Desert Patriarchy: Mormon and Mennonite Communities in the Chihuahua Valley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desert Patriarchy: Mormon and Mennonite Communities in the Chihuahua Valley. By Janet Bennion. (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2004. Pp xvii + 207, preface, acknowledgments, photographs, maps, chart, notes, bibliography, index, $45.00 cloth) In the promisingly titled Desert Patriarchy, Janet Bennion, descendant of Utah Mormon setders and self-described rat, explores the intersection of gender dynamics and religious fundamentalism in three contemporary separatist religious communities in Mexico. Two are settlements of Utahns of differing Mormon belief - Colonia Juarez (founded in the late nineteendi century) and Colonia LeBaron (founded in the early twentieth) - while the third, Capulin, is Old Colony Mennonite community formed by conservative Mennonites who came from Manitoba in the early twentieth century. The author's thesis, that a harsh desert environment plays a central role in supporting religious patriarchy, particularly the subjugation of women, proves elusive. Her field research is directed toward exposing patriarchy in the two Mormon communities, the Old Colony Mennonites serving mainly for comparison. Overall, the reviewers find that while Bennion's writing style is easy to follow and the information interesting, Desert Patriarchy presents so many factual and methodological problems that it is unlikely to further our knowledge. It is difficult to fathom how ethnographer could expect to conduct significant and sensitive field research on three different groups in one summer, yet this our author did, in 1999, assisted by three undergraduate anthropology students. Through interviews and participant observation with a limited number of individuals, Bennion forges idiosyncratic that is written, as Bennion notes, using the self-reflexive ?,' to help the reader understand the components of the communities studied and the factors involved in their adaptation to desert (xiii). She presents herself as both anthropologist and outsider. As she puts it, am posing here as the interpreter of the culture, offering my own vision of what I saw based on my experiences with the natives (xii) while claiming a heavy reliance on the natives' voices, through narrative (xi) . It is not clear to the reader what the communities and individuals Bennion studied were told about her public interpretation of their lives and motives. Her descriptive commentary may be intended to give voice to her field consultants, but it seems overwhelmingly to reflect her own impressions. Some quite complex cultural situations and dynamics are too sweepingly summed up. Critical insights into communities are often left hanging, with litde to substantiate them, and at times they almost appear to communicate a lack of respect for the people being studied. While Bennion claims to be insider in the Mormon faith, she makes too many doctrinal and cultural mistakes to be considered insider by active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). A temple is not used, as she claims, for Sunday worship (118); a widower marrying again does not call his wife his handmaid (115); marrying into certain families does not provide an instant place in the kingdom in this life or the next (112). The church views the Saints in Colonia Juarez as it does Latter-clay Saints elsewhere in the world - not as fanatical or lhe most devoted and valiant (120). As to Colonia LeBaron, the author devotes much time to its religious doctrine, but fails to say that the people who live there are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".