Comments on: Secular Usage of “Preside”

By: Kiskilili

Kiskilili — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:59:48 +0000

I think what Julie’s comment (that “presiding” is often silly) gets at is that “preside” frequently means to have a dominating presence–whether because a person is in fact in charge (and potentially sports the trappings emblematic of their position) or, less literally, because they draw attention to themselves whether or not they occupy a position of actual power. This is the usage that the “Sugar Beet” exploits in their famous advertisement for Patriarchy Cologne: “When you walk into the room, there’s no question who’s presiding.”

Ever since I had this argument online I’ve been hyperaware of secular usages of the term, which I feel like I encounter everywhere. In spite of the fact that the term can be metaphorically extended as I illustrate above, or that it does not usually refer to hands-on direct control or responsibility but rather to a position of ultimate (and non-immediate) authority, I still find it incompatible with equal partnership, particularly given the problem that we repeatedly claim preside does not mean what it seems to mean without specifying what exactly it does mean.

By: ECS

ECS — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:04:07 +0000

Peter – that’s a nice analogy, but “a certain level” of equality is not equality. By presiding over the court, the Chief Justice retains a fair amount of power over the outcome of a case. And whether the CJ chooses to exercise this power is within her sole discretion.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:45:48 +0000

At least in the legal context, presiding can indeed occur while maintaining a certain level of equality. Chief Justices preside over the court, but everyone only has one vote. By tradition, Chief Justices also have some influence, and by choosing who writes the decision they may influence the jurisprudential outcome. But the vote of a Chief Justice is no greater than that of his or her colleagues. I only mention it as a secular illustration of presiding and equality.

By: z

Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:03:58 +0000

I think that’s totally right about trying to have it both ways. If “preside” really means “be equal partners,” why not just change all the references to “preside” to say exactly that? The pro-preside side has it in their power to prove their sincerity and end this debate, and it speaks volumes that they won’t. It’s so objectionable to ask women to allow someone to “preside” over them when there isn’t even a clear definition of what the word means.

By: Ziff

Ziff — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:22:02 +0000

LOL Jessawhy. You caught me. I’ve totally been shirking my presiding duties while fiddling with LexisNexis.

I can see what you’re saying about discomfort with “presiding” comes from a secular perspective, where we now think it’s unfair to exclude classes of people from holding positions of authority, rather than from a religious one. Regarding explaining why our presiding is okay and others’ is bad (am I understanding right that you mean presiding in the Church versus in the world?) I wonder if the issue isn’t even more basic, namely, whether there’s reason to think that the presiding that men are supposed to do in their families is different from all the secular presiding we see going on. I think that’s what Elder Oaks was addressing in his 2005 Conference talk. To me, this type of discussion just sounds like we’re trying to maintain the traditional “man in charge” position while at the same time softening it up with lots of “equal partners in marriage” talk so as not to sound completely sexist.

Tona, I think that’s an excellent suggestion! I would love to see it happen in Conference, especially. Also, I would have found such a system helpful when i was a deacon and wasn’t quite sure which stake people presided in sacrament meeting (and so should get the sacrament before the bishop) and which ones didn’t.

By: Tona

Tona — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:57:26 +0000

I think whoever presides in our meetings should do so in a flowered hat.

By: Jessawhy

Jessawhy — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:40:15 +0000

Ziff,
Amazing research. I can’t believe you figured this out, let alone had time to put it together!
(I wonder what items were you neglecting to preside over while doing this research?)
I think your point is well taken that the word “preside” is still used generally. I also agree that we have redefined it in the church, but I think there is some disagreement on that point. Perhaps we haven’t redefined “preside” as much as we haven’t explained why our presiding is okay and other’s is bad.
Today I was reading Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling, and he mentions priesthood authority is counter to our democratic culture that expects checks and balances to mitigate institutional power. According to Bushman, Joseph Smith thought that righteousness was all the check that priesthood leaders needed. So, presiding was good, because those who presided did so as would Jesus Christ. It seems to me that the way we think of presiding being opposed to equality is something that Joseph Smith would have rejected.
Maybe our current view of preside/equality language reflects our democratic culture and history more than the culture and history of the early church.

By: Ugly Mahana

Ugly Mahana — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:26:24 +0000

It seems that in many of the situations, the presiding officers are responsible for making sure that business gets done in the proper way, not necessarily in doing the business itself. In like manner, I think husbands and fathers are responsible for making sure that the work of the home is conducted in the proper way – which includes (perhaps primarily) an absence of unrighteous dominion – and that fathers and mothers are both (equally) responsible for doing the work of the home.

By: Ziff

Ziff — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:48:03 +0000

I don’t think “preside” precludes an equal partnership in actually getting things done. It just means someone has to be officially in charge and be responsible to third parties when the discussion comes to the proceedings in question

Sarah, I disagree. I don't see any such need for one person to be in charge, even if only "officially." It seems more likely to me that we've concocted this need after the fact to justify maintaining that men must preside in families while at the same time saying that husbands and wives should be equal partners. But this issue has been discussed at length in the bloggernacle (see for example the T&S thread I linked to in the post, or Kiskilili's post back at the beginning of this year, or Caroline's recent post on Exponent II). With this post, I was just wanting to look at one particular point made in this round-and-round argument: the question of whether the Church can freely redefine preside to mean whatever we want because it's not used anymore in the world at large. I think the answer is no, we can't assume that the word is dead in the world because it isn't. I'm sorry I didn't make this more clear in the original post. ECS nicely connected my point to the larger discussion in #6 above. Thanks, ECS!

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:40:51 +0000

I’ve always understood “preside” to mean “present and at least nominally responsible for what happens here.” I’m not sure it’s ever quite meant “in charge” in the way that, say, “manage” does to me. I see a professor presiding over a class involved in small group projects, or the Queen of England presiding over Parliament. Even a judge in a courtroom is mostly there to make sure things go the way everyone has already agreed they should, and to put a stamp of approval on things at the end.

Anyway, I don’t think “preside” precludes an equal partnership in actually getting things done. It just means someone has to be officially in charge and be responsible to third parties when the discussion comes to the proceedings in question, whether that be an appeals court looking to overturn on procedural grounds or Heavenly Father looking into why a particular kid went astray. We can’t all have the same procedural role, because some things just can’t be done by more than one entity. See also custody disputes (and ask me sometime what it’s like to have your parents be 1500 miles apart but have “joint physical custody.”)

I regrettably care very little about “men getting to do things that women can’t.” I don’t feel oppressed, I feel bad that other people do, but it just doesn’t get me worked up either way. The word usage question is, however, interesting to me.