GENDERING TRANSFORMATIONS

GENDERING TRANSFORMATIONS

2007

Gendering Transformations ... . , ( 4.2.1.). :

( , ) ( , ) ( , ) (, ) Gendering Transformations Conference Proceedings : (): () : : ISBN: 978-960-89758-1-1 :

(www.uoc.gr/emedia) , . Copyright

ix Introduction xix : 1 The Gender of Social Class: Theoretical and Methodological Discussion for a Feminist Sociology Ayse Durakbaa 3 2 The Reaction of the Greek Orthodox Theology to the Challenges of Feminist Theologies Spyridoula Athanasopoulou-Kypriou 10 3 M. Foucault () 19 : 4 35 5 Re-Constructing Boys and Girls in the Primary Classroom: Making 12-year-old Pupils Sensitive to Gender Symmetry Issues through a Project Eleni Daraki 46 6 (Hetero)Sexuality and Masculinities: Constructing Masculine Identities in the Context of a Single-Class Primary School Photis Politis 58 7 69 8 Private Lives and Public Roles of Syrian-Jewish Women in Mexico City: A Paradigm Paulette Kershenovich Schuster 80

vi Gendering Transformations

: 9 The Biological Body: A Gendered Childrens Tale? Christine Dtrez 89 10 Crossing B-Orders: From Georgia to Greece. Female Migration and Female Transformations Eleni Sideri 98 11 : 109 12 : (1966), , (1995), 116 13 . 126 14 135 15 152 16 165 : STATUS 16 The Position of Women in the Public Sphere in Turkey after the 1980s Nilay abuk Kaya 177 17 Womens Social Identity from an Armenian Perspective: Armenian Woman, Soviet Woman, Post-Soviet Woman Svetlana A. Aslanyan 192 18 East Wind Vs West Wind: Resistance through Buyi Womens Weaving Lihua Wang 203

vii

20 Gender in Greek Media Roy Panagiotopoulou 216 21 The Private Sphere and Gender Differentiation Laura Maratou-Alipranti 223 22 235 23 249 : 24 Gendering on down Reflections on Gender, Equality, and Politics in Ireland Ailbhe Smyth 267 25 Framing Equality: The Politics of Race, Class, Gender in the United States, Germany, and the Expanding European Union Myra Marx Ferree 283 26 Conservative Parties and the Political Decision-Making Participation of Women in Southern European Countries Antonia Ruiz Jimnez 302 27 Engendering Political Spaces: The National and the Transnational Hilary Footitt 317 28 Gender and the Law: Notes for a Conversation Philomila Tsoukala 327 29 The Role of Gender in the Legal Profession: Findings from Simulated Bargaining Games Aspasia Tsaoussi 338 30 Feminist Voices in the Law: Debating Equality, Neutrality, and Objectivity Vassiliki Petoussi 351

, 13-15 2005 (). . , , , .

, , , . , , 1. 1990, (......), (75%) (25%), , 2. , ( 4.2.1.), 2003 , . . , , , , .

: , , - . , , . , , , .

x Gendering Transformations

, , , , . , , . , . , . . , . , , , , .

, Gendering Transformations . . , Ayse Durakbaa, Mugla , , , .

- (discourse) . , , . , , , .

, Foucault. , , , . , Foucault, , .

. , -.

xi

. , , . , , , .

() , . , (discourse) . , - , .

, , ()-, , . , , . , , , , .

. , , (). , . , , . , , , .

Paulette Kershenovich Schuster . , . , . , , .

. Christine Dtrez,

xii Gendering Transformations

. , . . , Dtrez, , .

( ), . . , , , , , , . , ( ), .

( , ) (). , , : . , , , .

. , - . , , , .

, . , . Bourdieu , . , .

, , , , , , .

xiii

. , , , . , , .

. , . , , .

, . , , , . .

Status. Nilay abuk Kaya status , . , , , , . . 10-15 , ..

Svetlana A. Aslanyan , . , , . ( ) . , , - . , , , , .

Lihua Wang . , , .

xiv Gendering Transformations

, . , .

... . . , , , , , . , ..., .

- . , : . . , , .

, . , , . .

. , , . , , .

. Ailbhe Smyth , , , . - -, , . ,

xv

. .

Myra Marx Ferree ... , , .. , ... , , , . , . .., , , . . , , , .

Antonia M. Ruiz Jimnez , , . 25% , . . , 90 , .

Hilary Footitt, , .., . . , , . , , , .

. . , .., . , , .

. , , . . ,

xvi Gendering Transformations

(rational model theory). , , .

, . . , , . , , .

, , . , , . , , , , , / / . , , , .

, . . ......, . - , , , , , , . , , . . , , , . , , , ......, , (....) ,

xvii

, .

1 1983 . ..., 1988, . 2 (......) : (... ), ( ... ), (... ), (... ), (... ), (... ), (... ) ... (... ). (... / ) (... . ) (... , .....).

Introduction

Yota Papageorgiou University of Crete

This volume contains the proceedings from the conference, Gendering Transformations which took place at the University of Crete, Rethymno campus from the 12th to the 15th of May in 2005. The intention of the conference was to instigate discussion on the analysis of gender relations in the social sciences in an international forum. Thus, researchers from different countries presented issues on specific fields to inform the wider public on how gender relations are constructed.

Since the 1960s, the study of gender relations has developed as an independent field of study within the university curricula in many, and in particular, western countries. In Greece, we are not as fortunate to have gender studies departments to date. In this respect, we are lagging behind other western nations1. By the late 1990s, with the aid of the Operational Program for Education and Initial Vocational Training (E.P.E.A.E.K.), jointly funded by the E.U. and Greece at the proportion of 75% to 25% respectively, several Greek universities started to offer intramural Gender Studies Programs, both at an undergraduate and a graduate level2. Thus, within the framework of Undergraduate Programs on ssues of Gender and Equality (ction 4.2.1b), the University of Crete at Rethymno also offers an E.P.E.A.E.K. program on gender, titled Gender in Social Sciences. The program is coordinated by the Sociology Department and it is offered with the cooperation of History and Archeology Department and the Philosophical and Social Studies of the University of Crete..

Towards ameliorating the lack of gender studies, the University of Crete at Rethymno thankfully welcomed the E.P.E.A.E.K. subsidy and created a program on gender with the hope of enriching undergraduate education by introducing the gender perspective both in teaching and research. We have streamlined the program into five different activities, namely: 1. Introductory courses and seminars; 2. Laboratory assistance to support technical and research programs; 3. Continuous staff seminars on gender issues; 4. Open lectures delivered by Greek and international specialist, covering a wide range of gender issues; 5. Scientific conferences and meetings whose purpose is to compare and contrast a wide array of gender issues. These programs give us the opportunity to teach and study gender issues, and to examine its history from a female perspective and ultimately to raise consciousness of both sexes in the scientific community and the local society.

The Gendering Transformations conference is a product of the above actions, and the results are compiled in this volume with the hope that we will be able to cover important fields of gender through the presentations of colleagues, women and men from Greece and abroad. The purpose of this volume therefore aims towards the promotion of Gender Studies. Consequently, specific themes or issues are examined by various scholars to see and to learn how they are presented, promoted,

xx Gendering Transformations

handled, acted upon, and reacted to by governmental and non governmental groups and organizations. In addition, there are certain issues that are of national or regional concern and interest, such as the wearing of the headscarf by Muslim women. Such issues are also presented in order for us to observe and understand how in some regions male domination is cloaked with deeply decayed and male-created values and simultaneously pose important questions, such as what we can do to eradicate such beliefs and practices. The joint effort of the three departments of the University of Crete, while each having its own outlook on the issue of gender, attracted a number of participants on varying subjects and thereby offered a broad spectrum of themes. The ultimate purpose of the conference was to cover as many aspects of Gender issues as possible. In this volume we followed the thematic divisions of the conference, with the aim of presenting a general outline of the field. To be sure, all articles are not so streamlined as to fit the heading of a course, but they still remain within the thematic outlook of each chapter.

This volume is divided into five chapters. Chapter one, titled Theorizing Gender, is covered by three contributors. We begin with Ayse Durakbaa who concentrates on the role of women in the making of habitus of social classes in Turkish society. She also explores how feminist ethnography can provide a more accurate description of women in their multiple relationships within and outside social classes and practices. Spyridoula Athanasopoulou-Kypriou examines the discourse of feminist theology and how its liberating attitude which provokes patriarchy and sexism is received by the Greek Orthodox hierarchy. She explains that after a long period of silence, the Greek Orthodox Church suddenly became actively involved in the introduction of books on various issues of feminist theology. She suspects that the sudden interest in the feminist theology by the Orthodox clergy emanates perhaps more out of fear and suspicion for a possible forthcoming religious decline than any genuine belief in understanding the feminist cause. Finally, Kostas Kokogiannis discusses the power difference in society in regard to gender as seen through the perspective of French scholar Foucault. Kokogiannis states that Foucault advises feminists not to deal with any male power structure, but to pursue feminist issues by using their own subjective postmodern discourse. Hence, as Foucault sees it, for feminists the unit of analysis of their strategy tactics and methodology should be the woman, as she perceives and understands herself and the world around her.

Chapter two discusses Gender Identities. It starts with Anna Vidali who has conducted a very interesting study on the symbolism of doll-playing in different age groups of girls, and its subsequent effects when they grow up. In the memories of the older group, doll playing was connected with socialization into traditional male-female values, all within a strictly male traditional society. The author tells us that the values emanating from the doll-playing situation or day-dreaming for the old group are traditional, revolving around deep feelings for family and religion, while in the values formed in the modern group there is a lack of feelings, with the forwarding of superficial values, such as modeling, but also the generation of feelings of conflict and war. Eleni Daraki continues with the identity issue and states that school is an area where (hetero)sexist discourses produce, re-produce, and negotiate pupils gender subjectivities during the education procedure. As a result, within the school context, pupils will often find themselves caught in constraining and oppressive discourses of binary gender categorization. She concludes that in

xxi

order to eliminate future sex stereotypes, the government must include an anti male/female educational policy in the early formal education and allow children to think and act freely, away from a rigid male/female dichotomy. Photis Politis also examines the role of (hetero)sexuality, homophobia, and misogyny in constructing masculine identities in the context of a single-class primary school. The author found that manmade terminology greatly influenced the school boys in acquiring a distinct traditional sexist male attitude. He acknowledged that the post modern feminist critique of eliminating structured traditional male stereotypes in teaching is crucial to education. Katerina Markou ventures further and examines the recent controversy of girls wearing headscarves in French schools and its prohibition by the French government. She raises the issue in Greece (in the region of Thrace) and highlights the religious ramifications of headscarf wearing by Moslem women in Greece. She reveals that the anti-scarf wearing law in French schools is alienating French Arabs of Muslim religion. In contrast to the French situation, in Greece the regime is tolerant and allows Moslem women to freely wear the headscarf in public schools and places. She contends that the superficial indifference by the Greek government toward Muslim womens dress habits is not one of tolerance but of Greek ethnocentrism. Finally, Paulette Kershenovich Schuster examines the construction of identity of Syrian women of Jewish decent living in Mexico City. She explores how the two cultures (Jewish and Mexican) blend and create a third cultural situation in which both cultures are intertwined, thereby allowing the Jewish women to be Jewish at home and Mexican in the public sphere. She discovered that in the early generations of immigrant groups, sex roles were distinct and hierarchical, while the present generation of girls is more outspoken and demanding. However, in terms of assimilation she found that while the new generation of Jewish Mexicans are more assimilated and can identify more with Mexican values and culture, their religiosity offers a shield of ethnic protection and continuity and a strong barrier to total acculturation and assimilation.

In chapter three, Gender and Culture, Christine Dtrez explains how structured sex differences, wittingly or unwittingly, are transformed into gender differences. She uses the example of childrens encyclopedias to demonstrate how they use gender biased assumptions to explain the anatomical differences between the two sexes. Biology is used as a base to explain social gender values or differentiation. Dtrez concludes that such scientific over simplification by the authors of childrens encyclopedias not only creates, but also justifies gender hierarchy. Eleni Sideri records the attitudes of female economic migrs of the Greek Diaspora (in this case from Georgia to Greece), focusing on the values and culture-shock the migrs experience under the prism of economic globalization. She found that Greek women of the diaspora face a double burden. On one hand, in Greece they are regarded as Russian from Pontos and they are prejudiced against. On the other hand, when they return to their birthplace their reunion with their family is also uneasy. She concludes by arguing that ideologies, such as capitalism or socialism, are not responsible for this dichotomy, but the failure of social policies. Elia Vardaki examines the significance of food (i.e., its selection, preparation and consumption) in a province in Crete (Mylopotamo). She probes into gender relations as well as generational relations based on one analytical tool - food. She has found that through the process of choosing meals that are not genuinely local and traditional, younger

xxii Gendering Transformations

women create a chasm between themselves and the older women and men, but most interestingly with younger men who refuse to accept change. Theodora Adamaki provides a compelling analysis on the issue of women and violence, by viewing the themes of battering and and abuse of women in cinema. She examines two films by two Greek movie-makers to see what the sociological make up or characteristics of the battered womens values are, and secondly, to understand the social attitudes and position of such cinema activities. She concludes that the cinema is a very important communication medium which is influenced and also influences social beliefs and behavior. Yanna Athanassatou, in the same spirit as Adamaki, attempts to explain the influence of habits on the socialization of stereotypes of both sexes. She uses cinema to show that even sympathetic male violence in movies becomes internalized as reality itself. She employs Bourdieus theory of social structure to explain how such symbolism becomes reality. She applies her theory to two Greek avante guarde cinematographers, whose work attempts to deconstruct the male stereotype. Christina Konstantinidou has as a point of departure the theoretical discussion surrounding gender identities, and on the other, the theory of social constructivism on the decisive role of the Mass Media in the construction of reality. She analyzes the signifying practices on issues related to the social construction of gender identity of the newspaper magazine Epsilon (which is distributed by the Sunday edition of the Greek newspaper Eleftehrotypia). From the socio-semiotic analysis of the journal and its specific context, it appears that what dominates is a totalizing narrative or an over-determined structure that contributes to the social construction of the most conventional and conservative version of the meaning of gender identity as a natural difference. According to the author, the playful discourse of the journal, based on the commonsensical assumptions for gender differences, the meaning of femininity, etc, resorts to the most secure and global invocations and it contributes to the naturalization of gender and in essence consents to the power relations that produce gender inequality. Vana Tentokali explores how architecture should incorporate the gender perspective in the theory and practice of architectural design. She proposes the post modern deconstruction of architecture and an interdisciplinary (science and art) examination and reconstruction of architecture, which will take into account the view points and outlooks of both sexes. In the existing state of things, women have no other choice but to go along with the male viewpoint on evaluating criteria of architectural aesthetics. Finally, Maria Gasouka examines witchcraft focusing on its symbolism and roots. She argues that through the study of witchcraft, we can learn the symbolic meanings of certain rituals that create social stereotypes, in which women mostly, if not always, are ascribed negative roles; She concludes that such stereotyping prevents women from positively contributing to the production and development of society and culture.

Chapter four offers a broad discussion on Gender and Status. First, Nilay abuk-Kaya attempts to show the social status of Turkish women, using factual and statistical data, laws and ordinances. Her research spans from 1980 to the present, and it is an ambitious undertaking for she examines multiple aspects of women in public life by looking at literacy achievement, work, and political involvement. She concludes that Turkish women are more aware of gender issues, and lately are establishing their own institutions. She believes that this success was also aided by the state through the passing of important legislation in the past 10-15 years, as well

xxiii

as the instrumental role of the E.U. Svetlana A. Aslanyan continues on the issue of status, by concentrating on the position of contemporary Armenian women. Additionally, she delineates a brief historical background of the last years of Soviet rule and Soviet type of Socialism, to provide a better understanding of the context of changes. She claims that when the Soviet Union collapsed, Armenian women were found at the bottom of the social hierarchy. However, with the return to national government in the early 1990s, the Armenian government and practices in general, had as a consequence the return to traditional Armenian male domination and female diminution. Nonetheless, she proudly states that all Armenian women want equal opportunities and not government handouts; womens groups in Armenia are quite aggressive, affirmative, and successful. Lihua Wang focuses on weavers in a Chinese village. She found that the garment industry offers the lowest pay and security to women due to globalization and acculturation. She claims that at the center of this power versus exploitation struggle are cultural values. Whereas the West represents a consumer culture and ephemeral relationships, the East represents continuity and strong values. Therefore, she believes that Chinese women weavers resist this global leveling of everything based on production and consumption, continuing their traditional economic practices. Roy Panagiotopoulou examines women working in both the electronic and print media. Commencing with an overview of the deregulation of the electronic public media and the subsequent mushrooming of radio and TV stations, she examines how effective women are in securing position. She found that women are the last to obtain employment and the first to be dismissed. But the peculiar aspect of this hidden male bias is that women at all levels of the hierarchy have to conform to the male viewpoint in order to write or broadcast a certain piece of work. She concludes that women journalists, who make up almost half of the total of the Greek media workers, have not managed to develop new views concerning the representation of women by the media, which would differentiate them from their male colleagues. Laura Maratou-Alipranti sketches the changing sex roles in the household during two periods of the 19th century and the present, demonstrating how industrialization has aided in dissolving traditional work practices. The problem, in her view, is the private sector, where women still carry a double burden paid work in the public sphere, unpaid work in the private sphere. She concludes that in the labor market, women have a fair chance of equality while at home only the couple can reconcile and bridge the role differences, rendering any legal or state role impositions useless. Christina Karakioulafi examines two types of harassment in the work place - gender and psychological harassment. She outlines the regulation demands by the E.U., but she also attempts to discover the background of both the abuser and the abused. She found that the majority of the victims are newly employed women, younger, unmarried or divorced women. The author concludes that legal measures cannot fully prevent such abuses. In addition, she cites the difficulty in deciding what type of behavior constitutes harassment, and how it can be penalized. Centering on the city of Hania, Crete, Manolis Tzanakis case study focuses on the consequences arising from methods of therapy for psychiatric patients in traditional large psychiatric hospitals as well as the more streamlined therapy centers. The author argues that there is a proliferation of therapy centers that are staffed mainly by women, thereby stereotyping women into semi-professional work, while most of the

xxiv Gendering Transformations

high level positions are reserved for men. This division of labor, intentionally or not, echoes the traditional dichotomy of male/female roles.

The last chapter examines the relations between Gender and Politics. Ailbhe Smyth analyses some of the key realities, dilemmas and challenges for feminist politics in Ireland at the present time, focusing mainly on the lesbians/gay/queer politics. She claims that the new-liberal politics have diluted the traditional forms of key concepts such as gender and equality and thereby manage to defuse the combative fervor of women and turn them into reformists. Partly responsible for this sex appeasing success is the legal system which passes laws that do not promote liberation. She claims that activist womens politics can be revitalized and can stimulate women to join the revolution. Myra Marx Ferree examines the policies of gender along with other types of activities primarily in the US and Germany but also surveys the expanding E.U. of 25 members. She claims that in the US, law was built on liberal individualism; important values such as self-determination and independence were institutionalized and became part of the American psyche. Consequently, American feminists had difficulties in organizing and presenting their grievances in a clear and concerted way. In Germany and in the E.U., however, gender is generally regarded as a class, and therefore, offers women much more latitude to organize themselves along such lines. The long tradition of socialism and social democracy in Europe in general (unlike the US) has aided European women in having a more collective outlook than American women. Thus, using class as a front, European feminists have strong claims to political power and representation on the grounds of parity. Antonia M. Ruiz Jimnez conducted a longitudinal study of parliamentary female participation of four Mediterranean states (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece). She found that female participation in Spain represents over 25% of the total Spanish political representation, while the participation of the other three nations is far behind. She attributes this cleavage partly to different electoral systems and political parties. She found that Mediterranean women are gradually asserting themselves in the political sphere, and from the 1990s their participation has steadily been increasing, while the participation of Spanish women tends to lead the way. Hilary Footitt compares national European politics with the E.U. parliamentary politics in relation to the degree of womens discourse and influence. She found that at the nation-state level men are indifferent to reformulating politics, thereby incorporating the feminist viewpoint as to what is political. In the European parliament, the author found that women have been more successful and are able to raise voice politics in a uniquely female way. In addition, women are found to be more creative and receptive to various ideas, viewpoints, and language of politics than men. Philomila Tsoukala concentrates on the influence of feminist legal thought in the Greek legal system, revealing that the feminist viewpoint was not making substantial inroads. The author claims that laws were passed without prior negotiation between the two sexes. She concludes by stating that the formality of Greek law needs to be reconceptualized, taking into consideration the needs and values of the present situation of both sexes. Greek laws pertaining to education must also be broadened and gender inclusive. Finally, she believes there is a need for a dialogue on what is just, equitable, plural, and applicable to both sexes. Aspasia Tsaoussi found that a great deal of empirical research shows that male negotiators are more successful than female negotiators. The reasons given for this

xxv

asymmetry are that women are not as effective in many endeavors of negotiation as men are (be it economic, social, labor, etc.). She feels this viewpoint is sexist and is aimed at keeping women in an inferior status. Thus, she demonstrates how a rational choice model uses variables that are not gender related. She concludes that it is individual characteristics and not the gender of the negotiators that are important. Vassliki Petoussi applies a feminist perspective in order to analyze central legal principles and the ways in which they interact with gendered hierarchies. She addresses the development of feminist theory and examines how feminist scholars deconstruct legal positivism. She reveals the failure of legal objectivity and neutrality to ensure the promised gendered equality and suggests new ways of looking into legal constructs of normality. Analyzing key Greek laws, the author uncovers ambiguities and multiple interpretations, which produce and reproduce gendered social hierarchies. She concludes that feminist legal theory reveals legal biases against women and suggests new strategies of gender equality which negate prototypical normalities of mainstream legal theory.

All authors findings converge on the view that there are unequal power relationships and discrimination based on gender, sometimes covert, sometimes overt, in all areas they researched. Yet, most of them claim that there is a need for constantly exposing and attacking discrimination and thereby eliminating it, or at least reducing it. Finally, it is fair to say that all individual authors who took part in this conference and whose work is included in the present volume, certainly, shed light on gender research and contribute towards the enrichment of gender literature, each one in his/her own field. No doubt, there are many more aspects that need to be researched that go beyond the five headings of this book, but we hope that we have made a modest start.

We will close this preface by acknowledging first the authors themselves. We thank them all for their participation and their patience while this volume was compiling. This publication would not have been possible without the Operational Program for Education and Initial Vocational Training (E.P.E.A.E.K.), which financially supports the program Gender in Social Sciences. I feel honored to be chosen as the head of the interdepartmental program and to work along with my colleagues of the working group; namely Katerina Kopaka, associate professor in the department of History and Archeology, Zachary Palios, assistant professor in the department of Philosophical and Social Studies, and Vassiliki Petoussi, lecturer in the department of Sociology, whose contribution was decisive in the above conference. Also I would like to thank my secretary, Galateia Ntantalaki, who spent many hours working for the successful organization of the conference, and the graduate student from the department of Archaeology, Evita Kalogeropoulou, for her valuable help.

I would also like to thank my English and Greek editors, Agapi Amanatidou and Maria Ilvanidou, for their meticulous, tireless and artistic work. Also several good colleagues, especially Christina Konstantinidou, contributed with their valuable comments about the form of this volume. Finally, I would very much like to thank Aliki Vityma administrative officer from the central offices of Operational Program for Education and Initial Vocational Training (E.P.E.A.E.K.), Maria Petroulaki, administrative officer from the Secretariat of the Research Committee (E.L.K.E.) of the University of Crete, for their tireless and invaluable assistance throughout the

xxvi Gendering Transformations

duration of this program, and Marios Karagiannakis who offered me valuable assistance in compiling this volume.

1 In 1983, efforts were made by a group of women academics at the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki to create a womens studies department. In 1988, the senate of the same university recognized the Womens Studies Group as a Interdepartmental Research Program on Womens Studies. 2 For instance at the undergraduate level gender programs are operating at: Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, National Technical University of Athens, Panteion University, University of the Aegean , Piraeus University, University of Thessaly and Technological Educational Institute of Athens (TEI). At the graduate level 3 programs of gender studies are also operating, one at the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki and two at the University of the Aegean (Mytilene and Rhodes).

The Gender of Social Class: Theoretical and Methodological Discussion for a

Feminist Sociology

Ayse Durakbaa Mugla University, Turkey

Gendering social class formations The entrance of gender into various areas of social sciences as a concept necessitated the analysis of all social processes from a gender conscious perspective and challenged most mainstream sociological theory for being gender blind. Studies in the area of feminist history brought forth the writing of her story, of womens past experiences, and the history of the other or the suppressed as well as the social class, and racial and ethnic differences among women.

Indicators of inequality related to gender position and social class position sometimes reinforce each other as multiple effects of disadvantage and sometimes create contradictory social positions. Womens studies have shown that neither gender groups nor social class groups are homogeneous and that experiences of social class differ for men and women.

Empirical studies related to social stratification in current societies show that well-accepted definitions of social class and related assumptions have to be critically reviewed when gendered social positions are taken into account or gender as a defining dimension of social standing is considered (Crompton, 1998:96-97). Goldthorpe has tried to modify his research in defining the positioning of the household, that is, what he chooses to be the unit of analysis for stratification studies, not automatically according to the male head of household but according to the occupational standing and income of both partners within the household (as cited by Savage, 1997:310).

Women are a forgotten category in the analysis of social class. Once we start asking questions about social class from a womens point of view, we see that there is an overriding and an underlying androcentricism in most of the analytical frameworks in which social class is defined as intrinsically male and male-dominant. Womens and mens class positions are defined according to different criteria: Social class is defined according to wealth, production, market, work, and occupation for men, whereas it is usually defined as a derivative of family status for women; that is, either according to the family of origin, in which case, the fathers social class position is the determinant, or the marital family, in which it is the husbands social class position that defines the wifes.

As Delphy (1988:122) asserts, the concept of womans position does not exist as an operational category; in social class theory in general, and specifically in classical

4 Gendering Transformations

Marxist theory, women do not exist as subjects of class analysis. According to Delphy (1998:125), womens position in sociology is defined within a personal relationship in the social stratification system. In a society and a social stratification system mainly defined according to the social standing of occupations within the industrial (mainly male-dominated) relations, there is a tendency to insert women into the stratification system only through the men whom they are dependent upon. Delphy maintains that most (married) womens position to the production relations can be defined according to a different mode of production, namely the domestic mode of production, as she states. Those women who are not in paid work and not placed within an occupation also have a means of subsistence, and that is domestic labor; they are placed within a domestic mode of production not recognized by classical economics and their productive activity is not placed within the economic field (Delphy, 1998:125).

Especially in a society like Turkey, in which being a housewife is still praised, women themselves do not tend to define their income-producing activities within the household as work and place themselves as housewives rather than home-based workers (Kmbetolu, 1994:303-312). Recent research in the area of women and work in Turkey has revealed forms of womens work that are not qualified as work within the capitalist market (Hattatolu, et al. 2002:48-53). Sociological study of housework and housewives has shown that the category of housewives itself is not a homogeneous category and that there is a connection between social class experience and different categories of housewives according to the way domestic labor is carried out; those women who hire domestic service and those who do not, cannot be placed in the same category.

New questions arise with the growing proportion of women in paid work in almost all societies. The gendered structure of the labor market, sexual segregation in employment patterns, sex-typing of jobs, etc, have been topics of feminist discussion. It has also been stressed that men and women placed in the same social class according to objective occupational criteria do not benefit from the resources of their position equally (Crompton, 1998:93-94). Even when household or family is chosen as the unit of analysis, it is usually assumed that the relationship between husband and wife is a relation of equals, and therefore inequalities between the partners in relation to the control over the household income and consumption and domestic labor are not taken into account (Delphy, 1999:95-96).

Within these critical feminist perspectives, when we try to think of the gender dimension and social class together, we might position women and men from the same household in different social class positions; in quantitative studies, they might be coded in different social classes. When women are in paid work within an occupation, because it is usually the occupation that is taken as determinant of social class in most stratification studies of the empirical type, women can be placed within the system of social stratification as independent individuals. However, the class benefits of various occupations are usually different for the male and female occupants of those occupations. For example, men who work in office work are usually promoted more easily and quickly than women in this category, because they are motivated to get management positions, etc., whereas women usually end up working in positions not seeking promotion till retirement (Crompton, 1998:95).

5

In the empirical studies that deal with the subcategories of social class, we see that certain forms of work, such as secretarial work, which go through a process of deskilling, become feminized, that is, they become women populated, especially in the lower ranks, and lose status within the occupational hierarchy.

These questions have revealed the gendered nature of social class theory, as well as the genderedness of social class processes, experience and perceptions. As Delphy (1999) and others have stated (Davidoff, 2002), while mens class positions are usually defined according to objective class positions in the job market, usually in relation to occupation, womens positions are in some way linked with status factors, such as class honour defined in terms of social background, family origin, respectability, good manners, etc. When women are considered, their social positions are more likely to be defined according to these status factors which are usually rendered more important than occupational standing.

For my purposes, I would rather read these discussions from a different angle and try to incorporate the social class experience for both men and women into class analysis. This is also based on a preference for dealing with social class not as an objective position but to engage in the processes of the making of social classes by men and women. What was counted as social status factors in social theory can now be incorporated as an important aspect marking social distinction into class analysis (Davidoff, 2002); because human groups perceive and feel themselves as distinct from others in this area of lived (bodily) experience. Habitus and womens role in the making of social class Pierre Bourdieus concept of habitus is useful for such an analysis of social class. The concept of habitus brings the social-cultural dimensions of social class into the foreground. Bourdieus theory of social class is based upon the recognition of different ways of being located within and occupying social space. Social class is determined by the workings of a social geometry. From such a perspective, social groups are differentiated according to life styles and cultures of living, the way those groups perceive themselves and others, and the symbols and practices of social distinction which both map and locate them vis vis each other in social space. Bourdieu places different groups on his diagram La Distinction according to the relative significance of various forms of capital, basically the relative weight of economic and cultural capital in the total capital (Bourdieu, 1989, 1995:21).

Bourdieus emphasis on bodily practices and ones relationship to his or her body in the definition of habitus and bodily sites in peoples everyday and everynight living are helpful concepts in line with Dorothy Smiths attempt to reconstruct a sociology for women:

The sociology for women I propose begins in the actualities of womens lived experience. Its aim is to discover the social as it comes into view from an experiencing of life that is not already defined within the ruling relations. It does not only speak of women. Rather, it seeks a sociology, a method of inquiry, that extends and expands what we can discover from the local settings of our everyday-everynight living (1999:74).

6 Gendering Transformations

In a study about the notable families in the provinces of Turkey, one of our first-hand observations is the significant role of women and their activities in the making of the habitus of local notables. Locally notable families, in Ottoman history, especially after the dissolution of the tmar (fief system on state-owned land) system in the seventeenth century, became influential in the provinces as the fiefs and certain control functions were handed over to these families, while they gradually transformed into private owners of iftliks (large landholdings) and commercial business. Part of the provincial bourgeoisie today can be traced back to such provincially notable families who have benefited from their role as mediators between common people and the state. Provincial elite as a social class and women Provincial elite families, eraf, in Turkey, usually have a history that can be dated back to the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, research on these families entails both the search for traces in the past and at present. This kind of social-historical research can also highlight the social processes of the formation of a provincial bourgeoisie in Turkey.

Local notables, eraf, were an influential group in the administration of local government together with the local representatives of the central government. Traditionally, eraf families have wealth that comes from land and agricultural activities, and political influence that comes from their social status and connections with the state. During the Republican era, these families were engaged in commerce and industry, and became wealthy and influential in the provinces. When we talk about eraf today, we are talking about a social stratum that has been gradually losing its importance. These families, which can be traced back to earlier generations, are losing their social, economic and political influence in Anatolia, where new social classes with new means of accumulating wealth and sources of social respectability arise, are sometimes referred to as the nouveaux riches both by the informants and the sociologists themselves (Durakbaa, 2001; Karada, M. 2004).

Eraf is a class that boasts about its origins. Therefore, the provincial elite gives support to the writing of family histories. It is important to ask men questions we are inclined to ask women about the so-called private sphere. Feminist critical perspectives have adequately questioned the common-place treatment of the private sphere as womens and public space as mens, which has caused a distorted understanding of these domains and their interrelationship. The nature of this social class, eraf, marked with its social, cultural, and symbolic capital apart from its economic capital, necessitates a review of the interrelationship of the private, the domestic, and the familial with the public, as well as the social and the political for both men and women. What kind of a man is the man from locally notable families? What social or political networks do men and women in these families have to manage in order to sustain their superior class status in the eyes of the common people and in comparison to the other locally notable families or the nouveaux riches? What kind of networks do men from such families have among themselves? What are some marriage patterns that maintain a form of class

7

endogamy? How do they perceive themselves and define social distinction from other social classes? How is class experience different for men and women from eraf families?

Meltem Karada (1998), in her study of eraf families in Gaziantep, a southeastern province, concludes that women from such families are more sensitive to social class distinctions than men are, and often also define their own position within the marital relationship according to their status due to family origin. My own study of family history in Mara, another southeastern province, also supports this observation. Men talk about property, income, and ways of earning money and tend to be more egalitarian in life style, preferences and tastes when class is asked, while women stress such factors related to life style, consumption patterns, and manner when they are asked about social class and how eraf is different from other classes.

Eraf, do not show their wealth in a spoiled, extravagant way (zenginliini densizce sergilemez) but give generously when charity is concerned. Women from notable families are keen on differentiating themselves from the habits and manners of the nouveaux riches. In Mula, a province in the southwest, there is a saying for those wealthy people who do not give generously: Zengin olmu da odasnn kaps nereye alm? (Well, he might be wealthy, but tell me to whom has he opened his door to offer hospitality?) According to common understanding, an eraf is the local owner-patron of a region; hence he is responsible for building a guestroom for visitors and providing accommodation, and to have visitors at a large table. Certainly, it is the woman head of the household who is in full charge of the quality of hospitality and service to the guests and visitors.

A common form of labor in Turkish society entails young girls taken from poor peasant families at a young age to be brought up as servants in the eraf household. These girls are usually married when they reach the age of marriage, all marriage expenses being paid by the eraf family; some however, become life-long members of the household if they do not get married or when the married couple both become servants to the eraf family. The woman head of the household boasts about running the household, which basically entails the management of the servants, making the preparations for the winter food, arranging visits and presents for occasions, reception of guests, preparations for various ceremonial occasions, decoration of the house, etc.

The relationship between women of eraf families and their women servants can help us describe womens autonomous domain of power in such families, and the transformations in that relationship can give us clues about transformations that these families go through in class status. In Turkish society, intra-class relationships as such, in the form of patron-client relationship, are very common, and this is influential in the cultural medium in which social groups and classes interact.

Eraf is in fact a class whose economic power is declining in the face of the rising classes, and new forms of wealth are appropriated by contractors, industrialists, bankers, and tradesmen. Still, it is interesting how standards of social respectability are designed and dictated, especially by women from such families, even more emphatically as their economic resources relatively diminish.

As the research continues, I hope to expand upon such connections. It is important to note here that the nature of social theory and the social itself is transformed once we start to pose questions about the experience of men and women

8 Gendering Transformations

vis vis each other; hence, a description of the genderedness of social processes in social class formation is the first step in gendering social class theory. We can also conclude that once we think of social class from a gender perspective, our understanding of social class has to also change and we start to think of social class not solely as a position, but as cultural location in social space instead; at which point we will have to talk about its construction by men and women, and their acts and activities, economic and otherwise. References

Akgke, N. and akr, S. (2000, June). Tell Me About Your Life! Relations of Interviewer,

Interviewee and Interpreter in Womens Oral History. Thoughts on Ethics. In Crossroads of History: Experience, Memory (pp. 387-391), vol. I. IX International Oral History Conference. Istanbul: Boazii University Publications.

Bourdieu, P.(1989). Distinction: A Social Critique of Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge. (1995). Pratik Nedenler. Kesit yay. (1997). Toplumbilim Sorunlar. Kesit yay. Callaway, H. (1992). Etnography and Experience: Gender Implications in Fieldwork and

Texts. In J. Okely and H. Callaway (Eds.), Anthropology and Autobiography. London: Routledge.

Crompton, R. (1998). Class and Stratification, An Introduction to Current Debates. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Curthoys, A. (2000). Adventures of Feminism: Simone de Beauvoirs Autobiographies, Womens Liberation, and Self-Fashioning. Feminist Review, 64:3-18.

akr, S. (1995). Trkiyede Kadn Tarihi Yazmak. In Kadn Aratrmalarnda Yntem. Istandbul: Sel yay.

(1996). Kadn Aratrmalar Bilimde Neleri, Nasl Sorguluyor? In der. Kuvvet Lordolu (Ed.), nsan, Toplum, Bilim, (4. Ulusal Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi Bildirileri iinde). Ankara: Kavram yay.

Davidoff, L. (2002). Feminist Tarih Yazmnda Snf ve Cinsiyet. Istanbul: letiim yay. Delphy, C. (1998). Women in Stratification Studies. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing Feminist

Research ( pp.114-128). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (1999). Ba Dman, Patriyarkann Ekonomi Politii. Istanbul: Saf yaynlar. Durakbaa, A. (2001). Tarih Yazmnn Yeni Olanaklar, Aile Tarihi. In ve Yerel Tarih, Yerel

Tarihilik, Kent, Sivil Giriim, Yerel Tarih Gruplar Deneyimi (pp. 156-17). Istanbul: Trkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakf.

Geertz, C. (1990). Yerli Gzyle Antropolojik Anlamann Doas stne. In P. Rabinow and W. Sullivan (Eds.), Toplum Bilimlerinde Yorumcu Yaklam (pp. 45-56). Istanbul: Hrriyet Vakf Yaynlar.

Gluck, S. B. and Patai, D. (Eds.) (1991). Womens Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History. New York: Routledge.

Gray, A. (1997). Learning from Experience: Cultural Studies and Feminism. In J. McGuigan (Ed.), Cultural Methodologies (pp. 87-105). London: Sage Publications.

Harding, S. (1987). Introduction: Is there a Feminist Method? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and Methodology (pp. 1-14). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

(1993). Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is Strong Objectivity? In L. Alcoff and E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist Epistemologies (pp. 49-82). NewYork: Routledge.

(1995). Feminist yntem diye bir ey var m? In S. akr and N. Akgke, Kadn Aratrmalarnda Yntem. Istanbul: Sel yaynclk.

9

Hattatolu, D., Ik, S. N. and Erendil-Trkn, A. (2002). Bir Ev Eksenli alma Metodolojisi: Atlye almalar rneinde Bilgi, rgtlenme ve Glenme, ktisat Dergisi, Say:430; Ekim; ss. 48-53.

lyasolu, A. (1997). Kadn almalarnda Szl Tarih Yaklamnn Trkiyede Kadn Aratrmalar Alanna Getirecei Almlar zerine, ToplumBilim, K.

Karada, M. (1998). Trkiye Toplumunda bir Tabakalama Unsuru Olarak Eraf ve Antepte Eraf Aileleri. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Mimar Sinan niversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstits, yksek lisans tezi, Istanbul.

(2004). Class, Gender and Reproduction: Exploration of Change in a Turkish City. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Essex, Colchester.

Kmbetolu, B. (1994). Kadn, alma ve Evde retim. In Dnyada ve Trkiyede Gncel Sosyolojik Gelimeler (pp. 303-312). Sosyoloji Dernei: Ankara.

Mies, M. (1983). Towards a Methodology for Feminist Research. In G. Bowles and R. Duelli Klein (Eds.), Theories of Womens Studies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

(1995). Feminist Aratrmalar iin bir Metodolojiye Doru. In S. akr and N. Akgke, Kadn Aratrmalarnda Yntem/ Farkl Feminizmler Asndan (pp. 48-63). Istanbul: Sel Yaynclk.

Morgan, D. (1988). Men, Masculinity and the Process of Sociological Enquiry. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Murdock, G. (1997). Thin Descriptions: Questions of Method in Cultural Analysis. In J. McGuigan (Ed.), Cultural Methodologies (pp. 178-192). London: Sage Publications.

Oakley, A. (1988). Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing Feminist Research (pp. 30-61). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Porter, M. (1995). Second-hand Ethnography: Some Problems in Analyzing a Feminist Project, In A. Bryman and R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing Qualitative Data (pp. 67-88). London: Routledge.

Roberts, H. (Ed.). (1998). Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Savage, M. (1997). Social Mobility and the Survey Method: A Critical Analysis. In D.

Bertaux and P. Thompson (Eds.), Pathways to Social Class: A Qualitative Approach to Social Mobility (pp. 299-326). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Smith, D. (1999). Writing the Social: Critique, Theory and Investigations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Stanley, L. and Wise, S. (1979). Feminist Research, Feminist Consciousness and Experiences of Sexism. Womens Studies International Quarterly 2(3):359-79.

Tekeli, . (1992). Bilimlerde Metodolojinin Kadn Bak Asndan rdelenmesi. In Necla Arat (Ed.), Trkiyede Kadn Olgusu (pp. 29-50). Istanbul: Say yay.

Wolf, D. L. (1996). Situating Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. In D. L. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork (pp. 1-55). Colorado: Westview Press/ Harper Collins.

The Reaction of Greek Orthodox Theology to the Challenges of Feminist

Theologies

Spyridoula Athanasopoulou-Kypriou University of Athens

Introduction With the term feminist theology I do not refer to the fact that there are certain women who theologize, since there have been a number of women who have done theology without challenging the inequality, the injustice, and the patriarchal hierarchies of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Neither can feminist theology be identified with a kind of theology that deals with stereotypical womens issues (issues related to mothering, the family, and childcare) or with the holiness and purity of the figure of the Virgin Mary.

Christian feminist theology developed out of the conviction that Christian thought and practice radically exclude womens experience. Although in the early years of the womens movement (and to some extent nowadays) it has been common place to reject all mainstream religious traditions as inherently patriarchal (Lelwica, 1998), a small number of women, notably Mary Daly and Rosemary Radford Ruether in the United States, and Kari Brresen and Elisabeth Gssmann in Europe, began to challenge their churches to be more inclusive. This reform movement was strongly influenced by the liberation theology that emerged in Latin America. Feminists drew on liberation theologys conviction that Christianity necessitates political involvement and work for the oppressed groups in which women form a major part (Parsons, 2002; Ruether, 1985).

As feminist theologians began to write womens experience back into theology, the diverse nature of that experience became apparent. Feminist theology is a technical term that refers to a number of theologies, that is, a number of theological approaches that challenge patriarchy and sexism and struggle for equality, inclusivity and justice within the Christian churches. For feminist theologians, religion is a term that refers to beliefs and practices through which people express their understanding of divine powers or of the spiritual dimension of human existence. Religion is not only about God; it is also about human beings. In the western world where the dominant religion is Christianity, there is an emphasis on a belief in a single, transcendent, masculine divine being. This divine being is the creator of the universe, and people are made in his image.

Something is missing, though, from that religious idea, namely the feminine. The Christian imagery is masculine. Men can aspire to that symbolic system, but women are left out. What is more, not only is God associated with the masculine gender, but

11

also whatever is associated with woman and the feminine is devalued, marginalized, and demonised and is considered inferior. The devaluation of woman does not reflect the situation of all women, for there are some women who share some male privileges. For feminist theologians, there are tension and conflict between an understanding of the ideal Woman and the experiences, practices, and situation of real women, that is, between Woman as symbol and women as agents who can make a difference in the understanding of woman. Sered (1999:193-221) makes the distinction between the image of the ideal Woman that shapes the lives of women and men and can be oppressive, and the real women who are agents that can transform the image of Woman. In Christianity, the image of the ideal Woman is associated with the Virgin Mary. There is, of course, the image of Woman that is associated with Eve but that is the image of Bad Woman because she was not obedient, thereby causing the Fall of humankind. Focusing on the image of Woman as represented by the Virgin Mary, we can point out that she stands for, in other words, that she is a symbol of motherhood, family values, anti-abortion, obedience, virginity, and purity. This is the image of the ideal Woman that is imposed on real women. If women are not in line with that image, then they are considered impious and bad.

The question that can be raised is whether women can escape from that religious symbolic system and rewrite it. If women have access to social resources and are financially independent, then they can exercise their agency and transform the cultural symbols, whether they are religious or secular. The way that women can re-write and change the religious symbolic system depends upon the understanding of the problem. More analytically, there are three strategies of change that correspond to three understandings of the problem and form the three mainstreams of what is called feminist theology.

According to the first mainstream of feminist theology, which is the most radical, the religious tradition is not only irredeemably patriarchal but is actually responsible for the sustenance of secular patriarchy. The strategy of change is to create and find new symbols and new religions which engender a more positive spirituality for women (cf. Christ and Plaskow, 1979; Daly, 1973; 1979; Hampson, 1990, 1996). An example of feminist spirituality is the emergence of the Goddess spirituality (cf. Christ, 1998; Goldenberg, 1979; Raphael, 1999). For the second mainstream, which can be called feminist, the problem of women is deeply rooted in the symbols of the religious tradition, and thus the contemporary feminist agenda should be the creation of new women-oriented rituals and symbolic interpretations. For example, instead of speaking of God the Father, we can change the model and speak of God the Friend. In other words, the strategy of change is not to abandon traditional religion altogether, but to re-interpret the religious tradition in the light of todays aspiration (Jantzen, 1998; McFague, 1982).

In terms of the third mainstream of feminist theology, the original message of the religions founder is seen as liberating for women, and thus the contemporary feminist agenda should be to strip away the historically subsequent layers of gender discrimination. The third strategy is to reform the religious tradition so that the original liberatory and egalitarian ethos can be re-established (Plaskow, 1990; Ruether, 1985; Schssler, 1984).

12 Gendering Transformations

The aforementioned strategies of change of the religious tradition (and particularly of the Judeo-Christian tradition) constitute the challenge of feminist theology and open new horizons for theological discourse. After almost twenty years delay, the challenges of feminist theology attracted the attention of certain Greek Orthodox theologians. Had it not been for the problem of the ordination of women in some Christian denominations, and especially in the Anglican Church that became an obstacle to the interdenominational dialogue, the Orthodox Church would not have taken feminist theologys aspirations seriously (Adamziloglou, 1997; Karkala-Zorba, 2004:225). A number of publications on the role of women in the Orthodox Church appeared on the shelves of bookstores and a few conferences on the same subject were organized in Greece under the auspices of the Orthodox Church, giving the impression that eventually feminist theology was being introduced to Greek Orthodox theological discourse.

On this occasion, I would like to map out briefly the reaction of the Greek Orthodox theological discourse to the challenges of feminist theology. The question is: How do Greek Orthodox theologians respond to the strategies of changing the Christian tradition? First, the attitude towards the radical strategy of abandoning the Christian tradition as being irredeemably patriarchal and oppressive for women is negative. In Greek Orthodox theological discourse, there are no radical feminists who argue against the Orthodox tradition and for new spiritualities. There are, of course, women who are suspicious of anyone, especially one who professes to be feminist, who takes religion seriously. How could a real feminist care about such things? the unstated question seems to be, as if religion belongs only to another era of Western history, a period prior to womens relative emancipation, as if religion is so unequivocally bad for women that studying it (or, God forbid, practicing it) threatens ones integrity as a feminist (Lelwica, 1998). This scepticism of feminist interest in spiritual matters is not confined to traditional religion. Although non-religious feminists believe that traditional religious discourse and practice are dangerous for women because they are inherently patriarchal, they also criticize the feminist turn to alternative spiritual practices, which, they argue, not only re-inscribe an oppressive Western association between women and irrationality, but also involve a kind of thought control and undermine material struggles to change the patriarchal conditions of this world. So there are feminists who reject any interest in Orthodox Christian spirituality without arguing for new ways of understanding the divine. This does not mean that there are no women who need a different spirituality. It means that they are invisible, that their voices cannot be heard in academic, public or church related circles.

Similarly, the attitude towards the so called feminist strategy of changing the Christian tradition is negative. For feminist theologians of the West, the feminization of religious symbolic is a sine qua non for womens becoming divine. The masculinist religious symbolic is considered a projection of a totally patriarchal society that has taken the divine away from women. Therefore, if women want to have a horizon so as to become divine, the masculinist language when speaking of Christian God has to be reconsidered and changed into a feminist form. How could, then, one object to this argument? If God belongs to peoples nature and is a human projection, if God is an ideal of wholeness to which we aspire, it is absolutely legitimate to create God and religious symbols, in this case religious language, in

13

our own image. The masculine religious language must be disrupted; the white male God must make space for a black, female, infantile, and disabled religious symbolic. Otherwise we (women, black people, children, and disabled people) would lack a point of reference indispensable for our becoming divine or rather really human.

If God is just a human projection, then symbols do not refer to a transcendent divinity; symbols are themselves the reality to which people aspire. By denying the referential function of symbols, one can alter the symbols in order to meet their special needs. In order to remain an effective horizon, symbols are subject to constant changes. It is thus the construction and reconstruction of religious symbolic the condition of peoples having a point of orientation or a divine horizon.

But what happens if God is not a human projection? What happens if God is, or if I may venture to use the expression, exists as a transcendent reality? What if God is ontologically different from our nature as the Christian tradition as expressed in the seven ecumenical councils of the church and in the writings of the Fathers of the Church has claimed? In terms of this tradition, the change of religious language is not a condition of womens becoming divine, for peoples divinization does not depend upon the symbolic system we use. According to this tradition, the masculinist religious language does not mean that God is male, for the image of God as predominantly male is fundamentally idolatrous. God is genderless, for God is incomprehensible and beyond all cosmic distinctions and dichotomies. Taking into account that God is beyond the male and the female sex, women can use the masculinist religious symbolic as a horizon for their becoming divine. In fact, women can use the masculinist symbolic so far as they manage to negate it, go beyond it, and refer to the transcendent reality of the Divinity. Nevertheless, for Eastern Orthodox theologians not all symbols can be negated. Hopko (1992:158) argues that although in the Orthodox tradition Gods nature can be referred to with all possible names and images, the proper names of Father, Son, and Spirit cannot change because they are not subject to apophatic qualification, and they are never transcended or negated as are all the metaphysical properties and metaphysical images attributed to Gods essence. Therefore, changing certain Christian symbols and the religious language or using inclusive language when speaking of the divine is unacceptable from an Orthodox point of view in so far as it offends and violates what is believed to be divine revelation. God revealed Himself as God the Father. The Holy Trinity is revealed as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. People cannot change that and speak say of God the Friend, as if the idea of God were a human construction. According to the Orthodox Church, people are made in the image and likeness of God and not vice versa. Thus, the Orthodox cannot proceed with the feminization of the religious symbols and cannot change the understanding of the divine that considers God to be God the Father.

There are also many lay and ordained Greek Orthodox theologians who claim that the main criteria for orthodoxy can be found in the Orthodox tradition of the past and not in contemporary discourse on human rights, social justice, and equality. These theologians raise their eyebrows and express their suspicion about the intentions and honesty of women who want to become priests. They ask: Why would women want to be ordained since they can do other things in the life of the church? Maybe, they continue, all women want is to participate in the power that is reserved for men (Yangazoglou, 2004:269-271; Zizioulas, 2001:102-103). I agree,

14 Gendering Transformations

maybe that is all women want, but then why does nobody challenge the honesty of the men who become priests, and why is it a problem if power and decision making are equally shared between men and women? Or are men better qualified to be administrators of this power? If this is the case then maybe men are more in the image and likeness of God and thus better qualified to be saved in which case it is pointless to baptize women and pretend they are equal members of the body of Christ. I think that the Orthodox theologians are faced with a problem concerning the ordination of women. Although an Orthodox theological conference that was held in Rhodes in 1988 was dedicated to proving that the ordination of women is precarious (Limouris, 1994), and despite the effort made to prove that the ordination of women is theologically unacceptable, it has become apparent that there are no theological reasons for not accepting women into priesthood (Behr-Sizel and Ware; 2000 Yocarinis, 1995). Only by appealing to the authority of tradition can one oppose womens ordination. Yet, tradition can change by virtue of the Holy Spirits presence within it. So now the thing left to those who are against the feminist strategy of changing the tradition is to accuse women of being arrogant, vain, pretentious, and egoistic because they struggle for equal rights. Having run out of arguments, some theologians regress to the discussion of womens immorality.

Admittedly, there are quite a few, mainly lay and male, Greek Orthodox theologians who have a very positive attitude towards the third strategy of change, and aim at the reformation of the tradition in order to re-establish the original egalitarian ethos of Christianity. They are also for the ordination of women and try to focus on the liberating aspects of the Orthodox tradition and the egalitarian ethos of the teachings of the Church Fathers. According to these theologians, the Bible has been used as a weapon against women, but at the same time it has been a resource for courage and hope. The Bible and tradition were written by human authors, namely male authors who perpetuated patriarchy and tried to legitimate womens subordination. The biblical religion, therefore, has to be reclaimed as the heritage of women, too, because the Bible has inspired and continues to inspire women to speak out and struggle against injustice, exploitation, and subordination. For them, the Orthodox tradition is a living tradition that needs to be transformed in order to include the past, present, and future experiences of women (Matsoukas, 2001; Petrou, 2001; Yocarinis, 1995).

There are also a number of theologians who belong to this reformist group of theologians but who adopt a more apologetic attitude towards the aspirations of feminist theology. Although they admit that feminist theology has contributed enormously to the Christian theological discourse, they argue that the Orthodox tradition does not need feminist theologys arguments and aspirations for they are essentially part of this tradition. In fact, they claim, that it is the Orthodox tradition that has a lot to offer to feminist cause (Karkala-Zorba, 2004:241). For example, Karrass (2002) Orthodox feminist approach combines radical feminisms rejection of the entire social order with an eschatological focus that recognizes that human will and action alone are incapable of transforming the human community into one based on the loving, relational, non-egoistic model of the Trinity. She argues that the most visible feminist theologians have not postulated a future humanity that would exist ontologically in a different manner from the present, and many have been explicitly agnostic on the issue of personal immortality. Thus, for Karras, feminist

15

eschatology has focused on the reformation of human social and political structures, what she calls a surface approach. Eastern Orthodox Christianity, by contrast, recognizes the eschaton as a fundamental change in the manner of created existence, including human existence. She then argues that the main Greek tradition contends that the physical and biological nature of the human person will be radically transformed, to the abolition of sexual differentiation:

Yet, the essence of eschatological humanity already exists; people are microcosms created in the image of God. Thus, the fulfilment of creations (and humanitys) potential exists not at the level of creation but in creations uniting itself ever more organically to God, through humanitys unique role of mediator (ibid.:256-257). Karrass feminist eschatology is based on a circular, Eastern Orthodox model of

doing theology: start with God, move to creation and then bring creation (including humanity) back to God. Nevertheless, she fails both to explain the inferior position of women in the Greek Orthodox Church and to show the way that the abstract Orthodox model of practicing theology will bring about social change and will guarantee social justice that will not be based on the potential personal transformation of men, that is to say, on their good will.

Finally, I reserve a few remarks on the anti-feminist backlash and the pro-family feminism of some Greek Orthodox theologians. Greek backlash literature contains variants of all the following themes: that women are no longer discriminated against; that women exaggerate(d) the extent of such discrimination; that feminism has not represented the interests of Greek Orthodox women; that feminism and feminist theologies ignore the social and personal importance of the family, including women; that feminism is responsible for the moral disintegration of women, and that feminists inaccurately portray discrimination against women as a male conspiracy. It also argues that family is not a social but a natural unit, in the same way as the different role women have in the church is based on the different biology of women.

It seems that the basic argument of many theologians is that women have a role to play that is different from the role that men play because of the sexual differences that are God-given. While womens role, which is linked to their physiology and their natural passivity, is to care for the family, mens role is in the public sphere, for they are more rational, more courageous, they are physically stronger and naturally better qualified to be more productive (cf. Limouris, 1994; Zizioulas, 2001). This argument has can only be supported by invoking biologism for the formation of gender identities. This argument ignores much of the evidence that shows how social processes make men and women. Additionally this argument manipulates the theological argument that people are different and they have different qualities and God-given gifts, for it focuses only on the culturally defined differences between the sexes and completely ignores the differences between persons of the same sex .

While in Western Christian denominations and churches this anti-feminist backlash is a reaction to the problems of liberalism and represents an attack on the core beliefs and politics of the womens liberation movement, in Greece the situation is different. The Greek anti-feminist backlash is more of an anti-feminist discourse that wants to prevent the development of a liberating discourse and thus

16 Gendering Transformations

the liberation of women and the equality of people, and less of a real backlash, that is, of a reaction to an existing and flourishing liberation movement and equality discourse. Without having established a feminist theological discourse first, one cannot speak of an anti-feminist backlash. In Greece in the past two decades, feminist theological discourse was not established and institutionalized in the academia. No wonder, then, that the courses on gender issues that have appeared very recently in the departments of theology serve apologetic purposes, that is to say, that their aim is not to establish feminist theological thought in the Greek Orthodox theological discourse. Rather, their objective is to respond effectively to the challenges of feminism and feminist theologies, thus developing an anti-feminist theological discourse before even the formation of a feminist one. In this respect, I think that we need to examine to what extent dealing with gender and issues of equality or introducing courses that have in their title the words women or gender is tantamount to promoting equality and social justice, and to check whether the contemporary Greek Orthodox theological discourse reinforces gendered social norms and hierarchies that systematically exclude women.

Finally, if one looks at the statistics, one realizes that we are far from having achieved equality and social justice. Women do study theology in departments of theology that are state-funded and are appointed to teaching positions in religious education at state-run schools. However, schools that are run by the church neither admit female students nor appoint female theologians to teach religious education. Moreover, in the Greek Orthodox Church women cannot be ordained, their role in the life of church is limited to auxiliary positions, and only 11% of the academic staff of the four theological departments in Greece are women (Koukoura, 2000:75, 2001:196-7; Youltsis, 1999).

In this paper, I hope I have explained in what sense the Orthodox Churchs interest in feminist theologys arguments and aspirations does not necessarily mean that this church accepts feminist theory or that the Orthodox clergymen and the lay theologians have turned into feminists of any kind. The reception of feminist theology in Greek Orthodox theological discourse is an issue that needs to be discussed thoroughly not only from within the theological circles but also from without, developing and using a meta-language capable of discerning the political and ethical intentions and objectives of those interested in feminist theology. To put it differently, it would be interesting to examine, sociologically and philosophically, the political implications of the way that feminist theory and feminist theology were introduced to Greek Orthodox theological discourse, a discourse that in Greece is the main and most influential religious discourse and plays a significant role in the formation of the gendered self identity.

To conclude, I would like to state the obvious: When studying gender-related issues in the social context of Greece, one has to take religion and in particular Orthodox Christianity seriously. For religious teachings play a crucial role in the formation of gendered self-identity and is often responsible for promoting inequality and social injustice.

17

References

Adamtziloglou, E. (1997). Einai dinati i feministi theologia stin Ellinorthodoxi paradosi. In eisan de ekei gynaikes pollai... Vivlikes kai theologikes meletes gia ti gynaika, Paremvasis sti sinchroni feministiki theologia. Simbo: Thessaloniki.

Behr-Sizel, E. and Ware, K. (2000). The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church. Geneva: WCC Publications.

Christ, C. P. and Plaskow, J. (Eds.). (1979). Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion. San Fransisco: Harper & Row.

Christ, C. P. (1998). Rebirth of the Goddess: Finding Meaning in Feminist Spirituality. New York and London: Routledge.

Daly, M. (1973). Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Womens Liberation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Goldenberg, N. (1979). The Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Hampson, D. (1990). Theology and Feminism. Oxford: Blackwell. (1996). After Christianity. London: SCM. Hopko, T. (1992). Apophatic Theology and the Naming of God in Eastern Orthodox

Tradition. In F. Alvin and Kimel, Jr. (Eds.), Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Jantzen, G. (1998). Becoming Divine: Towards a Feminist Philosophy of Religion. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Karkala-Zorba, K. (2000). I gynaikes se igetikes theseis tis theologikis ekpaidefsis. Epistimoniki Epetirida Theologikis Scholis Aristoteliou Panepistimiou Thessalonikis, Tmima Theologias, 10:73-82.

(2004). Yparchi choros stin Orthodoxia gia mia feministiki theologia. In P. Kalatzidis and . Ntonos (Eds.), Fylo kai thriskeia: I thesi tis gynaikas stin ekklisia. Iera Mitropolis Dimitriados, Akadimia Theologikon Spoudon. Athens: Indiktos.

Karras, V. A. (2002). Eschatology. In S. F. Parson (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology (pp. 243-260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koukoura, D. (2001). I thesi tis gynaikas stin Orthodoxi Ekklisia kai sti theologia. Epistimoniki Epetirida Theologikis Scholis Aristoteliou Panepistimiou Thessalonikis, Tmima Theologias, 11:191-198.

Lelwica, M. (1998). From superstition to enlightenment to the race for pure consciousness: Antireligious currents in popular and academic discourse. Journal of Feminist Studies 14(1):108-123.

Limouris, G. (Ed.). (1994). I thesi tis gynaikas en ti Orthodoxo Ekklisia kai ta peri chirotonias ton gynaikon. Diorthodoxon Theologikon Synedrion, Rodos (30/10 - 7/11/1988). Katerini: Tertios.

Matsoukas, N. (2001). I Eva tis theologias kai i gynaika tis istorias. In Mistirion epi ton ieros kekimimenon kai alla meletimata (pp. 271-288). Thessaloniki.

McFague, S. (1982). Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language. London: SCM Press.

Parson, S. F. (Ed.). (2002). The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Petrou, I. (2001). Fylo, koinoniki roli, Orthodoxia sti synchroni elliniki pragmatikotita. Epistimoniki Epetirida Theologikis Scholis Aristoteliou Panepistimiou Thessalonikis, Tmima Theologias, 11:253-263.

Plaskow, J. (1990). Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

Raphael, M. (1999). Introducing Thealogy: Discourse on the Goddess. Sheffield Academic Press.

18 Gendering Transformations

Ruether, R. R. (1985). Sexism and God-Talk: Towards a Feminist Theology. Boston, MA.: Beacon Press.

Schssler, F. E. (1984). Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Sered, S. S. (1999). Woman as Symbol and Women as Agents. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber and B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning Gender (pp. 193-221). London: Sage.

Yagazoglou, S. (2004). Feministiki theologia kai Ierosini ton gynaikon: Mia ekkosmikevmeni Ekklisiologia. In Iera Mitropolis Dimitriados, Akadimia Theologikon Spoudon, Fylo kai thriskeia: I thesi tis gynaikas stin ekklisia. Athens: Indiktos.

Yocarinis, K. (1995). I ierosini ton gynaikon sto plaisio tis oikoumenikis kinisis. Katerini: Epektasi.

Youltis, V. (1999). Gynaikes theologi stin ekpedefsi. Epistimoniki Epetirida Theologikis Scholis Aristoteliou Panepistimiou Thessalonikis, Tmima Theologias, 9:67-82.

Zizioulas, J. R. (2001). Martiria kai diakonia tis orthodoxis gynaikas mesa stin Enomeni Evropi: Propothesis kai dynatotites. In . Haramantidis, Arhim. (Ed.), I Orthodoxi gynaika stin Enomeni Evropi: Praktika Diorthodoxou Evropakou Synedriou. Iera Mitropolis Thivon kai Livadias. Katerini: Epektasi.

M. Foucault

()

, : , (Bell, 1975:8). , , , . , . , .

Michel Foucault, ( ), - - . , : , , , , , , ... , , (, 1989)1.

Jana Sawicki (1994), Foucault , . ( ) . , , , .

20 Gendering Transformations

, , , , - ( ). , (Nicholson, 1990:4-5).

, , Foucault , Foucault . , , , Ramazanoglu Holland (2002:57), , , . , , , . , . , , (Ramazanoglu Holland, 2002:58). M. Foucault , Foucault , . , Foucault . , , , , , .

Foucault , , . , 20 . 19 . ,

21

F. Nietzsche S. Kierkegaard , K. Marx W. Dilthey (Windelband, 1991:196-197)2. , . , - (.., 217). , , ( ) , , , (Shoemaker, 1970:176).

, Nietzsche, , , , , , , , , , ( ) (Encyclopedie de la Pleiade, 1982:88-89), Foucault3. , , , , (Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Sartre) (, 1964:206-220)4. , Husserl, ( ) , , Foucault (.., 202-203, 223)5.

, , , Foucault, ( ) (Hawke