ABSTRACT
Goddess feminism’s use of religio-philosophical categories such as monotheism,
polytheism, pantheism and theism can be characterized as being eclectic, inconsistent
and often also paradoxical in nature. Statements such as ‘I worship the Great
Goddess, and I’m polytheistic and pantheistic and monotheistic too’1 can seemingly
confound the possibility of any sustained philosophical analysis or dialogue, and
may also evoke mainstream academic condemnation because they are apparently
indicative of confused, irrational or sloppy thinking. Some Goddess feminists and
religious commentators may note, in defence of such claims, that the application of
categories to a deity understood to be ineffable and mysterious is itself a questionable
activity; and the use of contradictory categories and paradox is, therefore, useful
in so far as it serves to evoke the sense of mystery surrounding deity. However,
as has been argued in the previous chapter, Goddess feminists are concerned with
constructing models, categories or concepts of deity. Or rather, Goddess feminists
are predisposed toward conceiving of deity in certain terms (e.g. as embodied within
nature and femaleness), rather than others (e.g. as a transcendent male creator), in
a manner that is not compatible with the assertion that deity is wholly unknowable
and/or indescribable. While the combining of monotheism and polytheism in one
religious worldview may rest upon an intellectual failure, or else may reflect an
attitude of poetic playfulness or intellectual subversiveness, there is an alternative
explanation. It is possible that the meaning of the Goddess, as Carol Christ suggests,
entails a reinterpretation or transformation of the traditional religio-philosophical
categories.2 The apparently incompatible categories of monotheism and polytheism
may be reconcilable within the thealogical imagination, it is simply the case that
Goddess feminism’s aversion to systematic and philosophical thealogy leaves such
a question unanswered.
