the history of health, wellness and spirituality...with tips for the 21st C
Americans are fascinated by the idea of polygamy, in the Orientalism of the harem (which only the wealthy can and could afford to practice), or the former practices of American Mormonism. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, a Mormon Harvard historian, presents a complicated picture of Mormonism in …
Popular religious life in New England, unlike Europe, had no Christmas, cathedrals, abbeys, liturgies, wedding ales, or anything done away with by the Protestant Reformation of 1517. Yet the settlers did come with “folk” beliefs, sometimes older than Christianity, that had not been specifically …
Ann Braude. Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women’s Rights in Nineteenth-Century America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989, 2001.
Anne Braude’s 1989 Religious Studies classic Radical Spirits was one of the first texts to discuss how religion empowered women politically through the late nineteenth-century phenomenon of Spiritualism, a belief system that spoke to multitudes. Spiritualism involved the communication of the dead through spirit mediums who were often female. The movement was attractive not simply because it allowed followers to process frequent grief of the period, but because it allowed women a public voice and authority (through the spirit) usually denied them, and was viewed as a scientific practice which offered empirical proof of an afterlife. Omnipresent death need not be feared. Believers held both science and religion in tandem, as both Howe and Reynolds have discussed.
It was the weakness and piety of women, the very qualities that usually forbid their public speech, that allegedly attracted spirits to them. As with earlier evangelical revivals, divine wisdom was available directly to people, which allowed them both a growing individualism and political voice. Spiritualism was not a fringe belief but involved hundreds of thousands. It cut across various denominations and itself grew out of radical Quakerism, Unitarianism, Universalism, Swedenborgianism, transcendentalism, and the work of Andrew Jackson Davis. Spiritualism allowed a shift from the harshness of Calvinist predestination and orthodoxy to one of direct experience with deceased spirits and experienced knowledge of the immortality of the soul.
The experience of speaking publicly as mediums in various halls and events led women to greater self-confidence and autonomy as well as earn a decent living. The entire movement was individualistic but community-minded, anti-authoritarian, and anti-establishment. The women came to believe that a just society meant that women must be more equal to men. While Spiritualism intersected with various reform movements such as health and diet reform, dress reform, hydropathy (which Cayleff touches on briefly), abolition, marriage reform, suffrage, free love, mesmerism (see Fuller and Ogden), labor reform, children’s rights, socialism, and anarchism. Most central to this study are those that concern women’s rights. As with Cayleff, the personal project is intimately connected to social reform. Spiritualism’s engagement with health reform, to which a chapter is dedicated, also featured similar opposition to allopathic male authorities, as in Cayleff’s treatment of the water cure.
By the Civil War era, Spiritualism (like hydropathy) began to decline. Reform movements lost their individualistic and antiauthoritarian zeal and reached out to orthodox institutions like the government, which frowned on radical beliefs. Spiritualism’s role in women’s rights movements declined as claims of fraudulence abounded and free love scandals lessened its popularity. Major women’s rights activists, who tended to be upper class and classist, had never been a part of the popular movement and rejected it outright. Likewise, as mediums became suffragists they lost interest in the dead. When a national association was created in 1865, as with many advances for women in new religious movements, women were pushed aside when the movements grew larger and institutionalized (see also Brekus, Strangers and Pilgrims). In the 1870s, Theosophy and Christian Science, belief systems that had similar roots and beliefs as Spiritualism but were markedly more socially conservative, overtook it in popularity.
CATEGORIES: Women’s History 19th Century U.S., Religious Studies, 19th-Century Social Change, Spirituality, Women & Politics, Religion, Politics and Women, Spiritualism, Mediums
PLACE: United States
TIME PERIOD: 1848-1890
Was this useful? Keep us going with a quick tip. Thank you!
And buy stuff that you need from the links. Some of them send us kickbacks at no cost to you, but a wee cost to the empire. Thank you! ♥
April R. Haynes. Riotous Flesh: Women, Physiology, and the Solitary Vice in Nineteenth-Century America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015. When Sylvester Graham offered the same sex advice to women as men—no masturbation, which would cause insanity, disease, and death, and no sexual excess …
Robert C. Fuller. Mesmerism and the American Cure of Souls. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982. Robert Fuller writes a history of 19th-century mental healing traditions that connects European Mesmerism to the development of distinctly American religious-psychological traditions such as Christian Science and New Thought. Fuller …
Another! And finally we are moving into health books.
Susan E. Cayleff. Wash and Be Healed: The Water-Cure Movement and Women’s Health. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987.
Washed and Be Healed is a fantastic look at the history of women’s experiences of the mid-nineteenth century water cure, also called hydropathy. This cure developed in a time of widespread reform and perfectionist movements in the United States which promoted new forms of evangelicalism, vegetarianism, dress reform, and temperance. Susan Cayleff brings a feminist gaze to the nineteenth century hydropathy movement as she joins other 1980s scholars in finding value in practices previously denounced as “pseudoscience” by whiggish medical historians.
Relating accounts of women who took up long retreats in water-cure spas (an anachronism, as the word did not come into use until 1960), the water cure restored women’s health, gave them a sense of power over their health, which had been increasingly taken from them by allopathic M.D.’s, and created lasting friendships with the women with whom they convalesced. Both physical and psychological healing were obtained from the experiences in the water-cure establishments, which allowed upper- and middle-class women a respite from endless pregnancies, child rearing, and housework.
Illnesses such as arthritis, dysentery, nervous disorders, and “emotional malaise” were all treated with the water cure, which involved applying “pure” cold water to the patient internally or externally. This was added to a proper regimen of a healthy, unprocessed diet (e.g. homemade breads), fresh air and direct sunlight, exercise, and proper dress, all expounded by the Grahamite movement of the 1830s.
These treatments were often performed at water-cure centers, but the doctors taught patients how to perform the treatments at home. This gave women a sense of agency over their health, which allopathic physicians had denied, claiming them both mentally and physically inferior. While Cayleff emphasizes the communal nature of these spas for close female relationships, she notes that it also appealed to individualism and personal advancement, as the patient could slowly take charge of their own water cures, a group experience aiming toward personal improvement through self- and group-help was a model for social reform. Good health through hygiene (in the older, more capacious sense of the term) was essential to the social change reformists sought in this period, and seekers were often involved in abolition and women’s rights reforms. Indeed, the likes of Catharine and Harriet Beecher (Stowe) and Susan B. Anthony stayed in water-cure spas.
Cayleff details why the health movement faded after 1860. Movements of perfectionism of society through the self slowed during and after the horrors of the Civil War, and increased industrialization brought new trends for vacationing. The leaders, who were at the forefront of women’s medical education, were often at odds and also opposed professionalism. The major advances of allopathic medicine, as well as their attacks on “cult” health practices, signaled an end to the movement. The methods, however, continued on as hydrotherapy, well into the 20th century.
As a long-time amateur balneologist and water enthusiast, I highly recommend this book.
CATEGORIES: 19th-Century U.S. Balneology, Hydrotherapy, Water Cures, Cold-Water Bathing, Cold-Water Showers, Women’s Health, Women’s History, Women’s Movements, Antebellum U.S. History, 19th-Century Social Change.
PLACE: United States, especially Northeast
TIME PERIOD: 1840-1913 (primarily 1840-1860)
If you’d like to support the site, buy stuff that you need from the links. Some of them send us kickbacks at no cost to you, but a wee cost to the empire. Thank you! ♥
Like last time, because it’s relevant to this Gymnosophist project, I’m sharing a review I wrote that relates to our lineage here (or one of them)—a piece of the history of spirituality in the U.S., this time from a scholar of English. It is something …
Hello, everyone. I abandoned you to my books and teaching for awhile, and for that apologies. I’m studying for exams and it’s just been impossible to post regularly even about fun stuff because frankly, I cannot bear to look at a screen any more than …
Wim Hof: “I am into mental healthcare. But we will shoot right straight in. Change the world. Cause, you know, I’m reaching about a hundred million people already [AnnaLynne: “Gasp”] but it’s going to be billions [AnnaLynne: clapping, yells “YES!“] and when we change billions of people from the inside in their heart. Feeling autonomy, we will change the world.”
So begins the Wim Hof podcast with AnnaLynne McCord. McCord jumps in to describe her first experience with Wim Hof breath work at a Lululemon event in which she burst into tears, ran out of the event room, found a private place, called the man who sexually abused her as a child, and forgave him.
“That fifteen-minute breath work changed my life.”
That is an amazing and inspiring story.
For at least a decade now (since the start of social media and the mass-scale curation of self? Or, checking an n-gram, was it the rise of neoliberalism?), we’ve heard ad nauseam about the power of narrative. Humans need stories! If this wasn’t clear from the billion-dollar film industry or the many other means of storytelling, the scientists have brought their stamp of approval. Even (especially) data and medicine need a narrative.
Wim states that AnnaLynne’s trauma story, coming from “someone with all the looks of the world and the universe,” with “such vulnerability and power,” will change the world.
We have heard many of these trauma stories now. This broad-stroke talk of changing the world frankly baffles me.
The Wim Hof Method is an amazing and powerful practice. Absolutely. I write this not to dis it but because the way they market and deliver it can be off-putting to many. To whom? To quieter people? To people who analyze too much? To those who aren’t into cliché stereotypes about femininity and masculinity, women and men? I find the conversation about the feminine and masculine interesting when it is actually defined and explored. But that is rare.
And I wonder if this story of instantaneous healing after fifteen minutes of Wim’s breathing method might discourage anyone who doesn’t have such dramatic results. The method actually requires some persistence and discipline.
I also wonder what is meant by changing the world in real, concrete terms. Self-help gurus, breathers (yogis and others) and meditators have spoken of changing the world through their particular method for centuries. Is it changed? In the ways they envisioned?
Never-mind that my idea of positive change might look very different from yours, and our ability to discuss this as thoughtful adults has been increasingly and severely restrained by all sorts of social factors over the last few decades. Further, world changers tend to seek customers (seekers, whatever. I do not mean to imply they are solely mercenary), so they often veer sharply away from such discussion.
What specifically do they seek to change?
As I mentioned in the last post, the episode is titled “Power of Masculine Energy.” But as Napoleon Hill taught us in Think and Grow Rich (1937), it is not the contents of books (&c.) that people buy. It is the titles. The WHM ad blurb says they will also discuss, “how the masculine/feminine dichotomy is holding us back.”
After listening to the episode, I did not come away with a sense of either the power of masculine energy, which we tend to see on display 24/7 in American life anyway (sure, my definition of masculinity would be welcome here), or learn how the dichotomy is holding us back. There was a lot of yelling though.
You know what I love, Wim? I really really appreciate what you represent. Just when someone looks at you. Because there’s, there’s a loss of the divine masculine, of, of sacred masculinity in our world and, you know, you look like a Viking. You kind of sound like what I think the Viking would sound like [Wim: ROAR. AL: YES!] but you are you’re preaching LOVE! You’re preaching openness and sharing and curiosity and acceptance. and these are masculine traits…
Okay now, hold up.
I often show my students this image of the Sun God, Louis XIV, the most powerful man in the latter half of seventeenth-century Europe.
The hair. The legs. The heels. The illustrious gown. The fashion. The most powerful man in Europe.
Yes. These were masculine traits.
And the beautiful ancient Greek statues of gorgeous “natural” male bodies were sculpted by and for mature adult men who celebrated sex with adolescent males. These were masculine traits.
And then the Vikings. I’m not sure how we came to discuss them as the pinnacle of the “divine masculine,” but they too engaged in homosexual sex, usually in the rape of an enemy.
It is not news that traits of masculinity and femininity are defined by time and space, which are also more slippery than some would like. Yet it seems to be news to the interwebs, where there is a pervasive insistence from both guys and dolls on the “natural” Viking male and Barbie female.
AnnaLynne, whom I find endearing, is doing a few things here that work for her. First off, she’s flirting with and flattering her host. Second, she’s snuck in love, openness, sharing, curiosity and acceptance as inherently masculine traits, which is not what the internet usually serves up.
Masculinity is getting shit on right now because there’s a, there’s a little bit of our population that are toxic and that’s for real. I’ve experienced that obviously with my story.
But so many wonderful men are getting pushed down because just men are being attacked right now because we’re trying to do that thing that we always do where we swing the pendulum too far.
I am not convinced that media does not intentionally swing the pendulum too far as a way to shut down conversation. But it could also be the tendency of latent problems long ignored simply erupting when the can is opened. Regardless, McCord argues:
“And we do, we need to acknowledge the plight of women and support women and what we need to realize that men are part of the solution. Men are part of the solution. The 90% of the men that are actually good men, here supporting and standing by the feminine, by women. There’s 10% going around and creating all the problems. We need our men.”
“We need our good men to stand up and be a voice with us and bridge that gap. And women have a responsibility, the feminine has a responsibility, to stop suppressing the positive side of masculinity and throwing the baby out with the bathwater we’ve got to look at the issue [Wim: WOW], cut out the cancer you know, bring Life Force to the cancer and enliven it or cut it out whatever has to be done to remove it so that we can unite the feminine and masculine in our world and have the proper balance.”
Wait, what?
It’s a nice thought, that the world is fine and we just need to deal with 10% of the bad men and the women who suppress and “shit on” the masculine. I guess I should ask who the audience is here.
The stereotype of Wim Hoffers is that sort of Jordan Peterson, men’s rights fan who might be very into AnnaLynne’s rendition of masculine/feminine balance and her suggestion that they are good men who want to support femininity–and women should let them.
Just let them already.
how is femininity defined here? Pink? Makeup? Manicures? Cooking for men? Cleaning for men? Looking good for men? Passivity? Agreement? Saying yes? All of these have their place, but as a definition or guide for femininity it is sorely lacking. And the men who want women who behave this way exclusively also tend to resent their dependency and frivolity, which is inherent in their definition of feminine. Catch-22.
I write all of this because I think that Wim’s method is extremely useful and all the yelling and drum beating in his media might turn off a large number of people he’d like to reach. I’m also not so sure that this hackneyed idea of the feminine and masculine is serving anyone but a few who actually, really, truly enjoy that sort of set up.
The problem is not that 10% of men are just bad and need to be dealt with by the good 90%. Apologies, but that is silly. If she’s saying that 90% of men aren’t rapists and child molesters, okay then–more than fair.
However, the issue is larger than physical abuse. It is systemic–our favorite word. The issue is that, for example, a large percentage of “good” men think that a general medical study that includes only white men is an “excellent study” and are annoyed by the suggestion that if we truly cared about the health of women, people of color, and non-binary people, a study that did not represent a majority of the population would simply not exist, much less be considered “excellent.” This is a particular example, but such particulars pervade daily life. And because you get places in the U.S. by keeping your mouth shut, this is not likely to change anytime soon.
Does the audience here intentionally exclude every man who does not relate to Viking masculinity and every woman who does not relate to Barbie femininity? And everyone else? Do the majority of humans (they seek billions) relate to this? How are these qualities defined? It is assumed here, and assumed to belong to gender. While the vast majority of viewers may well subscribe to this notion and share in the definitions of these qualities, fifty years ago we started to talk about what these traits meant as a society. At some point that conversation was shut down and eventually a new one came about, but only small corners of the world are actually engaged in it.
That many people do not wish to subscribe to traditional binary ideas of gender is not addressed here at all, perhaps because their overall numbers are not large enough to penetrate this audience? I do not know.
Wim Hof’s media is all very much addressed to healing the wounded “masculine,” defined as a big, strong, open and loving Viking, supported by a beautiful, smiling “feminine” woman. Fair enough, if this is a select community that wants to indulge in these gender ideals. But they claim to want to change the world—billions.
The conversation about what masculine and feminine qualities are is quite interesting. And, even removed from gender, we might notice that our society has a marked bias toward qualities often assigned to the masculine, and neglects, belittles, abuses, or ignores qualities often assigned to the feminine. I’ll address this next time.
Did you know that Amazon now has a meditation app? Wow. I mean, of course they do. I don’t really get into meditation apps, but if you do, try it and let me know. They have a 3-month free deal for student prime members.
My favorite girly-girl (different than/same as feminine woman?) products are definitely cookware. Does this come in pink?
Of course.
Wait, are yoga mats girly? Wanna get your girly-girl the best mat going (the manduka pro. Heavy but worth it)?
Is chocolate girly?
I don’t know. Trying to think about shopping for girly items makes my head want to burst. Enjoy.
If you’d like to support the site, buy stuff that you need from the links. Some of them send us kickbacks at no cost to you, but a wee cost to the empire. Thank you! ♥
time. This just popped into my radar: So how about a TV show where you can sit back and egg on celebrities as Wim Hof runs them through an ice-cold gauntlet? Enter Wim Hof’s Superstar Survival. In this brand new BBC series, Wim guides a …