[/SOr 57 (1993) 23-37]

ROLE D E D I F F E R E N T T A T I O N IN THE BOOK OF RUTH

Jon L. Berquist
Phillips Graduate Seminary, 600 S. College, Tulsa, Oklahoma

The simple story of Ruth often proves a difficult ground for precise
exegesis. In recent years, many studies have utilized literary methods
to understand the narrative structure of the book and its plot and
characterization.1 It is common to view the book of Ruth as an artistic
short story, a literary fiction with no precise historical setting,
although there is a consensus that Ruth is postexilic. In these studies,
sociological analysis has been conspicuously absent.
The potential of sociological methods for the interpretation of the
book of Ruth is great. In order to be understandable to its readers,
stories must possess a degree of conformity with familiar elements of
the readers' social world. Specifically, the interaction between charac-
ters within a narrative must correlate to observable social processes,
and these processes create possible foci for sociological investigation.
This does not imply that the story's characterization depicts historical
persons; rather, with appropriate suspension of belief, the reader must

1. E.F. Campbell, Ruth (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975); P. Trible,
God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), pp.
166-99; J.M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and
a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979); R.E. Murphy,
Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther (FOTL;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 83-96; A. Berlin, 'Ruth', in J.L. Mays (ed.),
Harper's Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 262-67; and
D.N. Fewell and D.M. Gunn, Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in
the Book of Ruth (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox, 1990).
24 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 57 (1993)

imagine these literary characters to be persons who behave in recog-

nizable ways.
Sociological approaches, therefore, can be helpful in the study of
the book of Ruth through a nuanced understanding of human social
behavior. Of course, the interpreter must be careful not to assume that
the literary depictions are historically 'accurate', that is, that the
depictions can be used as sociological evidence. This use of socio-
logical methodology does not deny the literary nature of texts, but
instead finds ways in which literary and sociological approaches can
cooperate in exegesis.
In the book of Ruth, the social roles of the main characters (Naomi,
Ruth and Boaz) undergo observable changes involving the addition of
various roles. This process of characterization corresponds to the socio-
logical theory of role dedifferentiation, by which persons respond to
crisis through adding roles, including roles that would be socially
inappropriate in normal times. This theory can assist the literary
interpretation of the book of Ruth.

Role Dedifferentiation
Many sociological theories depend on notions of increasing distinc-
tions between elements of a system, which is termed differentiation.2
Through structural differentiation, social systems become increasingly
complex. At the microsociological level, individuals' roles become
more distinct from others. Modern bureaucracies evince the results of
differentiation, both as a system and as a set of roles, since the system
tends toward complexity and the roles of individuals toward
specialization.
Recently, certain sociologists have focused their attention on the
complementary process of dedifferentiation. Edward Tiryakian defined
dedifferentiation as the undoing of prior patterns and role definitions,
resulting in a condition of less structure.3 He has argued that this
process is not necessarily negative, but that societies undergo dediffer-
entiation in order to release additional energy and to remobilize

2. For a classic discussion of differentiation, see T. Parsons, Structure and

Process in Modern Societies (New York: Free Press, 1960).
3. E.A. Tiryakian, On the Significance of De-Differentiation*, in S.N. Eisenstadt
and H.J. Helle (eds.), Macro-Sociological Theory: Perspectives on Sociological
Theory, I (London: SAGE, 1985), pp. 118-34.
 BERQUIST Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth 25

themselves for greater efficiency under new situations.

Jean Lipman-Blumen noticed a connection between dedifferentiation
and times of social turmoil and uncertainty. During crises, roles
merge, as each person assumes additional roles.4 Her chief example
concerned women in the United States during the Second World War.
As a systemic response to crisis, there was a sharp increase in the
number of women employed in jobs such as manufacturing. These
positions, which had previously been male gender-specific, were
suddenly dedifferentiated by the removal of the gender distinctions.
Both men and women could attain these positions. This redefined job
roles and gender roles, but after the crisis the roles partially rediffer-
entiated. This temporary dedifferentiation responded to a crisis, during
which the redefinition of social and sexual roles resulted in society's
greater ability to adjust.5

Ruth's Dedifferentiation of Roles

Setting the Stage: Crisis and Role Death
In Lipman-Blumen's understanding of role dedifferentiation, crisis
catalyzes role shifts. In the book of Ruth, famine represents the crisis
that triggers dedifferentiation (1.1). As the characters react to the
famine, roles lose their stability.
The first role shift involves Naomi, the Ephrathite matriarch of the
small family that migrates from Judah to Moab in search of food.
Famine motivates the move, but once there, Naomi's husband and sons

4. J. Lipman-Blumen, 'Role De-Differentiation as a System Response to Crisis:

Occupational and Political Roles of Women*, Sociological Inquiry 43 (1973),
pp. 105-29. For a general discussion of role theory, see R. Dahrendorf, 'Homo
Sociologicus: On the History, Significance, and Limits of the Category of Social
Role', in idem (ed.), Essays in the Theory of Society (Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 1968), pp. 19-87; and T.R. Sarbin and V.L. Allen, 'Role Theory',
in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, I
(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2nd edn, 1968), pp. 488-567. A recent revisioning
of role theory and social structure is J.S. Coleman, The Asymmetric Society
(Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1982).
5. For recent work on the theory of sex roles and gender in society, see
A.H. Eagly, Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation
(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987); and J.M.C. Nielsen, Sex and Gender in
Society: Perspectives on Stratification (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 2nd edn,
1990).
26 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 57 (1993)

die (1.1-5). For Naomi, this transition from 'wife' to 'bereft woman'
(1.5) is not a case of dedifferentiation, because she loses her major
roles. She is left without affiliation and with little connection to the
larger institutions of society (1.21). She severs her remaining connec-
tions to her adopted country (1.6-7) and to her daughters-in-law (1.8-
9, 11-12). The beginning crisis, then, is three-fold: a famine of
national or international scale, the death of three men and virtual role
death for Naomi.6 This crisis signals the possibility for the response of
role dedifferentiation.

Ruth's Clinging
Ruth enters the story in 1.4, where she is named; she does not act until
1.14, when she and Orpah provide different responses to Naomi's role
death. For ten verses, Ruth watches the crisis grow to overwhelming
proportions. Whereas family relations define Ruth's role in 1.4, the
death of the family gives birth to Ruth as actor. The crises of famine
and death lead directly to her dedifferentiation.
Orpah accepts her role as bereaved daughter-in-law and obeys her
mother-in-law, in accord with the norms of her stratified society. By
returning to her previous family, Orpah fulfills her role expectations.
Ruth, however, deviates from her mother-in-law's command and from
standard expectations for young widows: she clings (np^i) to Naomi
(1.14). The Hebrew word 'cling, cleave' (pm) is a moderately common
term, occurring 40 times in the G stem. The most frequent Hebrew
Bible use of this term is in the phrase 'to cling to God'.7 However,
there are only eight references to clinging between humans, and four
of these appear in Ruth. Of the other references, perhaps the best known
is Gen. 2.24: 'a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his
wife, and they become one flesh'. This clinging between a man and a
woman relates to love, to marriage, and/or to intimate sexual relations.8

6. The end of 1.13 should be translated, 'it is more bitter for me [Naomi] than
for you [Ruth and Orpah]'. See Fewell and Gunn, Compromising Redemption,
p. 28 n. 12.
7. M. Weinfeld also notices the use of pDi in a Deuteronomistic phrase of
religious disloyalty, 'cling to the nations' (Josh. 23.12; 1 Kgs 11.2), but he miscon-
strues this phrase, which refers more particularly to the practices of marrying women
of other nations (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1972], pp. 83, 333, 341).
8. Against Campbell, Ruth, p. 81, who sees pai as covenant language. But the
three other non-Ruth uses of pDi for intrahuman relationships also carry a sexual
 BERQUIST Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth 27

Furthermore, pan refers to the male role in initiating marriage.

Outside of Ruth, the term 'cling' never describes a woman's act. This
makes Ruth 1.14 all the more striking. When Ruth clings to Naomi,
Ruth takes the male role in initiating a relationship of formal com-
mitment, similar to marriage.9
Ruth responds to crisis with dedifferentiation by adding roles. She
remains in the female role of daughter-in-law even though there is no
longer any basis for that role, and she adds the male role of 'clinging'
to Naomi as a husband. Ruth maintains both roles; she is still
daughter-in-law (1.22) even after she clings (1.14). This is not role
replacement, but role addition. Facing a crisis in which there are not
enough men to fulfill typical male roles, Ruth adds a specifically non-
female role, 'clinging'. This is an instance of role dedifferentiation.

Family Roles
Ruth's second chapter begins with a notice that Naomi has a relative
(2.1). By the end of ch. 2, Naomi exclaims, 'The man is close to us; he
is one of our redeemers (tfnon)!' (2.20). Thus, family connections
provide an important set of roles, including the role of redeemer that
would provide a possible solution to the crisis. Whereas the narrator
unswervingly reports the precise familial relationship of mother-in-
law and daughter-in-law (1.6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 22; 2.18, 19, 20, 22, 23),
Naomi calls Ruth 'daughter' or 'my daughter' (2.2, 22).
Within this network of family relations, the reader finds an essential
clue about the nature of the problem to be solved. Naomi attributes
her initial role death to her lack of sons (1.11-14), agreeing with the
narrator's definition of the problem (1.5). The issue is not the lack of
children or fertility per se, but specifically the lack of sons. Once

meaning. Shechem's infatuation with Dinah results in kidnapping and rape, but then
his soul 'clings' to Dinah (the parallel verb is Dn», 'to love'); Shechem then desires
marriage (Gen. 34.3). Josh. 23.12 explains 'clinging to the nations* as a reference to
marrying (pn) foreign women. Similarly, 1 Kgs 11.2 condemns Solomon for
'clinging' in love to foreign women, preceding an enumeration of Solomon's wives
and concubines.
9. Fewell and Gunn (Compromising Redemption, pp. 97, 103), notice Ruth's
caretaking of Naomi as represented in this term and they understand this as a
husband image, but they do not further develop Ruth's taking of a specifically male
role. As discussed below, the other uses of this term in Ruth carry different connota-
tions, but the reader familiar with other texts would have likely used the standard
marriage meaning to interpret Ruth's first use of the term in 1.14.
28 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 57 (1993)

Naomi sees Ruth taking the husband role of clinging, Naomi accepts
Ruth as kin, in the form of a son. This restores a familial relationship,
albeit a strange one, and Ruth begins to provide for Naomi, offering a
short-term solution to the problem of bereavement.

A Plan for Role Development: Gleaner and Seducer

Ruth's dedifferentiation does not stop with these family roles of
husband and son. In the larger society, Ruth adds non-family roles,
beginning with the role of gleaner, in order to provide Naomi with
food (2.2). 10 Levitical regulation specified that all landowners must
allow the poor and the foreigner to enter the fields after the harvest­
ing, in order to gather up whatever was missed or dropped by the
field laborers (Lev. 19.9-10). The gleaners could keep what they
gathered. The law required landowners and laborers to cooperate, but
reluctance could well be expected. Gleaning provided subsistence for
those lowest in social status. In Ruth's case, with two persons eating
one's gleanings, even survival would be questionable. Ruth must find
another solution to hunger and poverty.
The narrative immediately indicates another, more permanent solu­
tion. Ruth suggests more than gleaning when she says, Ί intend to go
to the field, so that I may glean among the grain after anyone in whose
eyes I find favor' (2.2). Since the law insists that all landowners allow
gleaning, Ruth's intention seems more than finding kindness. The
expression 'to find favor in one's eyes' (vrio ]n NS&) typically refers
to petitioning, but in Ruth 2.2 the phrase is a sexual innuendo.11 Here
finding favor cannot refer to a petition, since gleaning would not
require permission from the landowner (Lev. 19.9-10), and since
12
Ruth does not seek permission from anyone before she gleans (2.3).
Ruth intends to use gleaning to attract a husband who would take the
role of provider. Thus, her statement announces both a short-term

10. Fewell and Gunn (Compromising Redemption, pp. 76, 98) refer aptly to
Ruth as a breadwinner.
11. The expression occurs 48 times, of which 14 refer to a man's petitioning of
God and 23 to a man's petitioning of a higher status male. In fact, relative status is
often a crucial point (Gen. 39.4; 39.21 ; 47.25, 29; 50.4). Of the 11 cases of women's
use of the phrase, 7 are petitions, but 4 cases (Deut. 24.1; Ruth 2.2; Est. 2.15, 2.17)
suggest the context of sexual attraction.
12. Campbell (Ruth, p. 94) argues that Ruth asks for permission in 2.7, but the
text is missing.
 BERQUIST Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth 29

solution to hunger (gleaning) and a plan for a long-term solution

(marriage). For the proposed long-term solution, Ruth adds another
13
role: seducer. Ruth's intention of sexual attraction allows a clearer
understanding of her actions in the field (2.3-16).
3
So she walked and came and gleaned in the countryside after the field-
workers, and happened across the portion of the countryside that belonged
to Boaz, who was from the family of Elimelech.
4
Then Boaz came from Bethlehem, and he said to the fieldworkers,
4
YHWH be with you'. They said to him, 'May YHWH bless you'. 5 Boaz
said to his boy, who was in charge of the fieldworkers, 'Who is this girl?'
6
The boy who was in charge of the fieldworkers answered and said, 'She
is the Moabite girl who returned with Naomi from the country of Moab.
7
She said, Ί wish to glean and to gather among the ears of grain after the
fieldworkers', and she came and stood from then in the morning until
now. She stayed in the house only a little'. 14

Ruth 2.3 tells of Ruth gleaning in fields and happening across Boaz's
field, but the scene shifts in 2.4 to focus upon Boaz's entry into the
field. In this new scene, Ruth's location remains unannounced. In fact,
though the setting for the first part of this scene (2.3) is clearly the
field, the setting of the rest (2.4-7) is ambiguous. Though the reader
may presume the field, the last line (2.7b) forces a re-reading, especi­
ally as the next scene starts (2.8-13). Suddenly, Boaz's house seems the
location! The narrative brings the scene into shocking clarity. Boaz
entered his property and passed by the fieldworkers on the way to his
house, where a surprise awaited him: his field supervisor with a
foreign girl. With apt suspicion, Boaz challenged the supervisor,
'Who is this girl?' The supervisor's infelicitous speech betrayed the
nervousness of his defense, insisting that Ruth intended gleaning and
had hardly been inside long enough to do anything improper. In the
context of Ruth's announced intentions to seduce some man (2.2), this
scene seems clearly to be evoked: during a morning's gleaning, Ruth
located the ranking man present and began her seduction.15 Now an
even higher-ranking man catches her and uncovers her plot.

13. In this role, Ruth parallels Tamar's actions toward Judah (Gen. 38), as
recognized by Fewell and Gunn, Compromising Redemption, pp. 46-48.
14. This reading has the advantage of requiring no emendation of the MT.
15. Echoes of Potiphar's wife (Gen. 39) resound here: a woman's seduction
leads a young man into trouble with his superior. In that story as well, the house
(and the master's possession of all therein) is a key point.
30 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 57 (1993)

Immediately, the supervisor exits from the narrative, and Ruth's

designs focus solely on Boaz.
Boaz's references to Ruth are oddly ambiguous. He uses the term
'cling' (pai), as discussed above, to describe Ruth's relationship to
Boaz's female servants in the harvest, and he encourages her to stay
away from the men in the field, suggesting a protected status (2.9).
Not only should Ruth follow behind these women, but she should
identify with them and become part of their association.16
This passage portrays the relationship between Boaz and Ruth. He
forbids her contact with other males and gives her freedom to glean,
which the law already granted. Ruth had worked to seduce the super-
visor; Boaz counters that and sends Ruth back out into the field. Since
Boaz understands this as an act of protection, Ruth capitalizes on his
action and interprets it as 'finding favor' (2.10), referring to the
beginnings of sexual attraction.17 His pious blessings appear ironic:
Ruth does not seek refuge in God, but in a man. Despite his protesta-
tions, Boaz now appears to be that man (2.12), and she seeks her
reward under Boaz's 'wings' or skirt (3.9).18
At this point in the narrative, Ruth has attempted to take the role of
Boaz's seductress, but Boaz has not accepted her advances. However,
Ruth's role dedifferentiation continues to expand. At this point, the
narrative breaks down. Boaz has blocked Ruth's seduction, while
encouraging her role as gleaner. As gleaner, Ruth attains a short-term
solution, but without her seduction she finds no role that leads to a
permanent amelioration of the incipient crisis. Thus, the narrative
must find another opportunity for the seduction to continue.

16. Note the rejection of parents in Ruth 2.11 and Gen. 2.24, both of which
appear with clinging language. This strengthens the impression of a close relation-
ship, similar to marriage. In another reference to the early narratives, Boaz credits
Ruth with going to a previously unknown land, as Abram left Ur (Gen. 12.1).
17. Also, the phrase 'speak to the heart' has sexual connotations, according to
Fewell and Gunn (Compromising Redemption, p. 102).
18. As fitting for someone in the process of role dedifferentiation, Ruth concerns
herself with role labels. She rejects Boaz's title of female servant (2.13), but she
accepts the title 'girl' (2.6), which parallels the title of the supervisor. She takes
egalitarian role labels while rejecting subservient ones. Eventually, she receives the
role label that she prefers: 'woman of strength* (3.11), parallel to Boaz, who is a
'man, a hero of strength* (2.1).
 BERQUIST Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth 31

The Spreading of Dedifferentiation

Naomi as Matchmaker
The second chapter ends with a desperate situation. Ruth's short-term
solution of gleaning would soon fail, since the harvest was approach-
ing its end, and Boaz's rejection of Ruth's seduction blocked the
marriage that would have provided the permanent solution. In the
narrative's time frame, months pass in a single verse until the need for
action is once again crucial (2.23).
Naomi then undertakes her second active role.19 In 3.1-4, Naomi
prods Ruth to act toward the permanent solution. Naomi assumes the
role of the matchmaker who seeks rest for Ruth (3.1, rruo -¡'τώρα»).
The term for rest (nuû) usually refers to a place in which one can
rest, and thus some translations render the word as 'home'.20 Along
with this meaning can also reside the sense that Ruth should find a way
to rest from the daily labor that has provided survival for her and her
mother-in-law. Thus, Naomi directs the active search for a long-term
solution, which is profitable marriage.
The addition of the matchmaker role is role dedifferentiation. In
ancient Israel, fathers arranged marriages for their children.21
Naomi's matchmaking is a male role. Once more, dedifferentiation
sets the narrative into motion. When Naomi oversteps the roles
acceptable for women, work toward the permanent solution restarts.

Boaz as Suitor
Boaz adopts the role of suitor when he acknowledges Ruth as seducer
(3.8, 10). Boaz's response facilitates the solutions to the story's prob-
lems, since his wealth can save Ruth and Naomi from hunger and
social isolation. Ruth's attempts at the seduction of a provider (2.2)
and Naomi's prodding toward these ends (3.1-4) both advance the plot
in anticipation of Boaz's reply. The plot's success requires not only
that Boaz accept the sexual seduction, but also that he undertake the
proper courting of Ruth. Appropriately, his response to Ruth's

19. See J.W.H. Bos, 'Out of the Shadows: Genesis 38; Judges 4.17-22; Ruth
3', Semeia 42 (1988), pp. 58-64.
20. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 182.
21. See R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel. I. Social Institutions (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1961), p. 29. Rebekah initiates the search for a wife for Jacob (Gen. 27.46),
but Isaac makes the arrangements (Gen. 28.1-5), and she has no further role.
32 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 57 (1993)

unexpected presence on the threshing floor moves from acceptance of

her loyalty (3.10, "[ion) to a proclamation of action (3.11). Thus,
Boaz allows Ruth to perform her role of seducer successfully, and he
responds with the appropriate parallel role of suitor.

Boaz as Redeemer
As Boaz acknowledges his added role as suitor, he also accepts the
role label of redeemer (3.9, 12, ^KJ) that Ruth attributes to him.22
Boaz's acquisition of this role violates social expectation, since he is
not the closest of Elimelech's relatives. The sexual liaison could be
fleeting, but the role of redeemer grounds their relationship in the
wider network of social and familial obligations. When Boaz accepts
this role of redeemer, he obligates himself to the purchase of the land
once owned by Elimelech (4.3). The law requires a close relative to
buy back either real property sold because of debt (Lev. 25, 27). 23
Naomi does not currently own this land; Elimelech sold it to pay off
debts, probably forcing the family's move away from Judah.
Boaz's pending redemption of the land would entail the purchase of
the land from whomever currently owned it and the ensuing transfer
of that land from Boaz to Naomi, as the representative of Elimelech,
at no charge.24 This would provide a one-time infusion of funds to
Naomi and Ruth. Though such an action would discharge Boaz's
responsibility, it does not solve the women's long-term problem. Two

22. The view of redemption presented herein is similar to that developed by

R. Gordis, 'Love, Marriage, and Business in the Book of Ruth: A Chapter in Hebrew
Customary Law', in H.N. Bream, R.D. Heim and C.A. Moore (eds.), Λ Light unto
My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1974), pp. 241-64.
23. Cf. Exod. 6.6 and 15.13, where God redeems the enslaved people by buying
them from their owners.
24. Ruth 4.3 indicates that Naomi owned the land outright, causing interpretive
difficulties because there has been no mention of this property earlier in the story.
But this problem can be solved through a close investigation of the redemption law.
The redeemer would buy the land from the stranger and then give it to Naomi, who
would sell it back to the redeemer. The redeemer would gain land (at twice its value,
one presumes) and Naomi would gain some funds with which to live for a while. In
4.6, the closest relative refuses purchase because he could not afford to buy the land
and the slave, Ruth, from Naomi, since that would be his second purchase of the
property. For a more standard view, see E.W. Davies, Tnheritance Rights and the
Hebrew Levirate Marriage', VT31 (1981), pp. 138-44, 257-68.
 BERQUIST Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth 33

women could not farm to feed themselves, since they had no means to
invest in seed or to survive the off-season. The role of redeemer did
not obligate Boaz to long-term care, and ch. 3 does not refer to Boaz
as potential husband, a role that does not necessarily follow upon that
of redeemer.
Boaz does not lose his previous roles as he gains new ones. He
maintains his role as provider (3.15, cf. 2.16) and as man of worth, as
seen in his attribution of a parallel role label to Ruth (3.11). This gain
without complementary role loss presents role dedifferentiation.
Boaz reluctantly agrees to function as redeemer in ch. 3, and then
seeks the closest relative to be Naomi's redeemer.25 The nameless
relative accepts the challenge to buy back the land, but then Boaz
springs a trap: there is also a slave to be repurchased with the land
(4.5). Boaz, however, gives the other relative a chance to renege on
the family duty by offering to serve as redeemer himself (4.4).
Though the relative agrees to buy the land, he does not accept the idea
of repurchasing the slave. The expense of purchasing and/or
maintaining the slave would be too great, and such a purchase would
deplete his funds that were available for inheritance (4.6).26 Through
the legal machinations in the gate, Boaz assumes the role of legal
redeemer for Naomi and Ruth. He locates someone else to take
responsibility, but then he uses trickery to bind himself with the
enormous costs of redemption.

Boaz as Husband
Surprisingly, Boaz volunteers for the role of Ruth's husband (4.5,
10). This is a permanent legal role; Boaz the husband must provide
for Ruth and Naomi for the rest of their lives, unless divorce should
sever the relationship. Were Boaz only redeemer, then the one-time
transfer of funds would have continued the marginal existence and
social isolation of Naomi and Ruth. However, the new role of husband

25. Campbell (Ruth, pp. 109-10) emphasizes Boaz's willingness to help, but
Fewell and Gunn (Compromising Redemption, pp. 87-92) realize his reluctance.
26. Though there would have been a need to pass Elimelech's redeemed wealth to
Elimelech's son through Ruth, there is no evidence that redemption law required the
child of a redeemed woman to receive all of a man's inheritance. Thus, the traditional
argument that the relative fears his own sons receiving nothing with all of the family
wealth going to Ruth's son is erroneous. The depletion of funds due to the expense
of the repurchase seems a simpler explanation.
34 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 57 (1993)

creates a long-term relationship between Boaz and the women that

grants them society's greatest guarantees of economic and social
security.27
Marriage provides an elegant solution to the economic interplay of
the redemption process. By bringing his distant relatives into his own
family, Boaz acquires Elimelech's property at cost. His machinations
in the gate work to his own economic benefit, and so he becomes a
fitting trickster hero within the traditions of the Hebrew Bible. Once
Boaz considers marrying Ruth, he has a perfect plan to maximize his
own wealth, if only he can trick his relative out of his rights to
redeem the property. Apparently, the plan succeeds only because
Boaz's opponent cannot envision marriage to a foreign woman. For
Boaz, the entire narrative takes on a different character. He searches
for ways to maximize his own advantage while maintaining his proper
family honor; his solution bends the social rules about marriage while
adhering to and exceeding the redemption law. Thus, the story ends in
success for him because of his willingness to go beyond the role of
redeemer and into the role of husband.28
The narrative emphasizes Boaz's final role dedifferentiation by
depicting it in two stages. In ch. 3, Boaz functions only as potential
redeemer, with no indication of the husband role. In 4.5, Boaz asserts
the necessity of providing a child to Ruth to perpetuate Elimelech's
legacy, but marriage per se does not yet appear; Ruth is 'the wife of
the dead one' (4.5), not Boaz's future wife. Only in Boaz's concluding
speech of the book does he state that he will take Ruth as wife (4.10);
the narrator echoes this in 4.13. With this last action of role dediffer-
entiation, Boaz falls silent; his story has ended.

Role Restoration
At the end of the story, Ruth acquires her last role as she becomes
mother (4.13), which leads to the popular proclamation that she is
more than seven sons to Naomi (4.15). Naomi, whose bereavement
begins the narrative, now ends the tale with a final role dedifferentia-
tion. She becomes the mother of the child, Obed, even to the point of
nursing him (4.16). The women's chorus agrees, asserting that this
son has been born to Naomi (4.17). The barren (1.11) receives a

27. Sasson (Ruth, p. 91) also argues that redemption and marriage are separate
acts.
28. For the trickery involved here, see Sasson, Ruth, pp. 168-69.
 BERQUIST Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth 35

child. The cycle of the story finds its completion with Naomi's
assumption of the role of mother.29

Social Deconstruction of Gender in the Book of Ruth

Though the social processes of the characters within the book of Ruth
do not necessarily correspond to any social roles within historical
Israel, the narrator presents characters who perform their roles in
ways that ancient readers would comprehend. This social sensibility
allows sociological analysis to join with literary study in the exegesis
of this story. Attention to role dedifferentiation demonstrates that the
plot depends upon Ruth's addition of roles and upon this tendency's
spread to Naomi and Boaz. Once all of the characters are adding non-
standard roles, the narrative's problems attain solutions.
From the start of the story, women deconstruct their gender by
dedifferentiating their roles. Specifically, the women take a number of
roles that, in their society, were exclusively or predominantly male
roles. Naomi dedifferentiates her roles in ways that catalyze; Ruth's
dedifferentiation is more active, leading directly to the solution of the
story's problems. In terms of gender boundaries, Ruth operates as a
man in a man's world, and thus she can affect the changes needed to
assure her own survival in a male-dominated culture.
The crucial point in the narrative comes when Boaz adds the roles
of suitor, redeemer and husband, thus undergoing role dedifferentia-
tion. When the most prominent male in the story redefines his own
roles in response to the story's dedifferentiating women, solutions to
the story's problems become available. Boaz accepts the role rever-
sals, including those of gender, even to the point of rescinding his
right to the naming of his child.
In this way, the book of Ruth deconstructs gender. Problems attain
solutions only when people transgress social conventions and take
roles that society limits to the other gender. In the process, the actors
reinvent their own social roles and perhaps even their own selves.30
Certainly, the actions of the story's characters change the social reality

29. Bos (Out of the Shadows', p. 58) clearly articulates the 'radical reversal'
implied here, as does Trible (God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 1%).
30. L.A. Zürcher, Social Roles: Conformity, Conflict, and Creativity (Beverly
Hüls, CA: Sage, 1983), pp. 211-37; and B.R. Schlenker (ed.), The Self and Social
Ufe (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985).
36 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 57 (1993)

of their narrative world, so that gender no longer defines and limits

potential and possibilities. The deconstructing of gender empowers
and enables, eventually resulting in the solution of the story's original
problems.
If one recognizes the book of Ruth as a deconstruction of gender,
then the book may well have functioned as a rationale for social
change.31 Though the motives of its characters make sense within a
framework of patriarchy,32 their modes of action are explicitly non-
sensical because they violate the norms that socially construct reality.
This text moves to deconstruct the social sexual reality of its narrative
world, thereby offering a critique of the social-sexual role expectations
of its implied audience.
Through a depiction of crisis-initiated dedifferentiation, the narrative
deconstructs the gender boundaries of the narrative world in lasting
ways. Even after marriage and birth re-establish the story's original
state, the women continue to add men's roles, as the women of the
community name the new child. The surprising end demonstrates the
power of the story, in which people permanently destroy gender role
boundaries in mutually profitable ways. Though this process began as
a response to crisis, its continuation marks a permanent change within
the narrative world. In that context, the story is subversive, focusing
not on a redeemer's salvation of the needy through established social
rules, but on a disadvantaged foreigner's deconstruction of gender
boundaries in order to save herself and her woman.

ABSTRACT

Recent studies of Ruth have rightly emphasized the narrative nature of this short
story, but sociological analysis also offers helpful tools for the interpretation of Ruth.
The concept of role provides a locus of possible integration. Since the book of Ruth
is literature, the figures within this book's story undergo characterization, depicting
and developing their roles within the story. Within this narrative world, the characters

31. A. LaCocque (The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in

Israel's Tradition [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990]) argues that Ruth protests
the Ezra-Nehemiah marriage reforms.
32. For a recent discussion of the patriarchy implicit in biblical texts, see
K.M. Craig and M.A. Kristjansson, 'Women Reading as Men/Women Reading as
Women: A Structural Analysis for the Historical Project', Semeia 51 (1990),
pp. 119-36.
 BERQUIST Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth 37

appear as social actors and their behavior conforms to recognizable social processes
within definable social roles. Thus, the gender roles of the characters exhibit a social
function of dedifferentiation, as role segments typically considered male or female are
interchanged.

University Microfilms
International reproduces this
publication in microform:
This microfiche and 16mm or 35mm film.
For information about this pub-
lication or any of the more than
publication 13,000 titles we offer, complete
and mail the coupon to: University
is available Microfilms International, 300 N.
Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106.

in microform. Call us toll-free for an immediate

response: 800-521-3044. Or call
collect in Michigan, Alaska and
Hawaii: 313-761-4700.

Company/Institution .

University
Microfilms
International
 ΛΠ^,

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.