Angering Oral Historians of Contemplative Nuns.

So I've been reading this new oral history of cloistered nuns and was pretty stoked at first, but then realized a lot of it was just sticking with their self-presentation without digging down into deeper issues, of which there are many since all the nuns interviewed so far as I've read seem to be kind of odd fringe conservative Catholics.

Nevertheless, I'd seen that the author had been making a documentary at the same time that she did the oral histories, which I found interesting, and I idly wondered whether I'd ever see it one day.

Then, out of nowhere, there were posters on campus about how she'd be screening documentary cuts that very night as part of a series put on by this Catholic institute on campus that trends very conservative, so I decided to go anyways, though I'd be having a long day.

I had another function, but I came as soon as I could, and got there in time to see like 15min. of footage and hear Q&A....

In the early Q&A, people were mentioning "The Nun's Story" fondly, so after I poked my neighbor and asked if the doc covered young nuns and student loan debt and he said no, I raised my hand and said 2 things.

First, as a point of fact, I said that "The Nun's Story" is a very odd part of the history of American Catholicism since it romanticizes nuns and is so mainstream culturally, yet it's the thinly fictionalized memories of the author's Belgian ex-nun lover and the author herself was into Gurdjieffian mysticism, so in so many words the beloved book-and-film's viewpoints are mediated by a reticent lesbian with fringe esoteric leanings, all of which is not taken into consideration not nearly enough.

At that, I could see people in the audience shift in their seats nervously or in discomfort.

Then, I asked the question to what degree did the community exclude young candidates w/student loan debt or older women w/healthcare costs.

Straight away, the documentarian said she's an oral historian, so she represents what people *say* about "The Nun's Story", not anything about its history.

Then, she said that student loans of a young postulant and healthcare costs of an older candidate were mentioned briefly in 2 sections of film footage, and mentioned a foundation to alleviate young postulants of debt.

Overall, she seemed a little prickly, though I wondered if it was b/c my question was repetitive despite my best attempts to make sure it wasn't.

Later, at a lull in questioning, then, I raised my hand, and she called on me again, and I asked her to what degree did she signs of lesbianism in the community during the time that she was there?

At that, she got visibly *pissed*, so I was like, "No, this is a very serious question" - and at that I heard a derisive snicker - "and there's quite a bit of social history out there on the topic, so I'm wondering what you came across in your time there."

At that, she was like, "Pardon me, but I would like to answer questions from members of the audience who have been here for the entire presentation."

Afterwards, I went up to the speaker and apologized for not being present the entire time due to another function and for perhaps asking a repetitive question, though I had asked my neighbor about it to try to head off that inconsiderate possibility.

Then, I self-identified as a historian who's taught on monasticism and celibacy and had been reading through the university library's copy of her book here and there for several weeks and was like 40 pages in, and was honestly wondering to what degree she came across signs of lesbianism in the community.

Then, I clarified that sources indicate that during the mid-20th c., the 2 major social roles available to Catholic women were motherhood or "a community of strong women", and that women who later identified as lesbians chose the 2nd option.

Then, I stated that my impression was that despite changes in the larger culture, this pattern of roles still clung to certain conservative corners of American Catholicism, so I'd guess that the same phenomena were more likely to surface in the community that she studied than in other communities of women religious.

Again, she was snippy, and was like, "I really focused on telling the stories that the women wanted to tell."

"Interesting."  I was like.  "So did anything surface anywhere, or did you get the sense of anything from talking with any of the women?"

"I wasn't looking for that," she was like, and then cut me off to talk to someone else as she abruptly turned her shoulder to me.

. . .

Overall, the oral history has really been shit, as far as I can tell - it sticks too close to its subjects' point-of-view, rather than recognizing it and moving questions to larger issues, etc.

Furthermore, the problems seem to go back to the author's decisions.

Her prizing the subjects' words means she cedes all point-of-view and larger questions to them, and even her response on larger questions of student debt and healthcare means that she only knows of the issues as they surfaced in interviews and so did not recognize leads and follow them up in further talks.

Her whole "I'm an oral historian, and so go with what people say" schtick too means that she is trying to put a quick end to any conversation with someone who knows greater contexts of which she is unaware...  I later saw that her credentials were an MFA, so that might explain her discomfort with historical and ethnographic questions.

Also, I wonder how many people in that room will think of "The Nun's Story" the same way again.