Final Paper - California State University, Sacramento



Final Paper

Feminism and Religion and Her Voice, Her Faith

General Introduction

In her book Feminism and Religion, Rita M. Gross provides readers with an introduction to the need for, and benefits of, androgynous scholarship in the field of religious studies. Gross strives to make readers aware of the dangers of androcentric, Eurocentric scholarship. Moreover, she advances the claim that, “properly pursued, the field of religious studies involves study of all major religions found in human history” and an equal representation of both men’s and women’s religious experiences (Gross 1-4). Because androcentrism has permeated both religion and scholarship for the greater part of history, Gross strives to correct and augment this perspective with illuminating examples of what she deems “proper” religious scholarship – scholarship that includes the experiences of women. Ultimately, Gross believes that “feminist scholarship requires the study of the actual lives and thoughts of women” (Gross 81) and that “the diversity within feminist theology and spirituality is its strength” (Gross 49).

The anthology Her Voice, Her Faith: Women Speak on World Religions (Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young, Editors) is a glowing example of the type of religious scholarship Gross, and others like her, fought so tenaciously to bring into being. In the introduction to Her Voice, Her Faith, Young expresses a desire akin to Gross’:

When both the male and female voice become of equal strength… we may begin to see for the first time three-dimensional religious worlds — fully of the two genders (and multiple cultures) but also of the human dimension that transcends their particulars… This goal, of stereophonic sound, I hope, will inform the religious voices of the future (Sharma 9).

Sharma and Young deftly assembled their anthology. The book includes an essay on each of the world’s major religions, as well as a chapter on Goddess Spirituality. The author of each article is a feminist scholar and female practitioner of the represented faith. The result is a refreshing and insightful collection of actual women’s experiences as both members of their chosen faith and as devout feminist scholars. Thus, Her Voice, Her Faith is an eloquent contribution of the “proper” religious scholarship Gross advocates.

For purposes of this essay, I have decided to use three of the essays contained in Her Voice, Her Faith to emphasize the link between the scholastic ideals explored in Gross’ book and their actualization in the scholarship of the authors of my chosen essays.

Representation of Sources/Selective Summary

“Taoism” by Eva Wong

One of the primary claims in Gross’ book is that “it is necessary to rewrite the history of thought to include forgotten contributions by women and forgotten female imagery” (Gross 76). In her essay, Eva Wong augments and amends the traditional androcentric view of Taoism to include the neglected contributions of women in Taoist practice. Wong notes that “the relative invisibility of women in (the Taoist Canon) has led many to believe that female Taoist practitioners have been rare and that their contributions to the development of Taoist thought and practice have been negligible” (Wong 122). This seems a dichotomy since today Taoism is a religion in which most of the adherents are women (Wong 121). However, Wong believes that “it is possible to recover the hidden history of women in Taoism” by examining certain sources that do illustrate the contributions of women to the religion of Taoism (Wong 124).

Wong believes the difficulty of finding women in the history of Taoism is due to the selective, subjective nature of both available written material and the study of that material. “Historical records are not objective” and what is included in written history depends upon the interest and motivation of the preservers of that history (Wong 121). Indeed, most scholars use The Twenty-four Histories of China and The Taoist Canon as “the authoritative sources” for studying the history of Taoism in China (Wong 121). However, The Twenty-four Histories was highly influenced by Confucian scholars who did not have the same perspective in recording the Taoist history as would a Taoist devotee, and The Taoist Canon was written and edited primarily by male practitioners with little or no input by women adepts who were largely illiterate due to prevailing cultural and political influences of their day (Wong 122).

Wong points to four sources to augment the traditional written record of Taoist practice. First, the biographies of the immortals (written between the second and seventeenth centuries) illustrate that female practitioners are not an anomaly in Taoist history and that “many women attained levels of spirituality that are comparable to their male counterparts” (Wong 123). Second, the biographies of important male Taoist adepts tell that these men learned from female teachers, illustrating that some women were respected for their spiritual wisdom (Wong 123). Third, novels and folklore, not generally recognized by Chinese scholars as legitimate historical records, provide important glimpses into the lives of Taoist women (Wong 123). Finally, though quite rare, the writings of female Taoist adepts provide “an invaluable source of information about Taoist women and their level of spiritual development” (Wong 123).

By using the above sources, Wong effectively “rewrites” Taoist history to include feminine contributions. For the remainder of her essay, Wong chooses to focus on the historical figures of Lady Wei Hua-ts’un (founder of the Shang-ch’ing School of Taoism in the fourth century CE) and Sun Pu-erh (paragon in the emergence of female internal alchemy in the thirteenth century CE), as well as the spiritual figure of Mother Empress of the West (accepted into the Taoist pantheon of deities in the second century CE) for their contributions to the development of Taoist thought and practice (Wong 124). Wong believes knowledge of these figures is a fundamental step to the further appreciation of a corrected, non-androcentric view of Taoism.

Wong’s analysis of the problems in finding feminine perspective in Taoist written history, and her careful search for, and interpretation of sources, that do represent women, is a fine example of the sort of revisionist history Gross advocates. Wong concludes her article by stating:

The goal of this chapter is not to discredit or belittle the contributions of the men of Taoism; any great religious tradition must be built and maintained by both its female and male practitioners. However, I hope that in making the history of women more visible in the history of Taoism, I have given practitioners and non-practitioners, women and men, a more balanced view of the religious and spiritual tradition of my ancestral culture (Wong 143).

“Judaism” by Susannah Heschel

In an effort to employ feminist scholarship to discover a record of the past that is “both accurate and usable” (Gross 72), “scholars often discover that information about women cannot simply be added to the picture they already have. In almost all cases, they discover they have to repaint the whole picture…” (Gross 76). In her essay on Judaism, Susannah Heschel shares her personal journey of “repainting” her picture of Judaism and redefining her place within that picture as both a Jewish woman and a feminist scholar.

The catalyst for Heschel’s reexamination of her faith was the sudden, unexpected death of her father. Heschel’s family was both religiously devout and liberal; Heschel’s faith was central to her life and her father encouraged her participate fully in the Jewish traditions and even suggested that she attend rabbinical school. After her father’s death, Heschel wished to recite the kaddish (prayer for the dead) for him at synagogue, just as sons would do for their fathers — yet her request was met with intolerance, even hostility, from the men of the synagogue. She was banned from the services at Orthodox synagogues. In this time of mourning, when she needed her spiritual community the most, she was shut out. Thus, “death and institutionalized sexism hit (her) simultaneously” (147). This caused Heschel, like many other Jewish women, to “look more deeply at the roots of Judaism’s attitudes toward women, and at (her) own commitment to (the) Jewish faith.” (145-147). Heschel thus set about to discover a Jewish history that would be both accurate and usable, not only for herself as a female member of the Jewish faith, but for anyone wishing to view an androgynous, rather than androcentric, picture of Judaism.

As is the case with most traditions, the written records of Jewish history were composed by men and reflect the experiences of men. Heschel, like other Jewish feminist scholars, explored the role of the few women mentioned in the Bible and also investigated the Talmud to see whether “the limitations on women’s participation in Jewish religious life were truly mandated by the Talmud, or were the result of biased interpretations of the law” (150). Archaeological evidence was also considered (150-151). The resulting opinion is that “the presence of powerful women (i.e., Miriam, Deborah) within the biblical narrative… likely arises from the fact that ancient Israelite society was not formally structured in its institutions, allowing women a greater role to play not only in military exploits but also, perhaps, in religious life” (151); however, “the advent of the monarchy (c. 1050 BCE) shifted the role of women… from the public sphere to the private… and the lack of female leadership, especially in the priesthood, contributed to women being blamed for the failures in Israel’s loyalty to Yahweh” (151). Moreover, “Jewish women were rarely literate… Since the practice of Judaism entailed the interpretation of intricate laws that governed social and business relations, as well as religious observance, women were not empowered to interpret and regulate their lives” (155). With few exceptions, Jewish women have been oppressed throughout their history, even up through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (159-165), although many Jewish women did find ways to express their spirituality within the realms (primarily domestic) to which they were assigned (156).

Heschel notes that the secular feminist movement beginning in the 1970s resulted in a “new openness to women in Jewish religious life” (160). Secularization and the social and political changes it fostered “actually brought about new possibilities for Jewish women to become involved, often for the first time in Jewish history, in central modes of Jewish religious expression” such as attending university courses in Jewish Studies, reading Jewish texts, and, in some cases, becoming ordained rabbis and cantors in non-Orthodox sects (160-161).

It seems Heschels’ goal is not merely to find the place women held in the past and include it in an androgynous, accurate, account of Jewish history, but to pull from it something empowering and usable for the present and future. She concludes her essay by reflecting that:

While historians are primarily concerned with discovering forgotten aspects of women’s history, feminist scholars are also reconsidering the nature of Judaism in light of women’s experience… Given the ability of Jewish identity to survive… radical challenges in the past, there is no doubt that Judaism will emerge strengthened by feminism… Feminism has infused women with a new sense of opportunity, and has brought the talents and insights of women to positions of leadership. Most important, feminism signals the intense engagement of women in Jewish creativity (167).

“Hinduism” by Vasudha Narayanan

Gross proposes: “An androgynous account of religion must… include descriptions of women’s lives and consciousness, of their own experience of the religious context in which they live” (Gross 80). In her essay on Hinduism, Vasudha Narayanan draws from personal experience (as a female member of the Sri Vaishnava sect of Hindu religion and the Ayyangar Indian society) as well as academic research to provide readers with the sort of “descriptions of women’s lives and consciousness” Gross advocates.

As Gross, Wong, and Heschel illustrated, the vast majority of records on history and theology were written and edited by (and primarily for) men. Narayanan’s essay shows that this is also the case in Hinduism: texts were written by upper-caste men and while their view is “neither wrong nor unimportant… they do exclude the experiences of women and the millions whose knowledge of religious phenomena has not come through the Sanskrit language or Brahmanical modes of perception” (13). She notes that “most Hindus are fond of saying ‘Hinduism is more than religion, it is a way of life,’ whereas most introductory texts and Western understandings of the tradition have focused on the ‘otherworldly’ issues such as karma, reincarnation, and the idea of a Supreme Being” (13). Narayanan, therefore, looks to illustrate this “way of life” and its related spirituality.

Narayanan explains, “the closest word in Sanskrit for religion is ‘dharma’” which is most popularly translated as “righteousness or duty” (13). Yet the complexity and ambiguity of dharma make it central to both Hindu theology and society as this term also symbolizes such factors as: law usage and practice, religious or moral merit, virtue, justice, piety, and sacrifice (13). Moreover, the dharma texts “have always been only selectively followed, and local customs have tempered the rule of the books…” (14). Thus, the Hindu tradition has “built-in mechanisms to allow for dynamic reinterpretation” and the Vedas allow one to do “what is dear to one’s soul — that is, to act after much thought and according to the dictates of one’s conscious” which allows women or others who may feel marginalized “to appropriate or redefine rituals” (14).

Narayanan proceeds to illustrate the ways in which Hindu religion is intertwined with daily life — particularly the way women may actualize their dharma and thus heighten their spiritual lives. She provides examples of the many Hindu sacraments, rituals, and festivals that are conducted at home, which is traditionally the woman’s domain and the place where children are first exposed to their religion (14-15), along with descriptions of some of the Hindu deities and festivals honoring both gods and goddesses (16-20). The worship of goddesses, which “likely had its origins in the earliest cultures of India” (20), is still a central aspect of Hindu religion and many festivals, performances, and other rituals center around devotion to, and celebration of, goddesses such as Durga, Sarasvati, Lakshmi, and Gujarat (16-21). Narayanan notes that, while the Vedas are considered the authoritative sacred texts, “most Hindus have not generally been familiar with large tracts of the Vedas” (21) and the music, stories, and unwritten traditions have played a more central role in most Hindus’ religious experiences. Indeed, “singing and dancing can function in various ways to take one closer to a higher state of consciousness or even to communion with the deity” (21) and women are able to participate in many of these religious experiences thus allowing them the means to reach their ultimate spiritual goal of connection with the divine.

Narayanan provides detailed narrative on the Hindu wedding, from matchmaking through the wedding rituals. She illustrates that, although “there is much in the wedding ceremony to show that the Vedic culture is largely patriarchal” (38), “the wedding is supposed to be auspicious and refers to prosperity in this life… connected with the promotion of three human goals — dharma (duty), artha (prosperity), and kama (sensual pleasure) — recognized by the classical scripture” (39); both woman and man are equally necessary for this auspicious union to occur and share in the rewards.

Narayanan next illustrates the importance of the Hindu temple as “a port of transit, a place from where a human can ‘cross over’ (tirtha) the ocean of life and death” (45). She discusses a myriad of temples dedicated to various gods and goddesses all across the modern world (42-47), including the temple of Adi Para Shakti (the Primordial Great Powerful Goddess) built in Mel Maruvattur in the mid-1970s. It is said that Adi Para Shakti believed all her devotees were equal, regardless of sex, caste, or race. Indeed, unlike most brahmanical temples, menstruating women are allowed to worship at Adi Para Shakti’s temple (47). Narayanan notes that, although traditionally the priests in temples were male Brahmins, in recent years women are becoming Hindu gurus and both men and women are their devotees (49-50).

Narayanan concludes her article with a segment on death and liberation. She summarizes the Bhagavad Gita, one of the holiest books in the Hindu tradition, and its teachings on the immortality of the soul, God, and the way in which one can attain liberation (50-55). Ultimately, the Gita teaches that, if one surrenders to the Lord, the Lord will forgive his or her sins (53). Narayanan concludes by noting that “the paths of devotion, knowledge, and selfless action are open to the human being” and each path leads one to the goal of liberation from the cycle of rebirth; “in matters of liberation it does not matter if one is a man or women, all are eligible for it” (55).

While she does not ignore or condone the largely patriarchal Hindu tradition, Narayanan believes that “there are many areas in the Hindu tradition to which woman can look for encouragement and hope” (56): history, which, when reexamined in a androgynous light, illustrates that Hindu women were poets, philosophers, and patrons — even performing rituals normally thought only done by men (56); philosophy, in which many texts illustrate that “the soul is without gender and so, ultimately, in the quest for liberation, gender is irrelevant” (56-57); and the sphere of social institutions and the concept of dharma which allow women flexibility in addressing and fulfilling their spiritual needs (57).

Conclusion, Evaluation, and Wider Relevance

I believe that Wong, Heschel, and Narayanan exemplify the type of “proper” religious scholarship Gross advocates. As Gross states, “feminist scholarship requires study of the actual lives and thoughts of women” (81) and it is the “diversity within feminist theology and spirituality (that) is its strength” (49). That Wong, Heschel, and Narayanan are members of different faiths, yet are united in the quest for bringing light to the feminine experiences in their traditions, is a heartening herald of what will, hopefully, be the future of religious scholarship. Moreover, each adheres to Gross’ proposal that “scholars need to practice intense methodological self-awareness and introspection, combined with honest self disclosure” (Gross 15) by mentioning their background and personal perspectives along with the intent of their essays.

Wong and Heschel both have a similar approach to the construction and purpose of their essay. That is, to acquaint readers with the fact that the traditionally preserved histories of their religions and cultures is incomplete, androcentric, and, in Heschel’s case, sometimes misogynistic — and to correct that perspective with forgotten or shunned perspectives of female devotees throughout history. However, while Wong found supporting evidence of empowered women in her study of Taoist history, Heschel found very little. I believe this affected the overall tone of both essays.

I felt that the tone of Wong’s essay was straightforward and matter-of-fact. In her introduction, Wong states her perspective and purpose:

I believe that as a Taoist practitioner, I can provide non-practitioners with a perspective on Taoism that cannot be obtained from scholars who are not practitioners. Being a woman, I can also give both practitioners and non-practitioners a view of Taoism that differs from the one that has been traditionally presented by its male practitioners (121).

I believe Wong’s essay is effective in accomplishing these goals. Wong appears quite credible because her “insider” perspective is tempered with excellent academic research.

Meanwhile, the extremely personal, emotional nature of Heschel’s introduction (regarding the death of her father and her exclusion from reciting the kaddish) was quite stirring and enhanced reader empathy. It is clear that Heschel wished to find something in Jewish history that was accurate and useable and, while her scholarship appears to be accurate, it seems that she is still working out the best way to put that information to use. Based on Heschel’s account, the history of Judaism was extremely patriarchal and even misogynistic in some cases — this includes the scriptures themselves. Thus, unlike Wong’s account of women in Taoism, the history of Judaism includes few instances of empowered women and little scriptural evidence that women should be empowered. The complete history of Taoism and Hinduism illustrates empowered women practitioners and the worship goddesses — which show that these religions might more easily transition into post-patriarchal religions (at least, if one’s criteria for the ease of transition lies in scripture and tradition), whereas the Judaism Heschel revealed seems “less amenable to feminist transformation” (Gross 198). Consequently, the source for empowerment for modern Jewish women does not lie in the past, but in a modern reinterpretation of their faith. Heschel, therefore, appears to be a “reformist,” seeking to transform her religion without abandoning it completely (Gross 107). While this reformist interpretation of Judaism is naturally appealing to some, Heschel seemed to indicate that all Jewish women have been empowered by the secular feminist movement which brought “great promise and enormous relief” to oppressed Jewish women (167). I find this a difficult claim to accept as certain Jewish groups, particularly Orthodox sects, do not condone the changes Heschel and other more liberal Jews advocate. Heschel herself states that, “despite what appears to be a greater degree of sexism within Orthodox Judaism, significant numbers of non-religious Jewish women have been attracted… by the strong sense of community and family that they find within the Orthodoxy” (166). Given this, I was unconvinced that all Jewish women want the changes Heschel advocates or that they would ascribe to a revisionist Judaism. Nevertheless, as an example of a feminist reformist’s need to

“repaint the picture” of her faith, Heschel’s essay delivers.

Narayanan’s essay exudes her personal comfort and joy in her faith as well as her acumen as a scholar. The introduction about her childhood participation in the festival of the goddess Lakshmi was hugely effective in drawing me into the wondrous experience of a child’s favorite holy day in which the child’s perception is entirely void of any disillusionment with either the theology or society to which she belongs. Narayanan’s transition into a critical, academic examination of Hinduism is almost imperceptible — perhaps because, throughout her excellent scholarship, she never did become disillusioned with her faith. She deftly “includes descriptions of women’s lives and consciousness” in history but also in the present day, illustrating that, despite its patriarchal overtones, the fundamental precept of Hinduism, dharma, allows women to effectively participate in their religion. Thus, Narayanan, like Wong, does not seem to feel the need to “reform” the fundamentals of her religion —rather, she would look to redefine the patriarchal interpretation of the religion to allow women the social and religious equality to which they are spiritually entitled.

Despite my varied opinions of the essays, I do not wish my “evaluation” to be a praise or censure of one author over another. I agree with Gross that “feminist scholarship requires the study of the actual lives and thoughts of women” (81) and that “the diversity within feminist theology and spirituality is its strength” (49). Gross champions “the power of the comparative mirror” (247), emphasizing that looking beyond one’s own sphere is rewarding as one becomes a better scholar and better theologian because of it. While the authors of each essay in Her Voice, Her Faith do not necessarily take a comparativist approach, Sharma and Young provide readers with the option of reading the diversity of essays in a comparative light. The personal experiences of Wong, Heschel, and Narayanan as spiritual and intellectual women unite to form a strong picture of the diversity in both religion and feminist scholarship. I feel the beauty and power of Her Voice, Her Faith is its actualization of the scholastic ideals Gross advocated in Feminism and Religion — and the resultant religious and social implications for today’s men and women. It can be hoped that the perspectives of women, combined with the perceptions of men, will not only provide more accurate scholarship but will help men and women better understand each other both in regards to religion and society. Wong’s methodical study, Heschel’s evolving journey, Narayanan’s spiritual comfort, all convey to their readers something of their religious experience. While these experiences would need to be compared to those of other men and women within Taoism, Judaism, and Hinduism (and perhaps even those outside the faith) to present an even more complete picture of both historic and modern Taoism, Judaism, and Hinduism, the fact that many of today’s religious women desire to — and are able to — share their experiences with interested readers is a promising harbinger of the “stereophonic sound” Young, Gross and other feminists yearn to hear, “informing the religious voices of the future” (Sharma 9).

Bibliography

Gross, Rita M. Feminism and Religion. Boston: Beacon Press, 1996.

Heschel, Susannah. “Judaism.” Her Voice, Her Faith: Women Speak on World Religions. Ed. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young. Boulder: Westview Press, 2003. 145-167.

Narayanan, Vasudha. “Hinduism.” Her Voice, Her Faith: Women Speak on World Religions. Ed. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young. Boulder: Westview Press, 2003. 11-57.

Sharma, Arvind and Katherine K. Young, Ed. Her Voice, Her Faith: Women Speak on World Religions. Boulder: Westview Press, 2003.

Wong, Eva. “Taoism.” Her Voice, Her Faith: Women Speak on World Religions. Ed. Arvind Sharma and Katherine K. Young. Boulder: Westview Press, 2003. 119-143.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download