Post by Tamrin on Oct 13, 2008 13:03:12 GMT 10
The Parameters of Brotherhood:
Gender, Race and Ethnicity in Fraternal Orders
[/b][/size]Gender, Race and Ethnicity in Fraternal Orders
[Excerpts - Linked Above][/center]
The tension that I discussed in the previous chapter between brotherhood and selectivity forms the axis of this chapter. Like any social structure, fraternalism offered a particular construct through which its members acted and were acted upon. Fraternalism’s “significance resides not only in the social networks it created, reinforced, or displayed, but in the meanings it articulated, the cultural context it provided for social action.” To understand this cultural context, one must observe the social categories that fraternalism validated and those it denied in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity. In the culturally dynamic era of the late 19th century, the aporia between egalitarianism and selectivity was forced to its crisis and resulted, ultimately, in the exponential proliferation of variations on the fraternal model.
The Masonic principle of universality, “defined as the association of good men without regard to religion, nationality, or class,” was incongruous with the fact that Masonry was “predominantly a white, native, Protestant, middle-class organization.” The outright exclusion of women however was espoused as being officially intrinsic to the Masonic experience: it was an experience by men, about men, and for men. The need for an entirely masculine asylum may have been a reaction to Victorian notions of relationships between the sexes. At the time, men and women occupied distinct and separate spheres. As production moved from the household to factories, middle-class women “no longer had a direct role in producing goods.” Men, therefore, were the obtainers of wealth “and created the economic and political institutions on which civilization depended, while women raised children and cultivated moral and religious values, so that civilization would retain a modicum of civility.” This gender-oriented bifurcation between home and workplace not only allowed the home, a place of leisure and nurture, to be dominated by women, but also landed women in the role of “moral custodian” for society.
The Masonic principle of universality, “defined as the association of good men without regard to religion, nationality, or class,” was incongruous with the fact that Masonry was “predominantly a white, native, Protestant, middle-class organization.” The outright exclusion of women however was espoused as being officially intrinsic to the Masonic experience: it was an experience by men, about men, and for men. The need for an entirely masculine asylum may have been a reaction to Victorian notions of relationships between the sexes. At the time, men and women occupied distinct and separate spheres. As production moved from the household to factories, middle-class women “no longer had a direct role in producing goods.” Men, therefore, were the obtainers of wealth “and created the economic and political institutions on which civilization depended, while women raised children and cultivated moral and religious values, so that civilization would retain a modicum of civility.” This gender-oriented bifurcation between home and workplace not only allowed the home, a place of leisure and nurture, to be dominated by women, but also landed women in the role of “moral custodian” for society.
This masculine reaction to the “feminization of culture,” however, exacerbated animosity between Masons and women who felt that the lodge posed a threat to the domestic sphere. The manner in which Masonry dealt with this animosity reveals, at first, a manipulative attempt to validate separation of the sexes, but ends ultimately in the rise of women’s auxiliary orders. Early attempts by Masons to assuage tensions between the sexes involved a form of flattery by which fraternalists praised the moral superiority of women. A nineteenth-century fraternal writer posed the justification: “You were born Masons; any initiation or ceremony would be superfluous; therefore we do not insult you by any such propositions.” Eventually, however, fraternal orders began to recognize the fact that the best way to mitigate feminine antipathy was to allow the creation of women’s auxiliaries. By instituting the Degree of Rebekah, the Odd Fellows were the first to attempt “to lessen and ultimately destroy the prejudice felt against the Order by many of the fairer sex” through devising a ritual for them. The Masons followed suit by creating The Order of the Eastern Star, as did the Improved Order of Red Men with the institution of the Degree of Pocahontas.
These rituals, however, actually worked more to separate women further from the secrets of the brotherhood than bring them into the fold. “Unbeknownst to female initiates, the differences between the ladies’ degrees and the rituals of the male orders were profound.” For one, ladies initiation into these degrees was contingent upon the presence of their husband and his status in the order. Secondly, meetings of these women’s auxiliaries were always presided over by a male official from the Masonic or Oddfellow’s lodge. This control afforded the opportunity for men to inculcate notions of womanhood that would isolate women from experience of the true order. Women initiated into the Degree of Rebekah “were instructed to perpetuate the legacy of self-effacing Biblical heroines” and concern themselves with assuaging the suffering of the world. Lacking the intense drama of the masculine ritual, “female ceremonies, usually written by men, consisted of dull recitations of biblical parables.” In essence, the institution of women’s auxiliaries was way for fraternal orders to put women in their place while simultaneously duping them into feeling accepted.
These rituals, however, actually worked more to separate women further from the secrets of the brotherhood than bring them into the fold. “Unbeknownst to female initiates, the differences between the ladies’ degrees and the rituals of the male orders were profound.” For one, ladies initiation into these degrees was contingent upon the presence of their husband and his status in the order. Secondly, meetings of these women’s auxiliaries were always presided over by a male official from the Masonic or Oddfellow’s lodge. This control afforded the opportunity for men to inculcate notions of womanhood that would isolate women from experience of the true order. Women initiated into the Degree of Rebekah “were instructed to perpetuate the legacy of self-effacing Biblical heroines” and concern themselves with assuaging the suffering of the world. Lacking the intense drama of the masculine ritual, “female ceremonies, usually written by men, consisted of dull recitations of biblical parables.” In essence, the institution of women’s auxiliaries was way for fraternal orders to put women in their place while simultaneously duping them into feeling accepted.
