TOWARD INCLUSIVE INSTRUCTION IN RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY + RANDY L. MADDOX + Associate Professor of Religion Sioux Falls College I still remember his astonishment and pointed queries. Having recently returned from a workshop on the implications of women's perspectives/feminist concerns for the college curriculum, I mentioned to a friend that I was reworking some of my course offerings to be more inclusive of women's experience and perspectives. Given the fact that I was a male, his first question was "Can you?" Then, recalling that my area of teaching responsibilities included religion and philosophy, his question became "Can you?" Finally, reminding me that I taught at an "evangelical" Christian college, he queried "Dare you?" Time has shown that these questions were hardly rhetorical. Trying to teach about women's perspective as a male is, at best, an ambivalent situation (cf., Gillis). Likewise, the growing volume and diversity of feminist scholarship in the area of religion and philosophy can easily overwhelm attempts to understand and incorporate it into course offerings. And, this challenge is even greater in the context of evangelical higher education, given feminists' critique of much traditional Christian practice and belief. These various obstacles could lead one to despair. In particular, on the last issue, some participants in the 1 original workshop have related to me horror stories about backlash to their efforts for inclusive instruction at other evangelical institutions. All the same, the more that I have pursued this agenda, the more indispensable I have come to consider it, and the small measure of progress that I have made gives me reason not to give up hope. This leads to the question of what suggestions or aids I might be able to offer for others interested in this agenda, based on my experience. My first set of suggestions relates to the need for a broad awareness of the issues, alternatives , and implications of feminist scholarship as background for rethinking one's understanding and teaching of his or her academic discipline. Given the volume and diversity of this scholarship, where can one begin? I have appended to this essay a short select bibliography for major areas in the study of religion (including biblical studies, church history, theology, ethics, and world religions) and the general field of philosophy. In each case I have chosen works which survey the scope or summarize major results of feminist scholarship. The hope is that these orientations will facilitate further study in more primary examples of this scholarship. I have also favored works that highlight evangelical feminist thought or reflect on implications of feminist thought for evangelicals, both because this is a major audience for this presentation and because the evangelical context is often dismissed as the most resistant 2 to any inclusion of feminist concerns. Obviously, my bibliography focuses on religion and philosophy because these are my own area of research and teaching. However, I offer this list for more than simply other scholar/teachers in this area. Gaining some understanding of and coming to terms with feminist perspectives on religion and philosophy is crucial to anyone who works in the context of Christian higher education, whatever their academic specialization. This is particularly true in an evangelical setting with its stress on Scripture and traditional Christian doctrine. The inclusion of women's perspectives is part of the larger goal of such institutions (ideally!) to integrate faith and learning, so questions about justification for affirming (some) feminist concerns and about implications of women's perspective for understanding Christian faith cannot, in good conscience, be avoided. Just as other areas must deal with the religious dimensions of the feminist critique, those who work in the area of religion need dialogue with the dimensions of these other areas to deepen their understanding of the implications of women's experience and perspectives in their own discipline. To put this point briefly: in reflecting on various attempts to build a more inclusive curriculum, I have become convinced that an essential prerequisite is an interdisciplinary community of faculty who share this concern and commit themselves to ongoing dialogue and 3 reflection on its dimensions. This is not to say that the entire faculty must take part, but "Lone Ranger" attempts rarely succeed. We need both the support and critical insights of colleagues in surrounding disciplines. Likewise, work in community is the best means of avoiding or overcoming caricatures of either feminism or Christianity (cf., Maddox 1987-8). As such, an excellent place to begin one's efforts in this regard is to gather some sympathetic colleagues for a study and reflection group, for deepening awareness of the issues. As awareness of the scope and implications of the feminist critique deepens, a major philosophical divergence within the literature will emerge (cf., Grimshaw). At issue is the question of the relationship of women's perspective (or women's "truth") and men's perspective (or men's "truth"). Three major alternatives are evident: separatists, who argue that male and female epistemologies are distinct and mutually incompatible; integrationists, who assume that the relevant differences between males and females are entirely subsumable into the larger categories of "human"; and inclusivists, who admit significant differences between male and female experience, but believe that mutual understanding remains possible through dialogue. Ultimately, a choice among these alternatives is necessary, for they carry profoundly different methodological and pedagogical implications. For separatists, the study and teaching of women's experience 4 should remain a distinct topic. They would favor separate courses on Women's Studies whose primary audience is women (some assume men could not understand, even if they did attend). Integrationists assume that the real topic should always be human experience, and that the role of studying women is to broaden and balance our understanding of this human experience. As such, separate courses and segregated audiences, while occasionally permissible, are not the desired option. Inclusivists stand in the tension between the other two options. On the one hand, they resist simple amalgamation of the differences between males and females into generic "human nature." On the other hand, they contend that these differing perspectives are not incommensurable; mutual understanding is possible if we commit ourselves to serious and sympathetic dialogue. As such, they remain open to a variety of instructional and research arrangements. Differences between the three approaches would carry over into questions of the overall liberal arts curriculum. For separatists, a transformed curriculum might offer parallel courses for men and women throughout. For integrationists the goal would be to transform all courses from dealing primarily with male experience to dealing with human experience. Meanwhile, inclusivists would seek a curriculum that fosters improved mutual understanding without obscuring the continuing differences of male and female experience. 5 Without entering into extended argumentation, I would recommend an inclusivist orientation for Christian educators seeking to understand and present women's experience. This approach seems most appropriate to the central biblical message of God's intent to "reconcile us to one another in our diversity." By contrast, the separatist position rejects reconciliation as a goal, while the integrationist approach verges on denial of the diversity per se. (Besides, a strong separatist position would exclude my very attempt-as a male-to understand and appropriate women's perspective!) Given my inclusivist goals, I have experimented with a variety of pedagogical strategies for facilitating students' awareness of and sensitivity to women's experience. A few lessons have emerged from these efforts. For example, the typical first venture into this area is to offer a specialized course on women's issues (such as "Christianity and Women"). Such a focused course is easier for the instructor. However, it almost always selects its audience (i.e., those students-male and female-whom you believe really need it are the least likely to take it!). Likewise, it leaves the impression that the existing (male-normative) general education course is "standard" knowledge, while the women's perspective course is merely an elective variation on this standard. For this reason, my greatest emphasis has been on reworking my general education courses themselves in ways that are more inclusive of women's experience. This 6 has meant much more than simply adding a few "women's days,"; it has meant rethinking the most basic categories about what it means to be human, etc. (cf., Maddox 1986-7). Another practical lesson I have learned is that interdisciplinary courses on these issues are typically the most successful. On reflection this makes sense. Foundational to the feminist critique is the conviction that all human knowledge is context-specific and influenced by one's presuppositions. Any good interdisciplinary course inevitably gets to the issue of the different ways that various academic disciplines approach truth-that is, it reinforces the students' awareness of the contextuality of knowledge. And what about the implications of male instructors in courses devoted to women's issues? For one committed to inclusivist goals, this is an issue on which it seems impossible to win. If a male teaches the course alone, the questions of his ability to "understand" is never far from students' minds (or his!). If no males take part in instruction, then the suggestion of separatism might be given. If one opts for teaming up a male and a female instructor, the impression might be that the male instructor's presence is intended to give the course respectability. What's a person to do? Perhaps the best solution is simply a fluctuation of arrangements. Hopefully this would reinforce the ultimate goal of mutual understanding and trust. I can testify that it also helps 7 deepen the male instructor's sensitivity to the issues of "male" and "female" style in teaching. BIBLIOGRAPHY General Gillis, Chester. "Teaching Feminist Theology: A Male Perspective." Horizons 17 (1990): 244-55. Mainstreaming: Feminist Research for Teaching Religious Studies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985. Weaver, Mary Jo. "Widening the Sphere of Discourse: Reflections on the Feminist Perspective in Religious Studies." Horizons 16 (1989): 302-15. Biblical Studies Laffey, Alice. An Introduction to the Old Testament: A Feminist Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Maddox, Randy L. "The Word of God and Patriarchalism: A Typology of the Contemporary Christian Debate." Perspectives in Religious Studies 14 (1987): 197-216. Church History MacHaffie, Barbara J. HerStory: Women in Christian Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. 8 Tucker, Ruth and Liefeld, Walter. Daughters of the Church: Women and Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987. Theology Diehl, David W. "Theology and Feminism." In Gender Matters, 25-50. Edited by June Steffensen Hagen. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. Maddox, Randy L. "Toward an Inclusive Theology: The Systematic Implications of the Feminist Critique." Christian Scholars' Review 16 (1986-7): 7-23. Ethics Andolsen, Barbara, et al. Women's Consciousness, Women's Conscience. San Francisco: Harper, 1985. Bruland, Esther Byle. "Evangelical and Feminist Ethics: Complex Solidarities." Journal of Religious Ethics 17.2 (1989): 139-60. World Religions Carmody, Denise. Women and World Religions. Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989. Sharma, Arvind, ed. Women in World Religions. Albany: SUNY, 1987. 9 Philosophy Grimshaw, Jean. Philosophy and Feminist Thinking. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1986. 10