The Implied Spider

I would like to address the question of the value of comparative work and whether Doniger convinces me of its value.

I would answer “yes” and “no”. On the one hand I think that comparative work does have value in the study of myths, however I do not agree that this is inherent or that it is the only way that myths ought to be studied. I would like to first examine Wendy Doniger’s definition of Myth and then discuss the history of comparison as a method and the problems associated with the method.

The Definition
As soon as I opened up this book I wondered how Doniger was going to define Myth. I have done some studies in the past on myth and in my experience it is always a difficult term to describe. It is first important to clarify the term “myth” which carries a certain connotation in popular culture (for example: “myth busters”) and secondly to differentiate myths from folklores, legends and similar literary genres.
Based on her introduction she has defined myth as:
- Not a lie or false statement
- A story that raises religious questions
- Sacred and shared
- Something that can be analyzed both narrowly and broadly
- Expresses cross-cultural experiences
- Being comparable between cultures

She acknowledges that the history of the term “myth” makes it a difficult word to define and study but nonetheless believes that the comparative approach is the best method to understand myths. While I agree with a cross-cultural examination, it is also important to look at a text within itself and within the particular context in which it was written (or spoken) and the context in which it was received. I think that by simply comparing a myth based on shared or different elements can be problematic. In theory I think it works, but in reality I think that it can be very subjective. I will explain further. When one does a comparative approach they look at similar and different elements between the two things being compared, however the criteria that is noticed can be biased and could give the impression that these myths were of a similar origin or could be different variations of the same story. Here again I believe we can run into the problem of classification and the dangers of categorizing, which we have discussed in previous classes.

A New Comparative Approach
In chapter 2 of Wendy Doniger’s book The Implied Spider she argues that “myth is an inherently comparative genre”. She advocates the idea that comparison is not only a useful method of studying myths but as one of the most basic ways we come to understand our world it is the most useful way to understand myths. I liked how Doniger used both a vertical analysis and a horizontal analysis of myth. Not only can myths be understood vertically (earthly & divine) but can also be understood in their relation with other myths (cross-cultural). It is useful to understand the dynamics of myths and that they can be understood in different ways and on different levels.

There are three different problems that Doniger mentions about the comparative approach, they lack rigor, they advance unfalsifiable universalist hypotheses and that they are politically unhealthy (64). These are the reasons why she writes that the universalist comparative studies have largely been abandoned in postmodern studies. I would like to respond to her first point as it struck me when I read it. In her response to the lack of rigor she presents a new model for comparison, one which insists upon a comparatist having the necessary background knowledge of the primary language and an awareness of the necessary context. I think that she is being too idealistic in her response to this model. While in theory this would be ideal, in practice who would be able to regulate this? While I agree that it is important to know the context of the particular myth or myths which are being studied, the context of many myths are highly debatable.

In Conclusion:
I personally agree with Doniger that the comparative approach is a useful method for the modern study of myths. However, I am hesitant to disregard the opposite approach. By focusing on a particular culture within a particular context one can understand the value of certain beliefs and ideas about the world, ideas which may not be as central to another culture who has their own myth. I think that the most important approach when looking at myths is to try to understand their reception rather than their origin. If a cross cultural comparative approach helps to understand this better then I would say that this would be the best method to undertake.

Issues of Gender

I have chosen to discuss Butler’s analysis of Wittig’s call for a “destruction of sex” in Boyarin’s article on “Gender”.

Butler vs. Wittig: The Battle of the Sexes?
Wittig has some very strong ideas about gender and female sexuality. She strongly ascribes to the ideas of Simone de Beauvoir who asserts that women are not born women, rather they become women through sexual intercourse. It is through this act that a women is produced and becomes set into her role as a women. In other words Wittig views the role of women as socially constructed through a women’s role as a wife and mother. The idea that “one is not born a women” is similar to those from the writings of Philo of Alexandria and Paul from the early Jewish and early Christian periods.

As a method of eliminating this extremely hegemonic construction, Wittig calls for a “destruction of sex” as the only way to “liberate” this class of people from their socially constructed roles (126). She believes that the only ones who are not reduced to the role of women are lesbians and nuns. Her main purpose is to allow women to assume the status of universal subjects through the destruction of “sex” (126).

Butler’s points out that Wittig’s notion of women and when they become women is predicated upon the assumptions of “masculinist ideologies of transcendence” (126). He also criticizes that she associates the pregendered individual with freedom. By claiming this assumption Wittig subscribes to the very categorization of sex as natural that she is trying to disprove and deconstruct.

I would agree with Butler in saying that by making this claim Wittig is ascribing to the same ideologies which existed in the times of Philo and Paul in that women who did not get married and remained virgins were not considered women, but rather were viewed as men. This is predicated upon the assumption that there remains a higher, more desirable class. It also reinforces hegemonic ideas about gender and male-female relations. Butler clearly argues from the other extreme from Wittig when he defines gender as “the discursive/cultural means by which “sexed nature” or “a natural sex” is produced and established as “pre-discursive”, prior to culture, a politically neutral surface on which culture acts” (117). For Butler “sex” is a natural phenomenon which is developed before culture and provides a starting point for which culture is built upon.

What do we do now?
How are we as scholars to approach our research with this in mind? This was a question about which I have pondered as I always seek to understand the purpose behind what it is that I am studying. Here are some of the reasons for which the study of gender and the question of “sex” as pre-social or not are of relevance.

1. Characteristics of gender are deeply ingrained into our thinking as scholars. Even in today’s society there are activities, clothes, games and colours that are generally ascribed to a particular gender (blue=boys, pink=girls, as an example). As a result it is important that as scholars we are careful to approach our subjects by not imposing our views of gender upon our subjects, whether they be texts or people.

2. The status of marriage. In North America marriage is not as valued as it was in Israel in the first century (to use an example). In those days it was absolutely necessary to be married in order to continue one’s family line. For women the raising of children was often considered their most important role and therefore being able to provide for one’s family was a key feature in choosing a husband.

3. Gender and class. In the ancient world these were closely related. Women could not achieve the same class as men unless they “became men” (refer here to the examples given in Boyarin about women who became highly praised in society).

Can Anything Exist Pre-socially?
As I conclusion I would like to state my personal views on the question on the existence of anything presocial. I believe that there are certain things that we are born with although often these are reinforced through culture and our navigation through society as we grow up and learn. For example, humans are born with the ability to communicate through language, whether it be speech, hand gestures, facial expressions, etc. This is a universal phenomenon which is presocial. However, as we grow we learn new and different ways of communication. The best example of this is to watch a newborn baby develop into a toddler. Babies already know how to communicate from birth. However from birth to their school years they makes incredible strides in their ability to learn different modes of communication. This shows that while culture/society does produce communication, it is also an innate human quality.

I also think that the notion of sex is presocial, however that being said it is also socially constructed. Sex (and by this I mean the ability to distinguish between male and female) is something that we are born with, however the hegemonic idea that the male is superior to the female is socially contructed. Gender roles, on the other hand, are not presocial, but socially constructed.

If this blog entry seemed a bit chaotic and scattered it is because it is a reflection on my mind this particular week. I have a particular interest in women’s studies, but sometimes have trouble with different theorists’ application to my own field of study. The final question which I will end with is one which I do not yet have a clear formulation for but have been thinking about in light of some of my interests.

How do my personal views on gender relations and the determination of sex as a pre or post social phenomenon affect how I will conduct my research?

Identity Problems: The Relationship between the Author and Reader of a Text

This weeks reading illuminated many of the problems which scholars in my field have in approaching ancient texts. I study a period called the Second Temple period (also referred to as the inter-testamental period) which spans roughly 300BC-100AD. During this time there were numerous texts written which claimed authority through authoritative figures from Israel’s past. For example, there is a lot of literature that claims to have been written by Moses, though clearly they had been written much later. These texts have been categorized by modern scholars as “psedepigrapha” which literally means forgery or falsely attributed. The term “pseudepigrapha” carries a lot of baggage in that it assumes that the practice of not using one’s own name is plagiarism, as it is often characterized today. This does not reflect however the way in which texts were understood during this period. I will be using this problem in my field as an example while discussing my views on the identity and relationship of the author and reader of the text.

Barthes
Modern obsessions with dating and questions of authorship have limited the ways in which these pseudepigraphic texts are understood. I really liked Barthes argument that to use “authorship as the decisive clue to meaning…is misguided in that it constitutes an attempt to impose a limit on the text” (133). Barthes mockes traditional literary criticism for its emphasis on objectivity, good taste and clarity. Additionally he wrote that a text’s unity is not found in its origin rather in its destination (133). It is this comment which strikes at the core of the debate surrounding these pseudepigraphic texts. Should we be more concerned with who wrote them or should we rather focus on how they have been received?

Foucault
I also found Foucault’s notion of authorship to be particularly valuable for my example. Just as Barthes challenged the way we conceive of a “text”, Foucault challenged our modern sense of “authorship”. He asks “when and how did the authority of a work become linked to authorship?” (134). In the case of the pseudepigrapha from the second temple period this is an especially important question. There is one text in particular called Jubilees that was found in several copies at Qumran (in the Dead Sea Scrolls). It was attributed to Moses despite its late origins. There is no evidence that this text was not received as an authorial and important book for the Qumran community. Using Foucault’s line of reasoning it is not as important to know who wrote this book rather it is better to ask “what are the modes of existence of this discourse? (134). This theory called the “author-function” is particularly valuable when looking at ancient texts.

Genette & Derrida
Another question which pertains to these pseudepigraphic texts centers around the study of textuality. Many of these pseudepigraphic texts draw upon other texts to formulate their own. In the case of Jubilees it uses the story of Genesis from the bible and weaves into it his interpretation of what is going on. I agree with Genette’s approach of the relationship between different texts which he calls “open structuralism” (132). He focuses on the notion of “open texts” which draw upon other texts in their writing and reception. Derrida, though taking a slightly different look at the material, argued that “there is no pure originary text that has not been ‘touched’ by other texts” (132). I think it is therefore very important to not only look at a text on its own but to look at it contemporaneously with other texts which it invokes within it’s writing. Here Clark writes that the very idea of interpretation is reinterpreted. It is not valuable to look at a text on its own, rather it is important to situate a text within the body of literature which it developed out from.