Rethinking a Postcolonial Critical view of Exodus – §5 – CONCLUSIONS!

It is hard to dismiss the Exodus Narrative’s emphasis on God’s concern for Israel in their most vulnerable moments, and the reality that the liberation from Egypt was of central importance in Jewish self-understanding from the earliest days. As readers are inevitably presuppositional, it is entirely unsurprising that those who have experienced colonialism and oppression should identify with the people of Israel’s suffering in, and liberation from, Egypt. Combined with a theology that understands Christ’s ministry as grafting all into the elect nation of Israel, this provides a convincing argument for God’s solidarity with those who endure oppression.

Nevertheless, the case for an analogical application of Exodus to the modern world, invoking the readers to extend the Exodus experience to their own situation, is more tenuous. The Exodus narrative is a highly particular the historical account of God’s liberation of Israel from a specific situation, but the broader history of God’s chosen people demonstrates that the Exodus narrative is not necessarily paradigmatic of God’s interaction with the oppressed. Indeed, the conquest narrative provides a shocking conclusion to the Exodus, forcing the reader to confront the ethical implications of forging or reaffirming a national identity against outside identities.

When the Exodus narrative is considered with the Canaanite conquest as its logical fulfilment, the best claim postcolonial and liberation critics can make is for selective analogical applicability of the Exodus narrative to the modern world. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the Canaanite conquest does not challenge the claim that the text continues to be revelatory for victims of colonialism and oppression, but demonstrates the need for a holistic view – interpreting scripture as a complete unit rather than isolating any singular narrative from the broader context of heilsgeschichte.

A consideration of the Exodus narrative from the postcolonial and liberation critical perspective demonstrates the ambiguities of the Biblical text, and the need for discourse between Biblical scholarship, social science and modern culture.  The dialogue between Said (who offers a Canaanite reading) and Walzer (who offers an Israeli, post-colonial perspective) demonstrates the possible value of postcolonial and liberation critical readings of Exodus in addressing the contemporary political issues in the modern world, including the Holy Land.[1]

Postcolonial and liberation critical readings of Sacred Scripture have highlighted the way in which the Bible has been used to oppress populations, particularly in Latin American and South Africa. The fact that postcolonial and liberation critics have successfully incorporated their readings of the Sacred Texts into Christian faith and practice attests, to some extent, the validity of their approach. The broader discipline of Biblical Studies has benefited enormously from the postcolonial and liberation perspectives, which have highlighted the political nature of the Exodus narrative and successfully challenged the colonial interpretation of the texts, which in some cases supported oppressing communities. Further, the postcolonial and liberation hermeneutic has assisted the inculturation of Christian faith and theology, allowing Christian communities, particularly in Latin America and South Africa, to develop their own forms of Christianity and interpret their history in light of revelation.[2]

---

[1] Walzer M, Said EW. op cit.

[2] Pobee J. ‘Sources of African Theology’ In: Parratt J (ed). A Reader in African Christian Theology. (London: SPCK, 1997): p23-29.

Tienou T. ‘Authentic African Christianity’. In: Parratt J (ed). A Reader in African Christian Theology. (London: SPCK, 1997): p91-98.

Rethinking a Postcolonial Critical view of Exodus §4

The historicity of the Biblical account of the settlement has been extensively challenged and some have sought to argue that there was a “peaceful infiltration” of the land, rather than a violent conflict as narrated in Joshua.[1] In this model, the Biblical account of the conquest is interpreted as being inwardly focussed,  delineating the boundaries between the Israelites and the gentiles, thus forging a new national identity – challenging insiders who pose a threat to the group identity, rather than advocating active violence against outsiders.[2] Nevertheless, it cannot be avoided that the canonical form of the text explicitly incites violence against the “other” nations and peoples, claiming the occupation of the land to be a divine grant. The same claim of divine grant was made to justify the invasion of Latin America by Spanish and Portuguese forces following the division of the non-Christian world between the Iberian empires, made by the Pope in God’s name.[3] If the Exodus narrative can be applied analogically to the modern world, an alarming consequence is the possibility that some individuals may claim the analogical application of the conquest narrative to support violent struggle, and even colonialism itself. Thankfully, very few would support such a notion, but this does demonstrate that the Exodus narrative is at best selectively applicable in an analogical sense to the modern world.

The fact that the Canaanites are apparently deprived of justice is complicated by historical reconstructions that suggest the people of Israel emerged from the Canaanites and maintained many elements of Canaanite culture. The vast majority of Biblical scholars have sought to affirm or augment the Biblical presentation of the Canaanites as a highly immoral,[4] weak[5] and idolatrous nation,[6] despite historical evidence attesting the persistence of polytheistic Canaanite religious practices within Ancient Israel.[7] Postcolonial and liberation perspectives have emphasised the political realities of the Exodus narrative and would presumably therefore accept a political (pro-Israel) bias in the Exodus narrative’s portrayal of the Canaanites, who have potentially been unfairly represented and deprived of justice by the original conquest of the land, the writer or redactor of the Exodus narrative, and by subsequent Biblical Scholarship.

This realisation has led a number of scholars to present a Canaanite reading of the Exodus narrative, seeking to interpret the text from the position of others they regard as being victims of oppression within the narrative.[8] For these scholars, the oppression of the Canaanites and their expulsion from the land they occupied is not an appendix to the Exodus narrative, but its culmination and conclusion, intrinsic to Israel’s national formation and identity.[9]

Other scholars have sought to challenge the reading of the Exodus narrative that regards liberation as the dominant theme. For Lyle Eslinger, the central tenants of the Exodus narrative are the omnipotence of YHWH, and the election of Israel.[10] Indeed it is hard to minimise the centrality of divine election in the story and self-understanding of Ancient Israel. God’s favour to the Israelites is understood as being made manifest in the Exodus and the Sinaiatic covenant.[11] The revelation of the divine name to Moses[12] emphasises the uniqueness of God’s relationship with the Mosaic people, and it is this relationship – God’s love for Israel – that led to the Exodus, as Hosea writes: “When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”[13] In this view, it is not the sufferings themselves that prompt God to bring Israel out of Egypt, but the fact that they are the sufferings of Israel – the scriptural texts give no indication that Pharaoh’s slaves would have been subject to God’s liberation if they were not of the chosen people.

---

[1] Gnuse RK. No Other Gods. (Leicester: Continuum Group Press, 1997): p7.

[2] e.g. in: Rowlet LL. Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence. (Leicester: Continuum Group, 1996): p121ff.

[3] Mignolo W. The Idea of Latin America. (Edinburgh: Blackwell, 2005): p.xiv.

[4] Barackman FH. Practical Christian Theology. (Berlin: Kregel, 2001): p97.

[5] Wright GE. ‘The Deuteronomic History of Israel in Her Land.’ In: Wright GE, Fuller RH. The Book of the Acts of God. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1957): p108.

[6] Bromiley GW. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994): p334.

[7] Smith M, Miller PD. op cit.  p195.

[8] Sixteen C. ‘A Biblical paradigm for Native liberation’. In: Weaver J. Other Words. (Oklahoma: Oklahoma University Press, 2001): p242.

[9] Walzer M, Said EW. An Exchange: ‘Exodus and Revolution’. Grand Street. 5.4 (1986): 246-259.

[10] Eslinger L. Freedom or Knowledge? Perspective and purpose in the Exodus Narrative. (Exodus 1-15). Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. 16.52 (1991): 43-60.

[11] Nicholson EW. The Decalogue as the direct address of God. Vetus Testamentum. 27.4 (1977): 422-433.

[12] Exodus 6:3.

[13] Hosea 11:1.

Rethinking a Postcolonial Critical view of Exodus §3

The postcolonial and liberation critical interpretations of the Exodus narrative rest on the ability of the narrative to be used analogically and to apply to people’s other than the Jews. Those who argue that the intentio auctoris (the authorial intention) determines the “true” meaning of Sacred Scripture, such as Schleiermacher,[1] would likely disagree with this notion and argue that the text-centred and reader-centred approach is eisegetical, although whether it is possible to undertake exegesis without eisegesis is highly questionable.[2]

Nevertheless, it cannot be avoided that the Exodus narrative is essentially a history – albeit a history grounded in faith[3] – and narrates the particular: a specific case of God’s liberating a chosen group of people from one historical incident of oppression. In the history of Ancient Israel and Judah this was unfortunately not the only case of occupation, exile or oppression – the Babylonian exile, the occupation by the Hellenistic empire and the Persians as well as Imperial Roman domination were all endured long after the Exodus from Egypt. Indeed, Jeremiah seems to suggest that YHWH desires Israel to endure persecution as a punishment for not heeding His word.[4] Furthermore, the messianic expectations of second temples Jews were likely, in part, characterised by the expectation a political liberator to re-establish Davidic rule over the land,[5] a reality that was not realised by Christ’s coming, even if he is interpreted as carrying a social and political message. This challenges the view that the Exodus narrative represents the paradigm of God’s interaction with the poor and oppressed.

Furthermore, the Exodus is not simple liberation from enslavement to an autonomous nation state or the state of self-determining freedom for the sake of community and solidarity for which the Marxist strives.[6] St Paul’s description of himself as a “δουλος” (slave/servant) of Christ,[7] suggests that the enslavement of the Israelites to the Egyptians has been replaced by an indebted servitude to YHWH[8] – Israel is not liberated to do as it pleases, but is to establish a theocratic nation.[9]

Indeed, whilst the Mosaic law certainly demonstrates profound concern for ensuring justice and solidarity with the vulnerable[10] – justice is not equated with equality as it is in many modern models. The provision within the law for slavery[11] assumes that slaves will be bought and sold and even provides for the marking of slaves by way of an earring. The society is markedly hierarchical and patriarchal, with women occupying a lower status than men, having fewer rights.[12] Whilst the Israelite society undoubtedly demonstrated relatively more concern with justice than its contemporary neighbours, it is far from the egalitarian, “classless,”  ideal envisaged by many liberation theologians.

Postcolonial and liberation readings of Exodus generally regard the passage of the Red Sea or Moses’ reception of the law at Sinai (which is interpreted in political terms) as the culmination of the Exodus narrative. Arguably, however, the conquest of the “promised land” is the direct fulfilment of God’s liberating promise to Moses in Exodus 3:7-8. If the Exodus narrative is taken as including the conquest narrative, the postcolonial and liberation readings are compromised by the divine command to “utterly destroy”[13] the seven nations occupying the land which had been promised to Abraham.[14] The account of the Israelite’s discharge of this command is narrated at length in Joshua, a text which has been described by some as a narrative of genocide.[15]

---

[1] McEnhill P, Newlands GM. Fifty Key Christian Thinkers. (London: Routledge, 2004): p236.

[2] Beker JC. Paul the Apostle. (London: Fortress Press, 1980): p.xiii.

[3] Plaut WG, Stein DE. The Torah: A Modern Commentary. (New York: Union for Reform Judaism, 2004): p145.

[4] Jeremiah 25:1-11.

[5] Theissen G, Merz A. The Historical Jesus. (London: Fortress Press, 1998): p539.

[6] Moore SD, Segovia FF. Postcolonial Biblical Criticism. (Leicester: Continuum Press, 2005): p192.

[7] Barclay W. The Letter to the Romans. (London: Westminster John Knox, 2002): p14.

[8] Leviticus 25:55.

[9] Knierim R. Cosmos and History in Israel’s Theology. Horizon’s in Biblical Theology. 3.1 (1981): 59-62.

[10] Exodus 23:9.

[11] Exodus 21.

[12] Exodus 21:7, 23:17.

[13] Deuteronomy 7:1-2.

[14] Genesis 15.

[15] Prior JM. ‘Power’ and the ‘Other’ in Joshua: the brutal birthing of a group identity. Mission Studies. 23.1 (2006): 27-43.

Rethinking a Postcolonial Critical view of Exodus §2

For liberation and postcolonial critics, the Exodus narrative is more than a simple account of historical events, but a narrative that continues to be revelatory and speaks to those who identify with the Israelite’s experience of ‘bondage’ because of their shared vantage point. The Exodus narrative is thus the paradigm of how God’s concern for the poor is made manifest in His will. J Severino Croatto develops Paul Ricoeur’s hermeutical theory of a “surplus of meaning,”[1] arguing that the biblical narrative is essentially an interpretation, distanced from the historical events, and that new layers of meaning are place “in front of” the text as the passage of time allows historical meanings to accrue.[2] In a similar manner to Gadamer’s proposition that meaning is created as a result of a fusion of the horizons of the text and reader,[3] Croatto notes that texts have different meanings in different settings and contexts. Croatto, reading as a Latin American theologian, finds within the Exodus narrative God’s plan of liberation for the poor of Latin America.[4]

Throughout, liberation and postcolonial exegesis of Exodus tends toward radical reform of the oppressive socio-political structures. Lohfink’s interpretation of the adoption of Moses in Exodus 2:1-10 is one that sidelines the personal charity of the Pharaoh’s daughter to Moses as having little or no value to the remaining poor.[5] Whilst liberation theologians are not seeking to undermine or discourage acts of Christian charity, their position does seem to oppose the position of Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who argued that an accumulation of individual personal acts of Christian charity, of themselves, have the potential to reform the world’s social ordering.[6] Indeed, the solidarity Moses feels with the poor of YHWH (the “anawim” ענוים),[7] and his subsequent relentless efforts to mediate with political authorities on behalf of the poor arguably attests to Mother Teresa’s argument for charitable reciprocity – that he to whom mercy has been shown will ultimately show mercy to others.

Postcolonial and liberation theological approaches to the Exodus are not a single monolithic entity but a vast array of approaches and individuals seeking to read the individual scriptures from varying different perspectives. Some scholars have found a proto-marxism in a perceived egalitarianism in the Early Israelite society, often portrayed as being “classless”[8] with legal protection of the vulnerable,[9] whilst others regard this as an anachronistic and unlikely imposition.[10] Indeed, a demythologised version of the “tenth plague,” (the killing of the first born Egyptian sons), could potentially be interpreted as lending support to violent uprising again oppressive regimes,[11] something which the vast majority of liberation theologians regard as ethically reprehensible.

Nevertheless, postcolonial and liberation perspectives on the Exodus narrative have drawn attention to the centrality of the notion of liberation in the Pentateuch and the identity of the Jewish people.[12] Gerhard von Rad’s thesis that Deuteronomy 26:5-10 is one of the oldest creeds of the Israelite people, is accepted by the vast majority of Old Testament scholars,[13] and is an overt celebration of Israel’s liberation from Egypt by YHWH, cementing the Exodus as a unique and central feature of the Jewish religion.

Christian liberation and postcolonial criticism is rooted in Biblical depiction of the ministry of Christ, particularly the interpretation of the temple incident and Christ’s coming “as but bringing a sword,”[14] as indicating Christ’s bringing of social revolution and liberation for the poor. Through Christ’s ministry, the gentiles have been “grafted in” to the elect people Israel,[15] and can thus claim the Exodus story as their own and continue the Exodus from oppression in the present day, as the chosen people of God.

---

[1] Mc Fadden G. Ricoeur Paul: Interpretation theory and the surplus of meaning. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 36.3 (1978): 365-367.

[2] Collins JJ. The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005): p54.

[3] Briggs RS. What does Hermeneutics have to do with Biblical interpretation? The Heythrop Journal. 47.1 (2006): 55-74.

[4] Croatto JS. Exodus: A Hermeneutics of Freedom. (Maryknoll: Orbis Catholicus, 1978): p15.

[5] Lohfink NF. op cit. p41.

[6] Kellog SE.  A visit with Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. 11.5 (1994): 5-11.

[7] Exodus 2:12-13.

[8] Miller JM, Hayes JH. History of Ancient Israel and Judah. (London: Westminster John Knox, 1986): p77.

[9] Oosthuizen MJ. Scripture and context: the use of the Exodus theme in the hermeneutics of liberation theology. Scriptura. 25.1 (1988): 7-22.

[10] Collins JJ. op cit. p56.

[11] Stevenson A. Let My People Go. Journal of Religion and Abuse. 6.1 (2004): 77-82.

Villa-Vincencio C. Exodus and revolution. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa. 57.4 (1986): 77-78.

[12] Smith AD. Chosen Peoples. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003): p116.

[13] Schweiker W, Matthewes CT. Having. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004): p63.

[14] Mt 10:34, Is 61:1, Lk 22:35-38 et al.

[15] Wilson MR. Our Father Abraham. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989): p.ii.

Rethinking a Postcolonial Critical view of Exodus §1

This is the first in a series of posts on postcolonial critical interpretations of the Biblical Exodus narratives. This first post will outline the traditional postcolonial view of the Exodus narrative – future posts (posted on a daily basis) will offer a cautious critique of this view.

The Biblical Exodus narrative describes the emancipation of the Israelite people from 430-years of enslavement to the Egyptians.[1] Despite ongoing questions regarding the historicity of the events narrated in the text, the narrative has been central to postcolonial and liberation critical readings of the Old Testament, which seek to read the Bible from the perspective of, and with, those who have experienced oppression and colonialism, with the practical goal of transforming society.[2]

Whilst postcolonial and liberation critics accept the Exodus narrative to be rooted in varying degrees of historical truth, they are concerned less with historical and source critical reconstructions than with the final canonical form of the Exodus narrative, which they believe primarily portrays a God who has “seen the affliction,”[3] and “heard the cries”[4] of His people, and who has preferential concern for the needs of the afflicted and the poor.[5] YHWH is a God who takes sides – relentlessly siding with His oppressed people Israel, liberating them from bondage in Egypt,[6] saving them from enemy armies,[7] confirming a lasting relationship with them,[8] and establishing for them a new set of laws[9] and social structures,[10] even in the face of their collective failures.[11]

Although the Exodus narrative is the story of a particular people postcolonial and liberation critics interpret the narrative as demonstrating God’s plan of liberation for all humanity.[12] In order to affirm this notion, the doctrine of creation is used as a means of qualifying various groups, at different times in history, as the people God wishes to liberate.[13] God’s act of creation is thus reinterpreted in light of the liberating movement of Exodus – God’s creation of humanity in Imago Dei[14] demonstrates that God’s purpose for all people is freedom.[15] Creation is thus the first act of salvation,[16] an action that from the beginning requires humanity to participate in their own salvation, just as the Israelites were called to participate in their liberation from Egypt.[17] The Kingdom of Peace, foreseen by the prophets,[18] is one that is to be established within the earthly, historical world, not merely an abstract spiritual concept.[19] This view insists that Christians are to work to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth,[20] co-operating with the divine will to actualise a transformed reality in which all peoples return from their exile and realise God’s creative intention for their freedom.[21] The Exodus narrative is thus a text that requires a response from the modern reader, for liberation critics emphasise praxis and belief as holding equal importance, with some Liberation Theologians even emphasising orthopraxis over orthodoxy.[22] The story of the Exodus, thus invites the reader to continue the ‘exodus experience’ in the modern world, by striving for liberation for the poor and oppressed.

Postcolonial critics thus emphasise the socio-political dimension of the Exodus, which is seen as not simply seen as God providing support for the oppressed whilst leaving the oppressing regime intact, but an entire removal of the people from oppression and establishment of a new social order. There is no sense in the Exodus narrative that God intends the oppressed to conform themselves to the system of oppression, joyfully accepting their ‘lot’ as a way to God, as some colonial exegetes advocated. For Norbert Lohfink, the liberation from Egypt and the entry into the land  must be contextualised by the  constitution of a new social order, presented in the canonical form at Sinai, post-liberation from Egypt and pre-entry to the land.[23] Modern familiarity with the Exodus story has, for Lohfink, minimised the radical uniqueness of the Exodus narrative, the likes of which were unattested in the Ancient Near Eastern world,[24] and the newness of the society which was constituted at Sinai – characterised by legislation rooted in concern for the vulnerable.[25]

Indeed some liberation and postcolonial critics have sought to claim that the group of individuals who followed Moses (the so-called “Moses group” who were later to be identified as Israel)[26] were bound together not by ethnicity, but by a shared ideal of an egalitarian, just, society.[27] Indeed historical evidence almost universally supports the notion that the Israelites emerged from the Canaanites,[28] and the heavy tax burdens imposed on the working classes by Canaanite kings would have led to popular support for a social revolution, as proposed by Mendenhall.[29] Nevertheless, this account of the formation of Ancient Israel is highly speculative and does not account for the radically different presentation found in the Bible – for example the Military Consolidation led by Joshua[30] – and is not entirely faithful to the liberation and postcolonial concern with the canonical form rather rather than speculative historical reconstruction.

As a political event, the Exodus is the precursor to the formulation of a new social order, governed by the obligations of the covenant. These obligations are not generally interpreted by postcolonial or liberation critics as purely religious obligations, or those pertaining simply to the correct ordering of the relationship between YHWH and individual people. Rather, they are seen as social and political obligations that allow for the construction of a society based on community, equality and justice. From the liberation and postcolonial critical perspective, the division of politics from religion is a false one – it is axiomatic that religious faith brings social and political obligations[31] – any worship devoid of practical, political, consequences is a mere lip service.[32] Despite the emphasis on human response found in liberation and postcolonial theology, the miracle of the Exodus is emphasised – God’s action within creation effects the liberation of the poor.

---

[1] Exodus 12:40.

[2] Pottenger JR. The Political Theory of Liberation Theology. (New York: State University of New York, 1989): p173.

[3] Exodus 3:7.

[4] Exodus 3:9.

[5] Pleins JD. ‘Political Deliverance: Exodus’. In: Pleins JD. Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible. (London: Westminster John Knox, 2000): p156.

[6] Exodus 5:1-15:21.

[7] Exodus 14:1-31; 17:16-8.

[8] Exodus 19:1-25.

[9] Exodus 21:1-23:33.

[10] Exodus 28:1-29:46.

[11] Exodus 32:1-6.

[12] Pleins JD. op cit. p156-7.

[13] Comblin J, Berryman P. People of God. (Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2004): p64.

[14] Genesis 1:26.

[15] Gutierrez G. A Theology of Liberation. (London: SCM Press, 1974): p172.

[16] The link between creation and soteriology is not unique to liberation and postcolonial critical readings of sacred scripture. For example, St Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in the second century, broadly agrees with this interpretation of creation, without sharing a postcolonial perspective. See: Steenberg MC. Irenaeus on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemption. (London: BRILL, 2008): p35.

[17] Exodus 12:34-39.

[18] Isaiah 32:17.

[19] Corretto C. In Search of the Beyond. (London: Darton, Logman and Todd, 1975): p28.

[20] Gutierrez G. ‘The Task and Content of Liberation Theology’ in: Rowland C (ed). Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology. 2^nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007): p16. [Online Version].

[21] Chalke S. The Lost Meaning of Jesus. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003): p3.

[22] Bennet Z. ‘Action is the all of life: the praxis-based epistemology of Liberation theology.’ In: Rowland C (ed). The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology. 2^nd Edition. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007): p39. [Online Version].

[23] Lohfink N, Maloney LM (tr), Christensen DL (ed). Option for the Poor: the Basic Principle of Liberation Theology in the Light of the Bible. (Berkeley: Bibal Press, 1987): p44-5.

[24] Ibid. p40.

[25] e.g. Exodus 23:9.

[26] Ceresko AR. Introduction to the Old Testament: A Liberation Perspective. (Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 1992): p74.

[27] Gottwald NK. The Politics of Ancient Israel. (London: Westminster John Knox, 2001): p170ff.

[28] Smith MS, Miller PD. The Early History of God. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002): p10.

[29] Lemche NP. Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on Israelite Society before the Monarchy. (London: BRILL, 1985): xi.

[30] Exodus 17:9-16.

Joshua 10-19.

[31] Ellis S, Haar GT. Religion and Politics in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Modern African Studies. 36.2 (1998): 175-201.

[32] Tutu D. The Rainbow People of God. (London: Doubleday, 1994): p29.