Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:27:36.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender, Personhood and Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Elaine L. Graham
Elaine L. Graham
Affiliation:
University of ManchesterDept of Religions and Theology Manchester Ml 3 9PL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most significant phenomena within the Western Church over the past twenty-five years has been the emergence of feminist theology. Fuelled by the second wave of the modern women's movement, drawing upon the theoretical and critical stances of academic feminism, and inspired by Latin American Liberation Theology, feminist theologians have achieved a remarkable body of work in a relatively short time. They have sought to establish the opportunities and validate the methods by which women, long silenced as theological subjects, may articulate their perspectives and contribute towards the reconstruction of a more ‘inclusive’ theological discipline.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , August 1995 , pp. 341 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Ruether, R. R., Sexism and God-Talk, London: SCM, 2nd edition, 1992Google Scholar, and Loades, A., editor, Feminist Theology: A Reader, SPCK, 1990, for general introductions to feminist theology.Google Scholar

2 Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk, Chapter 1.

3 Young, P. D., Feminist Theology/Christian Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990, Chapter 3.Google Scholar

4 Edwards, R. B., The Case for Women's Ministry, SPCK, 1989, Chapter 10.Google Scholar

5 Ruether, , Sexism and God-Talk, 1992Google Scholar; Joseph, A., editor, Through the Devil's Gateway: Women, Religion and Taboo, SPCK. 1990.Google Scholar

6 Quoted in Oakley, A., (1972) Sex, Gender and Society, Gower, 1985, pp. 158–159.Google Scholar

7 Archer, J. and Lloyd, B.B., Sex and Gender, Harmondsworth: Pelican, 1982Google Scholar; Doyle, J. and Paludi, M., Sex and Gender: the Human Experience, California: W. Brown and Co., 1992, Chaps. 3 and 4.Google Scholar

8 Harding, S., The Science Question in Feminism, Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986.Google Scholar

9 Birke, L., ‘Cleaving the Mind: Speculations on Conceptual Dichotomies’, in The Dialectics of Biology Group, Against Biological Determinism, London: Allison and Busby, 1982, 60–78.Google Scholar

10 Strathern, M., ‘An Awkward Relationship: the case of feminism and anthropology’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12:2, 1987, 276–292, p. 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Yanagisako, S.J. and Collier, J., ‘The Mode of Reproduction in Anthropology’, in Rhode, D.L., editor, Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. 131–141.Google Scholar

12 Ortner, S., ‘Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?’, in Women, Culture and Society, edited by Rosaldo, M.Z. and Lamphere, L., California, 1974, 67–87.Google Scholar

13 Yanagisako, and Collier, , ‘The Mode of Reproduction in Anthropology’, in Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference, edited by Rhode, D.L., 1990.Google Scholar

14 Brown, P. and Jordanova, L., ‘Oppressive Dichotomies: the Nature/Culture Debate’, in Whitelegg, E., editor. The Changing Experience of Women, Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1982, 389–399, p. 393.Google Scholar

15 Lerner, G., The Creation of Patriarchy, Oxford University Press, 1986Google Scholar; Sanday, P.R., Female Power and Male Dominance: on the origins of sexual inequality, Cambridge University Press, 1981.Google Scholar

16 Strathern, M., ‘No Nature, No Culture: The Hagen Case’, in Nature, Culture and Gender, edited by MacCormack, C.P. and Strathern, M., New York, 1980, p. 179. my emphasis.Google Scholar

17 Freud, S., The Complete Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, edited and translated by Strachey, J., London: Allen and Unwin, 1971Google Scholar; for a feminist critique (and reappraisal) of classical psychoanalysis, see Flax, J., Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism and Post-Modernism in the Contemporary West, Berkeley: University of California, 1990.Google Scholar

18 Farganis, S., The Social Reconstruction of the Feminine Character, Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1986, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

19 See Hubbard, R., ‘The Political Nature of “Human Nature”’, in Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference, edited by Rhode, D.L., 1990, 63–73.Google Scholar

20 See Tong, R., Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction, Unwin Hyman, 1989, Chapters 3, 4 and 5.Google Scholar

21 Tong, Feminist Thought, Chapter 8; Grosz, E., Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists, Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1989Google Scholar; Whitford, M., The Irigaray Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.Google Scholar

22 Jones, A.R., ‘Writing the Body: Towards an Understanding of “l'ecriture feminin”’, in The New Feminist Criticism, edited by Showalter, E., Virago, 1986, 361–377.Google Scholar

23 Simone de Beauvoir. quoted in Simons, M.A. and Benjamin, J., ‘Simone de Beauvoir: An Interview’, Feminist Studies 5, 1987, 330–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Segal, L., Is the Future Female? Troubled Thoughts on Contemporary feminum, Virago, 1987Google Scholar, provides a critique of ‘essentialist’ and ‘radical’ feminism on these grounds.

25 Connell, R.W., Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics, Polity, 1987Google Scholar, adopts the most comprehensive analysis of this kind.

26 See McFadyen, A., The Call to Personhood, Cambridge University Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Sallie McFague's work has become well-known in this area; see Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language, SCM, 1983Google Scholar, and Models of God: Theology for an Ecological Nuclear Age, SCM, 1987.Google Scholar

28 Martin, Emily, The Woman in the Body, Milton Keynes: Open University, 1987Google Scholar is a sophisticated analysis of women's own experiences of embodiment and reproductive processes. Such accounts speak of alienation and empowerment. See also Nelson, James, The Intimate Connection: Male Sexuality, Masculine Spirituality, SPCK, 1992Google Scholar for a recent attempt to ‘write the body’ from a critical perspective on masculinity.

29 See various essays on violence against women, sexual abuse, childbirth, depression, sexuality and pastoral care in Glaz, M. and Moessner, J.S., editors, Women in Travail and Transition: A New Pastoral Care, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991Google Scholar, and Graham, E. and Halsey, M., editors, Life-Cycles: Women and Pastoral Care, SPCK, 1993.Google Scholar

30 Baynes, K., Bohman, J. and McCarthy, T., editors, After Philosophy: End or Transformation? Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987Google Scholar; Barker, F., Hulme, P. and Iversen, M., editors, Postmodernism and the Re-reading of Modernity, Manchester University Press, 1992Google Scholar; Benhabib, S., Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics, Cambridge: Polity, 1992.Google Scholar

31 For example, J. Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Polity, 1987; Bernstein, R.J., Habermas and Modernity, MIT, 1985.Google Scholar Two recent contributions in theological studies to the debate about values after post-modernism are: Browning, D.S. and Fiorenza, F.S., editors, Habermas, Modernity and Public Theology, New York: Crossroad, 1992Google Scholar; and Berry, P. and Wernick, A., Shadow of Spirit: Postmodernism and Religion, Routledge, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar However, there is much more to be done in articulating theological praxis as the basis for public — and gender-inclusive — values.