Some notes and comments on Elizabeth Cady Stanton's "Introduction" to The Woman's Bible - and beyond.



I'd like to make a couple of comments for sake of clarification.  Not all feminists think alike.  There are differences of opinion and theoretical outlook among feminist theorists, just as there are differences in theoretical outlook, concentration, and focus in any area of human inquiry.  To make blanket statements and claims about "all scientists," "all men," "all women," "all Catholics," "all Protestants," or all of any group is both misleading and creates unnecessary contention among people who otherwise would be able to engage in fruitful discussion about the issues at hand.  Careful generalizations are often justified, but we must be careful to recognize generalizations for what they are.

E.C. Stanton makes the claim that women have been subordinated throughout history, and that there are elements of the Bible that are clearly, in her view, guilty of adding to, or even perhaps causing and contributing to, continued belief in the inferiority of women.  She mentions specifically in the "Introduction" and the first chapter the elements of Genesis to which one may look for incompatible stories regarding the fall of mankind, the origin of humanity, and claims of dominion with respect to those accounts of creation.

She and a co-author refer to the Elohistic and Iaohistic versions of the story of creation.  In one, mankind (both man and woman) are claimed to have been created at the same time, equal with each other.  In the other, Eve (woman) is claimed to have been created from the rib of  man (Adam) and to have been created as a "helpmate" and servant.  Stanton and her co-author disagree with the latter interpretation, claiming, for example, that if we are to argue that woman is inferior to man because she was created AFTER man, then by the same reasoning, we ought to claim that man is inferior to the other beasts because man was created after them. The point is consistency of interpretation and argumentation - and for her part, Stanton is convinced that the reasoning of those who claim that the Bible ought to stand as a testament to the inferiority of women is terribly bad and its supporters sadly mistaken.

My point in requiring this particular section of this work (The Woman's Bible) is to introduce to all of you something generally missing in philosophy and generally missing often in philosophy of religion in particular: women and their commentary.  That, in itself, I think, is at least some indication that there is silent (and sometimes not so silent) acknowledgement in both a subject-matter and in society on the whole that in some way, women are incapable of, or are inappropriate for, commenting on or in any way adding to the stock of knowledge, opinion, or the growth of ideas on matters of religion, knowledge, or society in particular.

Many people are fond of pointing out that we are doing better than this in our own time in our own culture.  But also notice some unsettling facts.  For the most part, Americans knew very little about the plight and condition of women in Afghanistan, the way in which they were subordinated, sometimes beaten simply for a part of their body being exposed accidentally in public, and some of them were publicly executed for the commission of "moral crimes."  It was only after September 11, 2001 that the American public became aware of, shaken by, disgusted by, and called to action against, the horrible treatment of women in that country.  Simply to point out that we are now "doing better than that" is to miss the point.  What are the underlying causes of assumptions and beliefs that can lead people to believe that there is a significant portion of the human population that is not to be taken seriously, that is to be subjected to inhumane conditions, that is to be disrespected and disregarded?  Perhaps if we look into the underlying causes of things, we can do something to ensure that they don't happen again - not here, not anywhere.

If we put our heads in the sand, ignore inequalities and unfairness, explain away injustices as something "peculiar" or "irregular" and try to believe that this is solely the case, that injustices are only the exception and never the norm, and that it's not really a great concern, we perhaps set the stage for those inequalities, injustices and unfair practices to continue, to grow, and to eat away at the internal structure of a society from the inside, like an insidious disease killing an organism from the inside out.

American philosophy in general and American philosophers doing American philosophy in particular are not usually the type to sit idly by and watch injustice occur and do nothing about it.  American philosophy is characterized at least by the spirit of individualism and reform, but there is also a steadfast optimism, a belief that things can be made right if we will but try, if we will but put our individual and collective strength, power, and abilities together and get it done.  You will see, in fact, a spirit of individualism, a celebration of the individual human being, that human being's powers and potential, in the works yet to come.  When you read Emerson and James, when you read Stanton again, when you consider the works of Nozick and Rawls, of Thoreau and Peirce, you are witnessing the history of American philosophy in its fulness, in its righful place in the history of humankind in which progress, goodness, faith, and an undying  belief in the ability of humanity to achieve greatness are able to flourish.

American philosophy is more than a matter of thinking.  It is thinking and doing.  American philosophy is more than considering - it is understanding and being.  It is yet more than being.  It is becoming, and realizing that becoming is the unfolding of human potential toward greatness.  American philosophy is optimism.  American philosophy is ours, and we are charged with continuing, between ourselves and with others, the great conversation that is philosophical inquiry.