2.1 Locating postcolonial feminist hermeneutics
2.1.2 Postcolonial hermeneutics within biblical criticism
On the other hand, postmodern hermeneutics is also inadequate for the purpose of my study.
Although postmodernism is “an anti-hegemonic reaction to or repudiation of the world- annexing impulses of European modernity” (Moore 2005:80), it does not address the West’s continued domination of the ‘other’, which is the main engagement of postcolonialism, and which my faith community is currently experiencing. Furthermore, its dissolution of subjectivity and agency at a crucial time, when women and other oppressed categories are just beginning to fight for their emancipation, makes it blind to their experiences. Schussler-Fiorenza therefore expresses that a postmodern reading of texts undermines the political implications of feminist readings (cited in Kwok 2003:76). Hence, both modern and postmodern hermeneutics stand in need of postcolonial biblical and postcolonial feminist critique.
In the following section, I will therefore attempt to define and map postcolonial biblical criticism, and postcolonial feminist hermeneutics, showing why they have been preferred as fitting theories for a reading of 1 Cor 11:1-16. The rest of the chapter will mainly locate postcolonial biblical criticism and postcolonial feminist hermeneutics within the wider context of biblical interpretation in theologies of liberation in the Two-Thirds World.
Postcolonial biblical criticism is a new approach to the Bible, of which the parameters have not even yet been clearly defined (Sugirtharajah 2001:245). Scholars have not been keen to define its purpose and instead have chosen to exercise their freedom in dealing with it. It is slightly more than a decade ago that postcolonial biblical criticism was conjoined with postcolonial studies.
Writing in 1997, Gerald West (West 1997:322) predicted that post-colonial concerns were “on the way to becoming another ‘criticism’ within Biblical studies...” Indeed, his prediction was soon to be realized because it was during the same Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (1997) in which West was speaking, that Fernando Segovia and Stephen Moore discussed the possibilities of bringing into fusion Biblical Studies and the already existing Cultural Studies in order to develop a ‘cultural biblical criticism’ (Moore and Segovia 2005:1).
However, in order to distinguish their name and perspective from the already existing project named ‘The Bible and Cultural Studies’,18
18 This was initially a three year consultation on Gender and Cultural Criticism (1993-1995), which in 1996 was renamed The Bible and Cultural Studies.
they decided to examine the intersection of Biblical
Studies and Postcolonial Studies of which the latter was already growing into a broad field that had its roots in cultural studies. Their thought coincided with developments in biblical criticism:
some biblical scholars had already begun to bring a postcolonial approach into biblical scholarship (see Moore and Segovia 2005:2-3). They decided to name their project and consultation ‘New Testament Studies and Postcolonial Studies’ in which they aimed to bring postcolonial concerns to bear on biblical studies.19
19 Moore and Segovia however do not claim that this exercise marked the beginning of postcolonial biblical criticism because its notion was already in existence. They point out that it was a challenge to map the field of postcolonial biblical criticism because it was difficult to identify where it precisely “begins or ends.” They indicate that it may have emerged from liberation hermeneutics, extra-biblical Postcolonial Studies, or even historical biblical criticism, or from all of them at once (Moore and Segovia 2005:5-6).
So what is the implication of bringing postcolonialism to bear on biblical studies? This is what I address below as postcolonial biblical criticism.
It has not been an easy task for biblical scholars to draw correlations between the two disciplines, especially because it is not long since the two were conjoined. In fact, for Moore, a proponent of postcolonial biblical criticism, the task “is a formidably complex one that has scarcely begun”
(2006:11). Sugirtharajah (2002:25-26, 2006b:67) however, makes the remarkable point that “the greatest single aim of postcolonial biblical criticism is to situate colonialism at the centre of the Bible and biblical interpretation.” He rightly notes that, for over four hundred years, biblical scholars have been overt about showing the impact of Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Enlightenment in defining and shaping biblical scholarship but have been unwilling to disclose the impact of imperialism on the discipline. Thus, a postcolonial approach to biblical studies concerns itself with issues of expansion, domination and imperialism as key factors in defining both the biblical narratives and biblical interpretation.
The second area in which postcolonial biblical criticism interrelates with postcolonial criticism as cited by Sugirtharajah, is where it has been able to collaborate with postcolonialism in its battle for emancipation and in its continued attempt to demolish imperial institutions and other dominating structures. This is due to postcolonial biblical criticism’s ability to accommodate insights from other disciplines.
The other area in which biblical studies can benefit from postcolonial studies is in the “place and function of criticism in the contemporary world” (Sugirtharajah 2002:26). Like literary studies, which have been detached from peoples’ life experiences as indicated by Said,20
Secondly, for Moore, just like the imperial texts which postcolonial criticism addresses, the Bible was also used to sanction colonization of Africa, America, parts of Asia and Europe, and hence postcolonial studies impel postcolonial biblical criticism to “resituate biblical texts in relation to their ancient imperial contexts” (Moore 2006:10). In other words, a postcolonial approach to biblical studies calls for interrogation of the Bible to reveal its oppressive colonial and imperial connotations.
biblical interpretation in modern times, with its emphasis on reason as the determinant of the meaning of the text, has ignored the role that intuition, sentiment and emotions play in perceiving meaning in the text. The danger of this approach is that the meaning of text has been made objective rather than subjective, i.e. the context of the reader has not been taken into account. Postcolonial biblical criticism has learnt from postcolonial criticism to take the context and the concerns of the subaltern seriously and hence has taken a subjective approach in biblical hermeneutics.
The points of contact between postcolonial biblical criticism and postcolonial criticism are also well stated by Moore (2006:9-10). He observes that, just as postcolonial criticism concerns itself with issues of colonialism in the empires of modern Europe, colonialism was also a reality in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean empires from which the Bible draws its context: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. In that case postcolonial biblical criticism, like postcolonial criticism, addresses similar features and concepts like imperialism, hybridity, colonial mimicry, subalterns, decolonization etc., which are realities in the Bible. Some biblical texts, due to their imperial context, address imperial concerns. Postcolonial biblical criticism scrutinizes these texts for their “colonial assumptions, imperial impulses, power relations, hegemonic intentions, the treatment of subalterns, stigmatization of women and the marginalized, land appropriation, and the violation of minority cultures” (Sugirtharajah 2006b:
67). It also reclaims the submerged or the silenced voices and sidelined issues.
20 With regard to the American literary scene, Said has this to say; “As it is practiced in the American academy today, literary theory has for the most part isolated textuality from the circumstances, the events, the physical senses, that made it possible and render it intelligible as the result of human work” (cited in Sugirtharajah 2002: 26).
The difference between the two, and which is crucial for my study as well, is that postcolonial studies do not interrogate the imperial context of the Bible, which is a main concern of postcolonial biblical criticism. Postcolonial biblical criticism analyzes how the imperial-colonial phenomenon impacted on the whole process of the production of the texts,21
21Owing to the fact that, as stated above, the Bible contains documents which were born from colonial contexts, including Egyptian, Persian, Assyrian, Hellenistic and Roman contexts.
their interpretation and the interpreters (see Segovia 2005:24, Sugirtharajah 2001:251, 2002:25) and how this process, including the formation of the canon (Kwok 2005:78-79), bears on the construction of the ‘other’. It also exposes the ideological content hidden behind the text’s apparent claim of neutrality (Sugirtharajah 2006b:67). This scrutiny, as Sugirtharajah (2001:251) indicates, requires that the Bible be viewed not as a divinely inspired document, but as emanating from colonial contacts. This process therefore deconstructs colonial ideology, stigmatization, and unearths the voices that were submerged or distorted in the canonized texts. Postcolonial biblical criticism also reads biblical texts with the concerns of postcolonialism in mind. These include liberation struggles from colonialism and neo-colonialism, concern relating to the ‘other’ or the subaltern, and the feminine elements embedded in the texts.
Besides the use of the Bible as an imperial text, Christianity was also used for imperial purposes.
Liberation theologians have critiqued ways in which the church absorbed, justified and even benefitted from the imperial structures (Keller, Nausner and Rivera 2004:8). Postcolonial biblical criticism therefore analyzes “the troubling ways that Christianity, born as a movement of a colonized people, could also come to mimic the empire” (Keller, Nausner and Rivera 2004:8).
For my study, this observation is particularly significant when analysing the extent to which the Anglican Church of Kenya continues to mimic the ways and beliefs of the missionaries and the British in terms of the treatment of women. Postcolonial biblical criticism also offers a theological dimension which is lacking in postcolonial studies. My research is based on this theological dimension in that it addresses God’s image in humanity, which is a profoundly theological and anthropological concern.
The application of postcolonial theories to biblical studies therefore concentrates on the study of the Bible.22