Gender wasn't a simple matter of biology for ancient Greeks and Romans. They created an entire science-called physiognomy-to ascertain a person's sex. Gender was a continuum for them; the most "manly" men resided at the top of the ladder with more effeminate men filling in the middle rungs. Women, who could likewise be more or less manly, took up the bottom of the gender hierarchy.
People weren't put in simple "male" and "female" boxes in late antiquity-there was no way to truly tell whether someone was a man or a woman. Gender encompassed much more complicated and nuanced markers than elementary biology.
Women were sly, mentally weak and tended to sneeze (according to Kleanthes, a man who made his living judging peoples' true gender). Men, on the other hand, possessed a certain gait, exhibited particular rhetorical skills and were always very hairy.
Instead of taking people at face value, the ancients distrusted the obvious indicators of gender. Since one could not easily ascertain another's sex, these people were always actively looking below the surface of a person's title, searching for extra clues in order to understand them.
Spirituality wasn't a case of simple titles either. It was understood that a person's religious practices did not necessarily reflect their personal beliefs. Outward signs of religious devotion were often forced by the government or encouraged strongly by culture, with little concern for a person's belief in the given deity. The obsession with appearances de-spiritualized the symbols of piety and gave individuals a relative spiritual freedom.
The difference between spirituality and religion was also more pronounced. Religion carried with it many cultural connotations that others generally understood did not define a person's spirituality, but only reflected their geographical or political circumstances. Personal spirituality represented a private attachment to the deity independent of sacrifices or rituals. A person's beliefs about the benevolence, scope or judgment of God couldn't be confined to a specific religious title.
Today's religious freedom has created boxes. Because we can choose any title we would like, we are limited by the confines of those socially defined boxes. Stereotypes control the informal conversation of religion; people judge each other based upon one strongly charged word-"Atheist," "Christian" or "Muslim."
Assumptions are immediately made as to that person's political affiliation, attitude toward science and sexual ethics. But what are the specific beliefs of the person behind the title? If you take the time to get to know them in spite of their loaded title, you usually find that the stereotypes don't exactly fit.
Sure, massive groups of extremists can do a lot of damage, but individuals who happen to personally identify with the same belief system shouldn't be condemned for the actions of a few fanatics. Even if adjectives such as "fundamentalist" or "extremist" describe the specific religious title, moderate adherents to that faith find themselves subject to the subconscious prejudices of their peers.
For terrorists who declare themselves "true" followers of Muhammad, there are millions of Muslims who are committed to peacefully practicing their faith. For every person who bombs abortion clinics in the name of Jesus, there are millions of Christians who prefer interfaith dialogue to explosives. And for every nihilist who declares that "God is dead" and condemns the religious for their ignorance, there are millions who respect the faith necessitated by a spiritual commitment to a religion.
In the last week, there has been much discussion about modern Islam on campus. The story of Kamil Solomon's address to high schoolers in Wake County garnered a heated community response, and the Terrorism Awareness Project has fueled tensions between moderate Western Muslims and their peers. The misrepresentation of a religion harms the peaceful majority and adds kindling to destructive stereotypes.
Romans and Greeks assumed a misrepresentation on a person's surface. They distrusted biological gender cues because they realized that people were more complex than chromosomes. All humanity couldn't be filed neatly into "men" and "women" boxes. There were many more factors to consider.
Today religion begs the same understanding. There are boxes, but they should only be the opening negotiation in a continual pursuit to understand another's personal spirituality.
Emily Thomey is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every other Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.