Only feminism? The other ones are subjective then?
So are you saying that the subjective is not real?
If you want to know why I say this, my disillusionment with these approaches to study of suttas is sketched out in this thread.
In brief, I tried as hard as I could to find useful feminist readings of the Therigatha, in the hope of summarizing them and showing that a feminist perspective led to valuable insights. But in the process I found that all the studies, without exception, were full of errors and mischaracterizations. These arose both by uncritically echoing their source material and by imposing judgments on their readings, such as where modern women were explaining how ancient nuns misunderstood their own religion. I found I ended up learning more about the authors’ own views and values than I did about the Therigatha, hence “subjectivist”.
I’d love to be proven wrong, so please show me a feminist reading of the suttas that leads to new insights without such flaws and you’ll make me a happy monk.
The same flaws affect masculinist readings (like John Power’s A Bull of a Man) and so far as I can see, all similar approaches, which is why I grouped them together as “subjectivist”. It has nothing to do with the reality of the struggle, as I made sure to point out in my original post. It has to do with whether these approaches, which consciously aim to read ancient texts from a certain subjective viewpoint, lead to illuminating insights.
The approach that I have learned from is, rather, to consciously aim to set aside my own viewpoint and enter into the viewpoint of those participating in the texts. To try my best to understand, not what it means to me but what it meant to them. I would describe this as an “empathetic” reading, in contrast with both traditional (and modernist) approaches which aim to settle an absolute “objective” meaning, and postmodern approaches that emphasize the “subjective” nature of any reading.
Thanks Trevor!