"Futuro passato. Per una semantica dei tempi storici". Reinhart Koselleck (Parte III)

Per Koselleck un’attenzione particolare merita la cronologia, che altro non è che la misurazione del tempo. L’esperienza temporale generalmente presenta tre caratteristiche:

Irreversibilità degli eventi.

Ripetibilità degli eventi.

Contemporaneità del non-contemporaneo («Gleichzeitigkeit der Ungleichzeitigen»), ossia ricorrenza degli eventi.

La combinazione delle menzionate tre caratteristiche consente di carpire la decadenza, accelerazione, ritardo o scoppio di un evento storico. 

La misurazione del Tempo si è concretizzata nel corso della Storia attraverso tre tappe fondamnetali:

Antichità: Senza avere un concetto di Storia in sé e per sé, i Greci e i Latini identificavano il processo temporale con gli eventi che si verificavano. Attraverso gli eventi storici era possibile pervenire ad alcune generalizzazioni e considerazioni di carattere universale. Dalla contemporaneità del non-contemporaneo gli storiografi greci e latini costruivano dei paradigmi sugli eventuali ricorsi storici.

Tradizione giudaico-cristiana: la Storia segue un corso lineare dettato dal dogma, dal messianismo, dal millenarismo, dall’escatologia. L’inizio del Tempo rappresenta un atto creativo di Dio, così come la fine del tempo è incarnata dal Giudizio Universale. Con l’avvento del Messia-Cristo inizia l’era di grazia, e dunque ha inizio la fine dei tempi.

Modernità: La Storia è studiata in sé e per sé. Una rilevanza particolare è data all’esperienza, al dato empirico, alla verificabilità e veridicità delle fonti. Si va ad applicare il metodo scientifico positivista alla Scienza storica.

Quanto è rilevante in storiografia il fattore “caso”? Secondo Koselleck, fintanto che il discorso storico ha per obiettivo la correlazione ed il determinismo del corso temporale degli eventi, il caso resta una categoria a-storica: il rapporto di causalità tra eventi storici nega di per sé l’esistenza del caso. Il caso può però descrivere quelle esperienze storiche che appaiono nuove, impreviste, inaspettate, dunque in questo senso un evento può comparire inizialmente sulla base del caso. Quando il fattore caso viene utilizzato da un punto storiografico, esso indica l’impensata condizione che un evento si verificasse in un dato modo, tempo e contesto. Il caso, o l’evenienza, venne estromesso nel XIX secolo dal contesto storiografico grazie allo Storicismo (cfr. Novalis, Herder, Vico) sia attraverso una sistematica estensione del principio di causalità sia attraverso implicazioni teleologiche, filosofiche, idealistiche ed estetiche insite nel concetto moderno di Storia.    

Koselleck nota come la storiografia presenti una dialettica fondata sulla negazione dell’altro/diverso: e.g. Elleno/Barbaro; Cristiano/Pagano; Umano/Non-umano; Superumano/Subumano (Übermensch/Untermensch). La dialettica della discriminazione si fonda su diversi paradigmi:

Paradigma della non-conoscenza: tipico dell’Antichità, il barbaro è colui che non si (ri-)conosce. Ha diversi costumi, parla una lingua sconosciuta, ha una diversa Weltanschaaung. Il barbaro si ricollega all’idea dell’inesplorato (Hic sunt leones). 

Paradigma dell’esclusivismo teologico: tipico dell’era cristiana (o musulmana), il pagano, l’infedele, l’eretico, lo scismatico, l’apostata è colui che o ignora, o devia da o combatte contro la divina Verità rivelata.

Paradigma del positivismo antropologico: tipico dell’Illuminismo, il non umano è il selvaggio, l’uomo non educato all’europea, l’abitante delle terre di recente o recentissima scoperta geografica.

Paradigma del razzismo biologico: tipico del Novecento, il subumano è colui che appartiene ad una razza inferiore, tanto sul piano fenotipico che psicologico; il superuomo è al contrario colui che possiede le migliori caratteristiche razziali, sia fisiche che spirituali.     

Lo storico tedesco si sofferma inoltre sulla relazione tra res factae e res fictae, ossia sulla questione della veridicità del fatto storiografico. Il rapporto tra fatti veri e fatti (apparentemente) falsi pone l’interrogativo circa quali fonti debbano essere scartare perché «fittizie» o non sufficientemente «vere». La provocazione dell’autore arriva a domandare al lettore quanto sia vero un sogno, e se il sogno possa contenere elementi di verità che possano addirittura incidere sulle fonti storiografiche. È noto che uno dei principali pericoli dello storico sia quello di plasmare la Storia sulla base di veli di pregiudizi morali, psicologici, politici. Il Romanticismo, ad esempio, ha colorito il resoconto storico con una vasta gamma di elementi estetico-eroici che spesso pregiudicano la verità storiografica. Di conseguenza è lecito chiedersi quanto sia attendibile un romanzo storico: è giusto immaginarsi conversazioni (probabilmente) mai avvenute in contesti storici realmente esistiti? Può la storiografia accettare le mezze verità? Innegabilmente il problema delle res factae/res fictae continua a presentare una sfida epistemologica per gli storici contemporanei. 

Infine, è interessante soffermarsi sul rapporto tra Neuzeit e Zeitgeschichte. Dal XVIII secolo la storiografia parla sempre più dell’idea di una Storia moderna (letteralmente Tempo Nuovo, ovvero Neuzeit). L’espressione si riferisce soltanto al tempo, caratterizzandolo come «nuovo», senza però offrire alcuna indicazione circa il contenuto storico del medesimo, o sulla sua natura come epoca o periodo. L’idea di suddividere la Storia nella triade Antichità-Medioevo-Modernità sembra per molti aspetti riduttivo e anacronistico. Secondo la comune opinione la Neuzeit (Storia moderna) dovrebbe approssimativamente abbracciare il periodo che va dalla scoperta dell’America (1492) alla Restaurazione (1815). Dopo di essa un nuovo concetto descrive il successivo evolvere del tempo: la Zeitgeschichte (Storia contemporanea), che abbraccerebbe il periodo che va dal 1815 ad oggi. Grazie alla percezione di una Neuzeit la Storia non è più qualcosa che avviene all’interno del Tempo, bensì lungo il Tempo. Il Tempo diviene una forza dinamica che scandisce le sorti dei popoli. Con la Neuzeit nasce la consapevolezza storica che si collega ai destini sociali, economici, strategici e geopolitici delle nazioni.

Riferimenti: Futuro passato. Per una semantica dei tempi storici (Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten), 1979.

 

"Futuro passato. Per una semantica dei tempi storici". Reinhart Koselleck (Parte II)

Fino al XVIII secolo il calcolo degli eventi storici veniva effettuato in base al ciclo astronomico delle stelle e dei pianeti e dalla successione naturale delle dinastie regnanti. Attraverso Kant e l’Illuminismo la cronologia cessa di dipendere da meri fenomeni naturali ed il tempo comincia ad essere misurato in sé e per sé, nel contesto di una Filosofia della Storia e di una Filosofia della Cronologia. Gli eventi cominciano ad essere categorizzati, razionalizzati ed intrecciati tra loro attraverso uno schema logico. Comincia a comparire il determinismo storico, ossia l’applicazione dei rapporti di causa ed effetto (principio di causalità) agli eventi cronologici, che si svilupperà appieno con la storiografia marxista.      

Nel contesto della razionalizzazione delle discipline umane e del positivismo scientifico si tende dunque ad introdurre il concetto di epoche ed ere per suddividere in modo intelligibile la Storia.

Nella sua analisi storiografica, Koselleck si sofferma a lungo sul concetto di “Rivoluzione”. “Rivoluzione” nel suo significato originario indica un “ritorno”, una rotazione di movimento indietro verso un punto di partenza, dunque un movimento rotatorio, come quello di un pianeta. In termini politici essa indica la rotazione delle forme di governo (cfr. Aristotele e Polibio → πολιτειων ανακυκλωσις). Ogni Rivoluzione, terminata la sua fase di affermazione e sviluppo, è seguita da una controrivoluzione che culmina con una Restaurazione (cfr. Rivoluzione inglese, 1640-60). Koselleck si rende conto della problematica storica di come descrivere esattamente le sollevazioni, rivolte, insurrezioni, ribellioni, guerre civili: per esempio, la Guerra dei Trent’anni (1618-48) fu una guerra civile all’interno del Sacro Romano Impero o una guerra tra Stati sovrani?

Fino al 1700 il termine Rivoluzione era impiegato come metafora per insurrezioni e rivolte. Con l’Illuminismo il termine assume il significato di cambiamento radicale nei riguardi di ogni aspetto sociale. Le osservazioni che Koselleck introduce sul concetto di Rivoluzione sono varie:

- Dopo il 1789 il termine Rivoluzione è diventato un singolare collettivo, divenendo un concetto onnicomprensivo, metastorico e trascendentale. 
- La Rivoluzione è legata al fenomeno dell’accelerazione temporale: essa desidera l’abbreviazione delle tappe storiche.
- La Rivoluzione è seguita dalla Controrivoluzione. 
- Scopo della Rivoluzione politica è l’emancipazione sociale di tutti gli uomini, con dissoluzione del precedente paradigma socio-economico.
- La Rivoluzione ha portata universale: essa implica la Rivoluzione mondiale, senza compromessi (Cfr. Concetto di «Rivoluzione permanente» di Proudhon, Marx, Trotzkij).
- La Rivoluzione produce guerre rivoluzionarie, essa raramente è incruenta.
- Ogni Rivoluzione affronta il problema della legittimazione del governo rivoluzionario.

Nell’affrontare il tema della teoria e del metodo della determinazione storiografica del tempo Koselleck afferma la rilevanza del metodo critico e filologico. Nel definire un concetto storico è rilevante considerare il contesto dell’epoca e il significato semantico sincronico della parola. Un esempio è costituito dal concetto di Stand-Stände (gli stati d’Antico Regime) in opposizione a quello di classi, cittadini (Staatsbürger). La lotta semantica per la definizione dei concetti politico-sociali è tipica dei periodi di crisi. Dalla Rivoluzione francese in poi la lotta si è acuita: i concetti non definiscono più un dato stato di cose, ma sono strumenti per portare cambiamenti. Il nuovo ordine rivoluzionario conia neologismi concettuali e compaiono gli –ismi (Liberalismo, socialismo, comunismo, conservatorismo, ecc.).

Il percorso intellettuale di Koselleck è dominato dall’idea della “Begriffsgeschichte”, ossia la storia dei concetti.  La Begriffsgeschichte rappresenta un metodo specifico per il criticismo delle fonti, sottolineando l’uso della terminologia rilevante per l’analisi degli elementi e fenomeni socio-politici. Al contempo, la diacronia è quella metodologia che consente di ridefinire nel corso delle epoche, con le differenze intercorse, il significato passato dei concetti. Invero, la profondità di un concetto può essere apprezzata in pieno soltanto attraverso una sua analisi diacronica, e non solo sincronica. Ad esempio, un concetto che nel XVIII secolo aveva un preciso significato, può averne uno molto diverso nel XIX. Di conseguenza, ricostruendo in senso diacronico l’evoluzione storica di un concetto si perviene al suo significato completo.

Per Koselleck esistono tre gruppi di concetti socio-politici nel corso della Storia:

1. Concetti tradizionali sempre validi (e.g. il pensiero politico classico).
2. Concetti che sono mutati radicalmente di significato pur mantenendo lo stesso involucro semantico (democrazia; impero; oligarchia; rivoluzione; ecc.).
3. Neologismi che emergono con ricorrenza (comunismo; fascismo; socialismo; liberalismo; ecc.).

Secondo la teoria della Begriffsgeschichte, la terminologia socio-politica nella lingua delle fonti storiografiche possiede una serie di espressioni che, sulla base dell’esegesi e della critica delle stesse, si trasformano in veri e propri concetti. Ogni concetto è associato ad una parola, ma non ogni parola è un concetto socio-politico. I concetti socio-politici tendono a rivendicare uno status di universalità e sono pertanto il concentrato di alcuni significati fondamentali. Una volta coniato, un concetto contiene in sé, in termini puramente linguistici, la possibilità di poter essere utilizzato in modo generalizzato, ricollegandogli specifici significati ed esperienza costanti. La coniazione di più concetti consente la successiva utilizzazione del metodo comparato al fine di confrontare le rispettive similitudini e divergenze.  

Riferimenti: Futuro passato. Per una semantica dei tempi storici (Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten), 1979. 

    

"Futuro passato. Per una semantica dei tempi storici". Reinhart Koselleck (Parte I)

Reinhart Koselleck (23 Aprile 1923 - 3 Febbraio 2006) è stato uno storico e filosofo tedesco, originario della Sassonia, considerato tra i più importanti storici del XX secolo. Nel contesto della disciplina storiografica preferì non aderire ad alcuna scuola storica in particolare, rivestendo invece una posizione individuale. Il suo lavoro da storico lo portò a lavorare in varie branche della disciplina, in particolare nella storia dei concetti (Begriffsgeschichte), nell’epistemologia storica, nella linguistica, nella storia antropologica, nella storia sociologica, nella storia giuridica e nella storia politica. 

Tra le maggiori opera possiamo citare:

1) Crisi. Per un lessico della modernità (Kritik und Krise. Eine Studie zur Pathogenese der bürgerlichen Welt), 1972.

 2) Futuro passato. Per una semantica dei tempi storici (Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten), 1979.

3) La Prussia tra riforma e rivoluzione (1791-1848) (Preußen zwischen Reform und Revolution, 1791-1848), 1967.

In Futuro passato, l’opera forse di più vasta fama, Koselleck si sofferma sul concetto dell’essenza storica correlate alla misurazione del tempo. L’autore sostiene infatti che Le vicende storiche possano essere misurate in relazione alle azioni delle persone nel corso del tempo. In formula potremmo semplificare:

Evoluzione storica = fattore azione + fattore tempo

La storiografia non è solo un resoconto dei fatti, bensì il resoconto delle possibilità e delle alternative. In quanto tale, essa risulta nell’ “analisi delle possibilità passate in relazione alle prospettive future”.

Quello che Koselleck descrive come «Futuro passato» rappresenta l’insieme delle passate concezioni del futuro (Zukunftskonzepte) e delle diverse visioni del mondo (Weltanschauungen).

Che cosa è dunque il “tempo storico”? Le fonti del passato ci informano di pensieri ed azioni, piani ed eventi, ma non ci offrono una diretta indicazione di cosa sia il tempo storico. La cronologia – i.e. la precisa datazione – non determina il contenuto del “tempo storico” → la cronologia è dunque una sfera storiografica ausiliaria.

Per Koselleck, il concetto semantico di Historie delinea una storia, o evento, in un determinato tempo storico, che può però assumere un connotato narrativo e simbolico, evocando idee che si ripetono. Per esempio, un quadro che rievoca la battaglia di Isso tra Alessandro Magno e l’imperatore persiano Dario III (333 a.C.) può rappresentare in prospettiva storica la battaglia di Vienna (1529), ossia il confronto tra Sacro Romano Impero e Impero ottomano, dunque tra Cristianità ed Islam.

L’elemento storiografico più importante consiste nel come misurare il tempo. La misurazione del tempo è lineare o ciclica? Esiste una fine del tempo? L’escatologia e l’idea della Fine dei Tempi può influenzare la misurazione della storia (futura)? 

Storicamente, l’interpretazione della Storia è stata caratterizzata dalla seguente evoluzione:

1) Profezia: tipica dell’Età Medioevale e della prima Età Moderna, l’interpretazione profetica della Storia, derivante dalla tradizione giudaico-cristiana, si basa sull’escatologia, sul millenarismo, sull’astrologia, ecc. Ha portata universale.

2) Prognosi razionale: si basa su calcoli politici razionali e ha portata particolare e relativa (Machiavelli, Guicciardini, ecc.). Perfezionata con l’Illuminismo.

3) Filosofia del processo storico (Geschichtsphilosophie): sebbene conseguenza dell’Illuminismo, essa va oltre la mera prognosi razionale ed introduce concetti idealistici ed hegeliani che culminano in una vera Filosofia della Storia.

Volendo schematizzare, l’evoluzione dell’interpretazione storica ha visto il susseguirsi di tre fasi distinte:

1) Fase profetico-religiosa-millenarista-universale; 2) Fase razionale, pragmatica, circoscritta; 3) Fase idealista-hegeliana-universale-sistemica.

Un comune topos letterario sostiene che la Storia sia la grande maestra della vita. Già Cicerone, sulla scia delle correnti storiografiche ellenistiche, pronunciava la celebra massima Historia magistra vitae. L’idea fondamentale dietro al concetto è che l’esperienza passata insegni ad emulare i successi storici e a scartare gli errori passati nel giorno presente. In altre parole, il ruolo pratico della Storia consiste nel concedere agli uomini un insegnamento di vita. 

Varie e policrome sono le definizioni che storici e letterati hanno voluto dare al fenomeno storico. Tucidide interpretava la Storia come “κτημα ες αει”, ossia come un possesso permanente di conoscenza di casi che si ripetono similmente nel futuro.  Così per Cicerone “Historia” è una raccolta di esempi (“plena exemplorum est historia”) che possono essere impiegati in modo didattico-istruttivo. Secondo Machiavelli, dalla storia dell’antichità si possono apprendere esempi utili per il presente e per il futuro; occorre sempre trarre beneficio dalla Storia, che ha avuto il merito di creare delle regole empiriche. Bodin sostiene anche che la Storia sia una disciplina mediante cui si scoprono delle regole sociali generali. E ancora Montaigne ci tramanda che la Storia insegna che le generalizzazioni sono spesso erronee, ma concede comunque pratici esempi di vita (“si può provare qualsiasi cosa con la Storia”).  Per Federico il Grande di Prussia, la Storia è l’accademia di fomrazione per il governante: l’azione politica del sovrano, seguendo i principi della Staaträson, o ragion di Stato, dovrebbe perseguire la specifica missione storica di una nazione, nella consapevolezza che gli scenari della storia mondiale si ripetono mutando semplicemente i nomi e gli attori. Tocqueville sosteneva che “dal momento in cui le persone ignorano la storia passata, le loro menti vagano nella totale oscurità.” Per Humboldt, la Storia generale è la somma di costanti e variabili particolari. Ancora Schiller afferma che “la Storia universale è il tribunale del mondo; qualsiasi cosa non sia stata compiuta, resta per sempre incompiuta”. Hegel infine intuisce che la Storia ci aiuti a svelare ed interpretare lo “Spirito dell’epoca” e il “genius loci” dello spazio storico-geografico.

Koselleck analizza l’evoluzione nel contesto semantico della storiografia tedesca del concetto di Historie, che si trasforma in quello di Geschichte: Historie è parola straniera naturalizzata tedesca, che inizialmente indicava un resoconto, una narrazione di eventi verificati. La parola Geschichte invece sostituisce la precedente intorno alla metà del XVIII secolo con il significato di evento, ovvero la manifestazione di azioni effettuate o subite (Geschichte significava più il ricorrere di un evento che un resoconto dello stesso). Il termine Geschichte avrebbe successivamente completamente sostituito quello di Historie, assumendo il significato di resoconto storico. Grazie all’influenza dell’idealismo hegeliano, il termine Geschichte avrebbe perso i connotati di resoconto specifico per trasformarsi nel concetto universale di Storia stessa, ossia di Storia in sé e per sé, quale somma generale ed assoluta di storie particolari.

Nella lingua tedesca il termine plurale Geschichte(n) – derivante dalle forme singolari das Geschichte e die Geschichte – si è trasformato nella somma dei vari singolari. Di conseguenza la forma plurale die Geschichte si è condensata in un termine singolare collettivo. Nelle decadi in cui Geschichte si va a trasformare in un singolare collettivo (1760-80) comincia anche a definirsi naturalmente il concetto di Filosofia della Storia (Geschichtsphilosophie): cfr. Iselin, Herder, Köster.

Riferimenti: Futuro passato. Per una semantica dei tempi storici (Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten), 1979.

Women in India today: a quick overlook

"You can tell the condition of a Nation by looking at the status of its Women." Jawaharlal Nehru, Leader of India's Independence movement, and India's first Prime Minister.

Today in India the condition of inferiority of women is still a sad fact of life. Truly, the situation is somewhat contradictory because on one hand there have been women covering the role of prime ministers, but on the other women still suffer greatly within the household, being exploited and abused by their husbands. Indian women receive an inferior wage than men, they work even harder and are too often discriminated.   

Many women who belong to the inferior classes look for their liberation and self-determination by converting to the Christian, Jain or Buddhist religion, often embracing monastic life. Paradoxically, religious life is one of the only ways to avoid the oppression deriving from forced weddings or from the belonging to an inferior caste. Moreover, the help that these women receive by the Christian church is often perceived as an interference and is therefore scarcely tolerated: Hindus adopted utter violent behavior against those who have been trying to help the Dalits or the Adivasi (especially women), often treated worse than beasts and exploited with gruesome jobs that no other person would do.

All that in India concerns the family is strongly influenced by the social and economic status and by the different religious traditions and conceptions.

Indeed, a huge gap exists between the big metropolises and cities, where you may find well educated and emancipated women and where weddings are careless of castes and the ratio between spouses is equal, and the small towns in the countryside. In the latter environment dwells the majority of Indians: life is harsh here, there is no job regulation, the hygienic conditions are catastrophic, ignorance is widely spread and women are treated accordingly.  

The conditions in which widows live are appalling. Women that survive to her husbands – a common event given the fact that elder men marry extremely young women – are abandoned by society and often compelled by their own families to become beggars. Amongst the poorest Indian families, the widow is considered a useless burden, and thus she has little choices left: she can either commit suicide through the sati practice, or become an unfortunate beggar. Unless the husband did not leave her an annuity before dying, the widow will spend a horrible life until the end of her days. Furthermore, men who lose a wife may abandon their children in order to avoid future contrasts with the children they are going to have with their future new wives.    

Another sad practice that today occurs in India is selective abortion: many babies who are born female risk to be suppressed just because of their gender. Women practice selective abortion or infanticide immediately after the birth of the baby especially when they are too poor to maintain a daughter who will probably be perceived by society as a burden. A woman who is incapable of conceiving a male child or cannot have any children at all is destined to be left by her husband. If any child is born who presents deformities or handicaps, his mother will be abandoned because malformations are considered impure.      

In addition, many weddings take place only if the bride’s family corresponds a dowry to the groom. The consequence is that many families become debtors in order to gather an appropriate dowry. Nonetheless, the dowry is often insufficient for the husband’s or his family’s expectations and this may lead to mistreatments and even to the wife’s assassination.     

Finally, another plague that affects modern Indian society is rape. Cases of rapes and even of gang rapes are ever increasing in the last years, often connected to conditions of social uneasiness and unemployment. Although some private initiatives have been taking place, like that of women volunteer patrolling of streets, the Indian state’s initiatives to stop these episodes of violence are still insufficient and weak.

Today, Indian women wish to emancipate. They wish to study, to receive an education, to stop working as domestic slaves, and to live a decorous and dignified life: many Indian men cannot accept this view and answer with brutality and violence. Indian men are eager to leave women in a submitted position, treating them like objects rather than subjects. What is sad is that nobody helps these women: nor their family, nor the police, nor the institutions.

Unfortunately, the issue of women emancipation in India is made more complex than it is for Western women because of the religious factor. Hinduism ontologically denies to women the same status that men possess; the only hope Indian women have is to suffer, die and reincarnate as men. 

Gandhi’s view on women

In his writings, Mahatma Gandhi expressed very clearly and thoughtfully his own personal view on women. When bearing in mind the bad treatments that woman had to suffer, he considered this a shameful condition that affected women all over the world and not only Indian ones. He believed that “all of us men must hang our heads in shame, so long as there is a single woman whom we dedicate to our lust. I will far rather see the race of man extinct than that we should become less than beasts by making the noblest of God’s creation the object of our lust”.[1] Gandhi held that women should go back to a simple life and that they would enjoy a decent freedom. He thoroughly rejected the custom of child-marriage, deplored the condition of the poor child-widows and assumed that women would gain the faculty to vote and to exercise equal rights.[2] The Mahatma also believed that the remedy to stop the bad treatments against women was more in their hands than in men’s hands: they had to avoid adorning themselves for men’s pleasure, even if it was for her husband, choosing as a model for dressing the sober and chaste Sita.[3]

Gandhi refused the idea that women were naturally dependent on others borrowing examples from the Hindu epic tradition: “Who says that woman is dependent on others? […] Sita was Rama’s better half and enjoyed empire over his heart. […] Who will say, after reading the Mahabharata, that Draupadi was dependent on others? Who will call Draupadi dependent, Draupadi who, when the Pandavas failed to protect her, saved herself by an appeal to Lord Krishna? […] A woman who has the strength to preserve her purity, to defend her virtue – to call such a woman dependent is to murder language and violate dharma [the principle or law that orders the universe]”.[4]

In Gandhi’s view, the character of Goddess Sita was an example for all Indian women. In fact, Sita was the true incarnation of virtue, humility, simplicity and bravery. Indeed, according to the Mahatma the beauty of a virtuous woman did not consist in the fineness of her dress but in the possession of a pure heart and vigorous life. Addressing himself to Indian women, Gandhi affirmed: “I would like you to imitate Sita’s virtues, Sita’s humility, Sita’s simplicity and Sita’s bravery. You should realize that Sita for the protection of her virtues did not need the assistance of Rama, her Lord and master. […] It was the purity of Sita which was her sole shield and protection”.[5] In addition, he continues: “You must become pure in mind and body like Sita, for then alone you will become the mothers of heroes. […] You must emancipate yourselves and your daughters from the thralldom of the various social abuses and tyrannies that are prevalent in your midst at present”.[6] According to Gandhi, women had to play within their households the role of queens.      

Women will eventually put an end to the ill-treatment towards them when they will stop thinking that they are weak. Men started ill-treating women because the latter had yielded to lust, being enslaved by passion and sexual desire. The fact that women are physically weaker than men translated into the fact that they were helpless before man and that they always needed man’s protection. For Gandhi, it is true that men and women differ as far as the body is concerned, but in terms of soul men and women are equal.[7]       

The Mahatma Gandhi upheld an authoritatively strong position against the practice of sati. He reckoned that the ritual of self-immolation of the widow at the death of her husband was not a sign of enlightenment but of gross ignorance to the nature of the soul, which is immortal, unchangeable and immanent. Self-immolation is a vain practice and must not be considered an example to emulate. For Gandhi, the real condition of widowhood was to be lived only through constant striving and constant immolation of the spirit from day to day.[8]   

Gandhi believed that Sita was a permanent example of unbeaten purity and should have been the continuous point of reference for all Indian women: “It is my belief that any woman who has the purity of Sita cannot be touched by anyone”.[9]

Mahatma Gandhi once said that women in general characterized the best half of humankind.

---

[1] Gandhi, and Joshi, P. (1988). Gandhi on women. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Pub. House, p. 77.

[2] Ibid., p. 78.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., pp. 124-125.

[5] Ibid., p. 175.

[6] Ibid., p. 197.

[7] Ibid., p. 242.

[8] Ibid., pp. 247-249.

[9] Ibid., p. 362.  

Christianity and women

The image of women in the so-called Western society has been significantly influenced by religion. Specifically, two models that derive from the Jewish-Christian tradition have significantly imprinted the way women have been perceived.

The first is model is that of Eve and comes from the Old Testament. According to the Book of Genesis, Eve, the first woman, was created by God only after he had created Adam, the first man. God created Eve by using one of Adam’s ribs: “The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:20-24). As we can see, the Bible assigns a derivative creation to women, who came to life incarnating from men’s body. There are little doubts that this idea of the woman as a later and derivative creation to avoid solitude (“It is not good that the man should be alone; I [God] will make him an help meet for him”, Genesis 2:18) has notably influenced the belief that women are naturally subdued to men and are hierarchically inferior. Moreover, the episode of Eve’s falling into the Devil’s temptation and convincing Adam to eat the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, introduced the idea that women were responsible for the humans’ fall from God’s grace and, accordingly, that they are deceivers, infidels, sinful and disobedient. This is the pass from Genesis that displays Eve’s way of being tempted by the Devil and the new role the God attributes to the two disobedient humans (particularly, the woman will now have to obey to his husband, who is entitled to rule over her):

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:1-16).

Whether we wish to believe or not to this Biblical episode, what is undoubtedly true is that it has significantly influenced the perception of women both among the Jews and in the nations that embraced Christendom.  

However, whereas in the Old Testament the woman is perceived as the responsible for human sins and the cooperative figure of Satan, in the New Testament the situation changes completely due to the image of the Virgin Mary. Indeed, Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, can be considered as the counterpart of Eve. Whereas Eve accepted to fall into diabolical temptation, Mary had always been during her lifetime an extraordinary and immaculate character. Since the apparition of the Archangel Gabriel that announced her the divine pregnancy, she accepted this difficult task with great courage although in the society of that time it was clearly complex for a woman to become mother without being married. Truly touching is Mary’s love and compassion for her son Jesus Christ dying on the cross. Furthermore, what really fascinates is that in the last book of the Bible, the Apocalypse (or Revelation), the Virgin Mary is the figure that ultimately defeats Satan destroying the fellowship that Eve had begun with him: like a woman was the first ally of the Devil, at the same time another woman will be the one that will defeat this great enemy of humankind (Apocalypse 12:1-17).

Finally, it is interesting to quote some of Saint Paul’s considerations on women as revealed in his famous epistles in order to understand how women have been considered in Christian countries for many centuries:

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint (1 Timothy 2: 9-15).

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, people have never hated their own bodies, but they feed and care for them, just as Christ does the church— or we are members of his body (Ephesians 5:22-30).

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man (1 Corinthians 11:3–9).

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them (Colossians 3:18-19).

Hinduism and women: the Hindu myths as a cultural model

Hinduism is possibly the most ancient religion of the world: the Vedic tradition dates back 4000 B.C. As a religion, Hinduism is characterized by different currents and conceptions that have been changing throughout history, manifesting in different ways in those regions where it became the dominant faith. As in other religious cases, Hinduism has notably influenced the way in which society perceived and observed women, who were often compared with goddesses belonging to the Hindu mythological pantheon.

If we consider the years 2500-500 B.C. – which represent the proper Vedic period – we can detect that women had the faculty to participate to philosophic discussions, could wear sacred vestments, could read the Veda and could sing the hymns of the Hindu holy books. Moreover, wedding was not compulsory, women could choose not to marry and widows had the faculty to marry again if they were still in fertile age.

Lord Rama and Goddess Sita

During the sixth century B.C., the worship of the Mother Goddess appeared and spread, but at the same time the Hindu civilization began to decline due to floods, pestilences, famines and above all foreign invasions. Women were the first elements to suffer from this decay being henceforth excluded from the active participation in the social life and losing all juridical acknowledgements and status both in the public and in the private sphere. It is in this particular time that the system of the castes was established, dividing ever since India’s social and economic groups into stark and exclusive blocks. The partition in castes provided for the creation of an unfair and unequal society divided into several social categories: the Brahmans (priests), the Kshatriyas (warriors), the Vaisyas (artisans and traders), and the Sudras (serfs). Each caste included several sub-castes and outside the castes were the so-called Dalits and the Adivasi (the aborigine folks). Typical of this historical period was the propensity to attribute to women the same characteristics the Dalits had, and thus to consider both as outcasts. Accordingly, women – even when belonging to a superior caste – could no longer participate directly to religious ceremonies and rituals. Weddings became strictly endogamous, being celebrated only among members belonging to the same caste, and the bride and the groom were chosen by their parents and relatives when they were still in a junior age. Furthermore, sexual relationships that occurred before or outside marriage were punished with eviction and often with death. The institution of marriage featured the obligation for the bride to correspond to her husband a dowry, and the latter could even kill his spouse if this compulsory endowment expired during the marriage. Likewise, the use of sati – the ritual sacrifice of a widow who decided to commit suicide on the funeral pyre of her dead husband – started to spread quickly as a logic consequence of the impossibility for a woman to marry again when the consort perished.[1]

During the Moghul rule over India, which began in the early XVI century, the Islamic religion introduced the institution of polygamy, which also Hindus accepted to embrace. Thus, ever since the end of the Vedic golden age women have suffered a totally subjected condition.

In terms of historical and cultural inquiry, the only object of concrete interest was the image of the woman of the upper-castes belonging to the Aryan lineage, whereas the Vedic dasi – i.e. the women in servitude – who had been captured, subjugated and enslaved by the conquering Aryans, disappeared without leaving trace of themselves until the nineteenth century history.[2]  

It will be only at the beginning of the British domination of India in the XIX century that the first reforms of the Hindu tradition will take place in favor of women.

The two great epics of the Hindu civilization, the Mahabharata and Ramayana, illustrate the life and the deeds of goddesses and heroines of the Hindu tradition that have strongly affected and still affect the way in which women are perceived and judged by the Indian society. Among these mythological characters we may cite three that typically personify different models of Hindu women: Sita, Draupadi and Kali.

Sita is one of the friendly benevolent goddesses of the Hindu pantheon. She appears in the Ramayana as the spouse of Lord Rama, the seventh avatar (i.e. manifestation or incarnation) of Lord Vishnu, one of the most significant deities in Hinduism. Sita is mostly known due to her virtuous and righteous qualities. In fact, Goddess Sita – who is considered to be an avatar of Goddess Lakshmi as well as the daughter of Mother Earth (Bhudevi) – embodies the ideal womanly virtues and stands before all Hindu women as a model of wifely and domestic qualities. Although she was exposed to intense suffering during her life, she always manifested a cheerful countenance, accepting sorrow in a stoic fashion, and this is what her followers try to imitate from her. Goddess Sita symbolizes a perfect example of loyalty and abnegation for having left the luxurious comforts of her palace to accompany her husband Lord Rama in the forest when he was banished there. Sita exemplifies also the ideals of fidelity and chastity because during this period of exile the Goddess was also abducted by a demon king named Ravana and imprisoned within his palace walls. At such a trying time she revealed endurance, bravery and resilience: despite Ravana’s attempts to having sexual relations with her, during her long period of imprisonment Sita’s honor and chastity remained spotless. Later, when she was rescued by Lord Rama, Sita attested her purity to him by undertaking an ordeal of fire. As a daughter, wife and finally mother, Goddess Sita fulfilled all roles with great devotion and rectitude, displaying the intrinsic strength of a woman who refuses to compromise on her ideals while behaving with the utmost grace. To understand how extraordinary the consideration for the example of Sita is we can underline that “a recent survey taken of one thousand young Indian men and women in the North Indian state of Uttar Pradesh revealed that from a list of twenty-four goddesses, literary heroines, and famous women of history, an overwhelming percentage chose for their ideal female role model Sita”.[3]

As for Draupadi, she represents one of the most important female characters in the Mahabharata. In the epic, she is the daughter of Drupada, King of Panchala and later she became the common wife of the five Pandavas. Draupadi was a beautiful woman and, like Sita, many men desired her. Her life presents some very interesting episodes of attempts of being seduced and even forced by men. Specifically, Jayadratha, the son of Vriddhakshatra, was crossing through a forest when he saw Draupadi. At that point, feeling astonished by Draupadi’s beauty, Jayadratha started pleading her to go away with him and desert her husbands who at that time had fallen upon bad times. Draupadi pointed out that it was wrong to desert one’s spouses when they were in difficulty and then gave him a rather long and deliberately delaying speech on exactly the sort of bad time her husbands would give him on their return. Failing with words, Jayadratha tried violence and forced her onto his chariot. When the Pandavas learned of their wife's abduction by Jayadratha they rushed to save her. On seeing the Pandavas coming after him, Jayadratha left Draupadi on the road and Draupadi was saved. However, the Pandavas caught Jayadratha after chasing him on the chariot and publicly humiliated him before setting him free again. Another episode is that with Draupadi and Kichaka. Kichaka was a commander of a king’s armed forces, and one day while her husbands were away he had happened to see Draupadi. He was immediately filled with lust by looking at her. He asked her to marry him, but Draupadi refused him saying that she was already married. She warned Kichaka that her husbands were very strong and that he would not be able to escape death at their hands. Disapponited, Kichaka tried to molest her, but she managed to escape and to run into the court of Kichaka’s king. At that point Kichaka kicked her in front of all the courtiers. Draupadi then cursed Kichaka with death by her husband's hand, but he did not take her words seriously. Later that night, one of the Pandavas, Bhima, in the guise of Draupadi, fought with Kichaka and killed him. The brutal way Kichaka had kicked Draupadi in the face may have influenced the violent behavior that some Indian men have shown towards women throughout history. Certainly, Draupadi, is somewhat an example of loyalty, fidelity and patience, but unlike Sita, the aggressive and outspoken behavior she displays – together with the inability of her husbands to protect her – prevents her from becoming idealized as the “perfect wife” who endures the most severe trials without complaint.[4] Moreover, the marriage of Draupadi with five men, a clear example of polyandry, was considered unusual by the society spoken of in the epic. The Indo-Aryan texts almost never mention or allow polyandry, although polygamy was common among men of higher social ranks: indeed her marriage to five men was controversial.

Goddess Kali

Sometimes Hindu women are also interrelated to Goddess Kali. The name Kali comes from the Sanskrit root word Kal that means time and this is to highlight that nothing can escape the all-consuming march of time. Kali is one of the major Hindu goddesses whose iconography, cult, and mythology commonly associate her with death, sexuality, violence, and, paradoxically in some of her later historical appearances, motherly love. It is partly correct to say Kali is a goddess of death but she brings the death of the ego as the illusory self-centered view of reality. In other words, worshipping Kali does not mean to worship death but rather it is to overcome the materialistic body-focused idea by reinforcing the awareness that the body is a temporary condition. Men’s attachment to the body gives rise to the ego, and Kali grants liberation by removing the illusion of the ego. Kali is the most compassionate because she provides liberation to her worshippers. She is the counterpart of Shiva the destroyer. The ego considers Goddess Kali and trembles with fear because the ego sees in her its own eventual demise. A person who is attached to his ego will not be receptive to Kali and thus she will appear in a fearsome form. Instead, a mature soul who engages in spiritual practice to remove the illusion of the ego sees Kali as very sweet, affectionate, and overflowing with incomprehensible love for her worshippers. In linking Goddess Kali to the Hindu woman, we may affirm that women should help men to overcome their material and egoistic feelings in order to liberate their souls. In other words, the Hindu woman incarnates the example of a spiritual being that through the rejection of materialistic ambitions helps men to reach perfection. 

---

[1] Cf. Flood, G. (1996). An introduction to Hinduism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

[2] Sangari, K. and Vaid, S. (1990). Recasting women. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, p. 28.

[3] Sutherland, S. (1989). Sītā and Draupadī: Aggressive Behavior and Female Role-Models in the Sanskrit Epics. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 109(1), p.63.

[4] Ibid. pp. 72-73.