The Sacred Feminine
by: Nancy Vedder-Shults on November 17th, 2009 | 14 Comments »
I love reading emails from the GoddessScholars list serve. This group of women includes some of the most knowledgeable people in the world when it comes to the divine feminine. The core members — out of several hundred women — are scholars, but the e-list contains artists, musicians, story-tellers, and ritualists as well. Reading their posts, I discover what’s new in the “Goddess Sphere.” I discover where the current controversies lie. And sometimes I discover just how ignorant much of the rest of the world is about this area that’s intensely meaningful to me.
A few months ago the controversies surrounded whether or not new archaeological finds were Goddess figures or not. Then it was on to the Catholic parish worker here in Wisconsin who was fired for her feminist views. After that it was the fact that Marija Gimbutas’s work has been hidden from view, even in events seemingly spawned by her research. And the latest battle seems to concern the very center of our connection with each other — the sacred feminine.
This latest brou-ha-ha began when one member wrote about a friend who was completing her M.A. in Art History. The friend wanted to concentrate on Botticelli’s representation of a variety of Goddesses. But when she approached her advisor, he told her that the sacred feminine was NOT a scholarly topic, but instead a term Dan Brown made up to sell The Da Vinci Code. Whoa! I think every woman on our e-list felt personally assaulted by this unbelievable statement.
We’ve been studying, celebrating, painting, telling stories, ritualizing, and singing songs about the sacred feminine for over 30 years, many on this list — including myself — for that entire time. My response was immediate and critical:
I find it incredibly disrespectful of all women (whether or not they consider the Goddesses to be a part of their spiritual path) to say that “the sacred feminine is NOT a scholarly topic.” The professor in question shows his ignorance by attributing this term to Dan Brown. I would ask: How can someone be an Art History professor and make such an uninformed statement? Whew!
The list was alive with comments after that. Max Dashu, an independent scholar who may have the largest slide collection of Goddess statues in the world, replied that this professor was ignoring the evidence of his own discipline, pointing out the obvious (at least to someone who knows a little about art history):
Botticelli, like other Renaissance artists, was reclaiming the art of classical paganism, thus the Birth of Venus, Primavera, and other Goddesses.
She went on to say that this was an example of the invisibilizing of women.
Dan Brown…appropriated the concept of the sacred feminine from the women who have been researching, speaking, writing, and working on this issue, [and] now this term belongs to him?!… What I find ironic is that this phrase has gained in popularity because so many people shied away from using “Goddess,” [a term] still heavily stigmatized in this society, most of all in academia.
Marguerite Rigoglioso, Ph.D., another well-respected scholar, replied in greater depth. As a member of the faculties of Dominican University of California, the California Institute of Integral Studies, and the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, where she teaches courses on women and religion, her answer included some of the names of women and publications who have added to the research on the “sacred feminine”:
That the “sacred feminine” is indeed a scholarly topic is attested by the scores of scholarly articles and books written on the concept and its many facets and derivative subjects over the past three decades. One might investigate, for example, the works of Mary Daly, Carol Christ, Charlene Spretnak, Lucia Chiavola Birnbaum, Miriam Robbins Dexter, Joan Marler, Elinor Gadon, Mara Keller, Dianne Jenett, Vicki Noble, Kristy Coleman, Heide Göttner-Abendroth, and numerous other established and emerging scholars. Among such scholars, the term is either used or implied, often being substituted by “divine feminine,” “female divine,” “sacred female,” “goddess,” and other words. The Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, published by the Harvard Divinity School, and Feminist Theology are two among many journals that have published articles on these concepts and topics for decades.
Even within the halls of academe and within the academy’s prestigious scholarly organizations, the “sacred feminine” has found a home. Courses in this area have been offered at universities and colleges all over the world. And Marguerite affirms that the American Academy of Religion Western Region now includes a “Goddess Studies” section, and the “sacred feminine” is also the focus of two graduate programs in women’s spirituality, one at the California Institute of Integral Studies (MA and PhD), and one at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology in Palo Alto, CA (MA). She adds that the concept has been the focus of numerous international academic conferences over the years.
I think Sid Reger , one of the founding mothers ofthe GoddessScholars list, summed it up for all of us:
We on this list know how long and how hard we have fought to gain legitimacy for the excellent work of academic and independent scholars…And I for one get really tired of having to state the obvious, once more, for the benefit of the unenlightened.
Sid went on to say that “the two-sentence summation of bias” that started out this email thread
reminds me of why I have knocked myself out to get our “sister” organization up and running. The purpose of the Association for the Study of Women and Mythology is to provide Goddess scholars with a solid and recognizable presence to the …world.
Legitimizing our work and fighting back against those forces that stifle our scholarship — now that’s a positive response to bigotry!
Many thanks for this wonderful article. As an archetype (defined by Jean Houston as something that never was and always is) the Sacred Feminine was, is and shall be. In the midst of the present transformational moment, as we help to birth a new and creative way of being, for the human family, the Sacred Feminine, sadly concealed for much of our history, is once more revealed, shining through the superficiality of our lives. Motivated by our evolving consciousness, we are inspired to step forward in which ever circles we are involved to honor this archetypal pattern – most challenging within the established patriarchal institutional frameworks, such as academia, and we support and honor all those women and men who persevere in broadening the scope of scholarship.
In my own work, I invite women everywhere to reclaim Eve, divesting her of the patriarchal robe that has concealed the Sacred Feminine she embodies. In doing so, we reclaim our intuitive, courageous, hopeful curiosity as Divinely gifted to us – and surely, curiosity is the basic spur to authentic scholarship?
I love Jean Houston’s definition of archetype. I will try to remember it and think of it often. I might just have to share it with my atheist friends.
Delighted to be a conduit of Jean’s wonderful ways of expressing deep truths:-)
Thanks, Nancy, really interesting, not just the topic but the knowledge that it is a currently fiercely debated issue in your wider community. I’d love our bloggers to go more in this direction when possible, to tell us what are the hot topics right now in their part of the spiritual progressive universe.
I find myself dismissing this art history professor as truly a small minded and ignorant person, but I don’t know how widespread that view is: would it be held by an Ivy League prof, for example? It makes me think of a book by the famous historian who was in charge of the History Faculty at Oxford when I went there to study history in 1967: in “The Rise of Christian Europe” Hugh Trevor Roper wrote baldly in so many words that European history was the only history worth studying. I was just back from volunteering in India and wanted to study some Indian history, as did a young Indian man in my college whose father was a leading politician in India. All we were allowed to study was a course about Warren Hastings, a British Governor General of Bengal, and then only because he was impeached, which caused a British constitutional crisis.
About the sacred feminine: When my wife got pregnant we were living in Mexico and she went to a (male) gynecologist whose business card logo was one of those Aztec statues of a goddess giving birth, squatting with the head appearing out of her vulva. It was beautiful and we felt her pregnancy celebrated in that simple image. We were able to buy a little copy of the statue in the town. We couldn’t think of a single comparable image in the history of Western art (as if Aztec isn’t western from the geographical point of view of Europe but you know what I mean), and certainly none available in any regular store in the US. We were struck by how the people celebrated and loved their children in this Mexican town. The Goddess felt much more present in the culture than back home.
What I admire so much about this blog post is the use of contiguous language in the form of using the texts from actual people on the list-serve. It lends so much authenticity and credibility to the argument(s) and the issue at hand. I could both hear and feel their hearts in the conversation not merely the intellectual argument against a lunk-head’s malfeasance itself. Not to mention that I just learned a boatload of things I didn’t know before about the Sacred Feminine.
Well done.
Thanks for all these wonderful comments. Just Jack, your kind words moved me, and reminded me why I do this writing.
Dave, Unfortunately I think these narrow-minded academics don’t just inhabit our minor universities, but are to be found all over academia. In fact, one of the controversies I’ve been privy to on the GoddessScholars list-serve is a concerted effort by an international group of archaeologists who want to quash any indication that Goddesses were worshipped at Catal Hüyuk in ancient Anatolia, when it is clear that this was the case. Why? That’s a good question. Is it religious intolerance or misguided hyper-skepticism? I don’t know. What I do know is that this is a fact of my existence as a Goddess scholar, poking its ugly head above the surface at unexpected times.
I (think I) know the statuette that you and your wife found in Mexico. I love the image of birth as a miraculous but natural event that’s portrayed by it. It’s one of the 15,000 that Max Dashu (I quoted her in the post) has in her collection. Mexicans, even today, have a much more lively and realistic take on life (for e.g. the love of children that you speak of) and death (e.g. the Day of the Dead celebrations) than we do, with the possible exception of pagans in the U.S. (and that varies from group to group).
Heather, I love the concept of archetype that you convey from Jean Houston (something that never was and always is). I am encouraged by the reappearance of the Goddess in our lives, even as it’s contested by fearful people who are a part of the “Right Hand of God.” I, too, have celebrated Eve and even written a chant to Her. I love your statement about curiosity as being Divinely gifted, because I think that is true, but often overlooked in a culture whose religious tendencies have been skewed by fearful activity based on “doing the right thing,” rather than being curious and using our imagination and understanding that being human involves trial and error.
Is you chant available for reading?
Well, I agree that the Sacred Feminine is incredibly important, and that we live within a patriarchy, which has many members that still find the Feminine threatening. But whether or not scholars find Her to be of importance is of no importance to me. The whole “scholarly” approach to knowing Her barely scratches the surface–even at liberal schools like The Institute for Transpersonal Psychology (which I attended for a while). But knowing Her even just intellectually, is a good place to start and it’s a good thing it is happening I guess. However, there is so much more beyond what any intellectual institution or approach can comprehend about Her, that in the larger picture scholarly acceptance matters very little. All scholarly institutions and approaches are patriarchal and intellectual–and therefore highly limited in their ability to “get” the greater implications of what the Divine Feminine really is. But in our male-mind world such places are the be all and end all of the place to gain credibility. I personally could care less any more. The Great Mother/Goddess/Divine Feminine when finally “experienced” is more of a PLACE than a being. The deepest most sacred place at the center of all being…no words can describe that experience of Her. But our own awareness of Her living through each of us is extremely valuable. And you don;t need to be a scholar to experience that–in fact–being a scholar–and highly focused in the intellect makes it harder–whether you are male or female. I know of that first hand.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Brenda, when it comes to the experience of the Divine Feminine and its centrality to all we are about. However, in order to change not just ourselves, but others as well and society, too, we need to create change on all levels. I’m certainly not the one to push for the transformation in academia. I figured that out before I even finished my Ph.D. in 1981. And it sounds like you aren’t either. You say it very well when you say “But our awareness of Her living through each of us is extremely valuable.” And I think that for some of us that awareness translates into a need to push for Her acceptance within patriarchal institutions like the academy.
Actually, I would also agree that being highly focused in the intellect makes it harder to experience the Goddess — at least most of the time. But I had one experience when I spent a great deal of my time and energy in a focused period researching Kali and ended up ecstatic. I “grokked” Her big time, and that translated into a a spiritual experience of ecstasy. I think other women (academics perhaps) may have that experience more often than I. For me, intellect is often bound up with my ego and attempts to control the world, and, therefore, is anything but an opening up to spirit. I’d love to continue this discussion with you.
Isn’t curiosity part of the intellect? It’s clearly what led me here. Emotion and intellect are not only compatible, they are both essential, in balance. I consider emotion vs. intellect to be a patriarchal false dichotomy.
Hi Nancy:
Yes, I see your point about Her speaking through us in various ways–prompting us to do various things. Ultimately we are all One, and whatever one of us achieves in the way of knowing Her, then belongs to all of us. That is fascinating that your study led you to an ecstatic experience. Maybe I have more of a split between my male and female minds than you do. I think the male mind can be directed to pay attention more to the inner world. I get my most direct connection to Her through art. Puts me in a “right-brain state” or whatever you want to call it. From there I seem to have easier access to Her. I have heard jazz musicians say that when they are really into their improvisation God is playing through them–which I totally “get.” Any of these humbler forms of being, including improvisational dance seem to create space for knowing Her/our Divine Self. But I get off on my intellect too, and enjoy reading writing and talking from that place about metaphysical things, but it is no substitute for the real experience. I think that the world is so sad today because they have lost that connection to Her. PBS recently had a documentary about finding the oldest “city” in the world–the first step between, tribal living and modern civilization. It is in S. America, and they found no weapons or defensive structures of any kind. It was a place of peaceful trade. This was about 5000 years ago. It was right about then that most cultures seemed to show a marked shift from right hemisphere dominance to left. We went from knowing our Oneness with each other and our sense of security of knowing we lived in a safe and loving Universe (death being just a transformation and nothing to be feared.) But then we got into the male mind–and separation from individual/ego “self” took over. We got “smaller” I think. A very personal and defended sense of self as opposed to the former, group/God everyone self. I think the animals still have this–know their oneness with us–each other. Have experienced it breifly with my cat–and “saw” in that moment how more advanced his perception of who he is, is than my own. Talk about embarrassing! My “pet”? I don’t think so.
So that’s my take on things. Would invite yours.
I agree – we don’t want to stumble into dichotomies like emotion v intellect. We need and honor both aspects of ourselves as channels we use to explore our existence. For me, curiosity is certainly a spur to intellectual pursuit and is broader and deeper than just a tool for the intellect. Intuitive curiosity too is a reality in my world.
Yes, dichotmoies are more of the intellect’s way of seeing things–sort of ironic, that. I do not pretend to not have an overly dominant intellect. But I think the degree to which we are invested, and I am talking most all of human kind now, in our intellect is hurtful to ourselves, each other and the planet. It is allowed to be in this place, but it is not the most copacetic place to be, I believe. The intellect seems to have certain limited functions and has bitten off more than it can chew in terms of trying to manage our personal lives and the world. It is not equipped to do it and it is scared out of its mind (ha-ha). It’s like the Divine Feminine, Great Mother said, well okay, yu want to play grown up and have my job? Go for it. Allowed. But if it starts to all feel like too much, know that I am here waiting in the background–your soft place to fall. Just call my name and allow that we are still One, but you have just been turned away from me. You can turn back at any time and I will not consume you, as you fear, but will simply allow that yu forgot who yu were and can now choose to remember and BE all that you want to be, through/with me.
Brenda, I don’t know if you’ll see this response, but I wanted finally to respond to what you said. I went on vacation almost immediately after I wrote this piece and then when I got home after Thanksgiving, I got sick.
I agree with you that dichotomies are intellectual constructs. Sometimes they’re useful, sometimes they get in the way. But it’s important to remember that they’re just constructs to help us understand something, not reality itself. And I agree that in our culture (and maybe elsewhere, since we’re all human), we tend to give too much power and authority to our intellects. When I say that I mean it exactly as you describe it — that we believe that our own personal intellect should run the show, when in fact, it needs to be spirit, because it has a much broader view and understanding of all parts of our life. I learned this (and have to relearn it over and over again) when I did the Hoffman Process in 2001.