• Nie Znaleziono Wyników

Christian feminist ethics - what is it?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Christian feminist ethics - what is it?"

Copied!
11
0
0

Pełen tekst

(1)

Anna Abram

Christian feminist ethics - what is it?

Collectanea Theologica 68/Fasciculus specialis, 183-192

(2)

Collectanea Theologica A .68 Fasciculus specialis 1998

A N N A A B R A M

C H R IST IA N FE M IN IST E T H IC S - W H AT IS IT?

This article is an introduction to the sphere o f fem inist ethics. A lthough w ithin this sphere there exists som e diversity in approach to m oral problem s, there are som e general claim s that are com m on to all fem inism . The m ain issues that guide fem inist ethics are: patriarchy, em bodim ent, relationality and experience. M aking generous use o f the fem inist w ritings, I w ill consider these issues. Though firstly, I will present the C hristian version o f Fem inist Ethics, w ith special referen­ ces to Catholicism .

‘F em inist E th ics’ in its m ost general sense, refers to any ethical theory that locates its roots in fem inism . In the m ost fundam ental m eaning, fem inism is a conviotion and a m ovem ent opposed to d is­ crim ination on the basis o f gender. It opposes, therefore, any ideolo­ gy, belief, attitude, or behaviour that establishes or reinforces such discrim in atio n 1. It em erges from a practical situation o f injustice and aim s at social and political change. A nne E. P atrick (the President o f the C atholic T heological Society o f A m erica) has defined that to be a ‘fe m in ist’ is to take up (1) a solid conviction o f the equality o f w om en and m en, and (2) a com m itm ent to reform society, including religious society, so that the full equality o f w om en is respected2. This, how ever, requires reform ing the thou ght system s that legiti­ m ate the present unjust social order. H ence, it is im portant to notice that prim ary tasks for fem inist ethics are definitions o f ‘equ ality ’ and

1 S e e , M a r g a r e f A . F a r l e y , F e m i n i s t E t h i c s , i n C h i l d r e s s J a m e s F . a n d M a c Q u a r i e J o h n ( e d s ) , A N e w D i c t i o n a r y o f C h r i s t i a n E t h i c s , L o n d o n : S C M P r e s s , 1 9 8 6 , p p . 2 2 9 - 2 3 1 . 2 S e e , A u t h o r i t y , W o m e n , a n d C h u r c h : R e c o n s i d e r e i n g t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p , in H o w e l l P a t r i c k a n d C h a m b e r l a i n G a r y , ( e d s ) , E m p o w e r i n g A u t h o r i t y , K a n s a s C i t y : S h e e d a n d W a r d .

(3)

‘ju s tic e ’, and the elucidation o f the criteria o f reform . In pursuit o f these, m uch fem inist literature inspects gender difference and its rela­ tion to fundam ental hum an equality and to a ju s t social organization. It also exam ines the norm ative function o f w o m en ’s experience in chal­ lenging traditional gender roles - particularly those said to be groun­ ded in w om en ’s ‘n atu re’ - and in projecting m ore egalitarian social arrangem ents.

C an fem inist ethics be C hristian?

The answ er to this question is positive. I f there exists Christian ethics, then there is also a place for fem inist ethics w ithin Christianity. M any fem inists find nourishm ent in their C hristian heritage. Though they argue that the C hristian C hu rch ’s avow als that wom en and men are equal as persons are belied by its continuing prom otion o f distinct and hierarchically related m ale and fem ale gender roles. Lisa S. Cahill points out that “evidence about w om en from the B ible and Tradition is inextricably coloured by patriarchal culture and m ust be com ple­ m ented by, and even m eet the final of, w o m en ’s experiences o f oppres­ sion, liberation, and transform ative ju s tic e ”3. F em inist ethicisets w ritings are often seen as a critical dialogue w ith C hristian texts, teachings, and practices. There are m any prom inent C hristian fem i­ nists, C atholic and non C atholic, w ho continue to challenge this. Just to m ention a few as: M onica Furlong4, A nn L oades5, Elaine Storkey6, Susan P arson7, B everley H arison8, R osem ary R adcliffe, R euther9,

. 3 N o t e s o n M o r a l T h e o l o g y >, 1 9 8 9 : F e m i n i s t E t h i c s , T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s , 51 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , p . 5 1 . 4 S e e , F e m i n i n e i n t h e C h u r c h , L o n d o n : S P C K , 1 9 8 4 . 5 S e c , S e a r c h i n g f o r L o s t C o i n s , L o n d o n : S P C K , 1 9 8 7 . 6 S e e , W h a t ’s R i g h t w i t h F e m i n i s m , L o n d o n : S P C K , 1 9 8 5 . 7 S e e , F e m i n i s m a n d C h r i s t i a n E t h i c s , C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 6 . 8 S e c , W o m e n , S t a t u s o f , i n A N e w D i c t i o n a r y o f C h r i s t i a n E t h i c s , o p . c i t . , p p . 6 6 3 - 6 6 6 . 9 S e e , T h e o f W o m a n i n t h e C h u r c h , in H a s t i n g s A ( e d . ) , M o d e r n C a t h o l i c i s m : V a t i c a n 1 1 a n d A f t e r , L o n d o n : S P C K , 1 9 9 1 .

(4)

Elizabeth F io ren za10, Carol G illig a n 11, and already m entioned Lisa Cahil and A nne Patrick. There are also som e m ale scholars w ho under­ take fem inist approach to ethics. Steven B a rto n 12, Kevin K e lly 13, or George B a u m 14 belong to this group.

W hat exactly are the m ain concerns o f C hristian fem inist w riters? To present them all w ill be far beyond the scope o f this article. H ow ­ ever, to do ju stic e to the reader, I w ill con sid er a few. F or exam ple, R osem ary R adford R euther, in her w ritings, uses the m odel o f dialec­ tic betw een the tradition and the critical insights w hich arise from concrete practice. She presses social issues, such as racism , anti- Sem itism , m ilitarism , and sexism . She u n covers the ideological pat­ terns in C h ristian thought w hich have served co n sisten tly to legi­ tim ate violence and oppression by iden tifyin g them as ‘the order o f creation and the w ill o f G o d ’. A nne P atrick h igh lig hts the social im plications o f g ender specific appropriatio ns o f the ideal o f chasti­ ty. In w hat she calls the p atriarchal p aradigm for virtue, all C hristians are expected to be ‘kind, chaste, ju st, and h u m b le ’. Yet w om en are expected to excel in charity and ch a stity ’, w hile m en are trained to think in term s o f ju stic e and rights. She believes that this treatm ent o f w om en is u njust and subordinative. E lizab eth S. F iorenza points out that w om en as C hurch are invisib le by patriarch al law that excludes them from C hurch office on the basis o f sex. She refers to the fact that although the C hurch is called ‘our m o th e r’, it is p erso n i­ fied and govern ed by fathers and b rothers only. T herefore, w henever we speak o f the C hurch w e see before o u r eyes the pope in Rom e,

10 S e e , F e m i n i s t T h e o l o g y a s a C r i t i c a l T h e o l o g y o f L i b e r a t i o n, T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s , 3 6 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , p p . 6 0 5 - 6 2 6 . 11 S e e , I n A D i f f e r e n t V o i c e : P s y c h o l o g i c a l T h e o i y a n d W o m e n ’s D e v e l o p m e n t , C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8 2 . 12 S e e , W o m e n , J e s u s a n d t h e G o s p e l s , i n H o l l o w a y R . , ( e d . ) , W h o N e e d s F e m i ­ n i s m : M e n R e s p o n d t o S e x i s m i n t h e C h u r c h, L o n d o n : S C M P r e s s , 1 9 8 0 , p p . 3 1 - 4 2 . 13 S e e , M o r a l T h e o l o g y - N o t T r u l y H u m a n W i t h o u t F u l l P a r t i c i p a t i o n o f W o ­ m e n , in : N e w D i r e c t i o n s i n M o r a l T h e o l o g y, L o n d o n : G e o f f r e y C h a p m a n , 1 9 8 2 , p p . 8 6 - 1 0 3 . 14 S e e , “ B u l l e t i n : T h e A p o s t o l i c L e t t e r M u l i e r i s D i g n i t a t e m ” , C o n c i l i u m , 2 0 6 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , p p . 1 4 4 - 1 4 9 .

(5)

bishops or p astors, cardinals and m onsignors, deacons and altar boys, all o f w hom are m e n .15

M any fem inists find this situation oppressive and look for a m ore positive solution by reinterpreting the im age o f w om en in the steps o f Jesus. That is w hy the them e ‘Jesus and W om en’ recurs frequently in fem inist ethics. Jesus is often described as the “m an o f fem inist dream s” or an “ integrated m an” 16. It is striking that in m any biblical stories (such as about Jesus and the Sam aritan w om an, M ary M agda­ lene, Syrophenician w om an) C hrist does not hold the m ale establish­ ment. He surprises even his ow n disciples. In these stories we can find that Jesus accepted not only love, kisses, tears and w arm th o f affection from wom en, but also their financial provision.

M any fem inists point out that stories o f Jesus im ply that the quali­ ties required for leadership and for positions o f responsibility in p eo ­ ple o f G od are not gender specific. T hey are m oral and religious quali­ ties: gifts o f G o d ’s sovereign Spirit, not accidents o f birth. A nother interesting thing is that the harsh w ords Jesus spoke w ere never direc­ ted to w om en - they w ere for the ‘pow erful m ale establishm ent’. It was the religious leaders w hom he called ‘w hitew ashed to m b s’ and accused o f hypocrisy. It w as a political leader he denounced as a ‘fo x ’. It was greedy bussinesm an w hom he called ‘th iefss’. Jesu s’ m essage was that his follow ers w ere not to ‘lord it over” rather, ‘w hoever w ants to becom e great am ong you m ust be your serv an t’. “Small w onder”, says Elaine Storkey, “that w om en loved him so m uch. Small w onder that after one o f his disciples had betrayed him and another denied him , the w om en w ere prepared to risk everything for his sake” 17. She points out that w om en w ere there at the foot o f the Cross, to anoint his body, at the em pty tom b, and at the R esurrection. “H e was the one they knew him to be: the R edeem er, the M essiah and for us as for them he has brought liberation” 18·

15 S e e , B r e a k i n g t h e S i l e n c e - B e c o m i n g V i s i b l e , C o n c i l i u m , 1 8 2 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , p . 4 . 16 S e e , S . H e i n e , W o m e n a n d E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y : A r e t h e F e m i n i s t S c h o l a r s R i g h t ? , L o n d o n : S P C K , 1 9 8 7 , p . 5 2 .

17 W h a t i s R i g h t w i t h F e m i n i s m ? , L o n d o n : S P C K : 1 9 8 5 , p . 1 5 9 .

(6)

Feminists are convinced that w om en’s subordination has its roots in the stereotypical and symbolic image o f woman. Woman through the his­ tory o f Christianity was associated with Eve, or as Tertulian calls it, with

‘the ignominy o f sin ’or ‘the d e v il’s gatew ay’. Thom as Aquinas called her an ‘incidental being’ or ‘im perfect m an ’. It is only in last 50 years that wom an becam e a them e o f theological reflection. Pope John X X III’s Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris is the m ost influential papal document, which enunciated the dignity and freedom o f hum an persons, m en and wom en equally. John XXIII saw w om en’s activity in social and poli-tical spheres outside the hom e as a development. He spoke about rights and duties, which belong to them. He started a new line o f thought, which dif­ fers greatly from other documents o f the R om an Catholic Church, pub­ lished after him.

M any positive statem ents against oppression o f wom en can be found in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes o f the Vatican II, but there are also numerous references presenting wom en in their traditional ‘roles’ and not in tenus o f their self-realization. The Apostolic Letter “M ulieris Digni­ tatem ” o f Pope John Paul II, according to some scholars, also appears to be controversial. Inspite o f a num ber o f p ositiv e addres-ses to w om en, there are statem ents, for exam ple, concerning differences betw een m en and w om en as divinely ordained. U n fo rtu nately John Paul II does not spell these differences out. G eorge B aum notices that the papal saying that the “essence o f w om an h o o d is m o therhood or p o te n tia l fo r m o th e rh o o d ” do es n o t co rre sp o n d w ith a real life experience o f m any w o m e n 19. Sadly, m any w om en feel that their voices have been silenced. W hat is m ore, p assin g definite ju d g m en ts about w om en w ithout listenin g to th eir voice w ould “betray a m en tality w hich believes that really the C hurch has nothing to learn from them , as thoug h the C hurch no lon ger had need for a b etter un derstanding o f the G ood N e w s”20. C hristianity is not only for w om en or only for m en, bu t for both w om en an d m en. A nd this is the m essage that m any C hristian fem inists are voicing. This m es­

19 S e e , “ B u l l e t i n : T h e A p o s t o l i c L e t t e r M u l i e r i s D i g n i t a t e m” , o p . c i t . , p . 1 4 6 . 20 К . К e 11 y , M o r a l T h e o l o g y N o t T r u l y H u m a n W i t h o u t t h e F u l l P a r t i c i p a t i o n o f W o m e n , in N e w D i r e c t i o n s , o p . c i t . , p 1 0 1 .

(7)

sage o f equality betw een m en and w om en, w ithin C hristianity as well as w ithin the w hole society, is the concern o f all fem inists. In pro­ claim ing this m essage fem inists focus on four specific issues (patriar­ chy, em bodim ent, relationality and experience) that guide their thought. I will consider them next.

P atriarchy

F em in ist ethics is concerned prim arily w ith the w elfare o f w om en, as such it opposes sex discrim ination as it exists in social structures. The p atria rch al system o f m ale dom ination is visible m ainly in the sex u al division o f labour, the stereotypical im age o f m arriage and fam ily, and vio len ce against w om en. T here are still m any stereotypi­ cal m odels for each sex. M en are often said to be: intellectual, assertive, logical, strong, born leaders, com petent, etc., w hilst w o ­ m en are: em otional, intuitive, receptive, passive, beautiful, co m p as­ sionate, religious, gossippy, etc,. M any fem inists argue against p er­ petuating these false m odels, w hich hide and dam age w o m e n ’s real qualities and cause inequalities betw een w o m en and m en. The m ajor reason for these inequalities is that w o m e n ’s first role in life taken is to be a w ife and a m other. W om en w ere, and still are, captured in m ythical sym bols, w hich prev en t them from grow ing fully as free persons. R egardin g the violence, in tim es o f p roclam ation o f hum an rights, there is a grow ing problem o f sexual violence, such as rape, abortion and birth control law s, in voluntary steralization , prostitution and fem ale slavery, sexual hariassm ent in em ploym ent, and ag gres­ sive pornography. These all sustain the patriarch al order o f m ale dom inance. T he disad vantages o f b eing born fem ale has not been yet elim inated. F or exam ple, jo b segregation by sex is still a crucial fa c­ tor in w o m e n ’s subo rdination thro u g h o u t the w orld. In som e coun­ tries this p ro blem is decreasing bu t in others there is no visible change. Since fem in ist ethics aim s fo r equality it argues for a p ro ­ w om an bias unil equal status is achieved. A n ti-o pp ressio n usually extends to all form s o f unequal treatm en t and denial o f hum anity. H ence fem inists reject any ju stific atio n s fo r discrim in ation based on som e order o f nature or w ill o f God.

(8)

E m b odim ent

W om en’s bodies have a dual role o f serv ing the w om an and ser­ ving the species - to an extent greater than m en. W om en m enstruate, incubate and lactate. A s a result in som e tradition s w om en have been u nderstood as clo ser to nature. The role o f ch ild bearing and rearing is also seen as natural. The body has trad itio n ally been equated with sexuality. W om en are seen to em body evil w hen sex is u nd ersto od to be sinful (Eve). A t the sam e tim e w o m en w ho are chaste or virgins are p laced on a p edestal (M ary). Som e w om en w ho w ant to live up to the ideal o f M ary get disappointed as b io lo g ically they cannot be both virgins and m others, and hence th ey are push ed to be asso cia­ ted w ith Eve. H ow ever, em bodim ent is no t ju s t bio log ical aspects o f body. That is w hy w hilst not denying the good ness o f hum an bodili- ness, fem inists refuse to equate anatom y w ith destiny. T hey say that w om en can transcend their bodies th ro ug h ration al choices and are ready to accept the giftedness o f th eir bodies. B ev erly H arrison lays great stress on the im portance o f feeling and sensu ality as essential dim ensions o f b eing hum an. She says that “ all our know ledge, including our m o ra l know ledge, is b ody-m ediated kno w led ge”21. H um an beings value the w orld through the ab ility to touch, to hear, to see it. T his applies to both m en and w om en. H ence, fem inist criticism is d irected against trad itio n al d ifferences w ith reproductive biology, asserting not only that w o m en ’s intellectual, em otional, and social capacities are both ‘n atu ra l’ to w om en and subordinate to men. Fundam entally, fem inist authors q uestion w heth er the assignm ent o f w om en p rim arily to dom enstic roles, and m en to econom ic and political roles, is genuinely n ecessitated by hum an rep ro du ctiv e tech­ nology.

(9)

R elationality

The very raison d ’etre o f fem inism is com m unal transform ation. F em inist ethics is concerned not ju s t w ith th eo ry but w ith p rax is22. R elationships should be m odelled on co llab o ratio n and cooperation and no t on h ierarchy and com petition. In hum an relations autonom y and individuality are equally prim ary, reflecting both hum an in divi­ duality and h um an interpersonal nature. F em inits oppose com ple­ m entarity and role differentiation, w hich em p hasize w o m en ’s inferi­ ority to men. T hey aim to reconstruct m odels o f the person and hum an com m unity. Som e interesting w ork, relev an t to this area, has been done by p sych ologist and social scientist, C arol G illigan23 R e­ flecting on w o m e n ’s experience, she has help ed to bring to hum an consciousness the core insight that the heart o f m oral agency lies not in individual ind ependence but in m utual interdependence. Interd e­ pendence m eans m ore than that our decisions and the kind o f person w e are affect other people and o ther creatures. It also w orks in the other direction. T he kind o f person w e are is largely determ ined by the influence o f o ther people and the w id er w orld. We are bound in the web o f m utu ally interlocking relationships. T he notion o f in ter­ dependence changes the w hole focus o f the p o w er relationship. A truly hum an excercise o f pow er lies not in the relatio nsh ip o f subject- object, but in the direction o f em pow erm ent. We em p ow er each other rather than seek to dom inate over each other. We approach each other as persons bonded to gether in m utual d ependen ce rath er than as co m ­ petitors to be van guished in the struggle for existance. H ence, fem i­ nists oppose the du ality w hich seeks to u nderstan d hum an beings in term s of: e m o tio n /re a so n ; b o d y /s p irit; p a ssiv e / /active; ependence/autonom y; helper/leader. T he reason o f this oppo ­ sition is the fact that w om en have been assign ed the roles that the m en do not w ant. F em inists are concern ed w ith reality o f w o m en ’s lives, and not w ith biological givens and a fixed order.

22 T h e t e r m ‘ p r a x i s ’ is u s e d w i t h i n T h e o l o g y o f L i b e r a t i o n , w h i c h m a d e a s i g n i f i ­ c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o f e m i n i s t t h o u g h t .

(10)

E xperience

Fem inists turn to w o m en ’s experience since m ale constm als o f their lives (identity and function) did not ring true. T hey do not claim that w o m en ’s experience is universalisable to all hum an experience. B ut until w o m en ’s experience is taken into account in ethics, the traditio­ nally assum ed universal claim s based on m e n ’s experience will be inadequate and inaccurate fonnulations to ethics. F o r exam ple, regard­ ing the m otherhood there has to be m ade a distiction betw een w o m en ’s experience and patriarchal institution. In theological reflection the per­ ception o f m otherhood is very significant. H ow ever, w hat in m ale- orientated theology has tended to be presented uncritically as pertain­ ing to what would be seen as the ‘n a tu re ’ o f w om anhood is analysed m uch m ore critically by w om en theologians w ho are careful to listen to w o m en ’s experience o f m arriage as an institution. Fem inists insist that w o m en ’s experience m ust be taken seriously into account. W omen have to be listened to, because w ho know s m ore about w om en than they them selves. It is interesting that m ore and m ore w om en notice that the description that fem inist give o f gender stereotypes and roles tallies suprisingly w ith their ow n experience. M en too adm it that these stereotypes can force them into behaviour patterns w ith w hich they feel uncom fortable. H ence there is needed the w illingness to listen. B ut listening is not enough. Even m ore is needed - “a radical conver­ sion o f our w ay o f perceiving reality”24.

C onclusion

In order to bring the new reality o f ju stice and equality, fem inist ethicists reexam ine hum an experience as m ale and fem ale, focusing on its em bodied and social character. They try to extend the m oral m ea­ ning o f em bodiness beyond sex - based gender roles; they challenge historical constructions o f gender as oppressive to w om en, as culturaly biased, and not dem anded by natural sex differences; and they critical­

(11)

ly com bine both C hristian resourses and philosophical and social analysis to guide their transform ative vision o f m ore cooperative and egalitarian com m unities. They are creating a vision o f a w orld w ithout the oppression. K elly rem inds that “oppression is dehum anizing - and not ju st for those w ho are oppressed. It is also dehum anizing, perhaps even m ore so, for the oppressors since it is a form o f blindness, an inability to recognize and live the truth. The truth that wom en are revealing to us today is not ju st about the liberation o f wom en. It is ju st as m uch about the liberation o f m en and even affects the liberation o f the rest o f G o d ’s creation”25. K elly points out that w om en theologians have a unique w ay in hearing, distinguishing and interpreting the voi­ ces o f wom en. This view is also shared by R ichard M cC orm ick, an A m erican leading m oral theologians, w ho says that the “em ergence o f fem inism is one o f the ‘signs o f tim es’ o f w hich John X X III and Vati­ can II spoke. Its full effect on m oral theology is probably still ahead o f u s”26. Hence, there is still som ething to look forw ard. The conclusions that fem inists arrive at are not unique to fem inists or even unique to women. This should not be suprising, since m oral living is hum an liv­ ing. Fem inists are ju st one group o f hum ans dem anding that w o m en ’s experiences be taken into account in m oral evaluations. They do not articulate principles and non n s unique to F em inism ; nor do they claim exclusive access to m oral insight. F em inism is inclusive. This, often controversial and diverse area o f ethics generally as well as Christian ethics, has m uch to offer by challenging w o m en ’s status in family, society and the C hurch and reconstituting the im ages, theories, and institutions w hich shape w o m en ’s and m en ’s gender identities.

Anna ABRAM

2 5i b i d . , p . 1 0 3 .

Cytaty

Powiązane dokumenty