|
Article Excerpt
Feminist scholars have made enormous strides in deconstructing patriarchal religious understandings of sexuality and developing new, more inclusive, female-friendly alternatives. We approach this work from a Catholic feminist starting point, cognizant of the multiple layers of race, class, nationality, sexual identity, and physical ability that have implications for our perspective. In this article, we present an overview of the field by focusing on both the processes and the results of an international, interdisciplinary, interreligious study that we co-edited (with Radhika Balakrishnan), Good Sex: Feminist Perspectives From the World's Religions (Jung, Hunt, & Balakrishnan, 2001). We mention some of the most salient findings and hint at strategies necessary to move these insights toward acceptance in a variety of cultures across the global.
Feminism is a term we use often and with enthusiasm. Hence, its early clarification is important. By feminism we mean the theory and practice of overcoming sexism as part of a larger effort to dismantle interstructured forms of domination including racism, colonialism, economic injustice, and discrimination on the basis of sexual identity, nationality, or physical ability. Biblical scholar Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza has aptly called these interlocking forms of oppression "kyriarchy," or structures of lordship using the Greek word for lord as the basis of her neologism (Fiorenza, 1992). We come from a religious tradition (one among many) that is structured in this hierarchical, top-down way; therefore, for us, the notion of kyriarchy has extra resonance.
Feminism has evolved since the 1970s from a focus on gender justice in patriarchy, or father-rule, to this more differentiated analysis of multiple interlocking forms of domination. When we use the term feminist, we refer to this more ample 21st-century sense, not its more constrained 19th- or even 20th-century meanings that made feminism synonymous with women's rights or even equality for mostly White women. Other terms that signal a commitment to transform the world with attention to women's well-being include womanist, from African American women's experience; mujerista and Latina women's approaches; as well as the unique contributions of Asian women to this global struggle. Feminism as we understand it does not eclipse or relativize these notions, but is instead enriched and emboldened by them.
Good Sex From Feminist Perspectives
What is "good sex" in the globalized world of the 21st century? What do feminists have to contribute to the understanding and embodiment of good sex? These were the questions that an international, interreligious group of feminist scholars probed together in the project we are reviewing. They came from various starting points, but all paid attention to religion and put a priority on women's well-being.
The constructions of sexuality, as well as notions of what is "good," involve many experiences and interpretations. Religions have traditionally been guardians of sexual norms and practices. Religious beliefs and practices vary widely, but they form an important resource when reflecting on human sexuality. Concepts of the divine and grace, rituals related to sexual initiation and childbearing, customs related to marriage and family, and views on homosexuality and transgender persons are just a few of the cultural dimensions shaped by religious understandings of sexuality. Indeed, patriarchal religions are infamous for their taboos and proscriptions with regard to women and sex, most of them imagined and imposed by men.
The fact that very few women from any religious traditions have been involved in their communities' thinking about the relation between religion and sex signaled a problem for us. So very little feminist work had been done to probe women's sexual experiences from religious perspectives that we decided to address that need. The interreligious, multidisciplinary feminist perspectives that made up our conversations about good sex were intended to begin to remedy the more traditional pattern of women's exclusion.
Our team of feminist scholars and activists worked without the expectation of consensus or agreement. Rather, we worked with the hope that our efforts might broaden women's sexual options and develop more nuanced understandings of sexuality that will lead to women's participation in the world with greater safety and dignity. The process of coming together as a dozen women from eight countries and six faith traditions provided us with an opportunity to get to know one another and participate in intercultural feminist conversation, something we agreed was all too rare in our individual experiences. We came to appreciate the value of engaged, collective scholarship that is consistent with feminist goals and commitments.
The History of the Project
The idea for this project was sparked at the charter meeting of The Religious Consultation on Population, Reproductive Health and Ethics in 1994 in Washington, DC. At that meeting, Jose Barzelatto, MD, then the Director of the Reproductive Health and Population Program of the Ford Foundation, pointed out that religion remains a tremendously powerful cultural force that profoundly shapes people's lives and their prospects for health and well-being. He observed that because religions can arouse such passion, scholars of religion can be helpful to activists and other professionals in identifying and expressing the various religious grounds for promoting good sexual relationships in the domestic arena, fair population policies, just economic practices, and ways to develop responsible reproductive health programs. He argued that scholarly and popular materials on these topics need to be prepared and disseminated to, and through, nongovernmental organizations to bring progressive religious voices into the public policy conversation.
We realized immediately that what was needed was not more patriarchal religious reflection on women but feminist reflection by women. The consequences of some religiously based policies, especially regarding women's roles in society, birth control, and abortion, have been very costly to the social fabric, especially for women. Given the complexities of feminist womanist-mujerista and other female-defined challenges to hitherto patriarchal religions, Barzellato's suggestion was even more compelling on issues relating to women's well-being.
Patricia Beattie Jung was joined by Mary E. Hunt and Radhika Balakrishnan in the development of a response to Barzellato's prophetic call. We sought to change the way in which sex is conceptualized from feminist religious perspectives. We aimed to broaden and deepen the conversation from the bedroom and other private arenas (like the confessional) into more public venues. Gender roles and sexual ethics are topics appropriate to boardrooms, conference tables, and legislative chambers across the globe. Most people (mistakenly) think of sex as something individual and private about themselves. At best in this mode, sex is thought to be about pleasure for oneself, or perhaps mutual pleasure in a relationship with another, even several others. Located in the domestic sphere, it is thought not to be a topic for polite conversation. It is not seen as a matter of public, communal concern from a patriarchal perspective. This has the result of closing off conversation and in some instances obscuring illegal activity. Pedophilia comes to mind, especially as it has played out in the Catholic context.
Thus, in the modern secular West, sexual questions are understood to be about what people do with their "private parts," and with whom (if anyone) they do it. The standard liberal response is frankly that "it is no one else's business." Sexual choices in postmodernity are increasingly seen as purely private, individual expressions of values that do not affect the common good. We found this way of thinking to be inadequate. Although sex is indeed very personal, we concurred that it should not be interpreted as purely private, because it has so many far-reaching consequences both for those directly involved and for others. The matter of population alone was enough to make this seem obvious to us.
We discovered that most patriarchal religious and ethical thinking about sex had adopted this atomistic model, which yields lists of do's and don'ts regarding personal and interpersonal behavior. Such an approach to sexual ethics worries about who has sexual relations with whom, the genders of the people involved, and, if applicable, what form of birth control and sexually transmitted disease (STD) protection they may use. When this way of thinking about sex prevails, it disguises both the influence of socially constructed and religiously sanctified scripts on our sexual choices and the impact of our sexual decisions on the commonweal. It papers over the real social, political, and economic impacts of sex on most women's lives with all-too-often disastrous consequences. This myopic, almost mechanical view of sex leaves aside its affective dimensions and the importance of being a responsible agent of one's own sexuality. Likewise, it distracts from the ways economic, legal, and cultural (including wider religiously informed gender constructions) conditions shape human sexual realities. We sought to reframe all of this.
We recognized sex to be about gender, money, race, nationality, and profession, as well as access and ability. In essence, we understood sex to be about power, pleasure, and justice. In our collective conversations, the central issues revolved around challenges much wider in scope. If sex is not exclusively, primarily, or necessarily for procreative purposes, as some religions, notably Catholicism, have argued for centuries, then what is sex for? How can pleasure or relational purposes be articulated in different moral contexts in ways that are female-friendly, safe, religiously faithful, and culturally appropriate across a range of traditions? If sexuality is not merely a domestic or private matter, but also of public--that is, socioeconomic--concern, how can this insight be expressed in ways cognizant of its simultaneously personal and political nature?
Despite the rise...
|
