BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Leszczyńska Katarzyna (AGH University of Science and Technology)
Tytuł
The (Self-) Exclusion of Women from the Roman Catholic Church in Poland: Discursive Practices as Mechanisms Reproducing Models of Femininity in Church Organizations
Źródło
Polish Sociological Review, 2016, nr 4, s. 459-476, tab., bibliogr. 69 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Płeć, Kościół w społeczeństwie, Wykluczenie społeczne
Gender, Church in society, Social exclusion
Uwagi
summ., The project was financed by the National Science Centre Poland, on the basis of decision number DEC-2011/01/B/HS6/01753.
Abstrakt
In this article I analyze discursive practices that serve to reproduce models of femininity and that are adopted by lay women employed in central Church organizations, including in diocesan chanceries and ecclesiastical courts. The key discursive practice is dissociation, which excludes women from various institutional orders of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland, keeping them in their place in the hierarchy, and sanctioning non-normative gender models.
Drawing on integration theories of gender and new institutionalism in sociology, I depart in this article from individualist and identity views of gender. I consider this category as a social institution, that is, as the social rules, both formal and informal, that restrict and liberate human action and are reproduced and transformed in social practices as a result of human agency.
My article is based on 31 in-depth interviews which I conducted with lay women working in administrative and evangelizing organizations of the Church in Poland. (original abstract)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Adams, J. 2007. Stained Glass Makes the Ceiling Visible: Organizational Opposition to Women in Congregational Leadership, Gender & Society 21(1): 80-105.
  2. Ahearn, L. M. 2001. Language and Agency, Annual Review of Antrhopology 30: 109-137.
  3. Australian Episcopal Conference. 1999. Woman and Man. One in Christ Jesus. Report on the Participation of Women in the Catholic Church in Australia. East Melbourne: Harper Collins Religious.
  4. Avishai, O. 2008. "Doing Religion" in a Secular World: Women in Conservative Religions and the Question of Agency, Gender & Society 22(4): 409-433.
  5. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution, Organization Studies 18(1): 93-117.
  6. Bird, S. R., & Rhoton, L. A. 2011. Women Professionals' Gender Strategies: Negotiating Gendered Organizational Barriers, in: E. Jeanes, D. Knights, & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of Gender, Work and Organization. London: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 245-262.
  7. Bracke, S. 2003. Author(iz)ing Agency: Feminist Scholars Making Sense of Women's Involvement in Religious 'Fundamentalist' Movements, The European Journal of Women's Studies 10(3): 335-346.
  8. Bracke, S. 2008. Conjugating the Modern/ Religious, Conceptualizing Female Religious Agency: Contours of a 'Post-secular' Conjuncture. Theory, Culture & Society 25(6): 51-67.
  9. Butler, J. 2007. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.
  10. Casanova, J. 2009. Religion, Politics And Gender Equality Public Religions Revisited; Draft Working Document. Geneva.
  11. Chmielewski, P. 2011. Homo agens: instytucjonalizm w naukach społecznych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Poltext.
  12. Code of Canon Law, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/INDEX.HTM Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. 2000. Decree of Communicator.
  13. Connell, R. 2006. Glass Ceilings or Gendered Institutions? Mapping the Gender Regimes of Public Sector Worksites, Public Administration Review, November/D: 837-849.
  14. Connell, R. W. 2005a. Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept, Gender & Society 19(6): 829-859.
  15. Connell, R. W. 2005b. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  16. Daly, M. 1978. Gyn/Ecology. The Metaethics Of Radical Feminism. Boston: Beacon Press. Retrieved from http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/mary-daly-gyn-ecology-the-metaethics-of-radical-feminism.pdf
  17. De Gasquet, B. 2010. The barrier and the stained-glass ceiling. Analyzing female careers in religious organizations, Sociologie Du Travail 52: e22-e39.
  18. Di Maggio, Paul J., P. W. W. 2006. Nowe spojrzenie na "żelazną klatkę": instytucjonalny izomorfizm i racjonalność zbiorowa w polach organizacyjnych, in: A. Jasińska-Kania, L. M. Nijakowski, J. Szacki (Eds.), Współczesne teorie socjologiczne. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, pp. 600-612.
  19. Ecklund, E. H. 2006. Organizational Culture and Women ' s Leadership: A Study of Six Catholic Parishes. Sociology of Religion 67(1): 81-98.
  20. Ecklund, E. H. 2005. Different Identity Accounts for Catholic Women, Review of Religious Research 47(2): 135-149.
  21. Graff, A. 2010. Efekt magmy, czyli o szczególnej roli Kościoła katolickiego w Polsce, in: A. Ostolski (Ed.), Kościół, państwo i polityka płci. Warszawa: Heinrich Bölll Stiftung, pp. 10-23.
  22. Green Jr, S. E., & L i, Y. 2011. Rhetorical Institutionalism: Language, Agency, and Structure in Institutional Theory since Alvesson 1993. Journal of Management Studies 48(7): 1662-1697.
  23. Hausner, J. 2013a. Społeczne czynniki ludzkiego działania, Zarządzanie Publiczne 24-25 (2-3): 8-18.
  24. Hausner, J. 2013b. Instytucje i działanie społeczne, Zarządzanie Publiczne 24-25 (2-3): 184-95.
  25. Hodgson, G. M. 2006. What Are Institutions? Journal of Economic Issues 40(1): 1-25.
  26. Hodgson, G. M. 2007. Institutions and Individuals: Interaction and Evolution, Organization Studies 28(1): 95-116.
  27. Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. 2006. " Doing femininity " at work: More than just relational practice, Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(1): 31-51.
  28. Kenny, M. 2007. Gender, Institutions and Power: A Critical Review, Politics 27(2): 91-100.
  29. Kościańska, A. 2009. Potęga ciszy. Konwersja a rekonstrukcja porządku płci na przykładzie nowego ruchu religijnego Brahma Kumaris. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
  30. Leszczyńska, K. 2014a. Świeccy mężczyźni i kobiety w instytucji Kościoła rzymskokatolickiego w Polsce.
  31. Segregacja wertykalna i horyzontalna w kościelnych organizacjach administracyjnych, Studia Socjologiczne 1(212): 45-76.
  32. Leszczyńska, K. 2014b. Ograniczenia i bariery w pracy kobiet w instytucji religijnej. Doświadczenia świeckich kobiet w organizacjach administracyjnych w Kościele rzymskokatolickim w Polsce, Societas/Communitas, 1: 165-194.
  33. Leszczyńska, K. 2014c. New Institutionalism At The Heuristic Frames-Historical Roots, Social Theories, Research Methods, Studia Humanistyczne AGH 13/4: 225-229.
  34. Leszczyńska, K. 2016. Płeć w instytucje uwikłana. Reprodukowanie wzorców kobiecości i męskości przez świeckie kobiety i świeckich mężczyzn w organizacjach administracyjno-ewangelizacyjnych Kościoła rzymskokatolickiego w Polsce. Warszawa: Scholar.
  35. Lummis, A. T., & Nesbitt, P. D. 2000. Women Clergy Research and the Sociology of Religion. Sociology of Religion 61(4): 443.
  36. Mackay, F., Kenny, M., & Chappell, L. 2011. New Institutionalism Through a Gender Lens: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism? International Political Science Review 31(5): 573-588.
  37. Mahmood, S. 2004. Politics of Piety. The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  38. Manning, C. J. 1997. Women in a Divided Church: Liberal and Conservative Catholic Women Negotiate Changing mGender Roles, Sociology of Religion 58(4): 375-390.
  39. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 2006. The Logic of Appropriateness, in: R. E. Goodin, M. Moran, and M. Rein (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 689-708.
  40. Martin, P. Y. 2003. "Said and Done" Versus "Saying and Doing": Gendering Practices, Practicing Gender at Work, Gender & Society 17(3): 342-366.
  41. Martin, P. Y. 2004. Gender As Social Institution, Social Forces 82(4): 1249-1273.
  42. Martin, P. Y. 2006. Practising Gender at Work: Further Thoughts on Reflexivity, Gender, Work and Organization 13(3): 254-276.
  43. Meyer, John W., R. B. 2006. Organizacje zinstytucjonalizowane: struktura formalna jako mit i ceremonia, in: A. Jasińska-Kania, L. M. Nijakowski, J. Szacki (Eds.), Współczesne teorie socjologiczne. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, pp. 583-599.
  44. Ostolski, A. (Ed.). 2010. Kościół, państwo i polityka płci. Warszawa: Heinrich Bölll Stiftung.
  45. Polish Episcopal Conference. 2009. Służyć prawdzie o małżeństwie i rodzinie. http://archidiecezja.lodz.pl/~srk/P5_Sluzyc_prawdz
  46. Rajtar, M. 2011. Gender in the Discursive Practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Former East Germany, Social Compass 58(2): 260-270.
  47. Reali, L. 2006. Women in Catholic Social Thought: The Creation of A New Social Reality, Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 44(461): 461-478.
  48. Rhoton, L. 2011. Distancing as a Gendered Barrier: Understanding Women Scientists' Gender Practices, Gender & Society 25(6): 696-716.
  49. Ridgeway, C. L. 2008. Framed Before We Know It: How Gender Shapes Social Relations, Gender & Society 23(2): 145-160.
  50. Risman, B. J. 2004. Gender As a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism, Gender & Society 18(4): 429-450.
  51. Risman, B. J. 2009. From Doing To Undoing: Gender as We Know It, Gender & Society 23(1): 81-84.
  52. Risman, B. J. 2011. Gender as Structure or Trump Card?, Journal of Family Theory & Review 3(1): 18-22.
  53. Rue, V. 2008. Crossroads: Women Priests in the Roman Catholic Church, Feminist Theology 17(1): 11-20.
  54. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. 1976. Declaration Inter Insigniores on the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html
  55. Scherer, B. 2011. Macho Buddhism: Gender and Sexualities, Religion and Gender 1(1): 85-103.
  56. Schippert, C. 2011. Implications of Queer Theory for the Study of Religion and Gender: Entering the Third Decade, Religion and Gender 1(1): 66-84.
  57. Schwartz, L. 2012. Women, Religion and Agency in Modern British History, Women's History Review 21(2): 317-323.
  58. Scott, R. W. 2008. Institutions and Organizations. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications.
  59. Stacey, J., & Gerard, S. E. 1990. We are not doormats: The influence of feminism on contemporary evangelicals in the United States, in: F. Ginsburg & A. I. Tsing (Eds.), In Uncertain Terms: Negotiating Gender in American Culture. Boston: Beacon Press, pp. 98-117.
  60. Stewart-Thomas, M. 2009. Gendered Congregations, Gendered Service: The Impact of Clergy Gender on Congregational Social Service Participation, Gender, Work & Organization 17(4): 406-432.
  61. Stobbe, L. 2005. Doing Machismo: Legitimating Speech Acts as a Selection Discourse, Gender, Work & Organization 12(2): 105-123.
  62. Sullins, P. 2000. The Stained Glass Ceiling: Career Attainment for Women Clergy, Sociology of Religion 61(3): 243-266.
  63. Szczepaniak, M. 2010. Libido dominandi. Męski habitus w świetle teorii socjologicznych.
  64. Szwed, A. 2009. Kościół rzymskokatolicki o kobiecie, Między teorią i praktyką, in: K. Beata Kowalska, Katarzyna Zielińska, Ben (Ed.), Gender. Kobieta w kulturze i społeczeństwie. Kraków: Rabid, pp. 19-34.
  65. Środa, M. 2010. Polska, Kościół, etyka, in: A. Ostolski (Ed.), Kościół, państwo i polityka płci. Warszawa: Heinrich Bölll Stiftung, pp. 25-39.
  66. Wallace, R. 1996. Feminist Theory in North America: New Insights for the Sociology of Religion, Social Compass 43(4): 467-479.
  67. Wallace, R. A. 1997. The Mosaic of Research on Religion: Where Are the Women? 1995 Presidential Address, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36(1): 1-12.
  68. Watling, T. 2002. "Leadership" or "Dialogue"? Women, Authority and Religious Change in a Netherlands Community, Sociology of Religion 63(4): 515-538.
  69. Weaver, D. C. 2011. Shifting Agency: Male Clergy, Female Believers, and the Role of Icons. Material Religion: The Journal of Objects, Art and Belief 7(3): 394-419.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
1231-1413
Język
eng
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu