I'm not a fan of Dawn Eden's thoughts on this point. I think that the word "feminism" is fair game for co-option, and I don't understand the urge to run from the word.
Since when has the Church shirked from co-opting terms, songs, holidays, etc. from pagans and appropriating them for its own use? Feminism is, I think, worth co-opting, albeit with [okay, fine, major] changes. But feminism is not without good instincts and significant points of overlap with interests of domestic conservatism--it campaigns intensely against rape, (sometimes)pornography, sexism, prostitution, problematic body image messages, over-sexualization and the belittling of women. And it is passionately interested in these things in a way that I can only compare to right-wing Christian interest. Granted, feminists also often support many things with which I'd disagree and, as Eden points out, are often against the understanding of persons as dependent on which the health of the family relies. But what is there to prevent us from working within feminism by showing feminists where their understanding of the person and the family go awry?
Object to feminism, like Dorothy Sayers did, because you don't like "- ism's," but don't object to feminism as a result of the contingent fact that they applied the framework of liberalism to their attention to women's issues. Rather, applaud their attention to these issues and contradict their ontology. I agree with Eden that the feminism that we ought to support is not the feminism of liberal individualism. Rather, we ought to argue for a complementarian or communitarian feminism. Major issues, however, affecting women have recently undergone drastic changes that need to be answered. The old answer--keep women in the home--is not sufficient anymore. Answering the questions of how women ought to interact in the public sphere and how they are different from men will be questions that we continue to face and that we ought to address. Because women have been relegated to the private sphere for this long, it is essential that we are attentive to this new transition that they/we face.
I wonder why Eden has this averse reaction to the term "feminism" and to the even less problematic "new feminism," which, as far as I know, authors such as Elizabeth Fox Genovese and Jean Bethke Elshtain have already made sound, strong arguments for in ways that would not contradict Eden's anti-individualism.
5 comments:
First, I think we need to make some distinctions when it comes to the Church appropriating “terms, songs, holidays, etc. from pagans”. This is true in some cases, but not in others. For example, if every problematic term is up for re-definition and re-appropriation, why not argue for a “new communism”, a “new Marxism”, or even a “new libertarianism”? Surely these “isms” -- in their understanding of the importance of community, the plight of the poor, and the importance of liberty, respectively -- have some kernel of truth (or half-truth). But surely we want to reject these terms outright – as irredeemably problematic. Why is this? Because some terms include inherent falsehoods that are tied up with the very meaning of the word. Thus, no amount of holy water will be able to baptize these terms into proper ecclesial usage.
Here is where I think your analysis of feminism falls short. Your emphasis on the commonalities between feminism and domestic conservatism is unconvincing. After all, Soviet communism forbade abortion, and Chinese communism forbids indecency and pornography. Does that mean we can work from “within” communism to show that the poor communists just need to re-understand their ontology? This seems implausible. The fact is that communism -- as a system symbolized by a word -- is bankrupt. No amount of correct, yet accidental, conclusions will change this fact.
And so it is with feminism. While we might applaud feminists’ campaign against rape (but, for heaven’s sake, aren’t there others who are against rape, too?), their anti-dependence, individualistic “femnopology” is anti-thetical to the Christian view of man and woman. Thus, while we should give plenty of attention to the many horrific assaults on true femininity that are present in our contemporary culture, we are being counter-productive, disingenuous, and possibly naïve to consider such attentions to be an expression of feminism, new or otherwise. Why can’t we just be Catholics (or Christians) and simply apply our tradition’s rich anthropology to modern problems? Why do we have to be feminists? And if simply giving attention to issues that affect women is feminism, then I think we’ve lost all meaning to the word. (For, by the same logic, we could call any person who gives attention to the plight of the poor a Marxist.)
I think this gets to a more fundamental problem which colors your view on this issue. The insistence on the retaining of the word feminism reflects, I think, a problematic element of the “old feminism”. There is this sense that feminism unlocks some new truths about humanity that are only accessible through femininity. This explains the relative scarcity of male feminists. Wrapped up in the very notion of feminism is the idea that women *as women* provide some fundamentally irreducible perspective on the world that is, in principle, unavailable to men. Thus, it is not enough to take a Christian anthropology and apply it to problems facing women and men. Rather, women provide some unique perspective on reality that is unavailable to men and thus feminism is necessary to catalog these truths and disseminate them to our culture. I may be wrong, but I suspect something akin to this view is what is motivating your unwillingness to sacrifice the word “feminism”.
Otherwise, it just seems problematic, if not masochistic, to carry on with a word with so much philosophical and cultural baggage. But if you insist on calling people who reflect Christianly on women’s issues “new feminists”, then I must insist on calling people who reflect Christianly on the plight of the poor “new Communists.”
You got me on "new libertarians," although, as you might imagine, "new Marxism" isn't the most reprehensible thing I've ever heard;)
More:
Thank you for your response—you know me way too well.
I think you have me right (although perhaps overstated) on the essentialist perspective on women (that women bring something different and see the world differently--although I do think men can be feminist [in my and other senses of the word] and that they can, but don’t tend to, attend to women’s issues). Come on, you’ve got to admit that it’s true to some degree--only women can bear children (except for that one “man”...).
Ha, given its antipathy for everything agrarians stand for, I’d hoped for a little more Marxism-hating from you.
I think the essentialist understanding of feminism falls on its own terms. For if women do really have a fundamentally different and irreducibly distinct experience of reality, then what’s the point in sharing such a view with men? Indeed, if it really is essentially different, would it even be comprehensible to men? Wouldn’t any translation lose all relevant meaning because men simply don’t have the categories to even understand women’s experiences? Even if this problem could be solved, on essential feminism’s terms, why should men even care? If women are so fundamentally “other” (I hate that word) and in principle inaccessible, what’s the point? Why bother even to try?
Perhaps by essentialist feminism you mean something a bit more tame. There aren’t “male truths” and “female truths”. Rather, there is one truth -- one reality -- and women and men see and experience this reality differently. Indeed, on the Christian view, the way that men and women experience this reality is complimentary, in that the same truth is seen from different and mutually reinforcing perspectives. However, to call this view “feminism” is to destroy it for the simple reason that it is to become partisan. It privileges one half of the complimentarity over the other, thus destroying the very notion of complimentarity. Perhaps one could argue that feminism is simply a corrective, a view which seeks to restore the balance. But, indeed, this corrective commits the very same error it seeks to remedy. It substitutes a women-centric view for a male-centric one (a “masculinism”, if you will?). The problem of affirmative action comes to mind as a similar fallacious, self-defeating “corrective”.
This brings up one final point apart from the problem of feminism being self-defeating. If feminism is a legitimate term because it highlights a different perspective on reality, then this opens the door to a whole host of other seemingly legitimate “isms”. For example, apart from a special (and bizarre) divine revelation, it is true that men will never be able to really understand what it is like to give birth (or, for that matter, experience an undying love for chocolate and shoes). However, it is impossible also for you, Emily Hale, ever to really understand what it is like to be me, Whigwham. In other words, each human person has a unique, in some sense inaccessible, experience of reality. This mystery of human individuality is pretty shocking, disturbing, and, ultimately, wondrous if considered as an everyday phenomenon. However, on your terms, it would seem that given my fundamentally unique perspective on reality, I would be within my rights to advocate a “whigwhamism”, whereby we all come to appreciate more fully what it is like to be me (because heaven knows I am vastly under-appreciated by the world at large). But, of course, this is absurd. While there is an aspect of my human existence which is inexpressible to every other human person (save God – interestingly, this could be an argument for the Incarnation), there is an even deeper aspect of my human existence which is, even more mysteriously, actually accessible to every other human being. We all share in the nature of humanity. Thus it is not only silly, but counter-productive, to become partisan and emphasize Whigwham’s view of reality and define it into an “ism”. This obscures the more fundamental truth of human unity and the possibility for radical personal communion. I think feminism is guilty of this same error. Although it is more dangerous because, for some reason, given that it pits one half of the human race against the other (as opposed to one human against another), it loses what would otherwise be a manifest absurdity and gains a disturbing plausibility.
Let’s bury this ugly dog, feminism, along with its cousins, Marxism and Whigwhamism.
Your objections are why I used the term "complementarian feminist."
I think I do like that feminism emphasizes a particular perspective. Come on, we can't access "universal truth" except through particular perspectives, which are relevent to our understanding of it. Although this is not to say that we can't communicate with other people, despite approaching reality from perspectives different from theirs. Rather, it is both the commonalities and the differences that make communication possible and necessary.
There's a difference between the role of gender in affecting our understanding of reality and the individual differences in each person (obviously). But both are relevant. Anyway, knowing you is an education in whigwham-ism, which I enjoy (to some degree), and certainly wouldn't ever want to stifle. I know that you think that whigwham-ism is the equivalent of Thomism, which is the equivalent of Catholicism, and, in turn, universal truth, but I'd respectfully disagree.
Post a Comment