Gender, Theology, and Institutions
About a week ago, coinciding with the guild meeting of religion scholars taking place in Chicago (dubbed the piratic onomatopoeia AAR), there was a meet up organized around an online website called the Theology Studio. This event, as well as the later panel on a book titled Diagonal Advance has prompted a discussion of sorts concerning Gender and Theological Studies.
There have been four remarks about the even online: The first by Tony Baker (who wrote the book), the next by Brandy Daniels, then one by Mandy Rogers-Gates, and a second by Ms. Daniels. The issue became at hand in the following way, as described by Mr. Baker:
At a late stage in the conversation, a student from Duke articulated what many of us had already wordlessly observed: in a gathering of fifty or more, there were a total of six women. Coakley, with her great skill of gracious confrontation, asked why that was, and then waited for us to give an answer. The truth is none of us had any clear response. We had advertised on Twitter and Facebook, and during this past year we have tried to take a broad path toward our goal of a shared discernment of the shape of academic theology. Is it us? Or is it something deeper and systemic within the field of academic theology?
Beginning as an observation of demography, the discussion (and continued discussion) became one of ideology. All the parties involved seek ideological reasons for the absence of women from these meetups. Ms. Coakley (whom I deeply admire and respect) asked a demographic question rhetorically hoping for an ideological response as if it is simply the content discussed which keeps the gender balance so skewed. As Ms. Daniels points out in her first response, the imbalance is a common occurrence in seminaries where once you get beyond the entry level theology course, every class is much more male-centric.
Instead of naming misogyny as the issue at hand, we are left with rhetoricals the filter into ideological considerations. We are also missing the large discussion of the institutional nature of Theological Studies (where are theologians located? who pays them? why are they hired? whom do they serve?) Ms. Rogers-Gates mentions the demography of the global south, but leaves it as an allusion.
Guild meetings are not good locations for institutional discussions. You have to assume the existence of an institution in order to be a part of a guild. Of course, you can be mendacious about it all, but to be present at a gathering like this, you are going to assume the virtue and viability of said institutions. What we have left is ideological disputes that miss the point on two counts.
1) They avoid historical analysis by focussing on present content as opposed to past demography and historical transformations within said body.
2) they avoid calling anyone or anything misogynistic out of fear of being mean.
It is this send point I want to focus on. If the demography of the Theology Studio meetup was split evenly male/female, would that make anyone there less likely to talk about gender? Probably, but before getting to that, let's talk about diversity.
II
I am going to include here two long quotes from magazine Jacobin on diversity and neo-liberalism because I think they illustrate the point I am trying to make here much better than I can. The first is found in an interview with the literary theorist Walter Benn Michaels.
Multiculturalism and diversity more generally are even more effective as a legitimizing tool, because they suggest that the ultimate goal of social justice in a neoliberal economy is not that there should be less difference between the rich and the poor—indeed the rule in neoliberal economies is that the difference between the rich and the poor gets wider rather than shrinks—but that no culture should be treated invidiously and that it’s basically OK if economic differences widen as long as the increasingly successful elites come to look like the increasingly unsuccessful non-elites. So the model of social justice is not that the rich don’t make as much and the poor make more, the model of social justice is that the rich make whatever they make, but an appropriate percentage of them are minorities or women.
The next concerns a comment on the recent Supreme Court case Fisher v. The University of Texas.
Championing diversity is the good liberal’s compromise between, on the one hand, the right’s race hysteria, in which anything but blindness toward racial difference is construed as racism, and, on the other hand, actually doing something about racism via social welfare and widespread affirmative action that doesn’t apologize for itself. Fostering diversity demonstrates sensitivity toward the multiplicity of human experiences, with all the rainbows and handholding that entails. But rather than striving to eliminate the vast inequality that is a dimension of that multiplicity, the good liberal with diversity on the brain cherishes and validates deprivation. As Garre put it, “You . . . want people from different perspectives.” One might argue that diversity is just a Trojan horse—a tactical alternative to anti-racism that sneaks substantive change in via the rhetorical backdoor. If it is, then the defenders of white privilege are on to the ploy. At the Supreme Court, the horse has been slain. Mere diversity is all the law will allow.
III
One of the basic problems with the racism and misogyny of theological studies is the incredible vagueness about where the institution itself is located. Is theology ecclesial, academic, both? Is every colloquia representative?
Another basic problem is the meritocratic ideal played out in theological studies. In her first response, Ms. Daniels mentioned how the program of which she is apart has some of the highest GRE scores in the nation. This is not a moot point but points to how this discussion stays only in the clouds while gesturing continuously to the ground. Theology is a highly privileged discourse that demands a lot of time and resources that contribute as much to the makeup of the guild as the content of the discussions. The meritocracy of the top programs hide that fact. GRE scores are sacred and necessary because what else can we use? (So saith all). Because there is so much money involved and so few placements and so many interested. Because of scarcity. Because of a hundred other neo-liberal buzzwords.
Yet it continues.
IV
Ms. Coakley should have talked about outright misogyny instead of leaving the questions rhetorical. She should have done so not because Mr. Baker is a misogynist (that ontological category is nearly useless), but because theology, unlike every other academic field, has language interior to it about repentance and redemption. Thus naming a sin should not be difficult. Humility, as well, should be a part.
Mr. Baker's answer concerned advertising amongst other things. Advertising is not a theological category. Advertising, though, could answer the actual question Ms. Coakley made. Theology could answer the question of misogyny in the academy (though institutional analysis might be better at that). Unfortunately, marketing issues were not pursued and misogyny was never broached, and so the wagons of gender continue to circle and the guild continues to respawn in ways that support the status quo, reinforces power structures, and avoids the truly theological conversation of humilty, repentence, and transformation that could take place. While a lot of noble things have been said, no one has taken on culpability. No one has confessed. Thus, nothing much has happened.
