Anabaptists and Anorectics:

Applications of Valantasis' "Constructions of Power in Asceticism."

Richard Valantasis has made an important contribution to our understanding of asceticism. His paper "Constructions of Power in Asceticism" will likely advance the discussion on the influence and effects of power within asceticism. The purpose of this paper will include outlining his development and contribution to this study. This will serve the purpose of applying his theory to the social expression of Anabaptists (more specifically Menno Simmons) and anorectics.

The opening quotation given by Valantasis is taken from the sayings of the desert masters. This sets the stage for the questions that can be asked of the various theories of power in asceticism. One ascetic (Lot) asks the other (Joseph) "what more remains... that I must preform" (Valantasis, 775). This question refers to ascetic practices implemented to reach their desired goals. The second (and somehow superior) ascetic answered, as fire came from his fingers, "If you wish, become entirely as fire" (775). Valantasis takes this as a symbol of power which permeates this discussion. He then asks what kind of people, subjectivity, and society are in place for this to be a desirable goal. He proceeds by appealing to those theories of power that are already in place.

Valantasis spends a great deal of time at the introducing us to the discussions revolving around the study of power. It would be beneficial to see his approach in dealing with the existing dialogue regarding power.

Not much credence is given to the idea of the "Three Faces of Power." He introduces this discussion as the "articulation of the simple and naive concept that one social agent has power over another" (777). As he explains the various "faces" his vocabulary does not become more flattering. After reviewing the three expressions of how one might have power over another Valantasis concludes that "it is surprising that so shallow and unsophisticated a perspective on power would sustain interest and conversation through so many years" (777). He does not see this model in anyway contributing to the understanding of his introductory scenario.

A welcome advancement in the discussion of power is seen in the contribution made by Thomas Wartenberg who creates two essential distinctions in power. There is "power-to" and "power-over" (779). Power-over is expanded as articulated, situated, and dynamic. This reveals the contrast between the ubiquitous nature of power and the specific context and dynamic that power is exerted in. Though this development is welcomed, Valantasis is clearly disappointed that Wartenberg did not articulate on "power-to," which could possibly have found its application in the narrative of Lot and Joseph, which "is not related simply to social hierarchy and the ordering" as power-over is (781).

Louis Althusser is cited as making a significant contribution. He speaks of "public state power and the social institutions that support it" (781). The connection he makes is that "no one may exercise state power... without simultaneously controlling the supporting ideological structures" (781). Power exists then, for Althusser, materially in the person and in his/her relationships. Power is a practice that is the combination of raw materials, means of production, and the historical context of the relationship. With this theory Valantasis is now able to begin to apply his chosen narrative. He cites the raw materials as the conversation of the ascetics, the means of production is fasting, prayer, and silence and the historical context is monasticism.

We are then moved to the Foucault's contribution which builds off of Althusser. Foucault's definition of power is the "delimitation of another's field of action" (783). His advancement in the discussion is the linkings that he associates with power. The first is power and subjectivity. This is described in the statement that "for power to be exercised the subject upon which power is exercised must always remain an objectified subject" (784). The next linking is that of power and knowledge. Valantasis uses Foucault's discussion on sexuality as an example. It was the knowledge of one's self and more specifically the knowledge of one's self as a sexual being that was made subject to the confessional practices of the Church which in turn "created the discourse that linked the power of sexuality with the knowledge of sexuality" (784). His final linking is that power and technology. These are the means and the forms of power relationships. "The means of bringing power relations into being and the forms of institutionalization of these power relationships" (785).

Edith Wyschogrod offers us a theory of power that begins to look something like that of asceticism. This may be due to the fact that her focus is on saints and their practices in the modern age. Her comment on their power is that "the power to bring about new moral configurations is authorized by the prior renunciation of power" (786). She gives us the paradox of power and its application in the lives of saints.

We come finally to social semiotics as represented by Robert Hodge and Gunther Kress. The main thrust of their argument is the intimate relationship between solidarity and power. Solidarity in its creation or destruction is tied to the formation of meaning and social relationships. The relationship of solidarity and power rest on three points. The first is ideology which is used to "constrain behavior by structuring the version of reality on which social action is based" (788). The second is logonomic systems which regulates the social structure by "articulating the terms and conditions for the generation of meaning" (788). The third is transformations which articulates "the changes in meaning over time and space" (788). The linkage between solidarity and power can be best summarized by Valantasis. "Solidarity marks out a community... while power defines the community" (789).

This representation of the theories revolving around the study of power is admittedly hardly even a fraction of the whole, but they are given to show one aspect of their development. The aspect is that they have developed from a simple understanding of dominance over another to that of social empowerment to sustain a structure amidst other "competing" powers.

Once concluding his discussion on power we are then taken through a discourse on the definition of asceticism which is also beneficial to undertake for our goals. Geoffery Harpham is cited first to set the stage for our understanding of asceticism. He is quoted as saying that asceticism "refers to any act of self-denial undertaken as a strategy of empowerment or gratification" (793). This appears to link power at the very core of asceticism. The discussion is then moved to the constructions of reality and truth which are needed to maintain this system and new subjectivity. Asceticism is then seen as being able to produce "the capacity for change and a capacity to affect the environment in which change is produced" (793). Again this represents two forms of power, one is internal which in turn impacts the external dominant structure in some manner. The root meaning of asceticism is that of training (askesis), specifically for the purpose of sport. Here too we find an understanding of power inherent within its meaning, the striving for the purpose of success or victory.

Valantasis presents us with three aspects of ascetical discipline that serve as the basis for his formal definition. The first aspect is the articulation and construction of a new subjectivity within a dominant society. This allows the ascetic to distinguish what s/he is moving towards in contrast to what s/he is moving away from. This is the creation and development of an alternate social understanding. The second aspect involves the "delimitation and restructuring of social relations" (796). This is often constructed with a negative view and approach to the dominant society. This includes not only the distancing and restricting of one's self to relations in the dominant society but often the formation of relationships to those with similar interests, such as in a monastery. The final aspect "involves the construction of a symbolic universe capable of supporting these subjectivities and social relationships" (796). This can be done through the linking of power and solidarity. Logonomic and ideological structures need to be set in place for this to occur. This is for the purpose of validating the new subjectivity and results in the formation an alternative symbolic universe.

With this all said, Valantasis then offers us his own formal definition of asceticism.

Asceticism may be defined as performances within a dominant social environment intended to inaugurate a new subjectivity, different social relations, and an alternate symbolic universe

(797).

To briefly unpack this, performances are seen as acts that are carried out before an audience. Audience is not defined in narrow terms, though it remains extremely important to the equation. It is this audience that the performer is appealing to. The audience may be anything from a social group to the performer being their own audience in the form of the 'deconstructed person' or the audience could be God or the Other/s. It is made clear from Valantasis that these performances are specific actions. For the ascetic these appear to revolve largely around issues such as food, sex, social relations, prayer and meditation. What these performances produce are the aspects of asceticism which were outlined above in the basis for this definition. The new subjectivity which allows you not merely to flee one social order but also to flee towards and the embracing of another. By definition then, these performances must be actions that are of an experimental or 'cutting edge' type. These actions then help the ascetic to realize a new alternative self. The different social relations result in the moving from one subjectivity to the other. Finally the alternative symbolic universe develops as a result of the performances which in turn can act back upon and reinforce their subjectivities and social relations.

Valantasis provides us with a slightly unnerving application of his theory that will provide the stepping stone to our own applications. The Branch Davidians are cited as having showed the characteristics of asceticism. They maintained performances which revolved around an alternative meaning system which was deviant to the dominant society. It was there social relations which strengthened their bonds and beliefs. With respect to their fiery finale he writes that "the Branch Davidians' ascetical formation had formed them, prepared them, initiated them, and even rehearsed them for just that most important moment in their individual and corporate lives" (815). This example provides us with some insight into the power that must have lain at the core of their subjectivity and performances which in turn were able to sustain there symbolic universe until its very physical demise.

It is not new to be making a link between the Anabaptists and asceticism, Kenneth R. Davis devoted an entire book to it. In summary he comments that "the central factor in the emergence of Anabaptism is demonstrated as the ascetic concern that the church, visibly and practically, should manifest moral righteousness and holiness of conduct and life" (Davis 1974, 296). In fact it is not even new for someone to use Valantasis' theory of asceticism on the issue of asceticism and Anabaptism. We will look now to Lawrence Altepeter as the basis for making the link between Anabaptism and asceticism.

Altepeter's concern is primarily with Menno Simons who is a fair representative of the formational period of Anabaptism. Altepeter works rather systematically through the ideas presented by Valantasis and examines how they align with the life and teachings of Simons. The main difference which is laid out at the very start is critical for our understanding of this alleged connection. According to Valantasis the performances of the ascetic are intended to inaugurate a new subjectivity. It is clear from Simon's writings that the initial 'creation' of the new subjectivity is the work of God alone. As Altepeter readily admits (when speaking with regards to Simons) that he (Simons) "apparently considered the inauguration of the new subjectivity- the new birth- to be a gift of God, totally separate from the actions of humans" (Altepeter, 74)(italics mine). Altepeter may perhaps be a little presumptuous in this opening remark. Should we perhaps see Valantasis' use of the word inauguration as just ambiguous enough to allow for Simons position. The applicable definitions of 'inauguration' from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary state that to 'inaugurate' is to "(a) begin, introduce, initiate (the moon landing inaugurated a new era in space exploration). (b) enter into (an undertaking, course of action, etc.)." This may allow Valantasis to admit that the actual creation of the new subjectivity can be attributed to another source while the inauguration can still be maintained as coming from the individual. Altepeter then gets back on track by outlining the underlining principle of Simons theology which is the "new creation" in Christ. In Simons' words this 'new creation' "puts of the old man with all his works, and puts on the new man with his works, and thus conforms all his thoughts, words, and works to the Spirit, Word, and ways of the Lord" (75). This is a wholistic approach where every aspect of the person reflects change. This is emphasized by Davis in a different article where he notes that Anabaptists did not wish to merely provide the access to the forgiveness to sins they also hoped that their lifestyle would help in "providing the means actually to live in conformity with the Spirit (or law) of Christ" (Davis 1977, 32). It was this practical carrying out the 'Spirit of Christ' that spawned the new social relations which are referred to by Valantasis. This was seen in their strong dichotomy between the Kingdom of the World and the Kingdom of Heaven. To maintain this distinction, compromise on the part of the believer was not acceptable. Altepeter is careful to note here that this was not done by policy but rather by nonconformity. John Tonkin reinforces Altepeter's presentation that this was not merely a passive retreat from the ways of the world, rather it was a fleeing to something and the taking of an "aggressive stance" against the unregenerate world (Tonkin, 149). It is therefore again in line with Valantasis on two points because it is initially the performances which result in the new social relations, not policy or creed and also it is not merely a withdrawing from, but a fleeing to.

It should be admitted that these performances were not as clearly articulated as those of classic asceticism (i.e. monasticism), but they certainly were distinct enough to come up with the same end product and that is creation of an alternative symbolic universe. This is clearly seen in the doctrine of the two worlds. This point is most clearly proven in the reaction to which this movement received. It is no secret that the Anabaptists were the brunt of much wrath on the part of Catholicism as well as some of the Protestant movements. It is clear from this that not only was this a distinct symbolic universe, but is was also a threatening alternative to the dominant social structure. Though Altepeter does not really refer directly to Valantasis in his section on the "Alternative Symbolic Universe" it is clear to see that Anabaptist movement follows well with Valantasis' outline. When dealing with Berger and Luckmann's "sociology of knowledge" Valantasis writes that "ascetic reality is by definition a resistant reality within a dominant system" (Valantasis, 812). It is once this "ascetic reality" is introduced that the dominant society "calls forth [the] repression of the alternative to stabilize the dominant perspective: ascetical withdrawal invites social repression" (812). The result of this for both parties is that it "enables the dominant group to solidify power around its social institutions and assists the ascetical practitioner to justify its alternative" (812). It is not hard to draw the parallels from this discussion and apply it to the Anabaptist movement. This final justification on the part of the "ascetical practitioner" is clearly seen in the words of Simons himself, "For in Scriptures as well as in history we read and find that the pure wholesome truth from the beginning of the world has generally been hated, reviled, and persecuted" (Altepeter, 81).

Altepeter has down well in the connections that he has drawn from Valantasis' definition of asceticism. Whether consciously or not he does appear to have limited his contribution. This being seen in his brief discussion on the "Alternative Symbolic Universe." What may also be considered is the idea of this alternative meaning structure reaching beyond the purely ecclesiastical implications of the community. For example, we can look at the options presented to women at the time of the Anabaptist movement. How women were treated in the Anabaptist movement is still under debate (see Snyder and Hecht). However, a consensus that appears to have emerged is that while a 'true' equality was never reached there was "far more freedom of choice than was the social norm" (9). This specific discussion will have to be left for now, though the discussion of power among women will be the topic of our next possible application of Valantasis.

The linking of modern day anorexia with the phenomenon of asceticism is also not a new discussion. However the linking of the two with the use of Valantasis' theory does not, as of yet, appear to have been applied. Because the study of anorexia covers so much territory in the fields of psychology and medicine great effort will be taken to limit this application to our current discussion on Valantasis' definition of asceticism and the power structures within.

A good place to start would be to outline why there has been recent discussion linking anorexia with asceticism. William Davis' epilogue to Rudolph Bell's Holy Anorexia provides us with a balanced introduction to the parallels that can be drawn. Davis cites that possibly the greatest distinction between "holy anorexia" (those female ascetics of the medieval period) and anorexia nervosa may in fact be a matter of "modifiers" (Bell, 181). Both cases display an unwillingness to eat for the purpose of reaching a set goal. The goal for the ascetic is holiness and for the anorectic it is thinness. They both eat not only to achieve a goal, but also "because they abhor the consequences" (181). Already we start to see one thing clearly established in relation to Valantasis' theory, and it is that there are clear performances that the anorectic partakes in while striving for their goal. In fact Driscoll uses this very term in her description of anorexia. Driscoll states that "one must be represented or seen as starving in order for the discarnation to be the performance that it is" (Driscoll, 103).

There can be hardly any argument against the implementations of specific performances on the part of anorectics. We must now look at the results of this as outlined by Valantasis, which are preformed within a dominant social environment intended to inaugurate a new subjectivity, different social relations, and an alternate symbolic universe. Assuming that the anorectic is female, it is possible to speak of her being inherently within a dominant society not her own. There is much credence to this notion and a strong argument that this is the motivation for the anorectic's subsequent performances. Davis writes of there being a "deeply embedded belief that women are somehow a threat to men and to society as a whole, and so must be kept in check, controlled, and forced into a subservient position" (Bell, 185). Martha Reineke echos this by remarking that "the female body, [is the] site of processes men have perceived historically as mysterious and potentially dangerous" (Reineke, 249). In another discussion Driscoll clarifies the ubiquitous effect of a foreign dominant society upon women. She states that "In the dominant culture... the gaze with which women are so extensively surveyed is undoubtedly internalized by many" (Driscoll, 93). This could lead us to believe that throughout most phases of history and within most of the various social constructions there was an innate need for women to somehow legitimate their role. Reineke sees the female medieval mystics as coming the closest to revealing the origins of the dominant culture which for her is based upon "the murder of the mother" (Reineke, 262). According to this, many women are given a subjectivity outside of their understanding which invites them to either continual repression or the seeking of a new one, as anorexia may indicate.

In this light the performances of the anorectic may be seen as the desire to inaugurate those things which Valantasis has outlined, the new subjectivity, different social relations, and ultimately a new symbolic universe. What can now be asked is whether these performances are actually a fleeing away from the dominant culture to a new alternative. Clearly the hope of the anorectic is to attain a new subjectivity. This is stated well by Ellen Driscoll commenting that "beyond 'protest' and beyond 'retreat' lies the vision of anorexia as a miraculous transformation" (Driscoll, 99). This is the hope to be released from their current context which is found largely in the "male gaze" and the continuous scrutiny placed on women (101-2). The struggle then for this new subjectivity comes in the altering of social relations. This is highlighted insightfully by Gail Corrington when referring to 'holy anorectics' seeing these performances as the "struggle to gain back control over the destiny and definition of the body, and autonomy which was possible for ascetic males, but which had not been possible for women who were limited to the 'passive, reproductive roles' ordained for them by society" (Corrington, 57). Davis also echos this by stating that "women have a basic need for affiliative relationships" (Bell, 184).

Valantasis has left us with a functionally malleable definition that maintains the discussion on asceticism and anorexia. What is left to discuss here is the paradox of the alternative symbolic universe. These appears to us as a paradox because arguments can be presented that the performances of the anorectics is actually succumbing to the pressures of the dominant society, while on the other hand the performances can also be viewed as a form autonomous and liberating expression. Driscoll presents with the analogy of the hunger-striker as a possible view of the anorectic. This symbolic state is more eschatological in nature, as many ascetic communities and expressions are. This idea of the hunger-striker uses the premises that, 'I you want to control me, then I will control myself more and in so doing gain control over you.' The fundamental problem with this alternative symbolic universe is that in reality it may be falling directly into the hands of the dominant society. Driscoll follows this idea well in her discussion. She begins by understanding that "the body is a site of practical social control" (Driscoll, 94). She then moves on to Bordo's argument (citing her within the quote) that the "preoccupation with fat, diet, and slenderness functions as a powerful 'normalizing strategy' and thus ensures 'the production of self-monitoring and self-disciplining 'docile bodies'" (95). To support this she notes that anorexia "has peaked during a period of cultural backlash against efforts to reorganize and redefine female and male roles" (97). Moving past this she shows that in its context anorexia's 'voiceless' protest seems to ironically fall on deaf ears, "given that the silent and uncomplaining woman is idealized in patriarchy" (98). Ultimately Driscoll agrees with her main source, Bordo, in that "anorexia is finally, an illusory experience of power" (100). This may indeed be the sad irony of applying Valantasis' constructions of power in asceticism. Women who express this 'asceticism' with the purpose of liberation may indeed experience a new subjectivity. This is necessitated because there lack of symbolic universes offered them due to their gender. However, in this case a new subjectivity may not indeed be equal to freedom from the dominant culture. As can be observed in the testimonies of brokeness that come from those with eating disorders, any hope placed in anorexia as the means of liberation indeed appears to be an illusion.

We now must start to gather what we have learned from Valantasis' definition and understanding of asceticism. He has shown us that discussions on the various theories of power are largely unsatisfactory when dealing with power found in asceticism. Social semiotic theory has served us well to see the structural power that comes from asceticism that comes from its solidarity that is introduced into the dominant culture. He has also showed us the internal power of asceticism that comes from a new subjectivity that can be created and supported by its performances. As displayed in a limited manner this theory supports the idea of asceticism within the fundamental tenants of the Anabaptists. This helps to show us that Valantasis' approach clearly has a functional application, allowing us to move past monastic and medieval asceticism as having the market cornered in understanding the influence of asceticism on all societies. The functional flexibility of Valantasis' approach is stretched even farther with the attempted application of it to the study of anorexia. As was demonstrated, if we can move past the discrepancies in content (which are set aside for this paper but are clearly very important in the overall study of anorexia) between anorexia and asceticism we can see that many of the same goals are trying to be attained through many of the many structures. However, in this case study there are much larger factors that influence it beyond the independent desire to inaugurate a new subjectivity, namely that of patriarchy's historical effect upon women and the responses that it has spawned. We will have to be contented to leave that discussion for another time.

With the risk of losing the uniqueness associated with idea of asceticism Valantasis provides us with a theory that can transcend traditional understandings asceticism and allow us to apply the term in a broad range of social relations where the issue of the power is present. This was hopefully demonstrated by the examples Anabaptists and anorectics.

Bibliography

Altepeter, L. J. (1998). The Asceticism of Menno Simons. Mennonite Quarterly Review, 72, 69-83.

Bell, R. M. (1985). Holy Anorexia. London: The University of Chicago Press.

Corrington, G. (1986). Anorexia, Asceticism, and Autonomy: Self-Control as Liberation and Transcendence. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 2, 51-61.

Davis, K. R. (1974). Anabaptism and Asceticism: A Study in Intellectual Origins. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

. (1977). The Origins of Anabaptism: Ascetic and Charismatic Elements Exemplifying Continuity and Discontinuity. In Marc Lienhard (Ed.). The Origins and Characteristics of Anabaptism. Netherlands: The Hague.

Driscoll, E. (1997). Hunger, Representation, and the Female Body: An analysis of Intersecting Themes in Feminist Studies in Religion and the Psychology of Women. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 13, 91-104.

Hecht, L. A. Huebert and C. A. Snyder, eds. (1996). Profiles of Anabaptist Women: Sixteenth-Century Reforming Pioneers. Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier Press.

Reineke, M. J. (1990). This is My Body: Reflections on Abjection, Anorexia, and Medieval Women Mystics. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 58, 245-65.

Tonkin, J. (1971). The Church and the Secular Order in Reformation Thought. New York: Columbia University Press.

Valantasis, R. (1995). Construction of Power in Asceticism. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 63, 775-821.