Interviewed by: Joel Moroney
Interviewed by: Joel Moroney
How did you become interested in Daughters of Sarah and what were your primary and secondary sources?
I first learned about Daughters of Sarah while in the early stages of researching Christian women’s magazines as an industry. Penn State, where I completed this project, holds a collection of the magazine’s later issues. The magazine maintained a precarious and unusual position in Christian publications and thinking in the late twentieth century as they reconciled their (generally) conservative evangelical Christian background with their commitment to Christian feminism. While Sojourners provided an outlet for more liberal-minded Christians in that same era, Daughters of Sarah was the first publication to tell Christians (and specifically women) that their theological, political, and social beliefs were not at odds. Rather, DOS argued, it was impossible to be a Christian and not a feminist based on their reading of scripture. That premise, their position in the middle of feminist thinking in the 1970s – 1990s and evangelical “culture wars,” and their commitment to constructive disagreement immediately intrigued me.
To build the history and my analysis of the publication, I relied on archived copies of the magazine available in the Penn State and The Ohio State University’s library systems. I also conducted an oral history interview with the publication’s longest-serving editor-in-chief which was an invaluable conversation. To help fill out the timeline and provide context for the project, I relied on external news coverage about the publication, information about the various Christian organizations that came in direct contact with DOS, and other works by key members of the magazine’s editorial staff and regular contributors.
Any surprises? What is your favorite discovery from this research?
Women’s (and especially Christian) magazines generally maintain a strong editorial tone that either refuses to engage with alternate opinions or dismisses them outright. Daughters of Sarah, however, actively encouraged readers and contributors to use their pages to disagree, discuss, and share conflicting ideas. The publication often ran opposing views in one spread, regularly printed negative reader feedback, and asked their readers for guidance on challenging or complex topics. I completed this project alongside an analysis of other Christian women’s magazines that often positioned theological beliefs or cultural ideas outside of their worldview as an enemy. Reading notes from the Daughters of Sarah editorial board encouraging disagreement and difficult conversation among readers and contributors was a stark contrast to established norms within women’s magazines.
Talk about how you used reader-contributed content and survey data as a window into what readers wanted.
It will not come as a shock to anyone who studies magazines that reader survey data and reader-contributed content or letters are both a blessing and a curse. The survey data provides quantitative information about the publication’s audience, demographics, their interests, why they read the magazine, etc. Reader-submitted content can offer a window into the mind of readers and how they respond to the publication. However, without access to the raw survey data or all submitted letters or articles (neither of which I had), drawing conclusions from those pools is complicated. Magazines (including another that I researched during this same time) often write their own reader letters and fudge survey data to please advertisers.
Speaking with the DOS editor about how they managed reader letters and conducted surveys helped alleviate some of those concerns. Additionally, the magazine’s choice to regularly publish negative letters demonstrated a level of transparency between publication and reader. With all that in mind, as I discussed in the article, I use survey data and read-contributed content as a way to understand both how readers view the publication, how the publication thinks or wants readers to view them, and how the publication views itself. Reading the absences or silences in reader-published content or seeing that content as a type of PR for the magazine is a helpful exercise in creating a larger picture of the publication.
How did DOS negotiate the divisiveness that marred the larger feminist movement of the time between conservatives and those with more progressive views?
The magazine’s editorial board seemed to navigate those fractures by entering them head-on. Rather than retreating into its silo and only speaking to one side or the other, as we see in our current political environment, Daughters of Sarah openly welcomed and encouraged contributors and readers from a range of political and denominational viewpoints. That path came with a variety of complications which often resulted in readers calling the publication both “too conservative” or “too liberal” over the same issue. However, the editorial board set an early standard that contributors should “agree to disagree” and come together over their shared commitment to Christian feminism rather than be separated by their differences. Publicly identifying as a Christian feminist in the magazine’s early years was especially challenging as many Christian denominations did not support feminist views. Daughters offered readers a space to commiserate and draw support when their congregation may not support their beliefs. I believe the larger political and social climate that was hostile to feminism in the publication’s early years helped draw readers together even if they disagreed about the details of their faith or feminist views. However, readers of the 1990s started questioning that practice of “agree to disagree” as the magazine’s audience grew, more congregations accepted women on higher levels, and culture slowly integrated feminist viewpoints.
You seem to pin the demise of DOS in part on the progressive shift of the readership over the course of its run. Did the magazine react to that too well? Not well enough? Did the national political scene, with Clinton taking office after Reagan/Bush reflect or influence that shift?
The publication’s “agree to disagree” stance was at once one of its greatest strengths and biggest challenges as the magazine’s readership shifted theologically and politically. The editorial board favored providing readers with multiple viewpoints rather than taking a clear side on lightning-rod political or theological questions. That position brought a range of readers to the publication but also made the magazine seem silent or oppositional to some readers (especially women of color along with queer and trans women). The magazine’s editor believes the publication folded because readers simply outgrew the original theological and political mission. She believed Christian feminism was more widely accepted by the mid-1990s and readers did not need a dedicated publication discussing those issues when their church and surrounding society were engaged in those conversations. The magazine was a labor of love for its board (a common experience among feminist publications). Losing multiple dedicated and longest-serving board members is a challenge for any publication, let alone a magazine that struggled financially its entire run and was losing subscribers. I do think the magazine could have survived the 1990s if some of the key editorial board members stayed on through that period and were willing to take stronger stances on a few critical issues. However, choosing sides was antithetical to the original mission of the publication so I doubt the board would have taken that step, even if it would save the magazine.
While changing leadership played a part in the magazine’s demise, it survived into the desktop computing revolution. Were there any subsequent efforts at digitization or did early digital Christian magazines or message boards play a part in its closure?
The magazine’s editorial board referenced purchasing a new computer and moving to creating layouts digitally in their later issues; however, the publication never pivoted to a website or digital format. Starting a website, e-newsletter, or selling a digital subscription may have offset some print production costs.