is a much more important signal than how they actually define the mechanics of the application of that norm. I think that people are uncomfortable with association with a publication that is percieved as a faithful (or not) opposition within the church. Some strong signal of institutional loyalty avoids this problem, I think. The way in which that institutional loyalty is actually worked out in detail is less important.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Nate,
I wonder why it is important for Segullah to even give that signal.
You subscribe to JMH. When you made the decision to subscribe, did you care that it was (and I think still is) edited by Lavina F. Anderson, an excommunicant? Almost every issue contains work by people who do not accept our truth claims. In the past few years, the JMH book of the year awards have gone to Mike Quinn and Dan Vogel. It isn’t clear to me that anybody cares about their membership status, or what the brethren think of them.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
The signal is needed in order to attract readers who have shied away from independent pubs in the past, because of orthodoxy issues.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Nate, I think you are probably right, which gets us back to the question of branding–Segullah’s content may be entirely similar to Sunstone’s (heck, Sunstone may publish an interview with Heather Oman, ferPete’ssake!) but people’s assessment doesn’t change because they had made a judgment before they even survey the content. Mark’s examples of JMH content serve to illustrate the point.
In a way, this is part of the point I was trying to get at–I don’t think it speaks well of our intellectual culture that we make decisions based on signals about institutional loyalty or the perceived orthodoxy of the contributors, rather than on the quality of scholarship or artistic excellence of what’s between the covers. And if some significant fraction of the potential audience and helpful critics will never read what’s in publications outside of their comfort zone, everyone’s writing in an echo chamber. The people who would tell the Sunstone story writer that trying to be edgy by sneering at believers is a dead end won’t read it, and the clever but unorthodox academic who could help the Segullah writer get to a deeper truth will make the mistake of thinking orthodox Mormon women’s writing=treacle.
But maybe I’m wrong–do you see judgments about loyalty and orthodoxy, on the basis of clear branding, as (potentially) virtuous or merely inevitable?
October 30th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Kathryn, you’re quite right, and I’m very happy that you are expanding the readership base of indpendent Mormon publications.
My point was that I don’t understand what Nate was saying about the importance of the signal itself, rather than the way the signalling is done. A casual reader who looks at Segullah won’t see a mission statement saying “We don’t mess with the Brethren”. Rather, it is something they will eventualy pick up on as they read. Since that cue is more or less implicit, it is ALL about the way you signal. And, as the two women I know, and as the woman Johnna knows demonstrate, that signalling is often more ambiguous than we would like, because there are people out there who find Segullah insufficiently orthodox. Whaddya gonna do?
But I get the feeling I am beating a dead horse here. We have established that there is a substantial amount of cross-pollination, and that you all don’t treat each other like pariahs. So I am a happy reader. Carry on, carry on, ye editors of the noble birthright!
October 30th, 2008 at 10:02 am
“I don’t think it speaks well of our intellectual culture that we make decisions based on signals about institutional loyalty or the perceived orthodoxy of the contributors, rather than on the quality of scholarship or artistic excellence of what’s between the covers.”
I’d just like to point out that issues of loyalty and orthodoxy over the quality of content aren’t confined to Mormon publications.
One of the most hilarious examples of this that I ever encountered was when I decided that since I was working on a teaching composition certificate to go with my comp lit degree, I should check out what the comp journals were like. Talk about signaling. I completely forget what the names of the two journals I looked at were, but one was all Freire and the other was all t-unit counts. Reading the titles in the tables of contents just cracked me up. And wow was the philosophical divide that I had been sensing from the faculty in the department laid bare.
So I personally like some signaling about orthodoxy. I may ignore them at times. But I like them to be there when I have limited resources or just am not in the mood. In fact, the third part in my series on LDS fiction; Mormon fiction is going to talk a bit about this.
Sure, I have pretty broad tastes and tolerances, but what really hits the sweet spot for me is work that is middle-of-the-road — what the AML has called broadly appropriate (and what I’m now calling the radical middle). And that’s even more true if I feel like the work is coming from a place of orthodoxy and belief (although note that for me that’s probably a wider definition than most Mormons but perhaps not quite as wide as everyone here). The truth is that if you are really interested in this field, you are going to have to read stuff that isn’t, maybe, quite up to par with the best of what the world has to offer. And we just don’t have the mechanisms in place that will help us sift through it all (for example, using a few sources I can usually tell if I’m going to like a particular piece of speculative fiction or not) — nor do we have enough market incentives to seriously ramp up the levels of production that could lead to more excellent work.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Mark:
Oh, I get it now.
Well, our mission statement is printed on the inside cover of every issue, and is featured on our home page, and linked to from our blog, but I imagine a number of our readers have never noticed it. (Particularly those who read journal material via the blog.)
November 1st, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Kristine: On one level, I think that the search for signals is unhealthy and on another level I think that it is inevitable and even benign. Given the inevitablely limited time and energy that everyone has we will all (even you! ;->) dismiss most material without seriously engaging it. This is one of the unfortunate side effects of not being God.
I think that you are right about the problem of self-reinforcing conversations. As to the necessity of loyalty signals, perhaps it was inevitable, but I suspect that it mainly arose as a matter of historical acciddent. Sunstone and to some extent Dialogue have allowed themselves to serve as platforms for stinging and occasionally irresponsible attacks on the Church. I understand the logic of why they did so, and at some deep level I am on board with the lets-have-an-open-discussion approach. (I’ve even put in a little effort over the years to trying to foster more open Mormon discussions.) The historical fact of those attacks, however, and the Church’s (IMHO) overreaction to them, created the need for new publications to signal. It is an unfortunate reality in many ways and one that will, I think, ultimately disappaite as the late 1980s and early 1990s recede into the background. It may have irretrievably destroyed the Sunstone brand, which is sad but if true not ultimately a devestating blow to Mormon intellectual life. Intellectual discussions survive the decline of this or that publication with some regularity, and edgy but ultimately unfortunate editorial decisions have crippled more than one magazine in the past.
FWIW, I think that the JMH has limited its ideological exposure by having higher professional standards. This lowers the ideological temp. considerably. Sunstone, Exponent II, and Segullah — by virtue of their genre — cannot hide behind scholarly professionalism because they are not professional scholarly publications. My understanding, however, is that even the JMH has had its touch and go moments, which it weathered in part by aggressively insisting on ideological balance on its editorial board, although I have to admit that I’m just going off rumors here and can’t claim any special knowledge about the inner workings of the JMH. I do think that it is a great journal.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I would also echo Wm. Morris’s point about signalling in other disciplines. I can tell you which are the conservative legal journals, which are the fruity leftwing ones and which are in the middle of the road and desperately searching for good content.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
One follow up: Last spring I was on a panel at the national conference for the American Society for Law, Culture, and the Humanities. I went to panel after panel after panel where everyone talked as though everyone in the room shared a set of ideological assumptions somewhat to the left of Che Gueverra. Some of it was pretty good (some of it felt like a hospice for stale critical theory from the 1970s), but it was clear that this was an intellectual community defined in part by ideological commitments. This kind of stuff happens. Thinking that it is only a Mormon thing is part of what Eugen England called parochial anti-parochialism.
November 1st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
As a missionary in the South at the beginning of the 1990′s I encountered surprising amounts of racism, even within priesthood meetings. It was shocking for a young man from Utah that didn’t live through the civil rights struggles and that did not grow up with the tensions around me. Even though I vaguely recall the 1978 revelation, I was only 7 years old, so by the time I arrived in the mission field it seemed like silly and ancient history. Alas, it was not, and the battle was still fresh in the minds of those in the areas I served some 12 years after the fact.
But for me, for those of my generation? We came of age in an era of priesthood equality among the races. It’s largely not an issue, though many of us are embarrassed that it ever was one.
Today there is a new generation of scholars and readers coming of age. The events of the late 80′s and early 90′s are nearly two decades old. There is a rich history in Sunstone and Dialogue, a base that can be built upon and expanded, and a new generation of readers. The market is large enough to sustain these brands, and even to see these brands thrive, we simply need to grow them with good content and smart decisions.
Suffice it to say that I’m not too concerned about perceived damage to brands. We’ve survived much worse, and we’ve learned valuable lessons along the way.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:37 am
[...] surrounding the question of when life begins. We’ve also had great discussions about the pros and cons of stereotyping LDS publications, and the connection between literature and compassion. And we’re just getting [...]
June 11th, 2009 at 7:16 am
[...] I sculpt, for instance, my sacrament meeting talks with great care. And I spent, apparently, too long polishing my Sunstone [...]