Archives: Articles

Feminists have entered a productive period in which constructive attempts at post-patriarchal theories of relations are being formulated and imaged in light of women’s experience and ideas. The thesis of this essay is that a promising feminist theory of relations may be based upon the organic philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. The basis of this thesis is that there is complementarity between Whiteheadian philosophy and feminist thought from which may emerge a theory of relations adequate to promote a radical reconstruction of ecological and human relations. Whitehead’s doctrine of internal relations supports and advances women’s new visions of inter-relationships. Suggesting the potential for a Whiteheadian feminist theory of relations, however, involves both positive and negative evaluation of process philosophy from the perspective of feminist thought and women’s experience. Hierarchical features of Whitehead’ s philosophy should be modified in response to feminist concerns.

Constructive feminist energies have recently been directed toward imaging feminist theories of relations. From Mary Daly’s proposal of "Be-Friending" in Pure Lust to Janice Raymond’s construction of a feminist philosophy of female friendship in A Passion for Friends, feminist theorists have created -- and remembered -- relational worldviews which reflect the importance of sisterhood as a paradigm for interconnectedness. For other feminists, critical analysis of patriarchal modes of relating and experience of sisterhood as an alternate mode of relating have led to confrontation of hierarchical structures of relations. Women have chosen to address the heterorelational problematic directly by suggesting a reconstruction of female-male relationship (see, for example, Margaret Farley’s Personal Commitments). Reflecting beyond humanocentric relationships, women are equally concerned with women’s bond with nature. The centrality of the issue of the connection of humans and nature is pervasive, but it is especially evident in ecofeminism, a vital movement among women for environmental justice (including such practical theorists as Charlene Spretnak, author of The Spiritual Dimension of Green Politics).

A general interest among women in the construction of a feminist theory of relations, however, does not reflect a consensus. Instead, it reflects the diversity of women’s perspectives apparent in all areas of feminism. Especially with respect to the topic of relationality, diversity of images and ideas should not only be expected, but encouraged as a contribution to the multiversity. Radical change in the dominant patriarchal pattern of relationships may require the suggestion of a multiplicity of alternatives to male-defined hierarchy. A variety of concrete options will be necessary for opening the way to real, novel possibilities in human relating.

I propose that the philosophy of organism constructed by Alfred North Whitehead may provide a basis for a feminist theory of relations. An over-arching reason for experimenting with process philosophy as a contribution to feminist construction of a new view of relations is that it provides a cosmology radically different from dominant mechanistic and patriarchal world views. I suggest that it is inadequate to work, however critically, within the dominant worldview. A change in worldview will more adequately take account of and emerge from feminist concerns. In addition, a new worldview will be necessary to effect the radical changes required by feminism. While process philosophy is not a prefabricated feminist theory of relations, it provides a worldview which is compatible with feminist perspectives in several respects, and the complementarity of feminism and process philosophy suggests the fruitfulness of Whiteheadian metaphors for feminist theory.

When feminists have spoken personally about the relevance of Whitehead’s philosophy to womens’ experience, their reasons for relating process thought to feminism have been grounded in conceptual and experiential intuitions. Penelope Washbourn experienced process thought as an encouragement for her feminist questing:

Marjorie Suchocki discovered an experiential identification with Whitehead’s philosophy. Whitehead was a philosopher who seemed to have experienced the world in much the same way that Suchocki had, and his perception of the nature and dynamics of the world was expressed in a comprehensive metaphysics which seemed meaningful to Suchocki in light of her experience. In a personal sense, Suchocki subjected Whitehead’s philosophy to the criterion of fitness to women’s experience and concluded, "I came to it not as an interesting speculative system, though it is surely that, but from my need to understand my world in holistic terms through a conceptuality which fits my experience" (OM 62-63).

Valerie Salving found in process thought a conceptual framework for her emerging feminism. Following the awakening of her feminist consciousness, Salving found that process philosophy provided a conceptual framework within which to interpret the profound transformations taking place in her life. Whitehead’ s philosophy suggested an androgynous vision which confronted the nonandrogynous ideal which had previously shaped Salving’s life. The coincidence of feminist awareness and process thought led Salving to draw two conclusions.

Thus, the compatibility of feminism and process thought rests in two dimensions. First, process thought "rings true" to women’s experience by virtue of its comprehensive ability to take account of women’s experience. Second, process thought provides a conceptuality within which women may understand and interpret their experience. While Whitehead’s process philosophy is not a feminist philosophy, it may contribute one interpretive tool to women who desire a holistic understanding of women’s experience.

Methodologically, experience is the feature which links process philosophy and feminist thought. Valerie Saiving recognized that Whitehead affirmed the expansiveness of experience both in his epistemology and in his conceptuality itself. Mary Daly’s assessment of process philosophy is more reserved. Daly’s affirmation of process philosophy in Beyond God the Father prefaced the warning that women must beware of easy acquiescence to prefabricated theory, since the essential aim of feminist theology/philosophy is to elicit, express, and interpret women’s experience (BGF 189). Valerie Saiving has noted, however, that the sentiment expressed by Daly is present in Whitehead. In the first place, the experiencing subject is the primary datum for process metaphysics (AL 13).¹ In the second place, Whitehead himself held no allegiance to systems at the expense of experience. In Modes of Thought, Whitehead praised William James for the character of his intellectual life, which was "one protest against the dismissal of experience in the interest of system" (MT 4). In addition, Whitehead was willing to work within a philosophical framework without being imprisoned by it. Recall, also from Modes of Thought, that Whitehead lamented the fact that there are traps in the pursuit of learning. It is easy to become consumed by details, which lead us into closed systems of thought and blindness to the limitations of those systems. In this passage, Whitehead reminded us of an important principle – "In order to acquire learning, we must first shake ourselves free of it" -- and, through a criticism of John Stuart Mill, Whitehead explained that the danger is that we may inherit a "system before any enjoyment of the relevant experience" (MT 7-8). These priorities advocated by Whitehead are relevant for feminist theorists (even for those of us who look to Whitehead for philosophical suggestions). Experience precedes theory.

Whitehead’s criticism of substantialist philosophies led him to broaden the range of experience included in his metaphysics. Hence, Whitehead insisted upon the inclusion of every variety of experience. One passage from Adventures of Ideas is often quoted to indicate the infinite range of experience to which Whitehead referred. "Nothing must be omitted, experience drunk and experience sober. . . ." (AI 226). The lengthy list of experiences which completes this passage suggests the diversity and intensity of experiences to which philosophy must be held accountable. If Whitehead can be taken seriously here, feminists must conclude that the range of experiences which funds philosophy includes women’s experience. Making this point explicitly, Valerie Saiving has amended "experience female and experience male" to Whitehead’s list (AL 12).

The inclusiveness of the experience which Whitehead wished to embrace in his philosophy was affirmed earlier in Process and Reality: "Philosophy may not neglect the multifariousness of the world -- the fairies dance, and Christ is nailed to the cross" (PR 338/513). Narrowness in the selection of experiential evidence for philosophy results in serious distortions, and this evil is born of several sources.

Feminists would support this statement by reference to patriarchal philosophies which are narrow and limited by virtue of the exclusion of women’s experience from their range of data. It is also inadequate for women’s experience to be co-opted into patriarchal schemes of thought which preserve system at the expense of experience. The unjustified exclusiveness and narrowness of experiential evidence is not merely to be augmented by the inclusion of other experiences (for example, women’s experience). An inclusive philosophy is urged beyond the status quo in fashioning ideals by movement between two contrasts -- permanence and flux, order and novelty. This movement suggests that the result of being inclusive of the vast range of experiences is a dynamic philosophy which promotes and reflects change.

In addition to the priority of experience in process philosophy, many feminists have noted the importance of Whitehead’ s attempt to overcome classical dualisms. Mary Daly first noted, in Beyond God the Father, that Whitehead eliminated the Creator-creature dichotomy by replacing the notion of God the Creator with the view that God is with all creation. Daly described Whitehead’s thought as a unity of technical and ontological reason, intended to overcome the dualism of intellectuality and shallow objective consciousness. In addition, Daly pointed toward the encouraging character of Whitehead’s denial of the duality of purposive human existence and non-purposive nature (BGF 189).

More recently, Dorothee Soelle has recognized the promise of process philosophy for a non-dualistic theology of creation. Soelle has suggested that the traditional distinction between God and the world is captured in a set of "godly"/"worldly" dualisms -- Creator/Created, Lord/Servant, Maker/Made, Artist/Artifact, Will or form/Stuff or matter, Cause/Effect, Subject/Object.

Soelle’s obvious answer is that there is a way to overcome the God/world dichotomy (and attendant dualisms) through a non-imperialistic re-conception of God. Soelle has credited Whitehead and process thinkers with the advancement of one option which images God as dynamic and relational with respect to the world.

In part, Soelle’s assessment of process philosophy has embraced the idea of process and dynamism itself, a feature of Whitehead’s philosophy which is essential to relationality and, hence, another aspect of Whitehead’s thought which is compatible with feminism. Soelle has highlighted the importance of becoming as an ontological category in contrast to the category of being. Becoming-ontology gives priority to process instead of substance and thereby affords a more suitable conceptuality for a theology of creation. Becoming-ontology also lifts relationship into centrality; so that events, life, and life’s processes constitute reality in its interrelatedness (TWL25).

Because process philosophy is essentially a relational philosophy, it has in common with feminism an emphasis upon the interconnectedness of persons and of humans with nature. Feminism, particularly with respect to sisterhood, has felt the importance of interrelatedness for each individual self-actualization. The doctrine of internal relations in process thought suggests a philosophical interpretation of the importance of relationships for the becoming of an individual event, including a person-in-the-making.

Internal relations are distinct from external relations in that they are essential for the creation and existence of events, while external relations are not essential to the character of the events (or substances) to which they usually refer. In external relations, substances first exist and then enter into relationships. The essential nature of a substance is not affected by its relations. Internal relations are those relationships which constitute both living and non-living events with respect to their character and existence. Events owe their very existence to a particular occurrence of relationships within a spatio-temporal location.

Internal relations are instrumental in the creative process. Creativity is instantiated in each event, when through internal relations the many become one and are increased by one. Each concrescing event is a subject which prehends or feels the past. The concrescing event creates itself in freedom by taking account of objective data from the past and a divine persuasive lure toward rich experience which influences the way in which an event constitutes itself. When the event concresces as an actual occasion, it contributes to the actualization of future events.

Beverly Harrison has applied this philosophical perspective to a feminist Interpretation of creativity, freedom, and relationality.

Harrison empowers sisterhood with the suggestion that freedom is the power of creativity. The power of creativity is not diminished by interconnectedness, because it is a power rooted in relationality, mutuality, and cocreativity. This is an empowerment born of the relationship of women with each other and with God.

Whiteheadian feminist Catherine Keller has applied the doctrine of internal relations to the patriarchal problem of separate and soluble selves. The separate self is the illusion that persons are discrete, disconnected, autonomous selves (for example, the "self-made man"). The soluble self is the stereotypical role of women in patriarchy which binds and dissolves women into the role of relationship makers and keepers. Whitehead’ s doctrine of internal relations provides a conceptuality for relational selfhood which arises from a multitude of relationships (indeed, the person herself is a society). Keller has argued that this conceptuality affirms both relationality and selfhood while eliminating the dualistic choice between soluble selfhood and separate selfhood.²

The organic worldview weaves together the concepts of internal relations, subjectivity, freedom, creativity, and prehension (feeling). The doctrine of internal relations has the potential for additional fruitful applications and expressions of feminist concerns.

Finally, of further interest to feminists is the postmodern understanding of God proposed by process philosophy. God is a participant in the reality described by the dynamic process ontology. God is in relationship, not incidentally or accidentally, but essentially. As such, aseity is no longer a viable descriptor for God, since every action is an interaction which implies change. Potentiality is appropriate to God’s experience in itself and to God’s influence upon free entities. In the dynamic character of God is the capacity to affect and to be affected. Thus, it is meaningful to speak of mutuality and interrelatedness between God and the world.

With respect to the formulation of an understanding of God, Whitehead and feminists are united in the creative effort to supersede traditional theism. In Process and Reality, Whitehead explicitly rejected the idea of God as ruling Caesar, ruthless moralist, and unmoved mover for the Galilean vision.

Whitehead’s refusal to accept imperial ruler as a metaphor for God found expression in Modes of Thought as well. The ancient world borrowed characteristics from ‘touchy, vain, imperious tyrants" to describe God. This history still influences contemporary civilized religion to envision gods as dictators. As Whitehead observed, only in Buddhism and the Christian gospels are there scattered repudiations of this image of divinity (MT 68).

John B. Cobb, Jr., and David Ray Griffin have expanded the list of metaphors which are unacceptable in a Whiteheadian conception of God to include five: God as cosmic moralist, God as the unchanging and passionless absolute, God as controlling power, God as sanctioner of the status quo, God as male (PT 8-10). Clearly, the sentiments of feminists and Whiteheadians are similar in their rejection of traditional theism and in their effort to discover metaphors for God which are more inclusive of diverse experience.

In the Whiteheadian understanding of God, new paradigms of power and love have been envisioned in ways which may be informative for feminism. In Plato’s writing, Whitehead found what he proclaimed to be one of the greatest intellectual discoveries in the history of religion – "that the divine element in the world is to be conceived as a persuasive agency and not as a coercive agency" (AI 166). Along with the insights of Charles Hartshorne, Whitehead’s concept of persuasion (in contrast to coercion) has formed the basis for development of both divine and social images of power. John B. Cobb, Jr. described this divine persuasive power as the means of exercising power over the powerful. Divine persuasion "depends rather on relations of respect, concern, and love, and the vision of a better future" and "is a balance between urging toward the good and maximizing the power -- therefore the freedom -- of the one whom God seeks to persuade" (GW 90).

Bernard Loomer formulated an idea of relational power based upon the process-relational view of reality and in contrast to a linear or unilateral conception of power. Linear power is unidirectional power which is intended to produce an effect in another by virtue of a capacity to "influence, guide, adjust, manipulate, shape, control, or transform the human or natural environment in order to advance one’s purposes (TCP 8). Relational power, on the other hand, is grounded in mutuality. It assumes the capacity to influence others and to be influenced by others. Thus, if one is powerful, one is able to include in oneself feelings and values of others without passivity or loss of identity. Relational power is active openness. "Our openness to be influenced by another, without losing our identity or sense of self-dependence, is not only an acknowledgement and affirmation of the other as an end rather than a means to an end. It is also a measure of our own strength and size, even and especially when this influence of the other helps to effect a creative transformation of ourselves and our world" (TCP 18). While these formulations of divine persuasive power and relational power are not without problems for some feminists, they do represent alternatives to coercive, hierarchical power patterns and are suggestive of feminist reformulations of power in the context of mutuality. As one example, Rita Nakashima Brock has made use of Loomer’s understanding of relational power in her construction of a theology of erotic power (PPS 17-35).

William J. Hill has specifically addressed the topic of divine love in the Whiteheadian conceptuality. In his analysis, he found in Whitehead a concept of divine love which lies in contrast to New Testament agape and medieval amicitia and which identifies with Platonic eros. In Adventures of Ideas, the primordial nature of God is referred to as Eros. The love implied by eros relates to the divine envisionment of possibilities for fulfillment in each occasion. Hill has suggested three structural points in Whitehead’s philosophy which support this interpretation of divine love. First, God’s relation to the world is neither strictly free nor creative, since both God and the world are necessary. Second, God’s motive with respect to loving the world is God’s own satisfaction. Third, values realized in the world immediately perish and are preserved in God in such a way that they fund God’s own creative becoming. Hill has also suggested that the strength of this view of love is God’s involvement in the suffering of the world (TGL 258-259).

Hill has certainly selected the relevant features of Whitehead’s concept of God which support the concept of divine eros; however, Hill’s interpretation tends to diminish the rich vision intended by Whitehead. Whitehead’s point was certainly that God is relational, but if God’s power is persuasive, then God’s loving relating is directed toward maximal freedom and creativity for the world. Such love can only be directed toward entities which represent other centers of power. In its immanence, this love lures toward novelty and participates in every creative moment. In the second and third points, Hill has shifted the discussion to the consequent nature of God, which clearly deviates from an application of Eros to the primordial nature of God. This is not entirely objectionable, since it is the genius of Whitehead’s metaphysics that God and the world are truly in relation such that "it is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God" (PR 348/528). If God and the world are related, then within the Whiteheadian conceptuality it must be expected that God will affect the world and that the world will affect God -- that the world will receive from God and that God will receive from the world.

From a feminist perspective, why not affirm this mutuality of relationship and re-vision the divine eros? The redefinition of eros will then refer to an aim toward mutual satisfaction. Thus, God lures the world toward satisfaction and the world contributes to God’s satisfaction. God’s appreciation for the world becomes an Investment of Godself in its values and suffering, for God is willing to receive both into Godself. Eros, then, may be understood as creative, responsive, and empathetic. If God’s love is named eros by this definition, then the transformative power of God’s love as a paradigm for human loving feeds the feminist vision of mutuality.

To summarize, there are four major points at which feminists have made contact with Whitehead’s philosophy. First, feminists identify with Whitehead’s emphasis upon experience as the basis of metaphysics. Second, feminists can affirm the Whiteheadian attempt to overcome dualisms. Third, the doctrine of internal relations may suggest a concept and fruitful metaphors for feminist expression of relationality. Fourth, feminists can point to the Whiteheadian conception of God as an alternative to traditional theism. These compatibilities suggest that feminists may find it useful to interact with Whiteheadian thought in the re-vision of interrelatedness. Embracing this process of encounter itself embodies the potential for emergence of a process feminist theory of relations.

In spite of Whitehead’s sympathy for women’s issues and the compatibility of Whiteheadian thought and feminism, it is important to remember Mary Daly’s warning that feminists should beware of prefabricated theory. Whitehead’s philosophy of organism must also be examined for the patriarchal/hierarchical elements which it contains.

One question that feminists raise about Whitehead’s understanding of internal relations concerns the problem of relationships among contemporaries. Only external relationship pertain between contemporaries, because contemporaries cannot directly affect each other as they concresce. Contemporaries do not have internal relations. This means that Whitehead’ s doctrine of internal relations does not apply to inter-subjective relations. Internal relations always occur in subject-object interactions. The concrescing occasion is a subject which is constituted by its internal relations with actual occasions which function as objects. It is possible to speak about inter-subjective relations between enduring objects -- each enduring object may be thought of as a subject in relation to another enduring object which is a subject. Thus, humans have inter-subjective relationships. However, in microcosm, the internal relations taking place between the two enduring objects occur between subject and object. There are no inter-subjective relations among concrescing occasions. My feminist suspicion is that what we believe in microcosm is, in fact, what we practice in macrocosm. If internal relations are based upon subject-object interaction only, then Whiteheadians have not really overcome a dualism which may be used to justify treating others as means rather than ends. My intuition and the experience of other women would suggest that inter-subjective relations actually exist among contemporaries. Perhaps this is an area of experience which needs to be included in the Whiteheadian cosmology.

A more significant problem with Whitehead’s cosmology is the perpetuation of hierarchy. In one interpretation of Whitehead’s cosmology, Charles Birch and John B. Cobb, Jr., have discussed a hierarchy of value based upon Whitehead’s process philosophy. In the Liberation of Life, the hierarchy of value among living and non-living creatures is based upon the balance of intrinsic value (capacity for richness of experience) and instrumental value (LL 152-153). In some sense, value is assessed from God’s perspective, since value is related to the ability to contribute rich experience to the consequent nature of God.

According to Birch and Cobb, all events are both means and ends. Events have instrumental value, but all events have intrinsic value as well. Subjective experience at the level of sub-atomic particles, atoms, and molecules is negligible. The intrinsic value of these experiences is minimal. Since aggregates, such as rocks, are made up of sub-atomic particles, atoms, and molecules, intrinsic value is also limited for aggregates. Sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, and aggregates may be treated in terms of instrumental value only. The living cell has greater intrinsic value than aggregates, but cells may still be treated primarily as means. Plants have significant instrumental value, but the intrinsic value of plants is based largely upon the cumulative value of their cells. Plants may be used primarily as means. Animal life introduces the central nervous system and a much higher capacity for richness of experience. Animals cannot be treated merely with respect to their instrumental value -- they ought to be treated primarily as ends.

From the perspective of feminist consciousness, this hierarchy seems unlikely to effect the liberation of life that Cobb and Birch envision for nature. The hierarchy has been altered little from the patriarchal pyramid of domination, even though animals are afforded rights based upon attribution to them of intrinsic value. I would agree with Cobb and Birch that it is inappropriate to assign equal value to all events, but it may be possible to assess the value of events from the perspective of the primordial nature of God. When God generates an initial aim for each event, God’s aim is toward the richest possible experience for each moment. At that moment, each event is related to God as a unique instance of value. If the universe is understood in this sacramental perspective, our relative decisions about the value of all events in the world will be less dependent upon hierarchical formulas.

While Whiteheadian thought is not free of patriarchal and hierarchical elements, it is not a closed system. As feminist ideas and experiences are applied to process philosophy, it may be transformed and revised to more appropriately reflect the widest possible range of experience. I would propose that Whitehead’s organic philosophy is remarkably helpful for constructing a feminist theory of relations and that feminists may make a contribution to process thought by constructing a postpatriarchal process relational philosophy.

References:

AL -- Valerie C. Saiving. "Androgynous Life: A Feminist Appropriation of Process Thought." Feminism and Process Thought: The Harvard Divinity School/Claremont Center for Process Studies Symposium Papers. Ed. Sheila Greeve Davaney. New York and Toronto; The Edwin Mellen Press, 1981.

BGF -- Mary Daly. Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1973.

DFE -- Penelope Washbourn. "The Dynamics of Female Experience: Process Models and Human Values." Feminism and Process Thought: The Harvard Divinity School/Claremont Center for Process Studies Symposium Papers. Ed. Sheila Greeve Davaney. New York and Toronto: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1981.

FBW -- Catherine Keller. From a Broken Web: Separation, Sexism, and Self. Boston: Beacon Press, 1986.

GW -- John B. Cobb, Jr. God and the World. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.

LL -- Charles Birch and John B. Cobb, Jr. The Liberation of Life: from the Cell to the Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

OM -- Marjorie Suchocki. "Openness and Mutuality in Process Thought and Feminist Action." Feminism and Process Thought: The Harvard Divinity School/Claremont Center for Process Studies Symposium Papers. Ed. Sheila Greeve Davaney. New York and Toronto: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1981.

ORC -- Beverly Wildung Harrison. Our Right to Choose: Toward a New Ethic of Abortion. Boston: Beacon Press, 1983.

PC -- Margaret A. Farley. Personal Commitments: Beginning, Keeping, Changing. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986.

PF -- Janice G. Raymond. A Passion for Friends: Toward a Philosophy of Female Affection. Boston: Beacon Press, 1986.

PL -- Mary Daly. Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1978.

PPS -- Rita Nakashima Brock. "Power, Peace, and the Possibility of Survival." God and Global Justice: Religion and Poverty in an Unequal World. Ed. Frederick Ferré and Rita H. Mataragnon. New York: Paragon House, New Era Book, 1985.

PT -- John B. Cobb, Jr., and David Ray Griffin. Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.

SD -- Charlene Spretnak. The Spiritual Dimension of Green Politics. Santa Fe, NM: Bear & Company, 1986.

TCP -- Bernard Loomer. "Two Conceptions of Power." Process Studies 6:1 (Spring 1976).

TGL -- William J. Hill. "Two Gods of Love: Aquinas and Whitehead." Listening 14:3 (Fall 1979).

TWL -- Dorothee Soelle with Shirley A. Cloyes. To Work and To Love: A Theology of Creation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Notes:

1Saiving’s reference is to Alfred North Whitehead, Process, and Reality: Corrected Edition, ed. David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne (New York: Free Press, 1978), 16. See also 160.

2 See especially chapter 4 of Keller, FBW.

Introduction

For several years I have been teaching a course on the problem of evil to seminary students using texts such as Hick’s Evil and the God of Love, Griffin’s God, Power, and Evil, and Davis’ Encountering Evil. Students responded well to the class lectures which drew heavily upon process thought in dealing with the issue of divine power and they read with appreciation texts which reflected the influence of Whitehead’s philosophy. The course from all external evidence seemed popular and effective. Yet I remained troubled by the adequacy of what was being offered. Particularly I questioned the applicability of texts and lectures to situations in other cultures, specifically third world societies. I had a suspicion that the approaches being used to deal with theodicy in a North American classroom may have been far removed from the actual encounter with devastating evil faced by so many in our world.

As a result, I fashioned a sabbatical proposal which would allow me to study the application of first world theodicies to a third world situation. With funding provided by a grant from the Association of Theological Schools, it was possible to travel to Africa to study theodicy in a third world culture, looking at the people of Eastern Africa and particularly the Shona people of Zimbabwe. I expected to spend the time collecting the data that would demonstrate the enormity of evil in southern Africa and that would stand in mockery of ideas such as Hick’s "epistemic distance" or Whitehead’s "poet of the universe." The fact is, however, I encountered in the Shona culture of Zimbabwe an approach toward the problem of evil that entirely altered the focus of the project. One finds in the Shona people a steadfastness in the face of suffering that is difficult to imagine. In spite of living in poverty conditions, having recently survived a long struggle for independence, and even more recently having dealt with an extended drought, the Shona seem to be a fairly contented people.

The Shona in large part do not display a sense of being overwhelmed by evil. They do not spend their time calculating the degree of evil in creation nor do they express anger at spiritual forces for permitting the world to crush them so. Rather they have developed a society that is based on values so foreign to our own Western thought that it raises the important issue of whether our Western based theodicies are irretrievably culture-bound. Where I began the study focusing on the inability of Western theodicies to account for the high incidence of evil in the third world, my focus was now changed to look at the irrelevance and incongruence of the values of Western theodicies in relation to the traditional cultures of southern Africa.

An Introduction to Shona Culture

Shona Spirituality

Because of our own inability to see the whole spectrum of reality as a realm of spirit and because of our own propensity to bifurcate the sacred and the secular, we have tended in the West to interpret reverence for the presence of spirit in nature as a sign of worshiping natural entities themselves. A correct approach to African traditional religion must begin with recognition of the wholeness of an African worldview. Osadolor Imasogie, a Nigerian theologian, writes:

For the Shona people of Zimbabwe, there is no realm apart from the spiritual. No object and no creature is "natural" if by that term is meant existing apart from spiritual influence. Prior to the coming of the Christian missionaries there was no Shona word for religion. It was not some part of life one could step back from and analyze, for all of life was thoroughly spiritual.

It is difficult for the Westerner to grasp fully the extent of Shona spirituality. We tend to think of the "spiritual" person as one who meditates often, or who sees God active in many ways, or who recognizes a holiness pervading some events in the natural order. These are each timid and half-way steps in comparison to Shona thought. Perhaps this point is best seen in a rejection of Christian missionary spirituality. Imasogie of Nigeria argues that the missionary movement in Africa has not heightened general spiritual awareness but has in fact led to a stark despiritualization of the African people. That is, the Christian missionary movement has been a key secularizing force among traditional cultures. Why? Because along with their gospel message the missionaries also brought with them their scientific mindset which presupposed secondary causation, accident, a separate natural order, and a generally bifurcated worldview. Imasogie concludes: "traditional Christian theology has been ineffective in Africa because it is conditioned by a quasi-scientific world view which bends it, and thereby makes it "unresponsive to, the reality of the African’s self-understanding within his own world view" (GCT 47). John Mbiti makes the same point even more forcefully when he cries out that "Africa does not want imported Christianity because too much of it will only castrate us spiritually, or turn us into spiritual cripples" (CCA). By preaching a gospel that accepted a spirit-nature dualism unknown in traditional culture, the Christian missionaries to Africa have brought with them the seeds of unbelief and secularization.

In terms of application to the issue of theodicy, this intensity of spirituality is expressed through a rejection of the idea of accident. There is no such thing as an event without purpose in Shona thought. Disease, death, a stillborn child, a fire caused by lightning, are each the result of the confluence of the anger of the spirit-world and the waywardness of persons. According to John Pobee, "the primary cause of evil in traditional society is the spirit beings . . . and the secondary cause is the man who has done something wrong" (TAT 100). Misfortune is thereby understood always to have a metaphysical cause. This position is upheld even in the face of modern technology. The skill of the medical doctor can deal with the manifestation of most diseases. The Shona realize that; but they would go on to insist that no amount of medical knowledge can deal with the real cause of the disease itself. So a child is treated successfully with Western medicine for an attack of malaria. Still Western medicine cannot answer the question, why did the mosquito bite my child? Persons must always look beyond physical events to their spiritual etiology.

The focus of Shona religion is on the highly developed role of ancestor spirits. The Shona believe that upon death one’s spirit (the Shona word is mweya meaning breath or wind) leaves the body continuing to influence community life in the realm of the living-dead. The power of the living-dead is understood in Shona life in terms of spirits maintaining the traditional life of the community through continued influence. Thus the living-dead act as the basis of the moral life of the family and village, rewarding or punishing as the case may be.

Shona religion functions so as to meet two crucial needs of the believer. First, it provides a mode of communication with those powers seen to control individual and tribal welfare. The most common ritual is the brewing of beer for ancestral spirits both to invite their blessings and to appease their displeasure. A second important function is that Shona religion provides a framework for understanding the events of everyday life, explaining the sources of weal and woe through references to the living-dead.

Shona Community

Before all else in Shona life, a person is a member of the community. Initial greetings given upon the meeting of strangers are efforts to determine what totem, tribe or family the individual represents. In a dramatic contrast to Western individualism, Shona culture subordinates the separateness of personal identity to the well-being of the community as a whole. Michael Gelfand notes the importance of communal identity when he writes:

The strength of the family ties is fortified by intimate bonds at both extremes of the life span. A young child is kept close to the mother, being carried on the mother’s back in a comfortable sling. For two years the child will be carried in this manner during most of its waking hours. At the other end of age spectrum, the family bonds are understood to include the spirits of the living-dead, the family’s ancestors to whom they look for protection and guidance.

The sense of community is best expressed in the use of names in Shona culture. Individual names are rarely used. Instead persons are addressed by relational titles. Even husband and wife would use titles (mai-mother, baba-father) in talking to one another. It can be extremely offensive to call a named woman by her individual name. I first realized this emphasis on family titles when I called at a friend’s home and was greeted by his young nephew who had been living with his uncle for several months. I asked to speak to Henry, my friend, and received as a response only a blanic stare from his young nephew. Only when I requested to speak to Baba va Rutendo (the family title: father of Rutendo) did the young boy know for whom I was asking. One’s identity rests upon family relationships.

The sense of community is expressed in a deep commitment to community well-being. In Shona society one can depend upon family ties for sustenance and protection. There is a felt obligation to care for family needs up to three or four degrees of relationship. When one is in need that person expects help from the family; when one has a surplus he or she expects to share with the family. One Shona man put it in these words: "If my brother has two chickens, I go and get my chicken. If my brother has two shirts, I go and get my shirt. I need no invitation to eat my brother’s food."

In this setting it is easy to understand why sin is defined as an act against the family and community. Kwame Bediako writes, "in our tradition, the essence of sin is in its being an antisocial act" (BCC 103). Sin is seen as damaging the collective life. Pobee states plainly, "Egocentricity is wicked and self-defeating and as such is deprecated" (TAT 116). Time and again when asked to give examples of that which is evil, Shona people would name those acts which alienate the individual from the group. It is for this reason that the crucial challenge now facing Shona culture is not technology; that can be accommodated. The primary threat is urbanization which inherently weakens family and tribal ties and thereby undercuts the very foundation of traditional culture.

Shona Conformity

The most intriguing aspect of Shona culture is its strong emphasis upon normalcy. Because of the central role played by the living-dead in the life of the community, moral expectations are tied directly to past traditions. The tribal and family leaders who established and maintained society’s customs are now the spiritual enforcers of those customs. As a consequence culture places a premium not on creativity, individuality, or unique expression, but rather on sameness and continuity.

This desire for conformity means that evil is identified as that which deviates from the norm. The examples of this drive for uniformity and fear of the unusual abound in everyday Shona life. If a community were to encounter an evil which they came to blame on a witch, a Western observer could perhaps understand how a village could turn on a deformed woman. Yet the same Shona villagers would also be inclined to seek revenge upon an extremely beautiful woman. We can understand how extreme poverty would be seen as a sign of the forces of evil at work, yet the Shona would also insist that ostentatious wealth is a sure sign of evil power in one’s life. It would trouble many Shona parents for a person to approach their child with compliments such as "What a beautiful baby!" Any event out of the ordinary is interpreted as an evil omen or the eruption of evil power into the midst of life. Though now rare, a generation ago could have provided more gruesome examples of this enforced uniformity at work as sometimes twins were killed, children whose upper teeth protruded before the lower ones had the teeth forcibly removed, breech births or prolonged labor were treated with fear and as an occasion for confession. Mbiti notes, "such births were experienced as heralds of misfortune. The people concerned experienced them as a threat to their whole existence, as a sign that something wrong had happened to cause the births, and that something worse still would happen to the whole community if the ‘evil’ were not removed" (ARP 117-118).

Combined with the strong emphasis upon communal values the stress placed on uniformity results in a dramatically different valuation upon individual expression than one would find in the West. Though not generally true in Shona life, Mugambi and Kirima note that even the counting of people or cattle is forbidden in many African cultures. "One of the reasons for such prohibition is the fear that misfortune might befall those who are pointed out during the counting. Another reason may be that people generally prefer to be considered as members of social units . . . rather than as individuals" (ARN 12). A medical doctor described the de-emphasis upon individual expression in this telling story of a Shona woman:

An old woman was admitted to our hospital and refused to give her own name. In the end she gave a name, not her own but that of one of her grandchildren . . . . When asked why she had given us a wrong name, she said: "what does it matter whether you have my own or the child’s name, we are one anyway. (SL 296-297)

This brief story not only points to the grandmother’s willingness to erase her own individuality for the sake of communal values, it also suggests that the grandmother expected of her descendent a sameness of desire and expression.

The ethical structures of Shona culture are built upon a foundation of communal harmony and social equilibrium. In such a society the ideals of individualism, ego-assertiveness, or the unique acts of genius are not greatly appreciated. The desire to change, the conception of progress, the expectation of individuals in competition, none of these presuppositions of Western life finds support in the conforming and traditional society of the Shona.

Shona Values and Process Theodicy

Is it fair to raise the question of the congruence of process theodicy and a third-world culture? Process thought has developed largely within the matrix of Western values without many sustained attempts to incorporate third-world understandings or criticisms. Can we rightly expect such a first-world phenomenon to reflect third-world concerns? The answer to these questions it seems must be an unqualified yes. Yes, we should attempt to broaden our philosophical and theological projects to be as inclusive as possible. We should always remain conscious of the cultural bias that taints our thinking. This is a particularly important reminder for process thought for two reasons: (1) process thought and its development of a concern for a post modern world does seek for universal applicability, and yet (2) process thought has in fact been birthed and nourished within a largely elite, middle class, Western, modern environment. If process theodicy is to achieve recognition in the two-thirds world, it must develop the broadest possible base while at the same time speaking with meaning to specific cultures. Imasogie in developing guidelines for an African theology suggests, "Theology, if it is authentic, must participate in universality. However, the aim is to stress that no theology is authentic and unusual if it does not meet the integrated needs of a particular people in a particular historical context" (OCT 19). What then can we say of process theodicy in relation to traditional Shona culture? There are, of course, both points of convergence and areas of divergence.

Points of Convergence

Reality As a Society

The one point at which process theodicy and Shona culture speak with a single voice is in understanding the world according to an organismic model which then leads to an ethic valuing communal structures. The sympathetic unity of Whitehead’s universe is reflected in traditional culture’s appreciation for the oneness of all existence. The circle is an ever present pattern in Shona life, giving shape to the roundoval or thatched hut, surrounding a circular cattle kraal or enclosure.

The refusal of Shona thought to separate life from nature, matter from spirit, or persons from one another is the keystone of dialogue between process thinkers and traditional cultures.

Reality as Spiritually Alive

A second issue on which there is a high degree of compatibility is the affirmation found in traditional and process thought of the liveliness of the universe. Both process theology and African traditional religion stand in stark contrast to the secularity of so much in Western life. Whitehead’s writings rejecting the implication of a naturalistic scientism speak in concert with the insistence in Shona life upon a thoroughgoing spirituality. Rena Karefa-Smart has referred to secular materialism as "the unconscious missionary faith of the West." Against this interpretation of reality as being composed of dead, lifeless stuff, process thought and African faith stand together in opposition, affirming a mentality permeating all creation. At this point process theodicy has an opportunity to help in the "Africanization" of Christianity by insisting that Biblical faith need not be tied to outmoded theories of physical science once current in Western life. Bediako raises a haunting question concerning the Christian missionary enterprise up until the present time:

By affirming the depth of Shona spirituality and by repudiating secularity as the proper presentation of modern-day faith, process theology can serve as a valuable support to African forms of Christian expression.

One clear caveat must be stated in discussing this topic of theodicy and African spirituality. There is a point where the traditions of African faith and the teachings of process thought diverge widely -- the African insistence upon an ontology of evil. As John Pobee argues, African theodicy "starting with a spiritual ontology (that the world is surrounded by hosts of spirit beings) attributes evil to personal forces of evil" (TAT 99-100). While affirming the liveliness of the universe, process thought must equip itself to respond to the African insistence upon personalizing this spiritual force in the realm of the living-dead.

The Disvalue of Triviality

Perhaps the point of greatest tension between Shona society and the values of process thought is precisely confronted when we turn directly to the issue of triviality. In its past formulations process theodicy has argued that triviality is the supreme disvalue; in fact, Griffin plainly labels unnecessary triviality as genuine evil. The disvalue of trivial existence is the presupposition upon which Griffin goes on to argue for the goodness and the necessity of the creative process. He writes, "Recognizing that unnecessary triviality is an evil provides a basis for understanding the evolutionary development of our world as manifesting the creative purpose of a good God" (GPE 285). Arguing that persons may even prefer death to a continuation of life at a trivial level Griffin describes the human dimension of triviality as "boredom, lack of zest and excitement" (GPE 282).

If triviality is equated with evil, its opposite, creative intensity, is understood as the benchmark of goodness. Griffin insists that built into the very framework of Whitehead’s structure is the aim of escape from triviality. "Whitehead understands the subjective aim of every actual occasion as twofold: it is an aim at intensity in the present, and also an aim to contribute intensity to the future" (OPE 287). Whitney summarizes the process position when he states, "To achieve aesthetic value, variety and intensity are required" (EPG 145).

The contrast could not be more strongly drawn than between the value of variety and intensity in process thought and the value of conformity and uniformity in the traditional culture of the Shona. The Western scholar who has studied Shona culture most thoroughly, Michael Gelfand, underscores the emphasis upon normality.

* * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * *

The hope of developing a sustainable dialogue between process thinkers and representatives of traditional culture will depend a great deal upon the willingness of Western theologians to reevaluate their definitions of triviality. Some way must be found to lessen the harsh indictment of triviality in order to encompass traditional communities within the vision of process thought. As it now stands one group’s value is precisely the other culture’s disvalue.

Process Thought and Evolutionary Progress

Process thought by its very name sees reality as a dynamic enterprise, but more than that, process theodicy would insist that evolution is a function of the purposeful luring of God moving creation toward higher degrees of expression. From the perspective of traditional society two questions would be raised. First, as we have just mentioned, the conception of change and development is not an innate value in African life; in fact it is often something to be avoided and feared. Second, from the viewpoint of the African setting, one would express utter bafflement at how anyone could survey current events and still hold to a cheerful optimism that life is being effectively lured onward by a loving God. Historically it is difficult to plot the course of human advancement in the creeping sands of the Sahel, the burgeoning slums of Nairobi or the utter destitution of the entire Mozambican economy.

The key issue here is the nature of God’s persuasive power. Frankly, on this issue, process theodicy lacks a needed precision. Whitney notes this fact when he states, "There is little by way of explicit and systematic definitions of ‘persuasive’ and ‘coercive’ power in the process literature -- an astonishing fact, bearing in mind that these concepts are of such central importance to process theism" (EPO 145). It would help greatly if process theology could be developed with more of an eye to the issue of divine management style.

Process Thought and Western Values

We have looked at the crucial process values of intensity and progress and yet there still remain laced throughout process theodicy other examples of glaringly parochial ideals. Naturally our cultural values are reflected in our theologies. This seems particularly true, however, of the writings up until the present in process thought. It is an enlightening experience to note as you read through process literature how often the central values of Western life surface as the ideals of Whitehead’s system. Let me list just four examples.

To Western ears this list of attributes -- creativity, freedom, novelty, and self-determination -- sounds like the roll call of virtue. Each of these terms is, however, a word that sparks little attraction in traditional cultures. Even when the terminology may be identical, as in the cry of freedom used during wars of liberation, the content of that term bears a very different meaning in non-Western societies and in non-capitalist economies.

The fact that there is a gap between the vocabulary of process thought and the mindset of traditional culture is certainly not grounds for a devastating rejection of Whitehead and his influence. It is a call, however, for a heightened sensitivity in the future development of process theodicy so that the needs and worldview of the third-world citizen might not be ignored.

References:

AB -- Michael Gelfand. African Background: The Traditional Culture of the Shona Speaking People. Cape Town: Juta and Co., 1965.

ARH -- Jesus Mugambi and Necodemiss Kirima. The African Religious Heritage. Nairobi: Oxford University Press, 1982.

ARP -- John S. Mbiti. African Religions and Philosophy. London: Hunemann, 1982.

ATR -- Osadolor Imasogie. African Traditional Religions. Ibadan, Nigeria: African University Press, 1982.

BCC -- Kwame Bediako. "Biblical Christologies in the Context of African Traditional Religions." Sharing Jesus in the Two Thirds World. Ed. Venay Smauel and Chris Sugden. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1984.

CCA -- John Mbiti. "Christianity and Culture in Africa." Recorded speech.

EPG -- Barry L. Whitney. Evil and the Process God. Toronto: Edwin Mellen Press, 1985.

GCT -- Osadolor Imasogie. Guidelines for Christian Theology in Africa. Achimota, Ghana: African Christian Press, 1983.

GPE -- David Ray Griffin. God, Power, and Evil. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976.

GS -- Michael Gelfand. The Genuine Shona. Gweru: Mambo Press, 1984.

SL -- Herbert Aschwanden. Symbols of Life. Gweru: Mambo Press, 1982.h

TAT -- John S. Pobee. Toward An African Theology. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1979.

UA -- Theo Sundermeier. "Unio Analogica: Understanding African Dynamistic Patterns of Thought." Missionalia 1:3 (November 1973).