I have always struggled with writing about women’s studies because I have always felt somewhat like an outsider in regards to this methodology and its concerns. Thus, I appreciate Kinsley’s position that “In the end, perhaps, the only realistic conclusion is for historians of religions to accept this situation and to recognize that in many cases we can only perceive a partial picture of the whole which must be completed by colleagues of the opposite sex.” (13). Despite this feeling of being an outsider with regards to women’s studies, I agree with Kinsley’s conclusion that women’s studies generally contributes to religious studies; however, I believe that we must remain responsible scholars and not give up on focusing upon texts from other angles, including those of other traditionally marginalized groups.
Inevitably, when studying any discipline with a particular lens, the scholar implicitly makes some sort of value judgment upon her/his discipline and what they believe is important for understanding their object of study. For example, in the case of a source-critical scholar, the researcher believes that there is a certain value in attempting to discover whether a given text utilized sources or not and, if it did use sources, what the nature of these sources are. Similarly, the feminist scholar is interested in the role of women; hence, Young remarks that traditionally feminists have been interested in “why they themselves have been virtually absent from textual canons both as knowers and the known.” (27). In addition, Kinsley writes “In the case of many of those in women’s studies, the agenda concerns undertaking scholarship that will alleviate the oppression of women in one way or another.” (10). Thus, women’s studies, naturally, tends to focus on the role of women in the world, which is a specific value judgment on behalf of the adherents of this methodology.
However, the lens of women’s studies often allows scholars to examine many disciplines from different and ‘untraditional’ angles. This is particularly true in religious studies, in which the study of religion has traditionally been the study of “men’s religion” which is not always identical to “women’s religion” (Kinsley 4). There are countless examples of the advances that have been sparked by women’s studies, such as modern feminist interpretations of the Gospel of Luke which many scholars believe have demonstrated that Jesus is depicted as particularly favorable towards women in Lukan theology (Fredrick Murphy 237).
I cannot help but be concerned, however, that women’s studies has the potentiality of leading towards a dangerous dichotomy between men’s scholarship and women’s scholarship and, similarly, between men and women in history. Young, for example, maintains that feminists have generalized about “women’s experiences under patriarchy (their subordination and victimization by men)” (33). Certainly, studying works from a feminist critical point of view has many benefits, such as the reinterpretation of the role of women in Luke’s Gospel and is important for retrieving a larger picture of the phenomena of religion. However, there have been many other marginalized groups in the past which should not be disregarded either. For example, the poor are also given a particular emphasis in Luke: “Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 6:20). Thus, although feminist criticism of various traditions can be very beneficial for better understanding religion, it is important to not mistake the part for the whole.
Young remarks that, typically, feminist scholars reject the notion of phenomenological “essences” since discussing things in a generality undermines individuality (30). I strongly agree with the feminist conception of examining individualities, but we must remain consistent and not generalize feminist approaches either. Rather, I believe that utilizing feminist approaches will help to shed light on the history of religions, but we must not assume that women are inherently lacking in voice in every in all historical circumstances: “our dissimilarity from women in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries should not lead us to suggest, as some feminists have, that they were mere victims of patriarchy” (Bynum “Introduction” 18).
In short, we must not lose sight of the individual in our research whether we take a feminist approach to studying religion, a liberationist approach, or any other approach to studying religion. I do not maintain that there is anything inherently wrong with taking a feminist approach to the study of religion or other disciplines; in fact, I believe that such an approach can be highly beneficial for scholastic studies in general. In fact, I believe that there are certain projects which must be undertaken by women in studying religions in order to come closer to having a “full picture”. What concerns me is how we appropriate the results from this (or any other) approach after we have collected our data. Thus, I maintain that it is important for feminist scholars (as all other scholars) to dialogue with peers who utilize other methodologies. We must always keep an eye to a collaborative approach. Certainly, there are times when certain generalities may be made in our studies; however, there are also an abundance of particularities which we must be open to in a collaborative approach to the study of religion. Thus, we may move from generalizations to particulars.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi Andrew,
I think that you do well to point to the larger category of marginalization of which women are a part and to juxtapose this with the issue of the ‘individual’ contra the generalized group.
Now, it is true that generalizations tend to often distort the more fluid and subversive workings on a micro-level, but in history certain classes or groups, certain general categories have been marginalized en masse. Categories such as women, poor, non-Western, non-Abrahamic, mentally handicapped and the more general category of the ‘abnormal’ have always been dismissed and marginalized as a whole. So what do we do here? To give voice to the marginalized within this context seems to require giving voice to the general, perhaps the ‘generic’, to some extent. The singularities or ‘individuals’ (I use this word, but I don’t subscribe to the myth it claims as truth) must have plenty to say as well, and perhaps this would lead us to more fertile or richer fields of thought, certainly more fluid ones; but at least on some level and at the beginning, when the marginalized are given voice subsequent to their oppression and subjugation, we need to allow the whole, the ‘mass’ to speak and to do so with ‘one’ loud and overpowering voice, don’t you think? In reality, it’s not ‘we’ who let the whole speak, but it itself tends to break out into the open with a single united voice. This just tends to be the structure of the ‘breaking out’ of the suppressed, as history has shown. It tends to be violent, actively or intellectually, and to be intensely passionate. What we can depend on and what happens naturally, once again as evinced by history, is that over time the generic nature of the whole tends to dissipate and the more fluid movements of singularities tend to begin cultivating the new soil to yield rich and hitherto unknown crops. I think that with time women’s studies will be no exception to this movement – it’s youthful and has just broken onto the scene, and is therefore often generic, but we have to bear in mind that this group, comprising the ‘other half’ of the human race, had been silenced for millennia!
Be well,
Babak
Hi Andrew,
I totally agree that in pursuing women’s studies, other marginalized segments of society should not be neglected. Although I believe that it is necessary to study the religious beliefs and experiences of women, which historically have been greatly neglected, I worry that in pursuing such studies we come to divide historical societies based upon gender or sex. Yet, I do not think that the male/female or men/women division properly characterizes the societies of the past, let alone the religious traditions that existed within these societies. Factors such as class and race in my opinion, should be given equal if not greater attention, since most historical societies were divided along social, racial, tribal and linguistic lines, rather than exhibiting an explicitly gender/sex-based dichotomy.
This is not to downplay the importance and necessity of pursuing women’s studies, which can surely contribute a much richer and complete picture of religion than what has been constructed so far. However, I feel that in looking at the development of religion within the societies of the past, there are factors that go beyond issues of gender and sex such as class divisions, and that these factors play the most evident role in the recording and preservation of religious (and nonreligious) knowledge.
- Adam
Hi Andrew,
It is funny that you should mention feeling like an outsider in regards to women’s studies. Even though I am a woman I often feel the same way! I understand your concern about women’s studies leading towards the creation of a dichotomy between men’s and women’s scholarship; however, I am choosing to interpret the growing presence of women’s studies to be beneficial to the overall project of including more marginalized voices in mainstream academia. I want to view women’s studies as a forerunner to other groups such as the poor, the physically and mentally challenged etc., which both you and Adam have mentioned this week. I think to a certain extent women’s studies has already begun this process in that without women’s studies I should hardly think that queer theory would have developed as a whole subdivision of critical theory. Perhaps women’s studies can be seen as creating the meta-narrative for bringing marginalized voices to the forefront of academic study. As with all new trends, it takes time for it to find its niche within the academic world, co-existing alongside other sub-fields.
Amy
Post a Comment