rshapiro@bbn.COM (Richard Shapiro) (07/13/89)
I have the feeling we're beginning to go round and round on this one... In article <768@wsu-cs.uucp> jjb@cs.wayne.edu (J. Brewster) writes: >I can't give an authoritative statement of the goals of feminism. For >the sake of this discussion, let's assume that the goals are to establish >that gender is socially and not physiologically determined. I think >that's a fair summary of what Richard says... No, I was claiming that this had already been established by feminist theorists. The goals of feminism presumably involve things like ending the oppression and objectification of women and perhaps constructing a new, more egalitarian conception of gender (or throwing out gender altogether). Obviously we each have our own specific ideas about what the goals are, but I think we can take the kinds of things I just listed as a representative sample. This matter of gender vs sex which we've been discussing on soc.feminism is more like the intellectual infrastructure -- it's a basis for further talk and/or action, not really a goal in and of itself. One possible goal of feminism which I have explicitly omitted might be called the valorization of the feminine. The idea, I think, is that the feminine (whatever that may be) has been unfairly maligned at the expense of the masculine, and that one goal of feminism should be to overturn this, perhaps initially by a simple inversion. Much of the (in)famous work of artist Judy Chicago falls within this paradigm, I think, as does the "feminist spiritualty" which started off this whole line of discussion. For reasons I have explained in detail later, this presupposition of "feminine" and "masculine" (i.e. gender) as eternal qualities is quite problematic and very likely in conflict with the kinds of goals I listed above. I won't go through all of that again. Of course this is not to deny the maligning of the feminine. There's no doubt that this has been the case through much of history. The question I have asked is this: why should a figure like Sophia be considered by some to be appropriate for feminism (more approriate, say, than Yahweh)? It would seem that the only possible answer here is that she embodies some kind of eternal feminine which she shares with women today. This reasoning is, as I hope we all see now, full of problems. So the only remaining question is: might there be some other reason? It can't be simply because she's biologically female -- what is biological sex in a deity anyway? Even if we knew what this meant, why should it be relevant? Surely it's the characters, the personalities of Sophia and Yahweh which are important here, not what kind of genitals (if any) they have. In other words, the Sophia figure stands in contrast to the Yahweh figure precisely as feminine does to masculine. This is, then, an example of the valorization of the feminine. It's head and tails of the same coin, but the coin of gender remains essentially untouched and inviolate. And, in my opinion, the very first step in feminism has to be just the opposite of this -- the questioning of gender, not the acceptance (indeed, the eternalizing and naturalizing) of it. The fact that the primary god in the West is male/masculine is certainly an important indicator of underlying sexism. But if the response is simply to replace him with a female/feminine version, we really haven't gotten anywhere. Worse, we've made eternal exactly that which needs to be viewed as contingent and historical.
jjb@cs.wayne.EDU (J. Brewster) (07/18/89)
In article <42679@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes:
->I have the feeling we're beginning to go round and round on this
->one...
->
Well, let's take one last spin on the merry-go-round. It seems that I
confused the issue somewhat. There's a clear statement in this
article, so:
After my apparently mistaken statement of the issue, we'ver arrived at
this:
->
->The question I have asked is this: why should a figure like Sophia be
->considered by some to be appropriate for feminism (more approriate,
->say, than Yahweh)? It would seem that the only possible answer here is
->that she embodies some kind of eternal feminine which she shares with
->women today. This reasoning is, as I hope we all see now, full of
->problems.
No. I, at least, don't see anything of the sort.
The principle which is variously described as the "eternal feminine",
the "transcendant feminine" and that which "exists beyond time and
space" is strikingly similar to Plato's forms, if not consciously
modeled after them. One of the characteristics of these forms (Gr.
_idea_) is that they're independent of the mind which knows them. In
short, such a principle (the eternal feminine) does not come into
being because someone thinks it up, nor passes out of existence
because no one knows it any longer. Therefore, ones religous
practices will neither conjure it up, nor will banning them make it go
away. It seems clear to me that it is this unusual use of Platonic
forms which is problematical, rather than any reasoning based on it.
Further, I believe the reason that Sophia is appropriate to feminist
spirituality is because of two qualities she possesses:
Sophia is _by definition_ woman, and therefore feminine, and
what she is or does or embodies is therefore feminine. This is
an important point. Were it not so, such images would be
powerless to modify our concept of gender.
Sophia and other images like her do not take traditionally
feminine roles, nor do they exemplify qualities which are
traditionally feminine.
Consequently, if one takes such images seriously, then ones perception
of the roles and qualities which are appropriate for women is greatly
enlarged. In doing this, worship of Sophia and her sisters does work
toward feminist goals.
In summary, the principle of the "eternal feminine" is not descriptive
and serves more to confuse the issue than to clarify it.
"Appropriate", in my opinion, depends more on whether we can identify
the image as feminine, and consequently, what connections such an
image will bring to the concept of feminine.
->So the only remaining question is: might there be some
->other reason? It can't be simply because she's biologically female --
->what is biological sex in a deity anyway? Even if we knew what this
->meant, why should it be relevant? Surely it's the characters, the
->personalities of Sophia and Yahweh which are important here, not what
->kind of genitals (if any) they have. In other words, the Sophia figure
->stands in contrast to the Yahweh figure precisely as feminine does to
->masculine. This is, then, an example of the valorization of the
->feminine. It's head and tails of the same coin, but the coin of
->gender remains essentially untouched and inviolate. And, in my
->opinion, the very first step in feminism has to be just the opposite
->of this -- the questioning of gender, not the acceptance (indeed, the
->eternalizing and naturalizing) of it.
->
->The fact that the primary god in the West is male/masculine is
->certainly an important indicator of underlying sexism. But if the
->response is simply to replace him with a female/feminine version, we
->really haven't gotten anywhere. Worse, we've made eternal exactly that
->which needs to be viewed as contingent and historical.
The supposed contrast between Yahweh and Sophia sounds like a sort of
dualistic arrangement. I don't believe that this describes the credo
of the Sophia-ists. It certainly isn't true in my experience. There
is no competition between the two, and imaging wisdom as Sophia does
not mean that one cannot "see" wisdom as Yahweh. It's not a zero-sum
game. I suspect that the thought of replacing Yahweh would sound like
heresy to many, if not most Sophia-ists.
Valorization (artifical price supports?!) suggests something
second-class to me, less than *real* equality, something which needs
to be artificially maintained. If Sophia and Yahweh are
non-exclusive, non-competitive images, then I suspect that this
distinction, too, is not truly descriptive. Enlarging the feminine
*not at the expense of the masculine* isn't inversion at all, doesn't
replace anything by anything else. It puts _two_ genders where there
was only one, and that's exactly what we want to do. I don't believe
that we can ever be rid of gender altogether -- it's part of our
self-image, after all. What we can and should do is to stop making it
a barrier to our possibilities.
It seems to me that the objections to which I reply derive from an
attempt to describe a fluid, subjective and personal practice in terms
of a a rigid formal system. It just doesn't work.
One last thing: I'm not selling Sophia tee-shirts, prayer aprons or
Platonic philosphy. I'd be very happy to reach the point at which we
simply won't need to label someone's religious practices as
Inconsistent with the Goals of Feminism.
--
J. Brewster | "In this country, everything loose
jjb@cs.wayne.edu | rolls to the West Coast."
...!mailrus!wsu-cs!jjb | --Thomas A. Vanderslice, CEO of Apollo