Kyriarchy?

That makes sense cats, thanks so much. I think I agree with what vesuvia is saying.

I didn't mean to come across as if I were saying Fiorenza was wrong, or not bright - I don't know her - I was just trying to stress that, if she claimed not to be aware of some of the meaning of the word, I'd think she was. It'd be like calling yourself a catholic feminist and expecting people to notice catholic means 'whole world', not the church. And kyriarchy doesn't even have a capital letter to help it. But if she's used the word in a very precise context for theology, I can accept she probably didn't intend for it to get spread about and used in totally different contexts.

I notice a tendency for some analysts to use the term kyriarchy instead of patriarchy even when the only significant variable they are studying is sex. For example, when comparing white able-bodied heterosexual middle-class males and white able-bodied heterosexual middle-class females. The inequality in that comparison is patriarchy. Use of the term kyriarchy could be, and I think sometimes is, used as a kind of mask or euphemism for patriarchy. It would let patriarchy off the hook to some extent. I would dislike that use of kyriarchy.

The harmful effects of patriarchy should be named and shamed. Kyriarchy could make them less obvious. That plays into the hands of anti-feminists.

once you let words out into the wild you have no control over who they associate with or what they do :)

a bit like teenagers really.....

catsrus wrote - "the term has to be seen in it's context, an academic word, coined within a very specific context."

Unfortunately, I expect the very specific context will be ignored by most people, leading to misuse of the term.

Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza is, to coin a phrase, awesome. Brain the size of the universe, lovely person, inspiring writer and speaker, fearless in the face of patriarchal power in the RCC (makes Bishops quake, she's so much smarter than most of them and knows more theology) - and yes, an academic Feminist Theologian. She was one of the key thinkers in my journey out of the RCC and in calling myself a feminist. I met her a few times in the 80's when she was a visiting speaker over here in the glory days of UK feminist theology (before anglican women could be ordained - i.e. tamed and incorporated into the patriarchal church structures!)

What she did (many years since I was involved in feminist theology) is to coin a term that helped American white christian feminists dialogue with American black christian feminists. We (WCFs) were constantly talking about patriarchy - we kept being pulled up by BCF who pointed to our position of power in relation to Black men (American BCFs began to develop something called Womanist Theology). I had a journal article rejected because the Womanist theologian peer reviewer didn't think I had taken that perspective into account :( Well no, because I was white working class British and that's another whole layer of power structures to think about!

So ESF has never, to my knowledge, ever suggested that we should replace the word patriarchy with kyriarchy - but she simply coined a phrase which seemed more descriptive of the complexity of interlocking societal power structures we all operate within. She was looking to make common ground with the womanist theologians I think - and they were (are?) a powerful voice in the American academic christian feminist / womanist scene (in the 80's / early 90's anyway).

So the term has to be seen in it's context, an academic word, coined within a very specific context. My view is that it can be useful in some situations to use it, like most words, in particular when in academic dialogue with women who do not fall into the 'white privileged' category, either through race or class.

Yes, Kri I do take your point about that second part and I'm not happy about it either.

I don't want to 'insist' anyone uses a term they're not comfortable with. I do think that it's a poor deal to give people a term that is fundamentally problematic, and let them run with it. Which is what seems to have happened. It may be this prof is a great, subtle thinker - but she's not really using that to benefit the same cause that's been described in all these links, about intersecting structures of oppression ... if that was ever her intention.

Well, there's plenty folk who think the word "feminist" should be scrapped for 101 reasons. I genuinely think those who think the word Kyriarchy is crap are saying so for genuine, sensible reasons related to its linguistic origins, use in some cases by those who hold views not exactly in line with feminism (e.g. pro stripping and porn) or that there doesn't seem to be one clear definition, which of course leaves the door wide open for confusion and conflict.

However, I still have serious reservations about those who identify with/are identified with "mainstream" feminism insisting that those who feel marginalised within and by "mainstream" feminism that they shouldn't use a specific word, a word they've chosen to describe their experience. Big ick here.

Kri - maybe you are right. But I think there is a difference between the name you use for a horrific act - which will not change the horror or the act - and the way you think about your ideology and politics. IMO. I don't want to use a word that says something I'm not signed up to. I think that term is, at best, stupidly chosen. And that worries me, because I don't think feminists are stupid and I think patriarchy is a really neat, well thought-out concept that is helpful. Junking it for a concept that isn't so well thought out is not, IMO, the answer.

Goth, I didn't in the least mean theologians are dodgy. And I have googled and found lots of definitions that use Classical Greek. What I am trying to say is, in the word 'patriarchy', all the connotations of the word stack up neatly to help us express what we mean. If someone wants to replace that word, because they want to draw attention to intersecting structures of oppression, I would want to know their motives and their mindset. To me, patriarchy isn't a term we want to throw out of the window unless we're very sure. And I admit the first link, about spitting at the idea, did put me on guard.

Now I'm told the woman who coined it is a theologian. Honestly, there is no possible way she was ignorant of what that word means. The translation as 'Christ' is so, so much more obvious than the Classical Greek. If she were a native speaker of modern Greek, and simply thinking of the way the word is used to mean sir/madam (ie., as a term of respect), I suppose I would understand why she'd missed the obvious ... though I would still think it was a bad term to choose and liable to annoy people. She doesn't even have that excuse.

Honestly, there is no possible way she was not aware of that meaning of the word before she chose it. No way in hell. So ... why choose it? Why not use one of the zillion other words for 'lord'? At best, it comes across as if she's not a precise thinker (which doesn't tempt me to trust her ideology); at worst, it makes me feel the word is saying something I really don't want to say.

Perhaps this is taking things on a tangent, but I found it interesting that quite a few folks on the "Honour Killings" thread were saying they don't like the term "honour" when used in this context. Someone mentioned that Southall Black Sisters, one of the main charities campaigning to address this problem and supporting women at risk, use the term "honour based crimes" themselves. In a similar way, I don't like the term "domestic violence" because I don't believe it is either accurate nor reflects the seriousness of the crime. But, I accept it's the most common term for gender-based violence from a partner, so I can set my reservations aside and work with it.

I think there's a risk of getting too caught up in the language part - dissecting Greek and Latin origins and other uses of parts of words and stuff. It's easy to lose site of the important concepts underneath. It sound like some feminists "outside the mainstream" have taken on the word kyriarchy because they've felt excluded from definitions of feminism set by the mainstream. Perhaps they also believe a different word can more accurately reflect the intersectuality and multiple strands of oppression they experience that aren't included within language connected to the somewhat different experiences of mainstream feminists.

Hands up - I didn't bother delving into the links and quotes about the origin of the word. Swathes of bandwidth could be clogged with links and counter links about the term, who uses it and why that are really just opinions, just views about 9 letters arranged in a certain order. Maybe this isn't miles away from all the too-ing and fro-ing about "Slut Walks" that got caught up on the name, sometimes at the expense of the concepts underlying it.

It is clear that is it meant to mean Lord/Master not God. Why she chose the Greek word for it, I do not know, but it definitely doesn't mean God. Other then speculating "Ooh she's a theologian, so possibly...", because theologians are obviously dodgy people and not to be trusted or something, there is no actual proof that she meant God. No one in the many, many comments and pieces linked in the post I linked to thinks she means God either.

Here's another definition. Again lord/master but not God: feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/word-of-the-day-kyriarchy/

Goth ... actually, I didn't say kyrie, which is the vocative, either.

The comment you quote is using a Classical Greek dictionary. She is a theologian. I'm sure she knows what Kyrios means in a non-Classical, religious context. It is not just a generic word for 'lord' or 'master' as it is in Classical Greek. For many English-speaking people, the only way they will have encountered that Greek word (and it'll be one of the few Greek words they'll encounter, so it'll stand out), will be in a religious context, referring to Christ.

Saying that a word's 'root' is neutral is meaningless, IMO. This term has a very specific connotation in the context of Christian theology, and in the context of what English-speaking people may associate with the word (this time, yes, in the vocative) 'kyrie'.

Hence my concern.

LRD - No, no, no the lord/master part is definitely not God. See here:

The word actually κύριος, "kyrios", not "kyrie", which is the vocative is translated as "lord" or "master", but the feminine form κυρία "kyria" is just as valid, and the root κυρι- "kyri-" is gender-neutral. The first definition in Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon is adjectival:

I. of persons, having power or authority over

which certainly fits the way I see it being used here.

From the comments here: www.deeplyproblematic.com/2010/08/why-i-use-that-word-that-i-use.html

But GothAnne, surely there is a pretty clear problem with a term, coined by a theologian, that sets the Lord at the top of a power structure which we're all trying to get rid of! I don't get it.

Dittany - I will concede that that is a fair criticism and food for thought.

Ah ok.

My 11.07 face was more about academia than organised religion (although as it happens we are in the context of both here - something which gives me the patriarchal heebie jeebies).

I guess it wasn't very clear in my comment, but I did mean theologian rather than Catholic.

To clarify - as a radical feminist I don't know if I would identify with a 'mainstream feminist' myself. I might not think they were particularly representative of feminism.

Hard to say without more info on who she means though.

LRD - Beach's comment at 11:07

I thiiiinnnk it was a way of putting intersectionality into a system. Why the root word lord to name that system after, not entirely sure, maybe she felt Lord better emphasised someone who was at the top of various power axis. I would never claim to be an expert on the term, just that I can see why some would find it valuable.

Anyway, I'm off to start a thread on fat/size acceptance now.

I'm not sure that I am ing at feminists being religious exactly.

I think it is more that I am not entirely happy with theologians who identify as Christians being instrumental in the development of grass roots feminist analysis/theory/analytical tools. I guess the problem it poses me is pretty much the same as the problem of academia.

I think that quote is divisive - I think it is adversarial. Also I don't really know what or who is meant by 'mainstream feminist' so it just felt a bit mud slingy to me.

I don't doubt that white/middle class/able bodied feminists have done things to marginalise other feminists.

From whom, GothAnne? I'm asking because I want to make clear, I'm talking about her being a theologian because I think it's relevant to this word (for which I still don't have a proper definition - do you know why she chose it?) and her ideas about it. I don't mean that as surprise or disapproval at the idea of a religious feminist.

I wish we could have a little less of the at feminists being religious.

Dittany - Your argument just seems to hinge on Sudy not being the right kind of feminist for you so nothing she says is of value. I would have thought this board, with the variety of opinions on show here might have shown you that it's not always as straightforward as that.

Beachcomber - The divisive talk you quoted, "Solely pursuing your own liberation often comes at the expense of others. That?s not liberation, that?s mainstream feminism.", is a reference to the belief that the mainstream within feminism looked after their own interests, rather then those of all women. It's a familiar critique and if you look into the development of Womanism, you'll read more about it in detail. Note though that mainstream feminism does not equal all and every feminist.

beach - thanks for clarifications on both points. TBH, I find the wiki thing useless as a definition. It's over-complicating what is not as far as I can see an especially complicated concept, and I really want to know why she chose that term because it seems the more I read about her ideas, the less I understand what power structures she is thinking of/trying to invoke with it.

It may well be you are right, beach, that there are different ways to defiine patriarchy.

From the wiki page on on Fiorenza, they give a bit of an explanation of what kyriarchy means;

"Fiorenza (2009) describes interdependent "stratifications of gender, race, class, religion, heterosexualism, and age" as structural positions assigned at birth.[3] She suggests that people inhabit several positions, and that positions with privilege become nodal points through which other positions are experienced.[3] For example, in a context where gender is the primary privileged position (e.g., patriarchy), gender becomes the nodal point through which sexuality, race, and class are experienced.[3] In a context where class is the primary privileged position (i.e., classism), gender and race are experienced through class dynamics."

Personally I disagree with this analysis.