Other scholars have focused more on the social significance of the church-
ing process. Following Arnold van Gennep and Victor Turner, they have sug-
gested viewing the churching process as a classic threefold rite of passage. First,
the woman gives birth and is removed from her regular social order; subse-
quently, she remains in a liminal status during the period she spends at home;
and, finally, she is reincorporated into society through the churching ritual.^87
This view of the ritual, however, has been criticized as male centered. In fact,
the woman herself is not marginalized at this period; rather, she is enveloped
by her female friends. While processional theory and liminality can perhaps
outline the structure of the process, explaining this practice as a rite of passage
does not do justice to its particularly female nature.^88 In addition, if this was a
rite of passage—why did women undergo it with every birth and not just the
first time they became mothers?
In the early 1990s, studies on churching, first and foremost by Adrian Wil-
son, suggested that churching was an expression of women’s power in society.
Following a suggestion made in passing by Natalie Zemon Davis in her article
“Women on Top,”^89 Wilson suggested that the period from childbirth until
churching was one in which the social order was temporarily suspended.
While this moment served to strengthen the existing social order, during this
period women were, according to Wilson, “on top.” Wilson suggested that the
rite should be understood mainly as a female collective ritual. During the
weeks after birth, women did not perform their two most basic functions—con-
jugal and household duties. The involvement of other women in the house
during these weeks was a form of “policing” meant to ensure this state of af-
fairs. Women did not see themselves as impure, but rather as resisting patriar-
chal society.^90
The weakest point of Wilson’s argument concerns his understanding of the
ritual of churching. He suggests that this ritual was a “woman’s popular ritual”
and that its practice exemplifies a logic that enhances women’s position in so-
ciety.^91 This idea seems questionable, however, if the churching ritual was
commonly understood as a ritual of purification. If women were resisting pa-
triarchy, why were they at the same time succumbing to it?
Susan Karant-Nunn has addressed this question in her work on churching.
She has argued that while there was an element of extraordinary freedom from
regular duties during the lying-in period for women, the churching ritual sym-
bolized a return to the regular social order. While men perceived it as the end
to this exceptional period, women saw it as an expressive rite in which they ex-
pressed their femininity and their identification with the Virgin Mary.^92 This
approach has been suggested by others as well. Recently, Paula Rieder has dis-
cussed churching as a woman’s rite, and has examined the social significance
of this rite for women of different social strata. While the meaning of the rit-
ual varied with its performer, there is no doubt that most women found great
personal meaning in its performance. Furthermore, Rieder argues, the signif-
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1