Download Final Paper

Williams 1
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 14). 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’:
Williams 2
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
Williams 3
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
Williams 4
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
Williams 5
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 nonpractitioners, 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
Williams 6
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 (150151). 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
Williams 7
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).
Williams 8
“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
Williams 9
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.
Williams 10
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
Williams 11
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,
Williams 12
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 nonpractitioners 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
Williams 13
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
Williams 14
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
Williams 15
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).
Williams 16
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. 119143.
Williams 17