Feminist New Materialism and Process Theology: Beginning the Dialogue

Introduction

Feminist theory has had an uneasy relationship with Christian theology. On one hand it seems obvious that Christian theology is antithetical to feminism. Although in early Christian history and practice women were in leadership roles, as Christianity became more institutionalized women were subordinated to men, excluded from positions of authority, and identified with the body and sin. For many feminists, hence, there is very little point in exploring theological issues. Christian theology is written-off as inherently patriarchal and thus not worthy of feminist attention.

But, of course, this is not the whole story. Over the centuries Christian women have tried to define a place for themselves in a tradition that relegates them to second class status. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries these efforts have accelerated significantly. A robust literature on feminist approaches to theology has developed, challenging the orthodoxies of Christian theology. This literature attempts to reinterpret the tradition that has denied women equality in Christianity. It defines a feminist approach to Christianity that resonates with many women.

The twentieth century has seen several attempts to define this more positive role for women in Christianity. Probably the most promising development in twentieth century theology from a feminist perspective is process theology. ¹ Tracing its roots to the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, process theology challenges many of the orthodoxies of Christian theology and presents an understanding of God and faith that coincides with significant elements of a feminist perspective. At the root of process theology is a challenge to the philosophy of substance that undergirds definitions of God and His relationship to the world that define classical theology. This position opens up channels of connection between feminist thought and Christian theology that is exciting to those seeking to define a feminist theology.

The dialogue between process theology and feminism is fruitful and significant. Perhaps more than any other theology, process thought offers opportunities for a radical redefinition of women in Christianity. But there are some curious elements of this dialogue. First, the feminist theologians that write about process theology rarely address the situation of women directly. With a few notable exceptions, they discuss the theology itself rather than the transformative potential this holds out for women. Second, a major aspect of the dialogue revolves around the convergence of process theology and postmodernism. This alleged convergence raises questions about the interpretation of postmodernism extant in these discussions. The postmodernism that feminist process theologians espouse is misleading in a philosophical sense. The contradictions between postmodernism and process thought are sidelined in favour of an emphasis on the similarities.

What I will argue in the following is that a more productive dialogue between feminism and process theology is provided by another contemporary philosophical position that a significant number of feminists espouse: the new materialism. Perhaps the most significant contradiction between process theology and postmodernism is postmodernism’s linguistic constructionism that can lead to relativism or even nihilism. Although this is not true of all postmodern thought, it makes it difficult to reconcile these tendencies with any theological position, including process theology. The new materialists present a different, and theologically more acceptable, position. Although they do not espouse absolutism, the new materialists move beyond the exclusive reliance on language that defines postmodernism. They are concerned with the material world and, significantly, our connection to the non-human world. Their definition of truth is more inclusive and open-ended than that of postmodernism. The new materialism thus provides a significant connection to process theology and a possible redefinition of feminist theology. My goal in the following is to facilitate a conversation between process theology and the new materialism that can enrich both approaches.

Process Theology

Process theology is rooted in the work of Alfred North Whitehead and particularly in his pathbreaking Process and Reality (1978). That Whitehead is notoriously difficult to read is widely acknowledged. His perspective is presented in a unique vocabulary that is challenging to the uninitiated. I will not try to present a comprehensive view of Whitehead’s work or a definitive interpretation of his concepts. Rather, I will sketch out the elements of his thought that are most relevant to feminist issues and provide a bridge to the feminist new materialism.

At the centre of process thought is the claim that becoming is more elemental than being because reality is fundamentally temporal and creative (Dorien, 2008: 316). It emphasizes movement and becoming rather than being or substance. Whitehead references Heraclitus’s statement that ‘all things flow’ as the starting point of his approach. He asserts that the flux of things is the ultimate generalization around which we must weave our philosophical system (1978: 208). Process and being, furthermore, are inextricably intertwined. For Whitehead the actual world is a process and that process is the becoming of actual entities; each actual entity is an organic process (1978: 215). The process itself is the constitution of the actual entity (1978: 219).

Also central to Whitehead’s thought is the concept of experience. We must, he asserts, begin from the ground of experience. Process thought begins with experience and the experience of organic relatedness (Epperly, 2011: 23). Once again, everything is in flux: there are no enduring substances but only processes of becoming. It follows from this that the method of rigid empiricism must be rejected. In its place Whitehead proposes a method consistent with his belief in process and becoming. He summarizes his method in a much-quoted passage from Process and Reality:

The true method of discovery is like the flight of an aeroplane. It starts from the ground of particular observation; it makes a flight into the thin air of imaginative rationalisation; and it lands again for renewed observation rendered acute by rational interpretation (1978: 5).

A significant corollary of this position is the rejection of dualisms. As one commentator notes, process thought rejects the dualisms of mind/body, history/nature that grounded the anthropocentric bias of traditional Christianity (Dorien, 2008: 327). Whitehead asserts: ‘It is a false dichotomy to think of Nature and Man’ (1933: 99). In Whitehead’s terms, all the opposites of the universe are elements in the nature of things and are incorrigibly there (1978: 350).

Whitehead’s rejection of dualisms structures his concept of God, a concept radically different from classical theology. For Whitehead God is an actual entity; He creates the world and the world creates God. God is permanent and the world is fluent; the world is permanent and God is fluent (1978: 346). God is affected by and affects temporal processes. He is defined by creative activity rather than passive matter, by evolutionary becoming rather than changeless enduring. He is an in-the-world being who intervenes selectively in world processes (Ford, 2005: 215–17).

This in-the-world God is much more compatible with contemporary feminist thought than the distant, all-knowing and (implicitly) masculine God of the classical tradition. The clearest summary of process theology’s conception of God is presented in Charles Hartshorne’s brief book, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (1984). The God that Hartshorne presents is not perfect and unchanging. Nor is He omnipotent. Hartshorne argues that God’s power influences all that happens but determines nothing in its concrete particularity. Perhaps most radically, Hartshorne insists that God has feelings, that He is sympathetic to our lives. Finally, God is not omniscient nor infallible. God does not already or eternally know what we will do. As a consequence, human beings possess both creativity and freedom.

The most significant aspect of process theology’s God is that He is not, as Hartshorne puts it, a cosmic despot (1984:14). If God were a tyrant He could not, at the same time, be sympathetic to our fate. Insisting on God’s omnipotence denies both God’s goodness and our freedom. God’s power is, on the contrary, the appeal of unsurpassable love. The beauty beyond all others is the beauty of love (1984:11–14). Process theology’s God is a radical departure from the distant, omniscient and all-powerful God of the classical tradition. He is a God who is present in every moment of experience and a God who recognizes our choices as significant (Epperly, 2011:17).

God relates to us, we relate to God, and, most importantly, we relate to each other. The world depicted by process theology is relational and interdependent. As Whitehead puts it, every entity is in its essence social and requires a society to exist (1926:108). The emphasis on relatedness provides process theologians with a definition of the subject that is particularly resonate with feminist theory. The autonomous Cartesian ego is the pillar of the patriarchal belief system that feminists reject. Process theology likewise completely rejects this concept. As Hartshorne puts it, we are members one of another: ‘Apart from our interest in others, what are we?’ Apart from others we have no self (1984:108). What is a person if not a being qualified and conditioned by social relations, relations with other persons? Human nature, he concludes, is social through and through (1948: 23–27).

Equally significant for feminist thought are process theology’s beliefs about the natural world. Consistent with their rejection of dualisms, process theologians reject the human/nature dichotomy. Instead they argue that humans are related to nature and that there is no clear line between the natural and the human worlds. Hartshorne asserts:

A religion of love can encourage us to look upon nature as a realm of love and freedom, whose members, in an extended sense fellow creatures, are in their humble way also “images of God” (1984:111).

As a consequence process theologians have become major contributors to environmental theology and activism. All of these aspects fit together into what Epperly calls the ‘new horizons’ of process thought. God, the subject, and nature find new definitions in process thought, definitions that open new avenues for theology:

The new horizons for process theology involve providing pathways toward appreciation and celebration of diversity, pluralism, creativity, wholeness of mind, body, and spirit and healing the earth. In doing so process theology invites people to go beyond the individualistic ego to experience the peace that comes from world loyalty and the recognition that our efforts to heal the earth are inspired and treasured by God in this moment and forevermore (Epperly, 2011:158).

Feminist Process Theology

One is tempted to conclude that process theology, as it is presented by Whitehead and his followers, is remarkably similar to many basic tenets of contemporary feminism. The rejection of dualisms and the philosophy of substance, the definition of God as an entity of love and feeling, and the concern for the environment are all central to feminist concerns. As John Cobb puts it as early as 1982: ‘Process theology and feminist theology today overlap in a healthy way and there is every indication that feminists will play leading roles in the further development of process theology’ (1982: x).

Perhaps the most significant convergence between process theology and feminism is process theology’s rejection of the androcentric subject and its advocacy of a relational subject. There is little question that the relational subject is at the centre of contemporary feminism. Every aspect of contemporary feminism is informed by this redefined subject. This link between the two approaches provides the strongest argument for their convergence.

The redefinition of the subject is the theme of perhaps the most prominent feminist process theologian, Catherine Keller. In From a Broken Web (1986) Keller attempts to describe a self that provides a clear contrast to the separate, autonomous ego of the Western tradition, a self that is primarily relational rather than separate. Women, she argues, must envision a new self which defines differentiation in relation, not apart from it (1986:161). She asks: ‘need differentiation imply separation? Need connection imply merger?’ (1986:134). For Keller the self is a complex mix of feeling that rises up in response to feelings of the plural world. The result is radical relatedness (1986:184).

In order to articulate this self Keller turns to Whitehead and process theology. Process and Reality, she argues, is about the becoming, being, and interrelatedness of actual entities. For Whitehead the universe is essentially plural (1986:182–84). Furthermore, the connected permeable ego ascribed to female children fits Whitehead’s description more nearly than the male ego. She concludes that we can take from process metaphysics what all women know: that all reality is interconnected (1986:189). The result is a new view of self that is differentiated precisely by its inseparability. This self is a process with no fixed substance (1986:194). The implication of Whitehead’s cosmology, she concludes, is that the male ego is based on a fallacy (1986: 201). ²

The work of Keller along with several other theologians, most notably Valerie Saiving and Marjorie Suchocki, have established a vibrant tradition of feminist process thought. Like Keller, Suchocki (1989) emphasizes the constitutive role of relativity. Also like Keller, Suchocki emphasizes human responsibility and choice rather than God’s omnipotence: ‘In our awareness of divine wisdom we replace fear with trust, and move into the contingencies of time. And God waits’ (1989: 73). Suchocki even takes on the difficult issue of Jesus’ masculine nature. Jesus as masculine, she claims, denies masculine privilege by redefining a togetherness of male and female in a new society of equals (1989:101).

The theme of Suchocki’s work, and that of the other feminist process theologians, is relativity. Because our vision of reality is relative we are open to the different expressions of others in openness rather than fear, learning how to perceive reality from another’s perspective. Since, as Whitehead puts it, everything is always in flux, we cannot define one perspective as absolutely true. Relationality constitutes reality as becoming, as change (1989: 253).

One of the distinctive features of feminist process theology is an emphasis on the convergence of process thought with postmodernism. ³ In Process and Difference: between Cosmological and Poststructuralist Postmodernism (Keller and Danielle, 2002) the contributors make a concerted effort to draw the parallels between postmodernism and process theology. In her contribution to the collection Christina Hutchins presents an extended analysis of the work of Whitehead and Judith Butler (2002), an analysis that she expands in a later article (2006). She notes that both Whitehead and Butler attack the metaphysics of substance and both offer philosophical insights into a non-essentialist subject (2006:126–27). She also claims that for both theorists openness is key to their approach: for Butler the universal must be left permanently open; for Whitehead process is the becoming of experience (2006:128–29).

Hutchins concludes that the similarity of the two approaches lies in a sense of fluid creative subjectivity that is shaped by the activity of becoming a subject in relation (2006:135). And this is where she makes a connection between Butler, Whitehead, and theology. Expanding the relational performativities of love, she argues, is a holy motion:

When novelty and subversion re(form) the experiential process of identity formation, the creative space for all human becoming expands. In this expansion we might recognise a motion of the holy (2006:143).

Although Hutchins does not mention the topic in either of her articles, the other authors in the collection rely on a distinction between deconstructive and reconstructive postmodernism. It is obvious to most of the contributors that the relativistic, even nihilistic tendencies of deconstructive postmodernism are not compatible with the aims of theology. The reconstructive postmodernism that the authors espouse, however, merely sidesteps these problems. Reconstructive postmodernism has only a tenuous relationship with what most theorists would identify as postmodernism. Postmoderns of any stripe deny the possibility of absolute truth and define ethics as fluid and relational rather than fixed. Thus when the authors in this collection embrace liberation, ecological absolutes, even grounding they are espousing a position in conflict with what many theorists would identity as postmodern. As Keller puts it in her contribution to the collection, anyone who is serious about feminism will want to offer ground – give reasons to remember the shared earth that provides the common ground in which all our contexts rest (2002:13). Grounds, however, are antithetical to any version of postmodernism.

Another theorist who argues for a connection between postmodernism and process theology is Monica Coleman. Asserting at the beginning of her book that process theology is postmodern theology (2008: 8), she asserts that the postmodern theological framework rejects hierarchical dualisms and defines the ongoing process of life in terms of the inevitability of relationships (2008: 72–73). But in the course of her argument she also claims that postmodern process theology supports liberatory movements and ecology (2008: 50). A postmodern framework, she asserts, must seek justice and wholeness in the world and a postmodern theological framework must assert that God resists oppression (2008: 78–81).

The literature on postmodernism and process theology from a feminist perspective is valuable in many respects. The openness that both espouse is a notable similarity between them, as is the rejection of the metaphysics of substance and the definition of subjectivity as fluid rather than fixed. But there are also some troubling aspects to these arguments. The attempt to link a postmodern process theology with liberation, environmental and justice movements is difficult to justify; in any version of postmodernism, deconstructive or reconstructive, these links are not viable. At the root of postmodernism is the rejection of absolutes, a rejection that is at the centre of the many criticisms of the approach. Critics of postmodernism argue that it eschews any kind of ethical or political position because it refuses to acknowledge that any position can be declared right or true, superior to its rivals. This has been a particular problem for feminists who claim that postmodernism obviates the possibility of feminist politics without which feminism is unthinkable (Hartsock, 1987). It also obviates the possibility of a process theology that takes stands on justice and oppression. ⁴

A Different Dialogue

There is, however, much more to be said about feminism and process theology in the twenty-first century. What I will argue in the following is that another feminist approach, the new materialism, provides a more productive dialogue with process theology. In some respects it is curious that feminist theologians influenced by process theology should turn to postmodernism for philosophical grounding. In many quarters, and especially in feminist theory, postmodernism has been under attack in recent decades. The linguistic constructionism that is the centre of postmodernism has been criticized on the grounds that it is too restrictive both epistemologically and ethically. The new materialists, both in feminist theory and other disciplines, have argued that we must let the material back in. They agree with the postmodernists that language constitutes reality but they argue that it is not the only constituent. Rather they assert that reality is constituted by language, the material, the technological and many other factors.

Feminist theorists such as Karen Barad, Nancy Tuana, and Stacy Alaimo have constructed a theory that builds on postmodernism insights but identifies other factors, particularly the material, as constitutive of reality. This is also the theme of my The Material of Knowledge (2010). Central to the new materialism is the rejection of dichotomies and, most particularly, the dichotomy between the human and the non-human. Ecological concerns are at the centre of the discussions of many of the new materialists. They also reject the mind/body dualism. Feminist new materialists such as Elizabeth Grosz, Moira Gatens, and Elizabeth Wilson have focused on the materiality of the body, a subject precluded by postmodernism. These theorists have opened up feminist analysis to a broader sphere of inquiry.

It is my contention that the new materialism is a much better fit with process theology than postmodernism. Like postmodernism and process theology, the new materialists reject dichotomies, define reality as a flow, and reject what Whitehead calls the metaphysics of substance. But unlike postmodernism, the new materialists provide a grounding, although not an absolute grounding, in the material world. The linguistic constructionism of postmodernism is limiting, its focus is narrow and restrictive. The new materialists, in contrast, provide a perspective that includes the material world, the world of the non-human, and the technological. It encompasses all of reality, not a single part.

The perspective I am proposing has much in common with what Catherine Keller in her 2008 book, On the Mystery calls a ‘third way.’ The goal of her book, she assert, is to avoid the ‘garish neon light of absolute truth claims’ as well as the ‘opaque darkness of casual nihilism’ (2008: xii). The polarity between absolutism and relativism, she asserts, paralyses faith; likewise the claim to absolute truth is the greatest obstacle to theological honesty (2008: 4–8). Process thought, she counters, offers not a relativism of anything but a relativism of everything flows.

Process theology, for Keller, defines truth as open-ended. It is a relation, not a possession, a becoming. Keller wants to replace the omnipotent God with a God of love. God’s power is an interactive process, it enters the pain of the world to transform it from within (2008: 86). The God of ‘letting be’ opens up a space of becoming (2008: 88). The love that God offers is a threat in a culture that values individualism and separation while devaluing communal interdependence and interconnectedness (2008: 130). The key to process theology, she concludes, is materializing the theology of open-ended interactivity (2008: 172).

Keller does not mention the new materialism in her book, but there are obvious parallels to this approach. The emphasis on flow, the rejection of dichotomies, the focus on the material, and the definition of truth as an open-ended process all characterize the new materialism. Like Keller’s third way, new materialism tries to define an approach that simultaneously rejects the limitations of linguistic constructionism as well as the absolutism of classical materialism. In one of the few discussions of process theology and the new materialism Sheila Briggs argues that the work of the prominent feminist new materialist, Karen Barad, provides a way of reformulating ontology and metaphysics (2012: 85). The advantage of this reformulation is that for the new materialists we need not reject ontology and metaphysics out of hand. Rather we can embrace them in a new light that allows for a world defined neither by absolutes or linguistic constructionism, a world of being and becoming.

My goal here is not to debunk the feminist theologians who have attempted to detail the parallels between process theology and postmodernism. Rather, it is to facilitate a conversation between process theology and feminist new materialism. First, it brings to the attention of feminist theorists a very promising development in theology. Feminists are too quick to write-off theology as irredeemably patriarchal and absolutist. The process theologians present a theology that is neither; it is a theology of flux and flow and becoming. It challenges the metaphysics of substance that is central to new materialism. And it defines a God of love who is in the world, interacting with humans and non-humans and feeling their pain. This God is not the androcentric all-powerful God of masculinist classical theology.

Second this conversation gives process theologians, particularly feminist process theologians, a rich philosophical perspective that can enhance process thought. The new materialism is, arguably, the most exciting theory to emerge in recent decades. It has transformed theories of knowledge in many disciplines. It can also be a valuable resource for theological thought. The link between process thought and the new materialism, furthermore, is evident in the work of several prominent new materialists. Bruno Latour, Nancy Tuana, and Donna Haraway all acknowledge the influence of Whitehead in their work. My thesis is that both process theology and feminist new materialism can and should build on this foundation. In Representation of the Post/Human Elaine Graham (2002) attempts to foster a conversation between theology and the disciplines and institutions of contemporary society. What I am doing here is in the same spirit. A separation between theology and feminism can benefit neither, whereas a productive dialogue can benefit both. My goal is to stimulate that dialogue.

A possible theme of that dialogue is a fundamental issue that informs all aspects of both contemporary feminist theology and feminist theory: redefining the human. Feminist theorists since Simone de Beauvoir have argued that we must challenge the masculine definition of the human if we are to admit women to the sphere of humanity. Feminist process theologians have echoed this thesis but have added an important component: they argue that the definition of the human and the definition of God are inextricably intertwined. As Mary Daly so famously put it, if God is male then male is God. Exploring the simultaneous redefinition of the human and the divine could be a common concern of process theology and feminist new materialism. And this redefinition has the potential to revolutionize both.