The Erotic and/in the Divine January 2. 2005
I've been reading some feminist theologies lately and one of the concepts that seems to be prevalent is a redefining of what is erotic. In the Hetero-Patriarchal society in which we are immersed, social systems define erotic as something to be shunned and evil. It is the place of scank and lust. This is a direct result of the objectification inherent in a heterosexist and patriarchal paradigm. Women are objectified as sex toys designed to individualistic goals of gratification. Because of this take-over by the systemic structures of objectification feminist theologians have begun to redefine the erotic outside of this context to reclaim their place in experiencing eros. This redefinition removes all forms of objectification and examines the 'relational' nature of humanity. It speaks of mutual relationships where there is no power structure or hierarchy informing the interactions. Where each party in the community learns and grows from one another. This 'right relation' is defined as the erotic. The desire to be drawn together in right relation and mutuality and love. The theology begins when we see that God is in our desire for relation. God is 'the first love', 'the first desire', 'the first fundamental creative impulse of relation' and so we love 'other.' This redefinition moves away from the individualistic experiential trappings of most liberal and post-enlightenment conservative theologies and seeks to point to the encounter of God in (and as) the erotic.
Hmmmm, interesting... I think they're on to something
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Defining erotic as something to be shunned and evil is the same type of education as when a mother slaps her young child on the wrist if he reaches toward an open flame.
It's a useful method for children who are still at a vulnerable state, not having developed a sense of reason. But it's a pathetic method when used on thinking, reasoning beings, and does more damage than good. It's a method that is widely misused, and has contributed to the stigma of conservative Christians being "prudish", whether it really making them prudish/oppressed through the overuse of the method, or simply making them misunderstood because observers think their values are still supported by such a temporary method, when in reality they're not.
Mind if I ask what a heterosexist paradigm is?
(feel free to tell me to hush up and let other people speak more!)
It's a useful method for children who are still at a vulnerable state, not having developed a sense of reason. But it's a pathetic method when used on thinking, reasoning beings, and does more damage than good. It's a method that is widely misused, and has contributed to the stigma of conservative Christians being "prudish", whether it really making them prudish/oppressed through the overuse of the method, or simply making them misunderstood because observers think their values are still supported by such a temporary method, when in reality they're not.
Mind if I ask what a heterosexist paradigm is?
(feel free to tell me to hush up and let other people speak more!)
No need to hush... if you didn't talk, many of these issues would not get hashed out as they need to be to have a more holistic understanding. I really enjoy your informed and honest answers!
As far as the "prudishness" stigma, I think it stems from what you have in fact suggested but I would say that it doesn't get put away when people "develop a sense of reason." Many conservative Christians run on the paradigm of patriarchy. The paradigm of fatherly hierarchy and rule. The father is the moral authority that cannot be questioned or challenged. The role of the father is to protect his property and increase the amount of property he has to be able to support his (possessive) family. Things that disrupt the "rule of the father" model are deemed immoral and so things like sex without fatherly rule or that disrupt the father's control are seen as immoral. This includes things like abortion, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality (there is no patriarchal paradigm in same-sex relationships because either there is no "father" {lesbian} or there are two "fathers" who do not rule), etc. This does not mean other models would not result in the same answers or "prudishness" it merely means patriarchy is the most direct approach we have in the conservative Christian community that informs their entire way of living life and affecting change in the society in which they live. This model is what feminist theology challenges and one way they do that is by re-defining "the erotic" taking it out of the control of "the father" and reclaiming it as an expression of love and an encounter with the divine.
Heterosexist is much the same as patriarchy and has many of the same qualities but heterosexism is a normalizing of gender roles and sexual orientations with an insidious prejudice for those individuals who break the normalized model. There are many manifestations of this prejudice but most include the "destruction" of those "outliers" to the normalization because part of the ideology of the heterosexist is that outliers do not validly exist.
As far as the "prudishness" stigma, I think it stems from what you have in fact suggested but I would say that it doesn't get put away when people "develop a sense of reason." Many conservative Christians run on the paradigm of patriarchy. The paradigm of fatherly hierarchy and rule. The father is the moral authority that cannot be questioned or challenged. The role of the father is to protect his property and increase the amount of property he has to be able to support his (possessive) family. Things that disrupt the "rule of the father" model are deemed immoral and so things like sex without fatherly rule or that disrupt the father's control are seen as immoral. This includes things like abortion, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality (there is no patriarchal paradigm in same-sex relationships because either there is no "father" {lesbian} or there are two "fathers" who do not rule), etc. This does not mean other models would not result in the same answers or "prudishness" it merely means patriarchy is the most direct approach we have in the conservative Christian community that informs their entire way of living life and affecting change in the society in which they live. This model is what feminist theology challenges and one way they do that is by re-defining "the erotic" taking it out of the control of "the father" and reclaiming it as an expression of love and an encounter with the divine.
Heterosexist is much the same as patriarchy and has many of the same qualities but heterosexism is a normalizing of gender roles and sexual orientations with an insidious prejudice for those individuals who break the normalized model. There are many manifestations of this prejudice but most include the "destruction" of those "outliers" to the normalization because part of the ideology of the heterosexist is that outliers do not validly exist.
Here is a good wiki on heterosexism/heteronormativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity
Michel Foucault. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
Wayne A. Meeks. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul.
Michel Foucault. The History of Sexuality Vol. 3: The Care of the Self.
Presbyterian Church (USA). Book of Common Worship.
