Another terrific historical, ethnographic work from Orsi. As usual, he doesn’t just blandly describe what people said to and about St. Jude in his field data and in the archives he used, but he sets a theoretical framework for basically every piece he analyzes. For the portions of the book pertaining to the medical placement of Jude, he makes clear which medical anthropologists he is standing on, but insofar as I know, his use of them is innovative for the field of religious studies. He then theorizes illness (what is it? how does it constitute the self? what are its social and imaginative limits? etc) amidst the changing environment of the increasingly male and hierarchical medical world in the mid-twentieth century, into which women brought Jude. The economic and geographic movement of Catholic women from the Depression through the 1960s also forms a backdrop for this social history, as the continued expectations that women would hold together the family unit and participate in longstanding family traditions of female responsibility over kin (as was the case in the ethnic enclaves of the late 19th century cities) pressed on them as they moved towards the modern workplace and often away from the enclaves.
The brilliance of the work is in the way that Orsi carves out space between the dichotomies that the tools of secular academic analysis implicitly set up. Through structural analysis we might evaluate whether or not these women were either being submissive or liberated through their devotion to Jude. Whether the devotion was private or public. Active/passive, moral/amoral, adult/infantile, or whether this was magic or religion. The inadequacy of those dichotomies should immediately be apparent, in general, but in particular they do not capture the in-betweenness of the lived experience of the women devoted to Jude, or of the saint’s in-betweenness for that matter. Jude goes with the women into zones of devotional culture and work and home where they submit in the way that both Catholic and broader American cultural norms instructed them to, but he also provided a springboard for their agency, for their own action and courageous negotiation of the boundaries of their social worlds. Through Jude, mediation between the injunction to submit and suffer (even amidst drunk, abusive husbands, which in Catholic devotional culture were seen as merely opportunity to grow in holiness for the silently suffering wife) and the possibility of real change in crisis became possible. Jude existed (exists) in relationship with women (and men). He represented the culture that Catholic women inherited in the mid-twentieth century, but in relationship with him these women altered the culture that they received to make it more hospital for them. He was apart of the world that they made and sustained together, with their shared histories of intense Catholic devotional culture and multi-sided injunctions to submission and suffering in tow,
among other things. There is great directional ambiguity in devotion to Jude if you are looking for analysis of the social “progress” that women made in this period through Jude. It would certainly be difficult and malicious to dismiss the devotional cult (technical term) of St. Jude as merely childish or regressive (even if sometimes it could be described as such). Jude also helped Catholic women move from the enclave into the modern world, negotiating the expectations incumbent upon them in both. A pleasure to read.