Today I attended a lecture on campus titled, "Examining the Maleness of God and Other Patriarchal Traditions from a Feminist Perspective," by Dr. Susan Shaw. This subject has been of quite a bit of interest to me lately as I've been reflecting on my religious views through the lens of feminism. I wrote a lot of information down, but the lecture didn't really impress me very much. There were a few ideas that got me thinking, though.
Shaw mentioned briefly something called the hierarchical binary that exists in (Western) theology, where two related terms with opposite meanings are compared, and classed according to superiority. The most prominent in my mind being the comparison of spirit/body (or in nonreligious discussions, mind/body).
In considering the spirit/body or mind/body binary, I thought about some of our (Western) history in religion and philosophy. In religious texts, we receive instruction to nurture and strengthen our spiritual nature, and control our bodily desires (as they stand directly opposed to our spirit). Similarly, the Age of the Enlightenment in the 18th century was all about the superiority of reason over any other human trait. Both what is understood to be the spirit and our power to reason were, essentially, immaterial. As a result, cultivating a connection with our bodies and with nature were not as important as our spiritual well-being, and our intellect. In consequence, individuals who were not as privileged to participate in the dominant religious and intellectual pursuits of the times, and who were more focused on the demands of physical, and domestic labor, were most likely seen as less important to the function of society as a whole.
I mentioned the book A Lesson Before Dying in a recent post, that involves the necessity of defining what makes someone a man (or woman). In a critical evaluation of the novel, our class talked about what is called the Great Chain of Being. It was basically a metaphor for a pattern created to determine the value of each life. Supposedly, being at the bottom of the Chain necessitated being the most susceptible to corruption. Spirit ruled matter; human ruled animal; god ruled human, and so on. In short, life was ordered according to its godlike similarities. Those individuals who were seen as more in touch with nature, emotion, femininity, or impulse, were seen as less divine in nature. This view rationalized the subjugation of racial minorities, and women.
I still believe that many modernly-conceived notions of feminine traits would be viewed as inferior when compared to related notions of male traits (such as in a binary model). I also believe that men still hold more authority in the religious and intellectual realms than women. It is still going to take a lot more strength and awareness to break this archaic Great Chain of Being and view humanity as equals. For me, breaking the Chain also includes the consistent acknowledgement that there is equality in the Divine, and that directly beside God, My Father is God, My Mother.
In what other ways might insistently over-focusing on 'spirit' or 'reason' be a detrimental life view?
I was sad that I missed this lecture, so thanks for your overview. I am really interested in the idea of binary constructions--how they entrench hierarchies and legitimize various forms of oppressions. I would add the human/animal binary to the list you provided, because that binary has been used to justify horrific oppressions of certain groups of humans AND of non-human animals.
ReplyDeleteActually, I didn't touch on much from the lecture at all. I thought it was cool to meet Dr. Shaw, though. She wrote a book about women and rock and roll that I want to check out.
ReplyDeleteI've been looking at the animal/human binary as justification for the way black people were treated in one of my classes. I do think that the treatment of animals is something to consider more frequently also.