Commanding the Queen: Agency and Gender Roles in the Book of Esther
The gendered lines between direct and indirect agency blur in the book of Esther, in line with its ‘topsy-turvy’ carnivalesque attitude. Queen Esther acts with direct agency (the power to command her fellow Jews, then accusing Haman of treachery), while her cousin Mordecai gains power indirectly (th...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Brill
2024
|
| Dans: |
Religion & gender
Année: 2024, Volume: 14, Numéro: 1/2, Pages: 13-33 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI)
B Femininity B psychological gender categories B blurring of gender boundaries B Book of Esther |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | The gendered lines between direct and indirect agency blur in the book of Esther, in line with its ‘topsy-turvy’ carnivalesque attitude. Queen Esther acts with direct agency (the power to command her fellow Jews, then accusing Haman of treachery), while her cousin Mordecai gains power indirectly (through his relationship with Esther and through the knowledge he gains from listening to eunuchs) and is threatened with death when he attempts to exercise more direct agency. These reversals of expectations can be connected with the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), an influential twentieth century set of descriptors that link certain psychological traits to masculinity or femininity—with most of the words associated with direct agency in the ‘masculine’ category. One could simply conclude that the Book of Esther is blurring gender lines, but an intersectional perspective reveals more at stake: the Book of Esther demonstrates that the power dynamics that dictate who can have direct agency do not always align with gender. This forces us to re-examine metrics like the BSRI for how they reflect existing power roles rather than inherent tendencies. Is direct agency inherently masculine, or just something that men have had more capacity to exercise? The complicated dynamics of the Book of Esther bring this question into focus, without offering a clear-cut answer. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1878-5417 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Religion & gender
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/18785417-01401006 |