Once a label begins to mean everything, it also has begun to mean nothing. At the heart of useful, iron-sharpening-iron debate is clear definitions, leading to clarified understanding. Light is shed - borders and boundaries are seen. Conversely, at the heart of empty gibbering is noises with little distinct meaning. Words and labels that don't help to clarify and make distinctions because they are not well-defined and understood in the same way across the discussions.
I suggest that the term "feminism" has gone this way. As used in the world at large, and in the Bible-believing church, it is widely used to mean everything and nothing. It covers the whole ground in between "I am glad that God made women" to a whole militant, conspiratorial "the point of life is to crush, in every possible sphere, the omnipresent patriarchy, which is the source of all evil" worldview. It is a rallying cry for adherents (of many different things), and a bogey-word to rally on the other side (again, of many different, mutually contradictory things).
I don't say "stop using the word 'feminism'". But I do say that there's no real point in just throwing it out as part of a Tweet or slogan to either rally people for or against your cause. "What feminism has done to us is...", "The problems caused by feminism...", "Feminism has taught us that..." - these are usually the prefixes to some gross sweeping generalisation that clarifies nothing of use, some under-cooked and under-developed lazy thought that is likely just a way for the speaker to signal his tribe and rally support for it. i.e. Not faith seeking understanding, but just preaching to the choir for applause. So, if you want to use the word, then define and clarify what you mean by it. Otherwise, you will say everything and nothing: strong-sounding words though also entirely deniable ones because you actually didn't mean that when you said "feminism" or "feminist". Clarify, and say "the type of feminism which believes....", or somesuch.
Other related terms have gone or are going the same way. "Patriarchy" seems to have suffered this fate from the moment that it began to appear in academic debate around 1970. Attempts to re-appropriate it in a theological sense in recent years seem to be doing no better, as it apparently can mean anything from "our particular tribe of Internet theo-bros with all 10,000 of their specific, detailed views on absolutely everything pertaining to male-female interactions" right down to a minimal "the Bible teaches that men should take on the responsibility of leadership within households and churches". "Complementarianism" can now be either "thin" or "thick" (and the boundaries between "thick" complementarianism and patriarchy are not clear).
Again, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that there aren't people who are working hard to carefully define, debate and defend what they mean, or that these words themselves are somehow toxic. What I am saying is: beware of those who just throw out words and sweeping generalisations to signal their tribe and draw followers after themselves. It's not a useful activity; it is a harmful one. It does not indicate depth of thought and godly sincerity; it's a short-cut that superficially looks good on the outside. Proper study of God's word and the issues it raises cannot be carried out through chanting ambiguous slogans. The first question is always "and how shall we define the term being used, such-and-such...?."
No comments:
Post a Comment