hatzel
8th July 2011, 13:18
So a few things have been sliding through my head lately. One of these is the traditional use of the pronoun set 'He/Him/His' in English, when referring to the Abrahamic deity. Now, this irks me for (at least) two reasons; it seems to contradict the actual teachings on the nature of 'the Divine' for starters, and there are some obvious issues when it comes to latent patriarchy in language. I have, therefore, been seeking an alternative to use in my theological writings. Before I come to that, though, let's just give a very brief overview of the issues surrounding the two above-cited problems:
As those who have discussed ideas with me with know, I maintain a pretty radical apothatic approach, and also criticise the anthropomorphic perception of G-d. That is to say, the application of inherently 'human' characteristics, emotions and behaviour to G-d, rather than understanding that these are entirely human constructions, and that G-d so transcends human understanding that applying such attributes to 'Him' (used for the sake of clarity) is inherently pathetic. So, of course, using a word like 'He,' ascribing a human (or, more precisely, worldly) concept of masculinity or malehood is a ludicrous suggestion, and wholly inaccurate.
Even if we were to act merely by 'His' actions (or, how we interpret them), we would be foolish to think that this infers masculinity. That is to say, G-d is obviously not sexed, being incorporeal, so using 'He' to imply a male sex is nonsensical. G-d can also not be gendered, considering all that stuff is just social construction, and even if we could interact with G-d on an interpersonal level, 'His' acting in a supposedly 'manly' way wouldn't be enough to ascribe masculinity on 'Him.' This is even without the issue, as mentioned above, of human concepts being totally inapplicable to G-d, including, of course, any idea of 'appropriate' behaviour, such as what is supposedly 'appropriate' for a masculine figure. Or, in fact, 'appropriate' for an entity to be referred to as 'good' or 'angry' or anything else. Pretty much I've covered all this stuff before, I feel.
There's the issue then, of course, that referring to G-d, who is explicitly non-sexed and non-gendered as 'He' contributes to some form of patriarchy, expressed in the language itself. It seems inappropriate for a progressive theology to continue forwarding such misconceptions, even if not explicitly, through the choice of language. Of course I could say, as has been said for centuries, 'of course G-d is not male,' and claim that my use of the word 'He' is merely for convenience, so as to be understood, given the prevailing use of the word to refer to G-d. However, this now seems inadequate, and I feel it more important to step back and abandon the word 'He,' not only as a theological statement, on the basis that the word 'He,' or, the ascribing of sex and/or gender to G-d totally contradicts apophatic theology, but also as a means of explicitly countering any patriarchal vestiges.
So I was seeking a new word. It was first suggested that I use the 'S_He/H*/H*' set of pronouns, as may be used to achieve gender-neutrality in other areas. I quickly dismissed this, as it still seems to have worldly sex/gender ideas as its starting point, and this doesn't overcome the issue with 'He' as a means to ascribe human characteristics to G-d. I was also reluctant to embrace it for its not being a remotely accurate translation of the Hebrew (more on this later).
The next possibility was to use the 'They/Them/Their' set, or even the Spivak pronouns, yes this still seemed to remain in the realm of the mortal. That is to say, I could use 'Ey/Em/Eir,' but these pronouns are both obscure and, when used, only applied to people or, at a stretch, animals. Nobody would call a door 'ey,' as far as I'm aware, suggesting that the word still retains a certain degree of...well, 'mortality,' the suggestion of a living being. So, alas, I continue my search...
Approaching the Hebrew...one should be aware that Hebrew is a gendered language, with a masculine and feminine gender. Like many such languages, though, there is no distinction between 'it' for a grammatically masculine noun and 'he.' That is to say, both animate and inanimate 'masculine' objects would be referred to as 'he.' This suggested to me that one could accurate translate the Hebrew with the word 'It.' This overcomes the issues of ascribing some 'mortality' or 'humanity' to G-d and, unlike 'S_He,' there can be no suggestion that I am not remaining true to the Hebrew. I also prefer it to using, for example, a dedicated pronoun, such as the Spivak pronouns, as this could raise the question of why there was no dedicated pronoun in the Hebrew. It's important to cover all the bases, to ensure that the word used fits in with the original Hebrew, so that it can be called an accurate translation, whilst also avoiding applying human characteristics to G-d, or supporting any kind of patriarchic understanding...
So yeah, this is what I've been thinking lately. I wonder if anybody else has considered this issue, and, if so, if they have come to a conclusion. You're also free to suggest other words I could use, or, if you are so inclined, just say 'yeah, rabbi, 'It' is a great choice, you're so fluggin' brilliant sometimes!' :rolleyes:
(And also, as it seems to be the theme in the religion section at the moment: notice how I'm discussing progressive social theology? This is the kind of shit I would(n't actually) have put in one of those religion groups if they still existed, but alas, I'm just spamming this subforum with my ramblings instead :lol:)
As those who have discussed ideas with me with know, I maintain a pretty radical apothatic approach, and also criticise the anthropomorphic perception of G-d. That is to say, the application of inherently 'human' characteristics, emotions and behaviour to G-d, rather than understanding that these are entirely human constructions, and that G-d so transcends human understanding that applying such attributes to 'Him' (used for the sake of clarity) is inherently pathetic. So, of course, using a word like 'He,' ascribing a human (or, more precisely, worldly) concept of masculinity or malehood is a ludicrous suggestion, and wholly inaccurate.
Even if we were to act merely by 'His' actions (or, how we interpret them), we would be foolish to think that this infers masculinity. That is to say, G-d is obviously not sexed, being incorporeal, so using 'He' to imply a male sex is nonsensical. G-d can also not be gendered, considering all that stuff is just social construction, and even if we could interact with G-d on an interpersonal level, 'His' acting in a supposedly 'manly' way wouldn't be enough to ascribe masculinity on 'Him.' This is even without the issue, as mentioned above, of human concepts being totally inapplicable to G-d, including, of course, any idea of 'appropriate' behaviour, such as what is supposedly 'appropriate' for a masculine figure. Or, in fact, 'appropriate' for an entity to be referred to as 'good' or 'angry' or anything else. Pretty much I've covered all this stuff before, I feel.
There's the issue then, of course, that referring to G-d, who is explicitly non-sexed and non-gendered as 'He' contributes to some form of patriarchy, expressed in the language itself. It seems inappropriate for a progressive theology to continue forwarding such misconceptions, even if not explicitly, through the choice of language. Of course I could say, as has been said for centuries, 'of course G-d is not male,' and claim that my use of the word 'He' is merely for convenience, so as to be understood, given the prevailing use of the word to refer to G-d. However, this now seems inadequate, and I feel it more important to step back and abandon the word 'He,' not only as a theological statement, on the basis that the word 'He,' or, the ascribing of sex and/or gender to G-d totally contradicts apophatic theology, but also as a means of explicitly countering any patriarchal vestiges.
So I was seeking a new word. It was first suggested that I use the 'S_He/H*/H*' set of pronouns, as may be used to achieve gender-neutrality in other areas. I quickly dismissed this, as it still seems to have worldly sex/gender ideas as its starting point, and this doesn't overcome the issue with 'He' as a means to ascribe human characteristics to G-d. I was also reluctant to embrace it for its not being a remotely accurate translation of the Hebrew (more on this later).
The next possibility was to use the 'They/Them/Their' set, or even the Spivak pronouns, yes this still seemed to remain in the realm of the mortal. That is to say, I could use 'Ey/Em/Eir,' but these pronouns are both obscure and, when used, only applied to people or, at a stretch, animals. Nobody would call a door 'ey,' as far as I'm aware, suggesting that the word still retains a certain degree of...well, 'mortality,' the suggestion of a living being. So, alas, I continue my search...
Approaching the Hebrew...one should be aware that Hebrew is a gendered language, with a masculine and feminine gender. Like many such languages, though, there is no distinction between 'it' for a grammatically masculine noun and 'he.' That is to say, both animate and inanimate 'masculine' objects would be referred to as 'he.' This suggested to me that one could accurate translate the Hebrew with the word 'It.' This overcomes the issues of ascribing some 'mortality' or 'humanity' to G-d and, unlike 'S_He,' there can be no suggestion that I am not remaining true to the Hebrew. I also prefer it to using, for example, a dedicated pronoun, such as the Spivak pronouns, as this could raise the question of why there was no dedicated pronoun in the Hebrew. It's important to cover all the bases, to ensure that the word used fits in with the original Hebrew, so that it can be called an accurate translation, whilst also avoiding applying human characteristics to G-d, or supporting any kind of patriarchic understanding...
So yeah, this is what I've been thinking lately. I wonder if anybody else has considered this issue, and, if so, if they have come to a conclusion. You're also free to suggest other words I could use, or, if you are so inclined, just say 'yeah, rabbi, 'It' is a great choice, you're so fluggin' brilliant sometimes!' :rolleyes:
(And also, as it seems to be the theme in the religion section at the moment: notice how I'm discussing progressive social theology? This is the kind of shit I would(n't actually) have put in one of those religion groups if they still existed, but alas, I'm just spamming this subforum with my ramblings instead :lol:)