Living my faith authentically means that I will never tolerate injustice. As long as gender inequality exists, I will feel compelled to speak out and take action. FER is one of the avenues through which we pursue this, and even if we don’t achieve anything monumental, let it at least be known that we stood on the side of justice and equality, and on the side of humanity, striving to bear witness to our religious traditions in the best possible way.
Rebeka Anić holds a PhD in Catholic Theology and serves as a scientific advisor at the Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences. For several years, she taught the “Religion and Gender” course in the Master’s program in Religious Studies and Gender Studies at the University of Sarajevo. Additionally, she has worked as an external associate at the Department of Sociology at the University of Zadar, and taught at University Center for Protestant Theology Matthias Flacius Illyricus at the University of Zagreb, as well as the Catholic Theological Faculty at the University of Split. Rebeka Anić has participated in several international and domestic projects and led two projects at the Franciscan Institute for the Culture of Peace. Her research focuses on gender theories, biblical and theological anthropology from a gender perspective, and the position of women in the Church and society.
Zilka Spahić Šiljak is a professor of gender studies whose expertise spans gender, religion, human rights, politics, and peacebuilding. She has extensive experience working in both governmental and non-governmental sectors, as well as in academia. She has served as a lecturer and researcher at Harvard and Stanford Universities in the United States and led the Religious Studies program at the University of Sarajevo. Currently, she is the director of the TPO Foundation in Sarajevo, which addresses issues related to education, intercultural dialogue, peacebuilding, and empowering young people and women in leadership roles. She is also a visiting professor at Roehampton University in London and teaches at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Zenica.
Rebeka and Zilka speak with Polis.ba about the establishment of the FER school, as well as topics such as feminism and religion, gender stereotypes, the perception of women in society and religious communities, the burden of misinterpretations of the roles of men and women in both secular and religious contexts, and the misunderstandings and ignorance surrounding feminist theology.
At the beginning of this month, the online FER School: Feminism and Religion commenced. According to the invitation to apply, the goal of the FER School is “the deconstruction of the foundations of gender stereotypes and the construction of egalitarian gender models based on scientific and religious arguments.” What are gender stereotypes, and what are their foundations?
Rebeka: Gender stereotypes are generalized beliefs about the characteristics and roles of women and men. Men are often perceived as active, rational, ambitious, and skilled in mathematics and technology, with their primary domain being the public sphere. Conversely, women are seen as sensitive, nurturing, and oriented toward others, with their primary role being in the family. These traits are often justified by perceived physical and sexual differences between men and women. The metaphysical nature of women is thought to stem from their physical characteristics, which are considered inherent and uniform across all women, regardless of social or cultural influences, and distinct from the supposedly timeless male nature. The crucial question, however, is: How do we come to understand this nature? More specifically, given that we base our understanding of male and female nature on bodily differences, what knowledge about the body serves as the foundation for understanding the metaphysical nature of women or men? Gender stereotypes are rooted in Aristotelian assumptions that the mixture of elements in a woman’s body is weaker than in a man’s, leading to the belief that women are passive in childbirth, while men are active. This has also been used to argue that women are more susceptible to passions and less rational than men, requiring male leadership. Aristotle’s influence on biology and medicine has been so pervasive over the centuries that its impact is still felt today, with some research continuing along the lines of active-male and passive-female. However, contemporary scientific research often challenges these assumptions, though such studies are less popular in the media and mainstream science literature. In contrast, books promoting gender stereotypes are quickly translated into numerous languages and become bestsellers. These authors often present their work as scientific while disregarding critical analysis that questions their validity. Examples of such books, some of which have been translated into Croatian and referenced in theological works, include Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, Why Don’t Men Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps?, Why Do Men Lie and Women Cry?, The Female Brain, and The Male Brain.
Zilka: I have approached these issues from a sociological perspective, investigating how stereotypes impact women who aspire to leadership roles in society. Research shows that men are generally evaluated based on their potential, while women are assessed on their results, with the standards often shift in favor of men. For instance, an experiment involving American university students revealed that when presented with the biography of a successful businessperson, one group was told the person’s name was Alan, while the other group was told it was Lidija. Both groups rated the person as competent, but the first group described Alan as authentic, likable, and good, whereas the second group described Lidija as aggressive, boastful, and power-hungry. This illustrates the significant pressures women face due to contradictory expectations. On one hand, they are expected to be feminine, but in leadership roles, they are also expected to demonstrate determination without being perceived as exhibiting masculine traits.
Additionally, it is crucial to consider the self-stereotypes that women internalize, which can lead to a lack of self-confidence and feelings of inadequacy and incompetence. Women often question their own suitability for certain positions and tend to prepare more thoroughly, knowing that criticism directed at them is usually more severe than that aimed at their male counterparts.
We are currently witnessing discussions about sex and gender. How, in fact, should we correctly understand the concept of gender?
Rebeka: The simplest interpretation would be that the term “sex” refers to the body and the anatomical and physical differences between the sexes, while “gender” refers to social sex—the characteristics and roles attributed to that body. In other words, people are born male or female, but from birth, they are exposed to various social factors that teach them how to be boys and girls, and consequently, men and women. The interpretation of the relationship between sex and gender has, however, become more complex. It has become clear that it is not enough to discuss only the social conditioning of gender; different interpretations of gender itself must also be considered. Biological and medical definitions—the so-called objective descriptions of the human body—change over time and vary between cultures. These descriptions and interpretations have also been influenced by the social relations of specific periods. Judith Butler summarized the realization that the body is a discursive category and that its interpretation is subject to social and power relations with the statement: “And gender is gender.” This statement is often misinterpreted by the anti-gender movement as a denial of physicality, which is not accurate. Butler has repeatedly emphasized that she does not believe purely cultural signs produce a material body; rather, the body does not become sexually legible without such signs, and these signs are irreducibly both cultural and material simultaneously. Gender studies do not deny the material body, as they are sometimes wrongly accused of doing, but instead explore the interpretations of the body both past and present, and the implications these interpretations have for definitions of masculinity and femininity. This is what we refer to when discussing the construction and deconstruction of masculinity and femininity.
At the very beginnings of the Church, patriarchy overcame Christianity, and this victory has since been theologically justified. To deconstruct theological traditions regarding women and their role in the Church and to construct egalitarian gender models, a reformation of existing church structures is necessary. Implementing this reform requires a faith grounded in the Gospel and people willing to embark on an adventure with God.Rebeka Anić | Photo source: Slobodna Dalmacija
However, gender is increasingly recognized as both an analytical scientific category and a category of justice. Unlike the feminist perspective, which primarily focuses on women, a gender perspective encompasses an analysis of both masculinity and femininity, as well as male and female roles, social positions, and power relations. For example, a gender-sensitive exegesis does not merely investigate the role of women in the Bible but examines the biblical narratives about women alongside those about men. This approach raises questions about why certain terms are translated and interpreted differently depending on whether they refer to men or women, and what implications this has for contemporary women.
It is also important to note that modern research has moved beyond gender-based studies to embrace the principle of intersectionality. This principle analyzes the interplay of various social and cultural categories, such as gender, race, class, nationality, and sexual orientation, in an individual’s life. For instance, white heterosexual women from the middle or upper class do not have the same opportunities as black women from the same class. Intersectional theology, which explores these complex interconnections, is another area of study that is not extensively covered here.
Many people believe that gender stereotypes are established within religious communities and religions themselves. However, in your article “Secularization of Religion as a Source of Religious Gender Stereotypes,” published last year in the journal “Feminist Theology”, you argue that it is secular principles, rather than religious ones, that underpin gender stereotypes. Could you clarify this perspective?
Rebeka: Zilka and I wrote that article. While working together, we observed that the gender model of complementarity, which continues to prevail in official Catholic Church documents and mainstream Islamic teachings, is based on the sex dichotomy as interpreted by Aristotle. Consequently, this anthropology is grounded in Aristotelian natural philosophy rather than in the sacred writings of these two traditions—the Bible and the Qur’an. Thus, it has a secular, rather than a theological, foundation. Regarding Catholic theology, I will illustrate this using John Paul II’s teachings on women and his so-called “new feminism.”
The Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, does not provide a definition of female or male nature. Referring to Genesis 1:26-28, the Pope teaches that both man and woman are made in the image of God, possessing reason and free will. When interpreting the dignity and role of women, the Pope does not focus solely on women as individuals but on their special female nature and feminine qualities. To understand how knowledge of female nature is derived, it is necessary to consider his philosophy, which combines “Aristotelian Thomism” and the phenomenological method, with an emphasis on the act of experience. In summary, to grasp the metaphysical nature of women, the Pope uses the phenomenological method, starting from the act of childbirth. Through induction and reduction, he arrives at an understanding of the metaphysical nature of women. Analysis of the Pope’s teachings shows that his conclusions about women’s nature are based on Aristotelian-Thomistic assumptions, recognized in the act of childbirth, and then transformed into an ontological understanding of women through induction and reduction. This circular foundation implies deriving something from nature that was projected onto it initially. This is where Judith Butler’s assertion that “sex is also gender” proves to be accurate.
Had the Pope considered another act or experience from women’s lives instead of childbirth, he might have reached a different conclusion about the metaphysical nature of women. However, it was essential for him to demonstrate that women are inherently more sensitive, nurturing, and oriented toward others. He interprets the relationship between men and women as one of complementarity. Yet, this model reveals itself as one of subordination when transferred from the anthropological to the institutional level. Specifically, the Pope uses this model to interpret relationships within the Church, distinguishing between the apostolic-Petrine (hierarchical, male) dimension that leads and decides, and the Marian (lay, female) dimension that listens and follows. Such a relationship model does not embody complementarity but rather represents a pure model of subordination, which characterized Catholic anthropology until the Second Vatican Council. If a complementary gender model were in place in the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical law would reflect the principle of equal dignity for women and men, rather than different rights, and we might see a 50% male and 50% female representation among cardinals.
Zilka: The notion of nature as the basis for determining the identity and role of women has also influenced Islamic tradition, despite its absence in the Qur’an. In fact, the Qur’an does not define male and female nature nor command obedience to a man but rather to God and the Prophet. As Amina Wadud concludes in her analysis of the Qur’anic text, obedience to a husband is not a characteristic of “better” women nor a prerequisite for being part of the Muslim community. In Islamic tradition, men and women have always been considered equal by virtue of creation, both receiving the same gifts from God. Dignity and personal integrity are based on possessing a soul (a part of the divine), reason, and free will. However, throughout history, women have mostly been defined in relation to men, who was seen as the norm in patriarchal and tribal societies. Although they are equal before God in rights and obligations, the roles of men and women are defined based on biological and other differences derived from them. Islamic theological anthropology of women was significantly influenced by Judeo-Christian religious traditions and Greek philosophical thought, especially Aristotle. Muslim scholars adopted Aristotle’s dualistic understanding of humanity as body and spirit, defining men as more inclined toward the spiritual and women as more inclined toward emotions and the material world. Aristotle’s concept of women as “incomplete” men and the scholastic interpretation of women as “incomplete” men had a lasting impact on classical Islamic thought, unfortunately persisting even today. The theory of gender complementarity still prevails, where men and women are seen as complementing each other through stereotypical differences, with these differences granting men primacy and control over women, their bodies, and their lives.
Within the framework of FER School, you offer students a variety of courses: “History of Feminism in the East and the West,” “Philosophy and Gender,” “Gender, Religion, and Peacebuilding,” and “Religion and Gender-Based Violence.” Were you motivated to start this school due to the lack of knowledge about feminism and feminist theology in our society? It seems to me that both of these terms are often perceived more as threats from the West than as opportunities to build a better society. Why do you think this is the case?
Zilka: Our motivation stems from both personal beliefs and the social necessity to engage in a dialogue about gender issues, considering both secular and religious perspectives. As believers, we often find ourselves bridging the gap between the secular and the religious, demonstrating through our own example that one can be both a believer and a citizen, with neither aspect excluding the other. If prominent sociologists have characterized the 21st century as the age of religion and the age of women, then now is the ideal time to discuss religion—prevalent in the public sphere in the Balkans and other parts of the world—in a new light. We must seek dialogical solutions to integrate religion into contemporary social contexts. The excessive politicization of religion and its reduction to mere political tools make it crucial to detach religion from political manipulation and to explore its role and potential for contributing to the humanization of society, benefiting both women and men. It is also important for women to discuss, interpret, question, and deconstruct religion, while also offering their visions for practicing religion in secular societies. My vision of religion today includes the freedom to ask questions, to listen to one another, to respect differing opinions—even those with which we disagree—and to avoid committing violence under the guise of faith, as God transcends any limitations we impose on Him.
Education serves as a powerful means of awakening us from the slumber of powerlessness and hopelessness. Only when we recognize how deeply we have sunk can we rise to the surface and see that the world is far larger than the cages into which we are confined, where we suffocate in ignorance and hatred. Zilka Spahić Šiljak | Photo: Imrana Kapetanović / K2.0.
Due to these reasons and after listening to the experiences of women from this region, we decided to establish the FER School. Our goal is to dismantle at least one barrier of prejudice and fear, and to inspire both women and men to reflect on transcendence, themselves, and the world around them. If we achieve this, we will have succeeded. Everything else would mean surrendering to the status quo and accepting powerlessness as an unchangeable condition, which we refuse to accept. We view education as a powerful tool for awakening from the slumber of powerlessness and hopelessness. Only by recognizing how deeply we have sunk can we rise to the surface and see that the world is much larger than the confines that stifle us in ignorance and hatred.
The courses you have listed are just a part of the FER School’s pilot program, which runs until the end of December 2021. Starting in early 2022, the FER School will expand its offerings to include courses such as Anthropology in Christian and Islamic Traditions, Feminist Theology, Gender, Literature and Spirituality, Sociology of Gender, and Gender, Religion, and Media. These courses are designed as academic programs lasting 15 weeks each, with 45 hours of lectures and exercises, along with mandatory readings and academic writing. The entire program is structured to adhere to academic standards and provide a thorough understanding of gender issues in conjunction with today’s critical topics.
Our societies are patriarchal, and this is also reflected in religious communities of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions, where patriarchal attitudes toward women prevail. However, the sacred texts of these religions contain numerous examples of egalitarian behavior. Of course, there are also examples that discriminate against women. Observing churches and religious communities, as well as the position of women within them, one might get the impression that these institutions are more inclined towards discriminatory rather than egalitarian treatment. Even women themselves often accept the roles imposed on them, believing in the legitimacy of such a way of life. Why, then, are religious communities fearful of women?
Rebeka: At the very beginning of the Church, patriarchy overcame Christianity, and this victory has been theologically justified ever since. Deconstructing theological traditions about women and their role in the Church, and developing egalitarian gender models, necessitates a reform of existing church structures. To implement such reform, faith rooted in the Gospel and people ready for a journey with God are essential. Theological knowledge, including an understanding of the development of ecclesiology, is also required.
I would like to refer to the Franciscan theologian Kenan Osborne, who, in his book A Theology of the Church for the Third Millennium: A Franciscan Approach, discusses the crisis in contemporary ecclesiology. According to Osborne, modern Catholic ecclesiology is centered on hierarchy and adheres to Aristotle’s ideas about the necessity and immutability of what exists. This perspective leads to the interpretation that the historically developed church structure, simply because it exists, is seen as necessary and therefore unchangeable.
As with theological anthropology, Aristotle’s influence and philosophy resurface here, yet no philosophy should be binding for the Church. The principle supporting necessity is philosophical, not theological. In line with Franciscan theological tradition, infinite free will would be paramount. No created being or situation can constrain the infinitely free God. Osborne argues that we can only call something immutable and necessary if God has freely promised that it will not change. Church structures and practices have evolved and changed throughout history.
Osborne contends that the inclusion of women in church leadership is a major issue in ecclesiology. I would argue that it is a matter of faithfulness to the Gospel. While we discuss leeches in state institutions, we often overlook their presence in the Church. Such individuals seek security and prestige through a “spiritual” vocation that they could not attain in secular life. These people are resistant to reform, uninterested in the Gospel or theology, and instead cling to traditionalism under the guise of tradition. The problem is that such individuals often ascend quickly within the church hierarchy, gaining the power to determine the future direction of the Church.
I’d like to ask you a somewhat more personal question. You’ve experienced the consequences of your views firsthand. As a woman and a nun, you faced attacks from some hierarchs. Zilka has also faced attacks and criticism, and it’s likely that some of your friends have distanced themselves from you as well. How do you cope with this? Should people be afraid of Rebeka Anić and Zilka Spahić Šiljak?
Rebeka: I don’t think anyone is afraid of me. People like me, along with other theologians who share similar views, are simply ignored and excluded. One bishop summed it up in a single sentence: “I’m not interested in her; she’s not important.” For lectures on women and gender relations, female theologians who generally don’t focus on these topics are often invited. I find it amusing to watch or read reports from those lectures.
Enduring attacks is not easy, especially when they come from both outside and within the religious community. I find the attacks from within the community more painful, not only because it is the only space of privacy I have but also because I know these sisters have not read my work. They are attacking me and asking superiors to prevent me from writing and speaking, either on the orders of the head of the Catholic association to which they belong or on the advice of male theologians. However, I am aware that I cannot think or act differently. One theologian told me, “You know who heads my department and what I can say if I want to teach at the university.” And I want to. Some theologians think similarly and have told me, “A Catholic theologian knows what can and cannot be said in public.” Is that hypocritical? It is not my way of thinking or acting.
Regarding friends, I lost the ones who were not genuine. I have made some new friends. Some people treat me like Nicodemus: they communicate with me in secret and try to avoid me in public. I don’t blame them.
Zilka: It’s a little easier for me than for Rebeka because I am not part of an institution and work in a secular environment, both at the university and in the non-governmental sector. My work focuses more on the sociology of gender and religion, which offers me a bit more protection than Rebeka has. I wouldn’t say that anyone is afraid of me, nor should they be, but many would prefer that I don’t ask questions or point out the limited opportunities for women in the Islamic community, where their work is mostly confined to education and charitable projects.
The best strategy of our religious and secular institutions is to ignore any miracle by principle for three days, or until it passes—just ignore the importance of what you are doing. Thus, there is no desire for dialogue on gender issues within the community; well-learned lessons about where women belong are merely repeated. Women who accept these limitations may make some progress.
However, for a community and society to advance, it is necessary to push boundaries and constantly question everything, including our ways of believing. Instead of fostering true reflection and freedom of spirit, these ways often stifle, silence, and sometimes threaten and destroy us and everything around us.
Living my faith authentically means I will never tolerate injustice. As long as there is gender inequality, I will feel compelled to speak and act. The FER school is one of the avenues for this, so if we don’t achieve anything grand, let it at least be known that we stood on the side of justice, equality, and humanity, striving to witness these values in the best manner according to our religious traditions.
Source: https://polis.ba/rebeka-anic-i-zilka-spahic-siljak-za-polis-nas-zene-se-jednostavno-ignorira/
