Hope, A.(under review) Countours of a Postsecular Feminism: Fourth Wave Theory and Praxis, Submitted to Theory, Culture & Society more

Contours of a Postsecular Feminism Contours of a Postsecular Feminism: Fourth Wave Theory and Praxis 1 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism Abstract In light of the present hegemony of secular feminism in academia and the Western body politic, the author suggests there is a critical need for postsecular feminists to attest to their own unique theoretical and methodological approaches by generating systematized literature that compels (secular) mainstream feminists to acknowledge the legacy and contribution of postsecular feminism and that subverts the secular feminist supremacy. Drawing on postsecular theory and existent spiritual feminist literature, this essay contours central elements unique to postsecular feminist theorizing building upon the work of Rosi Braidotti. The first section offers background information on postsecular theory which lies in the tradition of critical theory. Then shifting to postsecular feminist theorizing, the importance and need for de-centering and de-secularizing ‘secular’ feminism is highlighted along with articulating the claim that religious subjectivity cannot be contained or separated from feminist praxis. Next, the integral position of society’s cultural religion in both the constitution and de-constitution of patriarchy is expounded, particularly its ideology of citizenship, symbolism, and doctrine. The importance of mobilizing alternative religious/spiritual symbolism and doctrine that can thwart the patriarchal tendencies inherent within not only cultural religion, but also civil society is then highlighted. The author concludes calling for future theorizing within postsecular feminism and future research that investigates the current social movements that can be characterized as postsecular and feminist. The author proffers that the recent rise in postsecular feminist popular activism possibly indicates the advent of the new fourth wave of feminism within North America. Keywords: feminist theory, postsecular theory, critical theory, women’s public sphere, contemporary activism, citizenship, subjectivity 2 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism Introduction In an earlier issue of Theory, Culture, and Society, feminist philosopher Rosi Braidotti (2008) explored a particular approach to feminism that she labeled as postsecular to name spiritual feminists like Starhawk, Luce Irigaray, Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Mary Daly, and various others associated with the first and second feminist waves. Her choice of terminology is in part related to the present societal trend that renowned scholars like Jurgen Habermas (2008), Jacques Derrida (1998), John Caputo (2001) and Charles Taylor (2002) have referred to as the advent of the postsecular society, a coinage which has yet to be clearly demarcated in the literature or rather which denotes differing understandings. Braidotti offers a depiction of what the postsecular condition signifies drawing attention mainly to the current political climate of religious extremism that has arisen in all aspects of the world and the implications of neo-conservative politics and perpetual war on the global society. But her most noteworthy point was made with regard to the intersection of feminism, politics, and religion. Drawing on present spiritual feminist literature, Bradoitti brilliantly articulated that postsecular feminists have demonstrated that political subjectivity and religious piety can coalesce, critiquing the dualistic secular feminist assumptions that the political is rational and areligious, while the spiritual is irrational, void of political agency. Braidotti’s contribution is considerable given that mainstream feminist literature, particularly from Europe and North America, which is predominantly secularized, tends to suppress and marginalize the important contributions of the spiritual feminist movements all over the world both in academia and in the body politic. One rarely finds much mentioned about the spiritual feminist movements in feminist historical literature, as they are largely subsumed within the more ‘significant’ or more ‘important’ secular feminist paradigms or most often ignored entirely. (Braidotti, 2008; Caputo, 2001; Derrida and Vattimo, 1998; Taylor, 2002) In fact, this present hegemony that secular feminism enjoys is highly problematic for spiritual and religious feminists (who came before secular feminism and who have been present during all the feminist waves) because herstory/history has been told often ignoring the legacy of postsecular feminism such that postsecular feminists have been unable to engage in the politics of theoretical discourse as well as praxis. When in reality, there can be said to be two distinctive streams of feminist waves that have existed in our time—secular and postsecular streams, with only the secular waves recorded in herstory and the postsecular waves forgotten. As such, this article is partly political in that it calls for feminists to correct herstory and attest to unique theoretical and methodological approaches to postsecular feminism—both discursive and material—by naming and charting a postsecular feminist discourse situated within the scholarly and popular literature. At the same time, mainstream (secular) feminists are summoned by this article to realize their secularized and dualistic assumptions and to acknowledge the existence of another paradigm that has long been at work and continues to consist of a major aspect of the feminist movement. Only if this is acknowledged can future collaboration and coalition building then emerge where both paradigms can work in relationship with one anther rather than in opposition. 3 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism It is important to note the rationale for the use of the term ‘postsecular feminist’ rather than the term ‘spiritual feminist’ or ‘religious feminist’ and why I retain the usage of this term in this article. Part of the rationale pertains to the inclusive nature of the term in that it can incorporate both the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘religious’ feminist as such terms are distinctive in meaning and politically charged for many feminists. Secondly, the terminology operates like an umbrella term to denote a wide range of feminist scholars and activists who combine their sense of political subjectivity with spiritual or religious piety, including feminist theologians, thealogians, Goddess feminists, feminist witches, spiritual feminists, Christian feminists, Jewish feminists, Quaker feminists, Pagan feminists, and so on. It is a term inclusive of the more academic variants as well as the more popular groups. The problem is that these groups have operated in a fragmented fashion such that no overarching discourse has been generated that connects them all. Constructing an overall postsecular feminist discourse provides the medium for centralized theorizing, which should not be mistaken for universal theorizing, and more importantly, for engendering a unifying political efficacy oriented towards feminist praxis. In the same way that popular secular feminism inadvertently relies on secular ideology and theorizing to unify the different modes of feminist praxis, thereby strategically situating itself as the mainstream within feminism, I suggest that the term ‘postsecular’ is useful because popular postsecular feminism can rely on postsecular thought—its common thread that can accord the discourse a more systematic feature as well as political mobility. The term postsecular is strategic in that it not only brings together otherwise fragmented feminist groupings in an effort to thwart the politics of marginality, but it necessarily highlights the secular nature of mainstream feminism which often goes unnoticed and which operates to Other more postsecular feminist approaches. Like Braidotti implies in her article, I also proffer that ‘postsecular’ is an appropriate term given that we are witnessing the postsecular turn in society which is marked by the interpenetration of the sacred and the secular. This ideological assumption about the nature of society underlies postsecular feminist discourse in its present as well as previous formulations under the guise of spiritual feminism. Moreover, one manifestation of the postsecular society is the rise of religious extremism, and much of the present formulations of postsecular feminism are a reaction to this neoconservative politics. Many feminist organizations that engage in what is termed ‘sacred (political) activism’ have formed after 9-11 in an effort to approach the world from a spiritual framework promoting interreligious dialogue, sco/social activism, and a post-patriarchal world order without war (Paey, 2005). Thus, situating this feminism as ‘postsecular’ is appropriate given the interrelationship between popular feminism, politics, and the postsecular condition. In the remainder of the article and for the sake of coherence and simplicity, I will refer to both past and present theory and praxis related to the merging of faith and feminism as postsecular even though it might make more sense to use the term protopostsecular when referencing past literature. (Fernandes, 2003; Flinders, 1998; Habermas and Ratzinger, 2006; King, 2008) This essay begins to map the terrain of a postsecular feminist discourse and theory building essentially on Rosi Braidotti’s foundational work on the topic of postsecular feminism. I draw on postsecular (critical) theory and existent postsecular feminist literature to craft, what I suggest are, the paradigmatic themes within postsecular 4 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism feminist theory. While Braidotti (2008) along with various other feminist scholars including Flinders (1998), King (2008), and Fernandes (2003) have called attention to the ways in which political feminist activism and social/eco justice work can be cultivated through spiritual and religious piety, postsecular feminism as a discourse with its own unique theoretical and methodological trajectories has yet to be charted and legitimated within the broader feminist literature. This article is an attempt towards that end, though it will take much more than this article to accomplish that goal. It is problematic that spiritual or postsecular feminist discourse is virtually unheard of in light of the fact that postsecular feminism has been flourishing since after the advent of modernity, yet foundational texts written on feminist theory (e.g. Beasley, 2005; Donovan, 2001; Tong, 2009) continue to ignore this legacy. The assumption held is that postsecular feminism is arational since it is religiously/spiritually based, and therefore, must be atheoretical. However, as I will demonstrate throughout this article, postsecular feminism relies not just on faith but also on rationality to mobilize effective praxis. Postsecular feminists are anti-dualists meaning that they do not accept the mutually exclusive and hierarchical nature of any dualism including faith/reason, secular/sacred, church/state, civility/barbarity and so on. Their work is theoretical and practical, and as such, scholarly enquiry surrounding a postsecular feminist paradigm is warranted which addresses the lived experiences of postsecular feminists, their socio-cultural and transnational contexts, the socio-theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of the discourse, epistemological, ontological, and methodological trajectories, modes of praxis, embedded ideological assumptions and practices, and existent and potential formulations of this particular feminist paradigm. The primary, implicit aim of this essay is not only to position postsecular feminist discourse as a uniquely distinctive field within the broader feminist discourse, but also to suggest that this is necessarily important to acknowledge and distinguish, given that we are presently witnessing a rising popular social movement associated with postsecular feminist activism, particularly in North America, which has yet to be acknowledged in the scholarly literature (Peay, 2005). While postsecular feminists have long existed before the twenty first century, the current postsecular climate has cultivated the further burgeoning of postsecular feminism, particularly in North America after 9-11 such that the contention is put forth that this phenomenon constitutes the advent of the fourth wave of feminism or at least certainly an aspect of this wave since it is distinctive from the secular postmodern feminist paradigm which dominated the third wave. I will broach this topic more in the concluding section.(Beasley, 2005; Donovan, 2001; Tong, 2009) As the field of postsecular feminism is quite vast in its present existence and future potentiality, I suggest, much can be written and crafted related to this discourse; however, this essay will focus on what I suggest are central aspects of postsecular feminist theorizing as I will not be able to address the totality of postsecular feminist theorizing. Drawing on postsecular critical theory, what is addressed will center on discussions that de-center and de-secularize ‘secular’ feminism exposing the fundamental that religious subjectivity cannot be contained or separated from contextualized feminist praxis. Next, grounded in the postsecular epistemological assumption that the secular/sacred divide is a fallacy, the discussion will highlight the integral role of cultural religion (a term in postsecular theory) in terms of its constitution and also de-constitution of kyriarchy and patriarchy within society. As such, the important function of alternative religious/spiritual symbolism and 5 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism doctrine is highlighted with regard to subverting and transforming not only patriarchal religious structures, but also the more so-called secular structures within civil society. As previously mentioned, much of the theorizing put forth stems from postsecular social theory as well as ideas already articulated in existent spiritual/religious feminist literature, but it is the combination and synthesis of the ideas along with the naming of them as “postsecular feminist theory” that is new. The Postsecular Condition and Postsecular Theorizing: Contextualizing the Sacred and Secular Before delving into postsecular feminist theorizing, it is important to situate the postsecular in terms of naming the ‘condition’ and surmising the social theoretical discourse as I suggest that postsecular feminist theory can draw from this. The postsecular condition signifies an era, and, I would like to suggest, a new discourse with its own unique social theorizing. Renowned scholars have begun to discuss what constitutes this condition in terms of signaling a shift in the global society with regard to religion, though the postsecular condition is still a relatively new concept that a consensus has not necessarily been reached yet upon what it signifies as various scholars are adding their own assessments. Here I will briefly outline aspects of the postsecular that undergird and are relevant to postsecular feminist theorizing. I will briefly touch on the postsecular both in terms of signifying a distinctive time and place in society (according to my own assessment), which is how it has mainly been conceived in the literature, and then more elaborately, I will explore the postsecular as a social theory which has been contoured by [Author] in her work Postsecular Theory: New Directions in Social Theorizing, forthcoming (2010). In terms of the postsecular as signaling a new era, it is clear in our world today that religion is not ebbing, but is flowing. Either that or scholars are suddenly paying more attention to the role of religion in society. What generally is agreed upon is that since the late twentieth century, religion has become more visible in the public realm—an aspect of the postsecular. Some suggest that this has always been the natural way of society, while others suggest that this is a more recent phenomenon with its roots in the 1970’s (Casanova, 1994; Smith, 2007). Secondly, Braidotti (2008) suggests that the postsecular condition is primarily distinguished by the rise of religious extremism in all parts of the globe, including Christian, Muslim, and Hindi strands of neo-conservative religious politics, but I want to suggest that the postsecular condition encompasses more than this phenomenon. The postsecular signals an intricate relationship between postmodernity and religion such that religious extremism is one such outcome (Beattie, 2007). Additionally, mainstream religion has experienced an identity crisis due in part to the current postmodern climate such that multiple discourses are emerging within them which have also served in part to increase membership within these traditions, albeit in fragmented form. This resurgence of religion is not only indicative within mainstream religion and extremist religion, but is also indicative with regard to the growing trend of ‘spiritual but not religious’ where many people are embarking on New Age, Neopagan, Occult, or Naturalist spiritual paths. Moreover, religious identities have become hybrid and syncretic as believers have adapted spiritualities that are informed by a combination of different religions (e.g. Goddess Christians, Quaker Pagans, Buddhist Christians). Thus, I suggest that the postsecular condition can be 6 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism said to signify the resurgence of religion in various forms and modalities as a result of an interaction between the postmodern and the sacred along with the increased infiltration of religion into the public sphere (in the West). In terms of the postsecular as a social theory, postsecular theory is situated in the radical humanist paradigm of which its epistemological and ontological trajectories are rooted in anti-positivism and nominalism. Reality is deemed to be constructed by human consciousness and knowledge is created rather than found. In terms of the order-conflict debate, postsecular theory is located on the sociology of change axis rather than the sociology of regulation axis, and can thus be categorized as critical theory since it follows in the Marxian tradition and draws on the works of Gramsci. This means that postsecular theory is fundamentally concerned with radically changing society as the current social order is presumed to be imbedded within power relations that result in the oppression of certain social groups at the expense of others. At the center of this, or the ultimate cause for this oppression is religion in terms of how it is presently constructed and then reproduced in society. Just as Marx accords ‘class’ as the central concept for analyzing society, postsecular theory accords ‘religion’ this same status. Unlike other critical theory, the aim is not to be rid of religion, but to liberate human consciousness from existing forms of ‘cultural religion,’ and thus, alter the human disposition towards the sacred which thereby transforms religious structures into a system of more equitable power relations. The effects of this then spill over into civil society as the secular power roles of women and men are derived from the sacred, not vice versa (Sanday, 1981). Before surmising the basic argument of this particular theory, it is worth mentioning the main ideological assumptions on which it is premised and their underlying rationale—namely, that the sacred and secular are intermingled and interpenetrable such that individual religious subjectivity pervades the secular just as secular subjectivity pervades the sacred which has always been previously accepted and acknowledged, and that an affinity for the sacred does not indicate a less enlightened, primitive mind at work. These claims are at odds with the secularization theoretical frameworks. At this point before proceeding any further, I should further comment on the ontology of the ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ and how these terms are understood in postsecular thought. The view is also in line with the tradition of ‘critical religion’ which makes sense since, as I noted previously, postsecular theory is rooted in critical methodology. First, the separation between sacred and secular, church and state, religion and politics are deemed to be reifications. They are modern constructions which were devised in part to situate Euro-American culture as normative in relation to its supposed Other—the two/thirds world where religion is ‘pervasive’—uncontrollable, disordering, and overflowing according to the civilized subject. Thus, the discourse of religion and secularity engenders power relations that mobilize related dualistic discourses like that of civility and barbarity, purity and dirtiness, light and dark, whitened and non-whitened. The point I am trying to make is that the construction of religion is merely that—a social construction, and the same can be applied to the term secular. Modern scholars assume that religion is an essence, something that exists in and for itself, as something autonomous and distinct from ‘politics’ while the secular is similarly reified as an essence that is void of religion, faith, and passion (Fitzgerald, 2007). In the words of the religious studies scholar Timothy Fitzgerald (2007): ‘Religion is a modern invention that 7 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism which authorizes and naturalizes a form of Euro-American secular rationality. In turn, this supposed position of secular rationality constructs and authorizes its Other, religion’(6). Yet what we call religion is not distinct from the economic, aesthetic, and political spheres of society, even though this view dominates the scholastic literature within the field of sociology of religion. Many sociologists of religion have used the metaphor of the coin to describe the ontological nature of the relationship between secularity and sacrality (Furseth and Repstad, 2006). I suggest this is problematic because it situates both aspects in such a way that they are perceived to not flow into each other, but are located as static, fixed, and mutually exclusive elements. Moreover, they are positioned on opposite sides of the coin which signals that they do not ‘touch’ each other. Instead, I use the analogy of the mobius strip to best depict the nature and relationship between the sacred and secular within postsecular thought. In the mobius strip, each aspect is not mutually distinctive from the other because one cannot tell where one aspect begins and the other ends. At the same time, there remains a semblance of two aspects operating in relationship which is important to highlight in order to avoid monism. In other words, I am not resorting to the idea that the secular always is ontologically the same as the sacred and vice versa, though there can be scenarios where this does apply. Having said all this, it is now problematic to use the terms ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ because by using them, I am affirming this reification of autonomous essentialism on some level; however, for the purposes of conveying my message I will continue to use these terms, but my reader might envision quotes around these terms for the remainder of the article. (Davie, 2000) The aspect of secularization theory and ideology that posits that the sacred and secular are mutually exclusive realms which are defined in relation to one another in oppositional ways has been increasingly discredited by scholars (Kyrlezhev, 2008). The secular characterizes the public sphere while the sacred is reduced to a private belief system. The dualistic assumption about the nature of the secular and sacred is similarly in disrepute as scholars began to realize what Christian materialist scholars have always previously noted, mainly that the sacred and secular are scrambled realms which interpenetrate one another (McDannell, 1995). Many Westerners have attempted to enforce this assumption because there is an implicit fear of what religion can cause or do to a society, despite the fact that societies are inherently predicated upon a sacred mythic or belief system. The discourse of Western exceptionalism regards religion as that which risks true freedom and democracy such that it must be separated from the affairs of the state. The phobia towards religion is grounded in an irrational fear of the Other, and programmed into the psyche only to protect the Protestant hegemony that prevails within American culture. However, postsecular discourse draws attention to the way in which religious subjectivity cannot be conveniently contained as merely a ‘private system’ in ‘private spaces’ because religious subjectivity is mobilized within secular discourses and throughout secular spaces to the extend that the terms secular and sacred appear contradictory and conflated. For example, the trope “things happen for a reason” is rooted in Protestant Calvinist theology, but is mainly viewed as a secularized truism. In reality, it is both a secular and sacred phrase. I suggest that religious subjectivity is informed by both one’s personal belief system and the dominant belief system of a culture or ‘cultural religion’, a term I will expound upon later in this section. One’s sense of religious subjectivity 8 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism can not be divorced from what are typically thought to be secular modes of social organizing. The other major aspect of secular theory and ideology, which is similarly in disrepute, assumes that as society’s progress and become more ‘enlightened,’ religion subsequently dissipates. By the late 1970’s, scholars began noticing the increasing role that religion was playing in the public realm in the West as well as the resurge of religious movements ranging from extremist to spiritually progressive, or at least that was the grandnarrative being constructed by scholars who assumed that religion was never before intricately woven into the fabric of civil society. In the case of Europe, where scholars had once assumed that Europe was the ideal society because of its highly secularized nature, sociologists of religion were and are now noting that this is no longer the case. Rather, secularization theory reflected and still reflects the perspectives of a white-male elite about the white-male elite within European society, rather than the common, ordinary European (Martin, 2005). Grace Davie (2000) asserts that the rapidly changing European society is inextricably bound up in the emergence and development of Christianity in terms of historical perspective. Moreover, the typical European is Christian identified, though this person might not go to Church. Simply because one does not partake in ritual, mass, or mystic practices does not mean to say that one is void of religious subjectivity informed by Christian Protestant symbolism and doctrine. As such, Davie characterizes the contemporary phenomenon as ‘believing without belonging’ wherein believers cannot certainly be characterized as thoroughly secular as they are often perceived. The European case and postsecular theory does not necessarily affirm that religion is natural or intrinsic to humanity, but certainly that it is a powerful force which cannot be ignored or thought of as something primitive with which societies discard once they become ‘enlightened.’ The old adage that religion is always opposite of that which signifies enlightenment, progress, freedom, democracy, and civility are substantially overthrown in postsecular theoretical discourse. Thus, the very nature of dualism itself is thoroughly contested. These main ideological assumptions foreground postsecular theory which draws on Gramsci’s understanding of cultural hegemony to situate an understanding of religion in society. Culture, specifically religion, provides a way of understanding how ruling groups win, maintain, and sometimes loose their power. Religion, specifically cultural religion, is the more potent aspect of culture which determines not only the social structures within religious institutions but also those within civil society. Every society constructs what [Author] refers to as a ‘cultural religion’ which can be understood to be a kind of generic religion that undergirds the culture and of which its discourses and symbols are constructed by the founding elite of the society. Cultural religion encompasses the sacred mythic tradition of which the culture is predicated, and it is transmitted from generation to generation via cultural memory and the collective imagination. It serves specific functions—namely to sustain social order by ensuring cohesiveness, and secondly and more notably, to impress upon the subject an ideology of citizenship rooted in both the symbolism and doctrine of the cultural religion. Through a process of mimesis, the citizen is expected to internalize, engender, and even perform the doctrines and symbols contained within this cultural religion in order to attain full citizenship and political subjectivity. This cultural religious system functions in a hegemonic fashion such 9 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism that citizens are not often aware of its normative influence nor that they willingly succumb to its theologies and symbols as indicators of Truth and Reality in terms of what it means to be a full citizen. Cultural religion is not quite akin to the term civil religion in the sense that nationalism is not interwoven in a society’s cultural religion, though it may interact with civil religion. As an example, in America, cultural religion incorporates mainly Christian Protestant theological beliefs and symbols, as well as those within Deism and Greek mythology. It may fluctuate during different historical periods appearing more mainstream or more conservative at certain times, but fundamentally it always remains rooted in these sacred mythic traditions. What is important to note about cultural religion is that it is not confined to the private aspect of life, but it bleeds into civil society sanctioning what is normative within social and organizational life by dictating social and power relations. (Feuerbach, 1989) For example, the symbol of God becomes an important construction within postsecular theory as well as the doctrine or theology of God with respect to omnipotence, omniscience, and absoluteness. As Feuerbach (1989) argues that we construct God in our image and then we submit obediently to this construction, postsecular theory argues that while every societal founding elite constructs God in their image, the citizen is expected to emulate this God, rather than submit to it. (It should be noted that postsecular theory focuses on the social construction of God rather than the ontological Divine, and makes no truth claims about the nonexistence of God.) The proper citizen willingly attempts to mimic the symbolic narrative surrounding the construction of God and perform the doctrinal scripts of the society’s cultural religion in an attempt to achieve full normativity, political subjectivity, and full citizenry. One way of putting this is that the gods above mirror the gods below. The phenomenon of cultural religion confers and legitimates the requirements for social standing and privilege that mirrors the founding elite’s own socio-economic location in order to ensure that the future elites of society share similar social locations. Cultural religion also serves to sanction and sanctify these disparities within other realms of society, the more secular ones—law, education, government, the workplace organization—such that social status become divinely ordained. A society’s cultural religion is thus mobilized by the elites of society of which one outcome is that of unequal power relations within all aspects of society. This theoretical discourse hence uniquely positions religion, specifically cultural religion, as the kingpin that determines the web of social relations and power relations within all societal realms. The goal of emancipation and structural change then becomes rooted in individual transformation of consciousness. One must become aware of the way that cultural religion holds one captive and thereby engage in alternative political spiritualities and religions that subvert the ideology of citizenship cultivated by cultural religion. Specifically, the citizen must engage politically with subversive doctrine and symbolism. A religiously pluralistic society does not necessarily lead to deep seated change, unless a new overarching belief system actually replaces the deep seated effects of cultural religion on the individual psyche and the collective unconscious. For example, a Canadian can be an atheist, agnostic, or Buddhist, and still suffer from Catholic guilt which is associated with the influence of Canada’s cultural religion. Constructing an empowering image of a deity that mirrors non-elite subjectivity can serve to thwart the systemic and symbolic violence that occurs 10 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism discursively and materially against non-elites. As will be made evident, feminist postsecular theory builds upon this call for alternative symbolism and doctrine, and similarly advocates for the use of subversive symbols and thea/ologies that are empowering for women and others who are marginalized. De-Centering and De-Secularizing ‘Secular’ Feminism and Situating Religious Subjectivity In a similar vein to the concept of postsecularism, the ‘post’ in postsecular feminism can be characterized as in antagonism with the secular ideology inherent within secular feminism in terms of the way secular feminism positions the secular as mutually exclusive of as well as superior the sacred, rather than to denote coming ‘after’ signaling a natural evolution in thought. Postsecular feminism, therefore, operates in a dialogical relationship with secular feminism and is in part theorized in relation to secular feminist theorizing. Grounded in the critical theoretical paradigm, postsecular feminism adopts the ideological assumptions rooted in postsecular theory, namely that religious piety does not signal anti-intellectualism, incivility, irrationality, and thus, ineffectual feminist praxis, and that the sacred and secular are scrambled spheres within society such that religious subjectivity informs what are often thought to be secular formulations. As such, postsecular feminism exposes the sacred roots of secular feminism while at the same time highlighting the white ethnocentrism, elitism, and creedism implicit within the secular feminist disposition towards the postsecular feminist. Moreover, it exposes the implicit dualisms implied within secular feminist discourse. In this section, I will offer a critique of secular feminism both de-centering and de-secularizing the so-called secular feminist paradigm grounded in a postsecular feminist perspective. The dominant mode of doing feminist theorizing, research, and praxis is represented as secularized, rooted in both secularization theory and ideology. Braidotti (2008) notes that the bulk of European feminism is justified in claiming to be secular in the structural and historical sense of the term. I would add that much of Western feminism can be classified as secular in the sense that secular feminists consciously ignore the sacred sphere, and in many cases, deem it to be an irrelevant domain for the purposes of structural change and emancipation. Secular modes of feminism also rely on a kind of anti-clericalism that critiques the church, synagogue, and mosque to the point that these institutions are perceived as entities to be ignored since they are grounded in faith rather than reason. In other words, secular feminism or mainstream feminism situates the realm of praxis as entirely a secular provenance where women’s emancipation comes about through changing secular laws, policies, and attitudes within civil society that pertain to education, government, health care, the media, and the workplace. If structural change is successful in mainstream civil society, then it is assumed that religious institutions will adapt to the changing cultural milieu, and thus, there is little need to subvert religious authority. Moreover, merging faith and feminism only pollutes and retards efforts to engender a post-patriarchal society since faith and religious subjectivity are primarily associated with irrationality and are thereby apolitical. ‘Secular feminism’ is a term that is mainly used in postsecular circles which only highlights the political problematic of naming which occurs when ideology is assumed implicitly, rather than overtly acknowledged. Critics of secular feminism 11 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism are often voiced in postcolonial discourses. The categorical term ‘secular’ is normalized to such a degree that the secular feminist is not cognizant that her paradigm mobilizes secular ideological assumptions and colonizes postsecular discourse. The term ‘secular feminist’ is rarely invoked by the secular feminist, thus, signaling a position of privilege that unveils the nature of the inherent power relations. Religion is viewed as the object of one’s speculation, but the secular is the position that mainstream feminists look from which accords the secular the status of normative (Sands, 2008). Thus, secular feminism is not a neutral discourse as it privileges the discourses of civility, purity, and rationality locating these concepts as secular while objectifying the sacred as barbaric, dirty, and irrational. As the grandnarrative put forth positions secularity and feminism as sharing a seemingly ‘natural’ marriage, the implications of this alliance have set what is religious at odds with feminism, creating dualisms that are implicit. As a result, the secular feminist is positioned as superior to the postsecular feminist because secular subjectivity is supposedly in accord with what is enlightened, progressive, democratic, civilized, and rational while religious subjectivity is more superstitious, conservative, primitive, and has limited efficacy with regard to emancipatory potential. In light of this, the secular/postsecular feminist variants have become gendered constructions in that postsecular feminism is situated as that which is weak, ineffectual, problematic, and hence feminine while the secular feminist is the championing, strong, effectual, and hence masculine mode of feminism. This feminization of the postsecular feminist has located secular feminism as the uncontested norm pertaining to what it means to do feminism ‘properly.’ This binary relationship is not only gendered, but raced and classed. This dichotomy further reveals that white feminists tend to dominate secular feminist discourses as the majority of secular feminism is generated from Europe and North America, while religious-informed feminists become the Other, representing not only ‘less enlightened’ white women in the West, but also mainly ‘less-enlightened’ African Americans, Africans, Hispanics, Arab Muslims—people who express various faith perspectives that are mobilized through postsecular discourses, including postcolonial, Womanist, and Mujerista discourses. During the early part of the women’s movement in North America, feminists and women looked down upon Native American feminist-minded women because they were deeply religious which was taken to mean that they were primitive and archaic (Sands, 2008). Those that comprise the Other are similarly situated in the Two/Thirds World or are apart of the working class within the First World signaling a class divide whereby secular feminists are assigned and accorded social class privilege over and above the postsecular feminists whose voices often are silenced. Of course it should be noted that there are middle-class postsecular feminists who also tended and still tend to dominate their field, especially during the first and second waves. Still, postsecular feminism contains a disproportionately higher number of women of color than secular feminism which may indicate an implicit racism inherent within secular feminism. Secular feminism affirms other dualisms besides the sacred/secular, civility and barbarity, and those along the lines of gender, class, and race. It affirms the dualism that separates the spiritual from the political. As such, it affirms the mutually exclusive and polar opposition between religion which is assumed to be privatized and political citizenship which is assumed to belong to the public domain. 12 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism Secular feminism has consistently marginalized postsecular feminist methodologies because anything to do with political change must be secular in mode since religion is the inverse of the political. Postsecular feminism has often been dismissed by the (secular) feminist movement as large wastes of energy that would be better spent on ‘real’ political work. As previously noted, the histories of the postsecular feminist movements have largely been left out of feminist herstory/history. Because of this implicit spiritual/political dualism operating in secular feminist methodological trajectories, the political is viewed to be at odds with the spiritual, rather than conceived of as interrelated. However, in postsecular feminism, the political and spiritual do share an alliance as they are viewed as interdependent elements rather than mutually excluding aspects. Despite this, secular feminist historical narratives, which function in a hegemonic fashion within feminist discourse, inadvertently serve to silence the social and political force and emancipatory potential associated with postsecular feminism. I would like to comment further on the nature of this hegemony of which its existence is evident in the writing of many feminist scholars. For example, Kathleen Sands (2008) suggests that the first wave of feminism encompassed a fair amount of postsecular feminist activism (e.g. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Matilda Joslyn Gage, and the Protestant suffragettes) than did the subsequent wave which shifted towards the secular, as feminists became increasingly hostile towards religion. However, I want to suggest instead that postsecular feminist activism increased during the second wave (based in part on the fact the Goddess feminism flourished during this time), but that the hostility towards religion exhibited by secular feminists ensured that a specific dominant historical narrative was mobilized—one that specifically cast secular feminism as the dominant force within the feminist movement, while simultaneously marginalizing and rendering the postsecular feminist movement as largely insignificant, perhaps even close to nonexistent. Thus, this hegemony accords secular feminism the status of natural and normative such that a non-secular variation cannot be conceived of as a formidable force within the feminist movement. It should also be noted that Sands is correct in noting that first wave postsecular feminism was minimized and nearly forgotten by second wave secular feminists. The fact that there is a clear and bold postsecular tradition in the work of intellectuals like Matilda Joslyn Gage and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as well as within more popular religious/spiritual movements like that of the Spiritualists and Theosophists of the nineteenth century is often overlooked in feminist and women’s studies literature (Grube, 2010). What has happened, essentially, is that postsecular feminists have abdicated study of these earlier spiritual feminists to secular feminist scholars who have disregarded, diminished, or misconstrued critical information that would provide today's postsecular feminist communities with not only historical roots that are solid but also with an overarching theoretical discourse that could be mobilized for effective feminist praxis. In other words, a postsecular feminist discourse is incredible long overdue, but yet because of the secular hegemony, only now is it being forged. Sands (2008) suggests that …[T]he current amnesia about religious feminism reflects important truths about religion and secularity as linked discourses: how the religious and the secular are shaped in relation to each other, which groups are best able to 13 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism use and alter these discourses, and how these discourses have molded and been molded by feminism itself (309). In light of the postsecular theoretical assumption that the sacred and secular penetrate, the question then becomes how does secular feminism engage with the topic of religion, other than in an overt inimical manner? Does it manage to steer clear of the influences of cultural religion and religious subjectivity or is secular feminism penetrated by cultural religious forces? Postsecular feminism posits that religious subjectivity cannot be contained or separated from feminist praxis so the task of postsecular feminism is partially to trace the religious historical aspect of secular feminism. Secular feminism has supposedly produced primarily agnostic and atheist positions as it historically descends from the Enlightenment critique of religious dogma and clerical authority (Braidotti, 2008). The massive influence of Existentialist and Marxist philosophies has further promulgated the secular approach. It tends to be rational-focused, civic, and non-theistic, at least on the surface level. Despite this claim to secularism though, I will briefly explore the idea that secular feminism is not as thoroughly secular as it purports to be but is also informed by cultural religion and religious subjectivity. The distinction then between secular and postsecular feminism is that secular feminism falsely purports to be secular and retains dualistic thinking and the logical rhetoric of exceptionalist discourse, while postsecular feminism embraces the interrelationality of the sacred and secular as well as the influence of religious subjectivity on thought and behavior. Due to the success of nineteenth century postsecular feminism, women gained increasing roles in the Protestant churches as women’s power and influence had substantially risen. During the early twentieth century, the Protestant Church was divided into two factions—a more liberal or mainstream variant and a more conservative variant divided along the issues of women’s roles, evolution, and biblical inerrancy. Since women had achieved higher status in the churches, the conservative element blamed liberal (male) Protestants for permitting this to happen (Sands, 2008). As result, conservative Protestantism retreated for decades after the 1920’s since the cultural war had been won by the mainstream Protestants. Much of second wave feminism was grounded in this distinctly mainstream Protestant heritage. Then in the 1970’s in direct response to this type of feminism, revitalized patriarchal evangelism asserted itself, making secular (Protestant) feminism appear as if they were thoroughly secular without roots in mainstream Protestantism (Ibid). As such, second wave mainstream feminism should more accurately be called secular Protestant feminism. Moreover, the conservatism inherent within patriarchal evangelism provided the so-called secular feminists with the motivation to expunge religion from all aspects of feminist theorizing and praxis, despite the fact that the backdrop of their ideologies was informed by their religious subjectivities. Secular feminism and the modern secular have a distinctive historical provenance rooted in Protestant Christianity or essentially what is also American cultural religion. Moreover, those who come from this tradition, though they position themselves within secular identity constructions, still in part reflect a Christianized heritage. In other words, they are not unaffected by the forces of cultural religion 14 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism and subsequently the ideology of citizenship. A feminist can be an atheist, but can also be simultaneously a cultural Protestant Christian. As such, the secular feminist is both marked by secularity and by cultural religion. The sense of religious subjectivity informed by cultural religion that ensues assumes an invisible countenance that becomes transmuted into the privileged identity marker of the secular while the more overt postsecular feminist who openly expresses religious subjectivity is positioned as unprogressive and backward as she cannot uphold the mask of secularity in the same way that the secular Christian feminist can. Thus, the idea that a feminist’s subjectivity is naturally secular is a false truism given the role and impact of a cultural history rooted in Euro-American Protestant Christianity. Postsecular feminism exposes the fluid and interrelated nature of the way in which the secular and sacred realms operate and interact with political and religious subjectivity. Postsecular feminist theorizing attempts not only to de-center secular feminism, but also attempts to disrupt the nature of dualism in all its manifestations. Patriarchy, Religion, and the Role of Alternative Symbolism and Doctrine in Feminist Praxis Feminist scholars and activists in both first and second waves of feminism have exposed the sexism and misogyny inherent within Judeo-Christian symbolism and doctrine, but such analyses and claims have often been dismissed or minimized by the (secular) feminist movements as irrelevant to feminist praxis. In this section drawing on postsecular theory and existent postsecular feminist literature, I will highlight what is, I suggest, one of the more central themes within postsecular feminist theorizing—that of the role of religion in society and its relationship to patriarchy. In essence, postsecular feminists argue that feminists in general must give significant attention to religion because it is religion that constitutes and sanctions/sanctifies patriarchy in the first place. In other words, secular feminism is futile unless it regards the sacred dimensions of social life. Building upon the central theses in postsecular theory, postsecular feminist discourse applies a feminist lens to this theory. (Eller, 1993; Starhawk, 1982) According to Cynthia Eller (1993), religion is always and inevitably the distilled essence of what a society or culture holds valuable. I would add to this that a society’s cultural religion is specifically this distilled essence. Starhawk (1982) suggests that religion is the soil of a culture in which belief systems and narratives upon which all institutions are based are unconsciously or consciously grown. For postsecular feminists, the world order operates in a distinctive fashion, with religion serving as the ultimate linchpin. Religion and culture share an intricate relationship with religion playing the paradigmatic role (Eller, 1993). Cultural religion serves as the societal blueprint for dictating social privilege, power relations, and socioeconomic disparities not just within religious institutions, but also within civil society. Moreover, it enforces this social blueprint from generation to generation. So if cultural religion is the linchpin of a society, then where does patriarchy emerge from? Does it emerge from the secular aspects of society or sacred aspects or both? Postsecular feminists argue that it is from cultural religion that patriarchy emerges, and the effects of this then this spills over into civil society such that patriarchy 15 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism becomes institutionalized in secular spheres of society. Patriarchy is first established when the symbolism invented qua a society’s cultural religion is maleidentified, male-centered, and male-constructed. Cultural religion creates patriarchy and becomes patriarchal due mainly to the singular white, male symbolism of God the Father along with the subsequent doctrines established to fortify this symbolism. Then the white male God religion permits white men to be in charge of society in both secular and sacred spheres because cultural religion is invented by them in the first place in order so that white men continue to serve as the elites of society. Furthermore, this keeps women in a state of psychological and material dependence on men and male authority, while at the same time legitimating the political and social authority of fathers and sons in the institutions and organizations of secular and sacred society (Christ, 1982). Mary Daly (1979) charges: ‘If God is in His heaven ruling his people, then it is in the nature of things and according to divine plan and the order of the universe that society be maledominated’(57). Postsecular feminists assert that the male godhead and patriarchal cultural religion is not simply a cause for the subordination and oppression of women and marginalized others but is the ultimate cause (Eller, 1993). Thus in the words of Merlin Stone (1976), ‘women’s rights are a matter of women’s rites’(12). (Daly, 1979; Stone, 1976) Postsecular feminists since the advent of modernity have noted that where ever patriarchal societies existed, they were also undergirded by patriarchal religion. Barbara Walker (1988) proffers that all patriarchal societies place a father-god at the top of their hierarchy, and then the society uses God as the ultimate prop for gender inequalities. The godhead then represents the seat of patriarchy. This is in contrast to the notion that religion is infected by a secular constitution of patriarchy. Rather, it is religion that does the infecting in all aspects of civil society, legitimating patriarchal formulations and rendering them as divinely inspired. Walker (2000) further asserts that ‘religion creates misogyny. Religion was and is the primary medium of women’s spiritual, political, and social enslavement. There is no other aspect of human nature or culture that could have evolved such a phenomenon’(26). In a similar vein, Charlene Spretnak (1982) declares that ‘the underlying rationale for patriarchal societies is patriarchal religion, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, in their dominant representations all combine male godheads with proscriptions against women as temptress, unclean, and evil’(394). The proscriptions then serve as the underlying basis for controlling women and impinging upon their political subjectivity within all aspects of society. Thus, postsecular feminism realizes the importance of religion and the mistake that the secular feminist makes in ignoring religion and spiritual based forms of activism. (Spretnak, 1982; Walker, 1988) Postsecular feminist theory affirms that the gods above reflect the gods below such that a white male God legitimates and accords full citizenship to only white males within society. Moreover, postsecular feminist theory draws attention to the reality that cultural religion within present day societies is almost always patriarchal. In particular, it is the symbolism and the doctrine of this cultural religion that enforces a patriarchal ideology of citizenship. The God of cultural religion serves as the role model for the citizen that is to be emulated, but the symbolism only reflects one social grouping—elite white men. The problem is that there is no symbolism for women and persons of color who do not fit the white male imagery of the Judeo Christian God. They are unable to orient themselves towards an infinite horizon 16 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism that enables their sense of political subjectivity, being/becoming, and selfactualization (Irigaray, 2002). It is the dimension of female sacrality as well as color that is lacking. Because femaleness and color is not apotheosized or deified, women and persons of color cannot achieve full citizenship. The apotheosis of man within cultural religion appears to be directly related to his degree of citizenry. The subsequent demonization of woman similarly appears to be directly related to her degree or lack thereof of citizenry as well. If cultural religion has such an impact, then what about those who are openly atheist or who practice a non-theistic tradition? Postsecular feminist theory asserts that regardless of one’s personal belief system or lack of belief in a divine entity, cultural religion is systemic and has a powerful effect on our psyche and cultural memory such that it becomes difficult for a person who is atheist, for example, to remain unaffected. Clifford Geertz (1972) affirms that religion is a system of symbols which act to produce powerful, pervasive, and long lasting moods and motivations in the people of a given culture such that these symbols shape the ethos of a culture and define the persons within it. These religious symbols have psychological, social, and political effects that lead people to accept social and political arrangements that correspond to the symbol system (e.g. God the Father) (Christ, 1982). Religion has a compelling hold not necessarily on the rational aspects of an individual, but on other aspects of the brain that pertain to memory and the subconscious. So even people who are no longer Christian or who do not believe in God are still affected by the institutional structure of patriarchal religion. For this reason, Stone (1976) stresses that whatever the condition of religion at any point in history, one cannot afford to dismiss the far reaching effects that centuries of religious power continue to have on people, no matter how far removed one is from the pulpit or the altar. If one simply rejects belief in God without replacing this in an alternative construction, the mind will resort to normative and familiar belief structures, symbols, and doctrines. If we cannot ignore the impact of cultural religion, and if it is so strong and everlasting, then how do we bring about a post-patriarchal world order? To subvert the ideology of citizenship impressed upon the society by patriarchal cultural religion, postsecular feminists, in line with postsecular theory, argue that women’s emancipation comes about only through constructing alternative religious/spiritual symbolism and doctrine that subverts the dominant, patriarchal formulations. Thus, the elevation of the feminine face of God is one of the fundamental tasks undertaken within feminist theology as well as the construction of alternative theologies rooted in feminist theory. From a more radical standpoint, other postsecular feminists, Goddess feminists in particular, argue for the denunciation of God and the term ‘God’ because it is fundamentally a masculine construct. Rather, they argue for the elevation of the concept of the Goddess as an important symbol that needs to become just as fully embraced as the concept of God. Only with the symbol of the Goddess, can women’s subjectivity be apotheosized which then allows for women’s full political agency and citizenship to be realized in society. Additionally, they believe that the discourse of thealogy as an alternative mode to masculinist, rigid doctrine and theology, which regards the voices of the other half of the population, needs to become fully developed and legitimated alongside the discourse of theology. Most Goddess feminists hope for a gender neutral God but realize that advocating for neutrality with respect to God’s gender only perpetuates 17 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism the status quo and reinforces normativity. As such, the symbol of the Goddess is essential for feminist praxis and She, rather than He, needs to be fully accepted within all aspects of society. The Fourth Wave of Feminism and the Future of Postsecular Feminism While space limitations do not allow me to more elaborately explore and develop the claim that we are currently witnessing a rise within postsecular feminist post 911 such that this may constitute the next wave of feminism—the fourth wave, I want to briefly mention why I suggest this may be the case. In response to the neoconservatism, the clash of civilizations, the persistent destruction of the environment, the rise of Christian and Muslim extremism, postsecular feminists have begun organizing in hoards creating non-profit organizations that are committed to political and eco/social activism as well as interfaith dialogue. These organizations bear similar features in that they are primarily comprised of women; they are spiritual based organizations, they highlight the need for the return of the Sacred Feminine in our world; and they are committed to what they call ‘sacred activism’ and ‘spiritual leadership’ which encompasses eco/social and political activism from a spiritualized site. One final similarity that they all bear in common is that their formation is linked to the pivotal event of 9-11 which many of these organizational leaders will say was the primary impetus that led to the building of their organization (Peay, 2005). Conducting research on these organizations, I have found numerous organizations—too many to list here that fall within this criteria. Some of the names of these organizations include Gather the Women, The Millionth Circle, PeaceXPeace, Women’s Global Connection, Vessels of Peace, Circles of Ten, and Sacred Healing Women to name just a few, and each organization has a substantial membership. Thus, this recent rise of postsecular feminist organizations may signal that we are experiencing a fourth wave within the feminist movement— a wave that is characterized by the alliance of the political and the spiritual. As the ethos of scholarship is to document and analyze what is happening in society, I call for future research that explores this present phenomenon. Postsecular feminism is already a robust field; however, aside from this article, the naming of this field as postsecular with its own unique theoretical, ontological, epistemological, and methodological trajectories has not yet been accomplished with the exception of Rosi Braidotti’s foundational article on the topic that appeared in Theory, Culture & Society. Postsecular feminists require their own unique discourse set apart from secular mainstream feminism that works towards achieving a solid herstorical foundation rooted in the contributions of postsecular feminists starting with the early thinkers like Matilda Josyln Gage and the Spiritualists and Theosophists of the nineteenth century. I suggest that by revisiting much of these works, a postsecular feminist discourse can be charted which systematizes and threads these feminist approaches grounded in postsecular thought, as opposed to the secular thought inherent within mainstream feminism. In addition, new ideas and theories can be crafted that build upon the present literature. My hope is that this article will inspire other postsecular feminists to focus within this particular field and to continue the contouring of a postsecular feminist discourse and theory, and that one day both secular and postsecular feminists can grow in mutual relationship together and learn from each other. 18 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism References: Beasley, C. (2005) Gender and sexuality: Critical theories, critical thinkers. London: Sage Publications. Beattie, T. (2007) The End of Postmodernism: The New Atheists and Democracy News Analysis. www.openDemocracy.net. Braidotti, R. (2008) 'In Spite of the Times: The Postsecular Turn in Feminism', Theory, Culture, & Society, 25(1): 1-25. Caputo, J. (2001) On Religion: Thinking in Action. New York: Routledge. Casanova, J. (1994) Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Christ, C. (1982) 'Why Women Need the Goddess: Phenomenological, Psychological, and Political Reflections' in C. Spretnak (ed), The Politics of Women's Spirituality. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Daly, M. (1979) 'After the Death of God the Father: Women's Liberation and the Transformation of Christian Consciousness' in C. Chris & J. Plaskow (eds), Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Davie, G. (2000) Religion in Modern Europe: A Memory Mutates. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Derrida, J., and Vattimo, G. (1998) Religion. Cambridge: Polity Press. Donovan, J. (2001) Feminist Theory. New York: Continuum. Eller, C. (1993) Living in the Lap of the Goddess: The Feminist Spirituality Movement in America. Boston Beacon Press. Fernandes, L. (2003) Transforming Feminist Practice: Non-Violence, Social Justice and the Possibilities of a Spiritualized Feminism. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books. Feuerbach, L. (1989) The Essence of Christianity. Amherst: Prometheus Books. Fitzgerald, T. (2007) Discourse on Civility and Barbarity: A Critical History of Religion and Related Categories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flinders, K. L. (1998) At the Root of this Longing: Reconciling a Spiritual Hunger and a Feminist Thirst. New York: Harper San Francisco. Furseth, I., and Repstad, P. (2006) An Introduction to the Sociology of Religion: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives. Burlington: Ashgate. 19 Contours of a Postsecular Feminism Grube, M. (2010) Personal Communication with Angela Hope. Helotes, Texas. Habermas, J., and Ratzinger, J. (2006) The Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion. San Francisco Ignatius Press. Irigaray, L. (2002) 'Divine Women' in M. Joy, K. O'Grady & J. Poxon (eds), French Feminists on Religion. London: Routledge. King, U. (2008) The Search for Spirituality: Our Global Quest for a Spiritual Life. New York: Blue Bridge. Kyrlezhev, A. (2008) 'The Postsecular Age: Religion and Culture Today', Religion, State, and Society, 36(1): 21-31. Martin, D. (2005) On Secularization: Towards a Revised General Theory. Aldershot: Ashgate Press. McDannell, C. (1995) Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Peay, P. (2005) Feminism's Fourth Wave, Utne Magazine. Sanday, P. (1981) Female Power and Male Dominance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sands, K. (2008) 'Feminisms and Secularisms' in J. Jakobsen & A. Pelligrini (eds), Secularisms. Durham: Duke University Press. Smith, G. (2007) A Short History of Secularism. London and New York: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd. Spretnak, C. (1982) 'The Politics of Women's Spirituality' in C. Spretnak (ed), The Politics of Women's Spirituality. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Starhawk. (1982) Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex, and Politics. Boston: Beacon Press. Stone, M. (1976) When God Was a Woman. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc. Taylor, C. (2002) Varieties of Religion Today: William James Revisited. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tong, R. (2009) Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press. Walker, B. (1988) The Skeptical Feminist: Discovering the Virgin, Mother, & Crone. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers. 20