Ecofeminism: a new religious model

[BeHereNow]

This is something that is quite new to me. I took the passage from "Comparitive Religious Ethics: a Narrative Approach" by Dell Dechant and Darrel Fashching. This is actually a quote of a paraphrase of femenist scholar Catherine Keller.


"[Buddhist scholar Masao] Abe's interpretation of the kenosis passage in Phillipians [2:1-11]," Keller argues, "brings us (inadvertently) to the very heart of women's disenchantment with traditional religious categories, but also of our hope for certain radical revisions" (1990: 105). For he interprets the passage, as Christians generally have, as advocating absolute selflessness and humility. This requires total emptying of the self in servanthood to the needs of others and obedience unto death. Historically, such rhetoric has been oppressive, intended to keep women in their place. This kind of spirituality views "prideful self-assertion" as a universal human problem to be cured by achieving selflessness. But that is a misperception, for while such a view is applicable to male identity in most societies, just the opposite is the case for most women. That is, women have typically been raised to accept the subordination of their selves and their desires to those of men, and to the needs of their families. As a result they have never had an opportunity to develop a strong sense of self, a separate and independent identity. The deepest problem of women is not pride but absence of a sense of self and self-worth. Fundamental to feminist thought is the saying of the nineteenth-century feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton that for women "self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice."

The male notion of an independent ego-self, says Keller, is precisely what Buddhism labels as "ignorance" and Christianity as "sin." Feminists concur in this. The goal of feminists is not to develop strong male-type egos in retaliation for male dominance, nor to accept the traditional model of subordination, but rather to develop a new model of self - the relational self. For women are more deeply in touch with the rhythms of nature, and the dependencies of nurture, through their bodies, and experience themselves as embodied in interdependence with all things. The danger of Buddhist-Christian dialogue, as Keller sees it, is that women will get the worst of both worlds. "How can the two patriarchies, with their common problem of the inflationary male ego and their common solution of selflessness, fail to redouble the oppressive irrelevance of the 'world religions' for the liberation of women? Or indeed of any persons already suffering from their internalization of the role of the victim?" (1990: 106)

A feminist ontology will affirm the interdependence of self, argues Keller, without accepting the Buddhist notion that therefore the self is unreal and that the language of "self" must be negated. A feminist notion of self resists both the isolated ego-self, on the one hand, and the mystical "oceanic feeling" which obliterates all awareness of difference, on the other hand. Feminism, rather, affiras integral to the experience of self. Interrelationality undermines both dualism and monism.

Any thoughts? (please pardon any typing errors.)

[themuzicman]

Just as men have been trying to overcome their curse of the garden, so have women theirs. Nothing really new.

:Muz:

[BeHereNow]

Startling insight as usual, Muzicman. :cheers:

[Ryokan]

it seems to me that feminist exclusivity and male bashing often degenerates into that ego they are complaining about.

[BeHereNow]

Ryokan:

it seems to me that feminist exclusivity and male bashing often degenerates into that ego they are complaining about.

Ecofeminism isn't about male-bashing, and it's not about exclusivity. In fact, exclusivity is the antithesis of ecofeminism. It's about collectively understanding the religious needs of both men and women (hence the eco, short for ecological).

So no thoughts from anyone else about the model?

[SaintMorpheus]

Well, I'm not well-versed enough in the vocabulary of feminism to give an educated response, but I would like to comment on a few things, since no one else has.

The deepest problem of women is not pride but absence of a sense of self and self-worth. Fundamental to feminist thought is the saying of the nineteenth-century feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton that for women "self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice."

From my limited personal experience of dating a certain girl, I'll can vouch for the veracity of this thought. She was insecure to the point that she attempted to replace her lack of identity by conceptualizing herself as one who serves others to the maximum extent possible. What she did in actuality was to remain busy (with non-service activities) for the entirety of the day, perform a FEW rote random and meaningless acts of kindness, and then try to fall asleep before her thoughts caught up with her. And so, far from being a servant, she spent all her energy being a busy body and did not actually love anybody (least of all herself). Interestingly, of everyone I've met, she's the LEAST emotionally affected by pondering the sacrificial death of Christ ... I have the sense that sacrificial love is meaningless to her, which seems paradoxical, given that she conceptualizes herself as a servant. So, I gather the sense that her frightening absence of self and self-worth is what she actually needs to repent of (analogous to "pride" within the convential Western male identity construct) so that she can "see" the Gospel. As it is now, her lack of self-identity and self-worth are resulting in anxiety and pessimism, which, combined with intelligence and education, lead to a highly rational and existential outlook on life, which is preventing her from seeing God, enjoying poetry, relaxing, and participating in a healthy, loving dating relationship, etc. Not to mention she does not relate well to her family.
I don't know if I've completely missed the point here, because I have yet to study feminism in an academic setting, nor have I read any books.


The goal of feminists is not to develop strong male-type egos in retaliation for male dominance, nor to accept the traditional model of subordination, but rather to develop a new model of self - the relational self.


I wouldn't necessarily call the relational self a new model of self, though you'd have to give us much more than this excerpt for me to understand what is being discussed here. I would offer St. Paul's discussion of the Church being Christ's body with interrelated parts as evidence of a Christian framework for achieving the relational self (though this framework may have been heavily obscured or demolished by dominant males who have used the church hierarchy and traditional understanding of Scriptures to manipulate their surroundings and maintain their positions of power). As evidence for this framework actually being in existence, I would like to point out that women held prominent positions in the early church and had strong identities, based on their relation to the organic whole. This allowed them to actually be loving beings (in the same way that laying down the male ego allows males to be loving beings), which is part of what has been called "salvation" in the Christian tradition.

How were the able to achieve this? I think making a conscious choice to follow Christ allows both men and women to root their identity in Someone Who is both transcendental but also human and well-grounded, fulfilling two basic human needs at once, and thereby unifying our divided selves (I can try to justify this speculation later, if you're interested BeHereNow).

I may have missed the entire point of that excerpt, but here are a few thoughts...
Peace.

[BeHereNow]

Morpheus, thanks for your comments. Let me see if I can understand better.

SaintMorpheus:

From my limited personal experience of dating a certain girl, I'll can vouch for the veracity of this thought. She was insecure to the point that she attempted to replace her lack of identity by conceptualizing herself as one who serves others to the maximum extent possible. What she did in actuality was to remain busy (with non-service activities) for the entirety of the day, perform a FEW rote random and meaningless acts of kindness, and then try to fall asleep before her thoughts caught up with her. And so, far from being a servant, she spent all her energy being a busy body and did not actually love anybody (least of all herself). Interestingly, of everyone I've met, she's the LEAST emotionally affected by pondering the sacrificial death of Christ ... I have the sense that sacrificial love is meaningless to her, which seems paradoxical, given that she conceptualizes herself as a servant.

I believe this is a prime example of what Catherine Keller means when she says women tend to be self-sacrificial. You illustrated it quite well, and the part about her not being emotionally affected by Christ's sacrifice is especially poignant.

Now- I do have serious reservations about (Keller's) blatant dichotomizing and generalization, which I should have mentioned in my first post. However, I think Keller is speaking in general terms which could later be extrapolated.

So, I gather the sense that her frightening absence of self and self-worth is what she actually needs to repent of

Precisely so.

(analogous to "pride" within the convential Western male identity construct)

I'm a little confused by your wording here. Are you saying that lack of pride is what must be repented of? If you are defining pride as an ego or sense of self, then we are on the same page.

so that she can "see" the Gospel. As it is now, her lack of self-identity and self-worth are resulting in anxiety and pessimism, which, combined with intelligence and education, lead to a highly rational and existential outlook on life, which is preventing her from seeing God, enjoying poetry, relaxing, and participating in a healthy, loving dating relationship, etc. Not to mention she does not relate well to her family.
I don't know if I've completely missed the point here, because I have yet to study feminism in an academic setting, nor have I read any books.

You haven't missed the point at all. In fact, you've grasped it.

I'd encourage you to pick up a book or two about feminism to realize that it isn't what most people think it is. An effective and consice primer on feminism is Feminism is for Everybody (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896086283/qid=1060500387/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-1658715-0981614) by bell hooks (bell hooks is a pseudonym, intentionally lower case). The title of the book is actually a double meaning - Feminism can be adopted by everybody, and Feminism is in support of everybody, not just females. It's an excellent start to understanding exactly what feminism is and how it can be important to a male.

I wouldn't necessarily call the relational self a new model of self, though you'd have to give us much more than this excerpt for me to understand what is being discussed here. I would offer St. Paul's discussion of the Church being Christ's body with interrelated parts as evidence of a Christian framework for achieving the relational self (though this framework may have been heavily obscured or demolished by dominant males who have used the church hierarchy and traditional understanding of Scriptures to manipulate their surroundings and maintain their positions of power). As evidence for this framework actually being in existence, I would like to point out that women held prominent positions in the early church and had strong identities, based on their relation to the organic whole. This allowed them to actually be loving beings (in the same way that laying down the male ego allows males to be loving beings), which is part of what has been called "salvation" in the Christian tradition.

You raise a valid and compelling point. Honestly, I'm not in the position to respond to this; at least not at this point in my study of ecofeminism.

I could quote more from the book if you'd like. I'm taking it actually from a paraphrase of Keller's work, so I can't guarantee it'll be too detailed.

How were the able to achieve this? I think making a conscious choice to follow Christ allows both men and women to root their identity in Someone Who is both transcendental but also human and well-grounded, fulfilling two basic human needs at once, and thereby unifying our divided selves (I can try to justify this speculation later, if you're interested BeHereNow).

I'd love further exploration of this concept, if you are feeling up to it.

I may have missed the entire point of that excerpt, but here are a few thoughts...
Peace.

Not at all. Thanks for your input Morpheus.

~be love now~

:bunny: