PROMOTING SEXUAL PURITY IN A CALL-OUT CULTURE ERA: ONE PURITY MOVEMENT LEADER’S STRATEGIES IN NAVIGATING CRITIQUES OF THE #METOO/#CHURCHTOO MOVEMENTS

Abstract

While a sizable body of research has examined the impact of purity movement rhetoric on its target audience (e.g., Bearman & Brückner, 2001; Brückner & Bearman, 2005; DeRogatis, 2015; di Mauro & Joffe, 2009; Diefendorf, 2015; Doan & Williams, 2008; Freitas, 2008; Gardner, 2011; Gish, 2016; Kieser, 2014; Klein, 2018; Lord, 2010; Manning, 2015; Moslener, 2015; Price, 2011; Regnerus, 2007; Rosenbaum, 2009; Schermer Sellers, 2017; Williams, 2011), to date, no studies have explored purity leaders’ responses to critiques of the movement. In this project, I explore communication tactics one purity movement leader uses to respond to criticism of purity movement teachings during the rise of the #MeToo and #ChurchToo movements. Using a multimethod crystallized approach (Ellingson, 2009), I conducted ethnographic participant observation; in-depth, semi-structured interviews; and analyses of blog posts, formal and informal speeches and interviews, social media posts, and several best-selling books. All data were analyzed via an inductive and iterative process, and open and axial coding was employed to identify dominant strategies that Dannah Gresh uses to mitigate criticism (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Results suggest that Gresh exercises a four-part system of strategies (which I call a “Framework of Strategic Curation”) to mollify critiques directed toward her role within the movement: (1) curated erudition, (2) curated imperfection, (3) curated moderation, and (4) curated deflection. The findings imply that while Dannah Gresh does respond to critiques, her responses are curated in such a way as to reinforce and bolster the same messages she has promoted for the duration of her ministry and that any content-level changes she makes are largely cosmetic in nature.