An Interview with Anne Hendershott

This week in America -- historic to be sure -- recalls, amidst so many other elements, the cultural phenomenon of marches. “If you march long enough, you're bound to get somewhere,” observed a reporter at the San Francisco Chronicle, referring to the countless civil rights marches that played an undeniable role in catalyzing the social change that this week culminates in the swearing in of the first African-American President of the United States.
Those marches have arguably reached their goal. Other marches have not, and they will continue. Washington will also be the backdrop this week for the annual March for Life. Pro-life Americans also believe that if we march long enough, if we protest long enough, if we pray long enough, if we write, and preach and teach about the sanctity of human life from the very moment of conception long enough, we are bound to get somewhere.
A recent Harris Poll commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic bishops suggests that we are indeed getting somewhere. A nationwide on-line survey of 2,341 adult Americans has found that four out of five U.S. adults think abortion should either be illegal under all circumstances or would at least limit its legality. 38% would limit abortion to cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. An additional 33% would limit abortion to either the first three or first six months. Only 9% said they favored abortion on demand, for almost any reason, at any time during pregnancy – which is the true scope of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that mandated legal abortion in all fifty states.
Against this backdrop, I thought it would be good timing to share an interview I recently conducted with Anne Hendershott -- an interview I felt compelled to do after reading an outstanding op-ed she recently published in the Wall Street Journal (January 2, “How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma”).
Hendershott has written extensively on a broad array of issues bearing on Catholicism and contemporary culture, and she does so through the lens of a very sharp-thinking sociologist. She spent five years as Director of the Center for Social Research at the University of Hartford, and she also served as professor of sociology at the University of San Diego. Just recently she has joined the faculty of The King’s College in New York City and is the author of a number of important and engaging books including: The Politics of Deviance (2002), The Politics of Abortion (2006) and, just published, Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education.

Here’s what she shared with me.

Berg: What are your thoughts on the recent Harris Poll indicating that most U.S. adults support laws limiting or regulating abortion?

Hendershott: The Harris Poll is an excellent source. However, one should just keep in mind that they used an “interactive poll” which means that it is conducted online. Although they do not say it, any interactive poll (online) must acknowledge the self-selection bias that can occur. By this I mean, people who have strong feelings about abortion (one way or the other) will be more likely to participate in the survey. Others will "delete" it quickly. Usually the bias cancels itself out if the sample is representative (e.g., the pro-choicers will equal the pro-lifers).

But, of course, self-selection bias can occur with telephone surveys and it is even worse with in-person surveys where the respondent gives the "socially desirable" response. Today, much support for gay civil unions that pollsters are finding in face-to-face interviews reflects social desirability bias: it arises from the desire on the part of the respondent to give the answer that he or she thinks the pollster wants to hear. Concerned about appearances, the respondent wants to look "cool" and unbigoted or unprejudiced to the pollster. In today's pro-gay climate, no one wants to be perceived as homophobic. The same goes for abortion. But, as it gets safer to be pro-life (as more "cool" people come out as pro-life), it will again be socially desirable to be pro-life and you will get people more likely to admit it. I cannot tell you how many people have confided to me that they have been pro-life for years but too embarrassed to say it out loud.

Berg: Why did you write The Politics of Abortion and what were the primary conclusions you draw in the book?

Hendershott: I am a very curious person; that is why I became a sociologist. I studied abortion because I wanted to understand how abortion became the norm -- how it became the societal default position. I was doing research for my previous book (The Politics of Deviance) which looks at how behaviors become defined as “deviant” or “normal”. In that book I present the process of redefinition as a process of marketing, that is, when interest groups and lobbyists “sell” new definitions of behaviors, such as drug abuse (which has been medicalized) and homosexuality (which has been normalized). I have always been interested in the process of “selling” new definitions of behaviors.

So, I kept running into abortion, which used to be viewed as a form of deviance. I had intended to include a chapter in the deviance book but my publisher could see that a single chapter would never been enough. I decided to devote a whole book to it. Abortion, as it turns out, like many forms of deviance was redefined. It was “defined down” to use Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s phrase. Society was “sold” a new definition of abortion as a liberating and good thing for women even before we knew we needed a new definition of abortion.

It was “sold” the same way a new laundry detergent was sold: with very overt marketing techniques. With abortion, I was just curious about who was doing the selling. I learned a lot, and sadly, learned that in addition to those who stood to benefit financially (clinic owners like Larry Lader and Bernard Nathanson before his conversion), there were those who stood to benefit in other ways. Politicians learned that they could get new liberal voters and a ton of money by selling the new definition. And saddest of all, some liberal Catholic priests learned that they could gain status and power by denying church teachings and allying with the powerful elite politicians.

Berg: You just published a book on Catholic higher education in the U.S. In that regard, we spend a lot of time focusing on ‘what went wrong’ with Catholic higher ed. I would be interested to know your take on that, but even more interested in knowing where you think Catholic higher ed is going.

Hendershott: When I began writing my book Status Envy: the Politics of Catholic Higher Education, I believed that the major problem in Catholic higher ed was that in the pursuit of upward mobility, Catholic college administrators and faculty members became embarrassed about their “connection” to what they began to see as a Church mired in tradition and the past. In a growing egalitarian society, they began to be ashamed to be seen as answering to a “higher authority” than the life of the mind.
But, once I really got into the writing I began to realize it was much more complex. I now believe that the secularization process that has occurred on many Catholic campuses is the result of a deliberate attempt by specific groups of people, many of whom intended to marginalize religion. I draw from sociologist Christian Smith’s theory on secularization which maintains that instead of an inevitable consequence of modernization, the secularization that is occurring now is the result of the deliberate actions of people who knew exactly what they were doing -- and wanted to do it.

Feminists, angry over the church’s stand on women’s ordination and reproductive choice, as well as gay men and lesbian women who have felt marginalized by Catholic moral teachings have had a powerful incentive to challenge the existing order in the Church. Many of them used college campuses for their purposes (recruiting students to their causes, writing books and articles criticizing the teachings of the Church) and attempting to redefine the Church as a site of oppression rather than a source of salvation.
Since the secularization process on Catholic campuses appears to have been intentional and rational (involving strategic actions by “insurgents”), there is an opportunity that the opposition (the faithful) can employ a counter-insurgency to slow or stop it. My book offers a ten-step process.

Berg: What role will American bishops need to play during the Obama administration?

Hendershott: The American bishops have begun to publicly speak out on the teachings of the church, and this is a good thing. Twenty-six of them have spoken out on Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi’s ridiculous statements on abortion. They seem to be finding their voice. I loved what some of them have said about FOCA. Archbishop Chaput has been out in front, but others have been equally strong, if a little less visible. Their courage gives courage to the rest of us. It is very lonely being the “only one” responding to issues like abortion and gay marriage. In San Diego, I was most fortunate to have wonderful bishops. Both Bishop Brom and Auxiliary Bishop Cordileone directly confronted the problems at the University of San Diego. Bishop Cordileone was out in front on the Prop 8 issue and has taken terrible abuse from the gay community over his support for the amendment. I was grateful for his leadership. I served on Bishop Brom’s Sexual Abuse Review Team in San Diego and learned how difficult it is to confront the culture of deviance that had become so engrained.

Dealing with Obama will not be easy because he is so appealing to so many. Anyone who questions his support for the culture of death will be viewed with suspicion -- or worse. The bishops need our prayers for their continued courage. They will be attacked just as the gay community attacks anyone who questions their choices as a homophobe. Feminists will attack the bishops as oppressors when they speak out against FOCA.

Berg: Are we in a ‘springtime’ of the Church? Winter? Whatever became of John Paul’s much heralded “new evangelization”?

Hendershott: I am beginning to do research on a new book on the new evangelization. I believe it is occurring right now, although not on the Catholic college campuses where it should be beginning. But, it is beginning on the secular campuses. My son is a 2007 graduate of West Point and it is clear that he had a much more “Catholic” experience there than he would have at most Catholic colleges. There are Newman Clubs, Compass, Focus, Intervarsity, Fellowships for Christian Athletes, etc. When my husband and I visit West Point, we look at the cadets there and think that the country is going to be okay. I feel the same way when I look at all the young men joining the seminary and religious congregations today. When I see the faces of these young men (they all look like my son), I thank God for them -- and I think that the Church is going to be okay. If they are the future of our Church, we are going to be alright.