This paper poses the question: How can a monk be a man? As a corollary, it asks: Does a monk possess a unique gender status? Heuristic rather than empirical, this paper constructs a type of “thought experiment” in gender definition. The quest is to configure a monastic masculine gender model from the Rule of Benedict (RB), the charter document undergirding Benedictine monasticism, dating from sixth-century CE Italy. Despite cultural definition as males, the paper argues that monks abstain from sexual relations within a broader context of non-normative ascetical practices, making them especially susceptible to gender-variant assignment. This paper finds application today in bridging the gap between the values espoused by the Benedictine monks who sponsor Saint John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota, and the university's Center for Men's Leadership and Service. It suggests alternative ways of “being a man” in today's world.
BesnierN. (1994). Polynesian gender liminality through space and time. In HerdtG. (Ed.), Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history (pp. 285–328). New York: Zone.
2.
BöckmannA. (2005). Perspectives on the rule of St. Benedict: Expanding our hearts in Christ. (BurkhardM., Ed.; HandlM. & BurkhardM., Trans.). Collegeville: Liturgical Press.
3.
BolinA. (1996). Traversing gender: Cultural context and gender practices. In RametS. P. (Ed.), Gender reversals and gender cultures: Anthropological and historical perspectives. (pp. 22–51). London: Routledge.
4.
BrakkeD. (2003). The lady appears: Materializations of “woman” in early monastic literature. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 33(3), 387–402.
5.
ChapmanJ. (1929). Saint Benedict and the sixth century. New York: Longmans, Green & Co.
6.
CollinsR. (1991). Early medieval Europe 300–1000. History of Europe. New York: St. Martin's Press.
7.
ColtraneS. (1994). Theorizing masculinities in contemporary social science. In BrodH. & KaufmanM. (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 39–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
ConnellR. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
FryT. (1981). RB 1980: The rule of St. Benedict. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.
10.
GearyP. J. (1999). Barbarians and ethnicity. In BowersockG. W.BrownP., & GrabarO. (Eds.), Late antiquity: A guide to the postclassical world (pp. 107–129). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
11.
GeertzC. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In GeertzC. (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.
12.
GilmoreD. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven: Yale University Press.
13.
GleasonH. A.Jr. (1961). An introduction to descriptive linguistics (Rev. Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
14.
GoldsteinJ. S. (2001). War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GrémauxR. (1994). Woman becomes man in the Balkans. In HerdtG. (Ed.), Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history (pp. 241–281). New York: Zone.
16.
GrubbsJ. E. (1999). Marriage. In BowersockG. W.BrownP., & GrabarO. (Eds.), Late antiquity: A guide to the postclassical world (pp. 563–565). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
17.
HadleyD. M. (1999). Introduction: Medieval masculinities. In HadleyD. M. (Ed.), Masculinity in medieval Europe (pp. 1–18). London: Longman.
18.
HadleyD. M., & MooreJ. M. (1999). “Death makes the man”? Burial rite and the construction of masculinities in the early middle ages. In HadleyD. M. (Ed.), Masculinity in medieval Europe (pp. 21–38). London: Longman.
19.
HerdtG. (Ed.). (1994). Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history. New York: Zone Books.
20.
HirshfeldY. (1999). Habitat. In BowersockG. W.BrownP., & GrabarO. (Eds.), Late antiquity: A guide to the postclassical world (pp. 258–272). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
21.
HunterD. E., & WhittenP. (Eds.). (1976). Sex roles. Encyclopedia of anthropology (p. 348). New York: Harper & Row.
22.
KampenN. B.MarloweE., & MolholtR. M. (2002). What is a man? Changing images of masculinity in late antique art. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
23.
KueflerM. (2001). The manly eunuch: Masculinity, gender ambiguity, and Christian ideology in late antiquity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
24.
LamphereL. (1997). The domestic sphere of women and the public world of men: The strengths and limitations of an anthropological dichotomy. In BrettellC. & SargentC. F. (Eds.), Gender in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 82–92). London: Prentice-Hall.
25.
LangS. (1998). Men as women, women as men: Changing gender in Native American cultures. VantineJ. L. (Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
26.
MurrayJ. (2004). Masculinizing religious life: Sexual prowess, the battle for chastity and monastic identity. In CullumP. H. & LewisK. J. (Eds.), Holiness and masculinity in the middle ages (pp. 24–42). Religion and Culture in the Middle Ages. Great Britain: Cromwell Press.
27.
MurrayS. O., & RoscoeW. (Eds.). (1998). Boy-wives and female husbands: Studies of African homosexualities. New York: St. Martin's Press.
28.
OrtnerS. B., & WhiteheadH. (Eds.). (1981). Sexual meanings: The cultural construction of gender and sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
PateL. (2004). The use and abuse of ethnographic analogies in interpretations of gender systems at Cahokia. In PyburnK. A. (Ed.), Ungendering civilization (pp. 71–93). New York: Routledge.
30.
RavertyA. (1998). Social structure in the rule of Benedict. The American Benedictine Review, 49(4), 387–406.
31.
RavertyT. D. (2003). Starting with the supernatural: Implications for method, comparison, and communication in religious anthropology and interreligious dialogue. Anthropological Forum, 13(2), 187–194.
32.
RingroseK. M. (1994). Living in the shadows: Eunuchs and gender in Byzantium. In HerdtG. (Ed.), Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history (pp. 85–109). New York: Zone.
33.
RoscoeW. (1998). Changing ones: Third and fourth genders in native North America. New York: St. Martin's Press.
34.
RoughgardenJ. (2004). Evolution's rainbow: Diversity, gender and sexuality in nature and people. Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
SaxL. (2002). How common is intersex? A reply to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 174–179.
36.
SchmiedelerE. (1951). The Benedictine family analogy. American Benedictine Review, 2, 307–334.
37.
ShawB. D. (1999). War and violence. In BowersockG. W.BrownP., & GrabarO. (Eds.), Late antiquity: A guide to the postclassical world (pp. 130–169). Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
38.
StoltenbergJ. (1989). Refusing to be a man: Essays on sex and justice. Portland, OR: Breitenbush Books.
39.
TigerL., & FoxR. (1989). The imperial animal. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
40.
TorjesenK. J. (1996). Martyrs, ascetics, and gnostics: Gender-crossing in early Christianity. In RametS. P. (Ed.), Gender reversals and gender cultures: Anthropological and historical perspectives (pp. 79–91). London: Routledge.
41.
TougherS. F. (1999). Images of effeminate men: The case of Byzantine eunuchs. In HadleyD. M. (Ed.), Masculinity in medieval Europe (pp. 89–100). London: Longman.
42.
TurnerV. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine.
43.
van GennepA. (1960). The rites of passage (VizeddenM. B. & ChaffeeG. L., Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published [Les rites de passage] 1908)
44.
WalkerP. L., & CookD. C. (1998). Brief communication: Gender and sex: Vive la difference. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 106(2), 255–259.
