Dreaming for a better world
“Fethullah Gulen and western feminism: friends or foes?”
Download 411.59 Kb.
|
“Fethullah Gulen and western feminism: friends or foes?”Crystal McCormick, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, MDiv Student Allahu Akbar…Allahu Akbar…the beautiful Arabic words of the Muslim call to prayer ring out across the globe as Muslim adherents heed the call and commit to their ritual of daily prayer. The words of the azan, like any other recitation, are stirring and moving. Yet one cannot help but notice that they are, with few exceptions, coming from the lips of a man. Just as if one is to walk into a mosque they- with few exceptions – will find an imam that is a male. And, with few exceptions, one will find that the voices of Islamic tradition have been overwhelmingly male. Similarly, when one enters the doors to any of the various Christian churches they too, with some exceptions, will find themselves met by a male pastor and he will stand behind the pulpit of the church and proclaim words that carry the power to shape theology and formulate ideas. He will stand behind the communion table as a symbol of authority and wisdom for his Christian tradition. And, lest we forget that if one is to search the Christian tradition for its pivotal and formative voices, there too, one will be met an overwhelming amount of male voices. It is clear, on many fronts that the women of these two traditions are noticeably absent; hidden, perhaps, behind the patriarchal structures that have shaped and become imbedded in these traditions. They have often appeared like the passive and silent actors in a play whose role is limited to moving about in the background in silence and passivity. The strong presence of males and noticeable absence of females in the forefront of these traditions has been a great source of pain for many women. In fact, it was feminist theologian Judith Plaskow really gave voice to the feelings and anguish felt by many women with respect to their faith traditions asking, “What in the tradition is ours? What can we claim that has not wounded us?” Therefore, it is only when we look closely at the experience of women such as these that we only begin to navigate the waters to understanding what has given birth to the many voices that have shaped and continue to shape the feminist movement. It is only then that we begin – only begin – to imagine what it is like for many women to internalize the notion that God has ordained only males as those who are to teach and have authority and leadership within their respective traditions. It is only then that we begin to understand that there are feelings of hurt and pain because the silence of women in these traditions has been declared as faithful and wise and their protest has often been discarded, overlooked, or simply misunderstood. This brings us to the issue at hand, namely, the relationship between western feminism and Fetullah Gulen and his movement: With respect to “western feminism” in particular, Fethullah Gulen has said, “…the [feminist] movement has frequently deviated from protecting the rights of women to the excess of trying to establish their dominance.” Gulen has also referred to feminism as a “reactionary movement” that has “ended up in extremism.” The question that arises, then, is whether Fethullah Gueln is one who has discarded, overlooked, or simply misunderstood western feminism? Before this question is addressed, however, one must consider whether or not Gulen’s criticisms of “western feminism” are merited. Some might have the inclination to quickly respond with the affirmative, confirming that his criticisms of this movement are quite valid, while others might have the inclination to be insulted by such criticisms and to conclude that they are nothing more than patriarchy at its best. The fact is, however, that Fetullah Gulen’s criticisms of the so-called western feminist movement are in fact merited, to the extent that some streams of western feminism find themselves in a position where they have become guilty of that which they speak against; specifically, hierarchy and dominance. They, in an attempt to accuse and name an oppressor have come to take on the characteristics of the oppressor or the oppressive system they seek to challenge. At various points in its history various streams within the western feminist movement have used strong rhetoric that was imbued with sentiments of anger and resentment towards males. Most who study western feminism are all too familiar with, for example, the strong language of pivotal feminist Mary Daly who, along with others who have followed in her footsteps, determined that religious traditions like Christianity are simply irredeemably patriarchal. The language of many of the most well-known western feminists has often been imbued with the rhetoric of anti-male sentiment. This language has often communicated an animosity that is quite palpable. As a result, one can affirm Gulen’s concerns and criticisms of the western feminist movement. Therefore, one can conclude that Gulen has not discarded or overlooked western feminism, but instead has not fully understood the depth of the movement. A common misunderstanding of feminism is to understand it solely by the caricatures previously described. And, another common misunderstanding, not unrelated to the first, is to think of the western feminist movement as a uniform movement. Often, people associate the ideological perspectives of certain feminists with the western feminist movement as a whole. They associate the rhetoric of male hatred and female dominance with all things feminist. Such a view does not consider the fact that western feminism is not a homogeneous movement; western feminism - feminism as a whole - is a diverse movement comprised of many perspectives, ideologies and approaches, including those western feminists who have, as Gulen has suggested, deviated from “protecting the rights of women.” Yet, having a knowledge that the feminist movement is made up of many streams of thought will allow one to discover the voices of many feminists whose language is not imbued with animosity for men and a quest for dominance. In fact, many streams within western feminism embody feminism at its best – namely a feminism that imagines a community where men and women are equals in all aspects of life. Let us take, for example, the work of western feminist theologians Elizabeth Johnson and Lynn Japinga. These two western feminist theologians (among others) bring to us, in a very beautiful way, protest for justice and solutions that do not perpetuate injustice: Speaking from her theological convictions as a Christian, Elizabeth Johnson conveys her feminist interpretation of the message of the Christian tradition as the “victory of shalom…won not by the sword of the warrior god but by the awesome power of compassionate love, in and through solidarity with those who suffer” (Johnson 125). Even more, Johnson speaks of a Jesus who calls his followers to patterns of living that are marked by “forging justice and peace in an antagonistic world” (125). Johnson’s feminist approach not only protests the injustice and violation of women, but of all people that have been oppressed. Johnson’s feminist approach remains firmly committed not only protecting the rights of women but also the rights and human dignity of all people (125). Johnson’s feminist critiques of her own beloved Christian tradition do not fall short of offering new visions for more just and egalitarian ways for male and female to relate to one another. Johnson challenges hierarchal systems of ordering relationships which tend to be patriarchal in structure; such relationships, Johnson asserts, are characterized by dualisms where, for example, the realm of the male is assumed to be opposite to and superior to the realm of the female. These dualistic patterns of relating to one another, Johnson explains, fail to embody God’s vision of holistic patterns of living where relationships are based on mutuality and reciprocity (Johnson 129-130). The dualistic way of understanding male and female has had a devastating impact had on our male and female relationships and our view of supposed gender roles. From within both Islam and Christianity there often comes a strong dualistic understanding of male and female that boasts a view that men and women are “equal” before God but this equality is typically qualified by saying, for example, that God has created men and women different and thus for different roles; the implication is that men are naturally to be leaders, strong and dominant, and women are to be gentle, passive and timid taking on stereotypical roles associated with domesticity. The problem with this dualistic understanding of male and female is that it is simply not equality when one dictates to another how they can and cannot be. In other words, there is not equality for someone who is told how they have to act in order to be an acceptable human being. (Incidentally, this is often called the “equal but different” principle, and what is interesting to note about this principle is that it was similar to the equal but separate clause used to subordinate African Americans during the period of segregation in the United States. It was a false attempt to declare that African Americans were supposedly equal to whites, yet maintained there was sufficient reason to argue they were ‘different’ and thus needed to be separate. In fact, Martin Luther King, Jr. lamented this principle as a gross injustice (Walker, 197).0 One must concede then, that this principle is just as unjust when applied to subordinate female to male.0 Therefore, it is not equality to suggest that male and female are equal in some ethereal existence or in some theoretical way and then to qualify this with hierarchical structures where female is subordinate to male in our homes and in our religious communities. Not only is this inconsistent with any notion of equality, it discards both any male and any female that does not fit the stereotypical gender roles, casting them as anomalies or as those who are simply not faithful to God and/or their respective religious traditions. Ironically, this is not consistent with the message of Jesus nor is it consistent with the often egalitarian ethos within Islam which is strongly embodied in the fourth pillar of Islam, the hajj: Muslim scholar, Reza Aslan describes the hajj as an act in Islam which embodies a true “communal spirit” where there is “no longer any rank, or class, or status; there is no gender and no ethnic or racial identity” (Aslan, 149-150). The core visions of both the Christian and Islamic tradition are often qualified when speaking in terms of subordinating female to male. However, these dualisms Johnson names do not only impact our understanding of male and female, or gender roles, but they have also impacted the way, for example, the Christian tradition has viewed other religious traditions. Johnson explains that patriarchal structures inherently assume a need for hierarchy. As a result, the Christian tradition has often found itself in a hegemonic posture, assuming its superiority and hegemony over other religious traditions. According to Johnson’s feminist interpretation of holistic views of relating, there is no room for such hierarchy, but instead there is only room for a holistic view of God’s compassionate love and power that extends “over every people and nation.” Even more, Johnson’s feminist interpretation explains that there is a “continuity of divine action and inspiration between the Christian religion and the multitude of world religious traditions (Johnson 132-133). Similarly, feminist Lynn Japinga expands on the notion that patriarchy has contributed to “fear of the religious other”, explaining that patriarchy and its hierarchal structures are often rooted in fear; for some perhaps a fear of losing a certain kind of power, and for others a fear of being wrong. The so-called “other” – be it someone of another gender or racial group, or even someone who represents the religious “other” - is often a threatening figure because their perspective or ideology might challenge that of those with the most power. As a result, patriarchy has granted some permission to claim hegemony over others, decreeing that their interpretation of their respective tradition and/or gender roles is both normative and God ordained. A feminist hermeneutic, on the other hand, challenges us to overcome all of our fears and encourages us to take risks that are required for all people of faith (Japinga 9-13); risks to hear and to love those who have opposing views from our own, and even taking the risk to admit when we or our respective traditions might be wrong about a particular issue. And so we find with these few examples of western feminist perspectives that though Fetullah Gulen’s criticisms of this movement are merited, they only speak to a segment of the western feminist movement who have indeed moved from protecting the rights of women to trying to establish their own form of hierarchy and dominance. That being said, the work of Elizabeth Johnson, and many others that share her commitment to relations that are just and egalitarian remind us that there are many streams of thought within the feminist movement and that it is simply a misunderstanding to place all feminists into one category as if they all share the same views. However, this point merits a caveat, for even the women whose words are filled with animosity and quests for female dominance are not to be discarded altogether. Using the analogy of separating the fish and the bones, one must look for the meat in what these or any other dissenting voices have to offer. One should consider that even if they are to adamantly disagree with the thoughts of these particular feminists, or any particular voice, for that matter, they must ask themselves, “What has evoked such a response? And, “Are they describing an injustice that is very real and which may truly be violating the rights and dignity of others?” Often asking these questions will help one understand why such reactionary movements are born. This brings the conversation back Fethullah Gulen. The Gulen movement is indeed a unique noble movement which contributes positively to local communities and the global community in many ways that are unlike any other group. Interestingly, it mirrors the feminist movement in many ways. Gulen has called feminism a reactionary movement, but this title, when applied to any movement, need not conjure up negative connotations. The Gulen movement itself is a reactionary movement, to the extent that its followers have had to help educate others about Islam in order to diffuse misperceptions and stereotypes of Muslims which tend to be reinforced by western media. Similarly, feminists have had to explain core principles of their movement in order to diffuse negative stereotypes which have been all but inextricably linked to feminism. In addition, the Gulen movement’s emphasis on “universal values” mirrors the principles and ideological perspectives of western feminists like Elizabeth Johnson and Lynn Japinga, to the extent that they embrace a holistic perspective which looks beyond dogmatism and emphasizes a religious community’s willingness to serve God by demonstrating compassion, love, and moral behavior, as well. Another commonality we see between Gulen and streams of western feminism is the embracing of interfaith dialogue and a broader understanding of God’s revelation to humanity. This is clear in much of Gulen’s work and in his movement in that there is an emphasis not only on universal values0 but on a certain care and attention towards justice and an orientation towards piety and for a love and respect for God (Unal 207). All of these values can be found within the movement and works of Fethullah Gulen and within many streams of the feminist movements. Therefore, the answer to the question posed in this paper, whether or not western feminism and Fethullah Gulen are friends or foes is a resounding, “Yes!” Both movements are reacting to negative societal stereotypes: the Gulen movement to the backlash Islam has suffered from terrorism. Gulen has lamented the fact that Islam has been equated with terrorism, explaining that, “this has been a great historical mistake, for wrapping a system based on safety and trust in a veil of terrorism shoes that Islam’s spirit remains unknown” (Unal 194). Similarly, western feminism and feminism as a whole must work tirelessly in order to diffuse the notion that feminism and hatred of men are synonymous. Another point of similarity between these two movements is the power of experience and friendship in their methodology and in their goals. The Gulen movement relies heavily not only on educating others of the true spirit of Islam but also on experience and friendship for its methodology. The Gulen movement in the most powerful and beautiful ways embodies tolerance and hospitality by reaching out to others who have differing perspectives and convictions, inviting them, feeding them, and forging friendships with them. The Gulen movement grants many the opportunities to experience the true spirit of Islam at many of its events. At these events strangers quickly become friends as Christians, Muslims, Jews, and so on, sits side by side to share their faith, to see and learn how Muslims pray and how they honour God and remember the poor by fasting and then breaking the fast amongst friends. This is quite a remarkable similarity because experience and friendship are key principles within the feminist movement, as well. One might be asking or thinking, “What of the differences in these two movement and ideologies?” After all, many must concede that Gulen has been an advocate for women and for their rights. Scholar Anna J. Stephenson concedes that Gulen has been a strong advocate to have equal opportunities for education and perhaps even professional advancement (133-134). Yet Gulen’s view of women falls closely in line with the dualisms which feminist Elizabeth Johnson critiques. Scholar Bernadette Andrea demonstrates this citing Gulen’s description of a role of a woman as “the first educators of their children and as those charged with ‘establishing order, peace and harmony in the home” (Andrea 148).0 His statement has both an implicit and explicit expectation that a woman fit a certain role while the man is then to fall into the role of one who is, as Stephenson describes, “Intrinsically suited to leadership…the one who displays authority, intelligence, and a less emotional personality”(Stephenson 134). This is not to suggest that a woman cannot be a “feminist” and be the primary caregiver or a mother who stays at home, or that a woman who does or does not do this or that cannot be feminist. The crucial point here is that a woman (as should any human being) feel she has the right to choose herself what she does and does not do; Such choices might include being a mother who chooses to stay home and be the primary caregiver for her and her husband’s children, or it may be to work outside the home and her husband be primary the primary caregiver to their children. Regardless of the role, a woman should not feel that she is unfaithful to God or to her respective tradition. In fact, this supposed reversal of roles should not be an indication that one has strayed from their faith, especially if we are to heed what Gulen has described as “the ideal Muslim” and the “ideal believer”; an ideal Muslim or ideal believer, Gulen asserts, is one who is a person of “safety and trust that Muslims can rely on…without doubt or suspicion…they greet everyone with salaam…[being] the most trustworthy representatives of universal peace, …having character and virtue.” He goes on saying, “they fast, give alms, perform the hajj [if able] and make the profession of faith (Unal 206-207). These, too, are many of the values which many would say should characterize a Christian. It is interesting to note that what is notably absent is any mention of gender roles. It seems that when people of faith begin to measure what is crucial, what helps define commitment and faithfulness to God; issues of gender do not find themselves front and center. This may be a clear point of disagreement between Gulen and his western feminist friends, and there may be further points of disagreement and contention, as well, but these need not be a reason to imagine that these two movements cannot be friends. In fact, Gulen is a prime advocate and example of forging friendships despite ideological differences; with respect to this issue he has said, “Different positions mean different understandings. Once [one] can accept that, [one] can benefit from others’ thoughts and ideas (Unal, 204-206). In addition, when asked about the often controversial issue of polygamy within Islam Gulen responded by saying, “seeking and falling into error while seeking are a part of the road to knowledge and truth.” Gulen’s wisdom here can and should be applied to the often controversial issue of western feminism and gender roles – both sides of this particular issue must attempt to have the humility to concede when they have “fallen into error.” This is, incidentally, where Gulen’s thought and movement has a great contribution to offer the rather “rough edges” of the western feminist movement. Gulen, often referred to as the “advocate for dialogue” has a unique wisdom to offer the feminist movement which has, at various times, found itself talking at people instead of talking with them. Fethullah Gulen has been a symbol and example of how to engage people of various ideologies in both thoughtful and sincere dialogue. A caveat should be added, here, that this is not to imply that feminists need to smile nicely and patiently wait for people to change, tempering their protest. Instead, it is a reminder that the feminist movement can and should avoid erring by not making the shift from the oppressor to the oppressed and that the Gulen movement offers reactionary movements an example of how to channel their voices of protest into action which invites and encourages dialogue. Fetullah Gulen and Western feminism are not foes. These two movements have some very crucial things in common with respect to the nature of their respective traditions, their methodologies and goals. Not only can these two movements be friends they should be friends because they have contributions to offer one another. Feminism must learn from the intentional and thoughtful dialogue that is at the core of the Gulen movement and the Gulen movement must come to know the many streams of feminism which coincide with its core goals for at least three reasons: First, western feminist thought will likely be a voice of criticism to some respects of the Gulen movement that will not go away. Second, there will be both men and women whom the movement encounters who subscribe to many of the ideas of western feminism and the Gulen movement should be prepared and willing to dialogue with these men and women and be receptive to discussions about gender roles and the rights of women as they will continue to surface. Third, western feminism may give voice to some of the thoughts or sentiments of women from within the Gulen movement who have, for one reason or another, not voiced their sentiments. Finally, the Gulen movement must become more familiar with the broad range of thought within the western feminist movement into order to offer it constructive criticism with respect to its misunderstandings of such things as the experience of Muslim women. Such conversations will embody the spirit of Islam and the Gulen movement as different perspectives come together for thoughtful and sincere dialogue. After all, good friends will inevitably disagree, but should always do so with a spirit of salaam. References Andrea, Bernadette. “Women and Their Rights.” Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World: Contributions of the Gulen Movement. Ed. Robert A. Hunt, Yuksel A. Aslandogan. New Jersey: The Light Inc. and IID Press, 2006. 145-164. Aslan, Reza. No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. New York: Random House, (2006): 149-150. Japinga, Lynn. “Fear in the Reformed Tradition.” Feminist and Womanist Essays in Reformed Dogmatics. ed. Pauw, Amy Plantinga Pauw, Serene Jones. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. 9-13. Johnson, Elizabeth. “Redeeming the Name of Christ.” Freeing Theology. ed. Catherine Mowry Lacugna. New York: Harper Collins, 1993. 115-137. Stephenson, Anna J. “Leaving Footprints in Houston.” Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World: Contributions of the Gulen Movement. ed. Hunt, Robert A., Aslandogan, Yuksel A. New Jersey: The Light Inc. and IID Press, 2006. 131-144. Unal, Ali and Alphonse Williams, compil. Advocate of Dialogue. Virginia: The Fountain, 2000. 138-140, 194,198-199, 204-207. Washington, James, M., ed. A Testament of Hope. 75th Anniversary ed. New York: Harper Collins, 1986. 197.
Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2011 2011 -> Voices of the Old Sea Norman Lewis 2011 -> Malevil Robert Merle 2011 -> The Elephant Keeper’s Children Peter Hoeg 2011 -> Jv packet •Mars Colonization Affirmative •Mars Colonization Negative 2011 -> Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) omb no. 1024-0018 2011 -> All America Looks Up to Virginia;” Virginia and the Declaration of Independence 2011 -> Rao bulletin 2011 -> Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in 2011 -> The Battle of Frenchtown (1855), Washington Territory: the Political and Demographic Context rev 9/4/11 2011 -> Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff Download 411.59 Kb. Share with your friends:
|