A close encounter with tokenism May, 1989

Tokenism can be defined as, “a show of concession to a demand.”

This past triennium, I had my first experience of being a token. It wasn’t intentional and it was an isolated and partial experience.

Nevertheless it was a novel ex­perience that taught me something both amusing and painful about myself and others. It all started out rather in­nocently. I was asked to serve on an interim committee of General Convention having to do with women’s participation in the Church. At that time the commit­tee had no name. The formal in­vitation did not come to me until after the committee had met once.

It was only after accepting the invitation to serve that I dis­covered that I was a token in two ways: as one of two men on a sixteen member committee; and as the perfunctory “we ought to have a bishop” member of the committee. At least it felt that way at the time.

As the time for my first meeting of the Committee for Full Participation of Women in the Church drew near, my feel­ings changed from curiosity to apprehension to anxiety.

Why had I really been asked? What would my contribution or role be within the group? Why was I feeling a bit threatened while at the same time pleased that I had been asked to serve?

I tried to dismiss the mounting anxiety with a swipe of masculine confidence and assurance. After all, wasn’t I a secure, healthy, middle-aged man? Aha, I thought; this must have been the very reason I was asked to serve on this committee.

Now I was going to be the brunt and focus of the repressed anger of fourteen women who wanted to unload on me as symbol of repressive and destructive patriarchy!!

Anxiety gave way to sheer fear. The inner dialogue con­tinued.

Not me, I am a committed feminist, I said, committed as a husband, father and bishop. Didn’t they know that? How could I share that without soun­ding defensive? Why did I feel a need to share it? Why was I feel­ing intimidated? Why was I being defensive.?

Intimidated token

The first meeting dispelled the fears and reduced the anxiety. Some of the feeling of intimida­tion, however, remained: in­timidation born of simply being a man surrounded by a group of powerful, committed and compe­tent women.

I suspect that I hardly need to share the “aha”, the insight that this is how a token woman must feel in Church groups largely dominated by men.

A second and more subtle insight came to me on the airplane after the meeting. I realized that I had behaved differently than I normally do during a meeting. I wasn’t vocal. I felt hesitant in participating and tentative in of­fering the few suggestions that I did share with the group.

I tried to dismiss this as a dynamic in being a new member of any group. But I knew that it was more. It was the lack of assurance and support that comes with being in a minority. More particularly, the lack of an assumed male frame of reference.

No locker-room lingo

Upon further reflection I became aware that there was more passion, compassion, energy, activity in this particular group than more male-dominated groups. Perhaps an inclusivity born of shared anger, hurt and hope, A bonding of care, without the macho locker room rituals of vocabulary.

The language itself was in­structive. In place of military and sports language, phrases such as “game plan,” “war on,” “touch base,” etc. different images were used: the language of family and relation­ship disclosing a different reality. “Onward Christian solders was replaced by “gathered Christian sisters”.

Tokenism is not unity

Tokenism, as accommodation or concession, is not inclusion. It does not foster the integrity and sharing called for in our praying and working toward unity. The intimidation born of tokenism in­hibits participation.

Full participation of women in the Church means equal representation. Tokenism is destructive of full sharing because it masks this fact. The recent gains of women’s fuller participation in the Church should not detract us from the hard work of full participation in the months and years ahead.

To call for unity without justice is accommodation and concession (tokenism) of the worst sort. Full participation, not tokenism, is the basis for unity. Tokenism maintains exclusivity while feigning inclusivity.

Restoring the Church

Integrity within the Church will be restored when we recover models, methods and theologies of ministry and the Church that retrieve and restore the circle, family and relationship as cen­tral for not only understanding the Church but the created order itself.

The present state of our en­vironment and created order signal the need for such a correc­tive. Women have a special role in guiding such a corrective.

Within the Church, an image that helps me to discern that role better is the image of the full par­ticipation of women enabling the recovery and building of “struc­tures of grace” which would nur­ture and support reconciliation, wellness and a new sense of wholeness and holiness that we call salvation.

 

This entry was posted in Articles by Bishop Anderson, Publications and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.