Man and Woman in Tribal Society – A Search of a New Anthropology of Partnership

Introduction
            The creation account in Genesis 1 expounded that humankind is created in the image of God, man and woman. God created man and woman to help each other for purposeful living and mutual co-existence. No society is without either man or woman, and tribal society is no exception.
There is no doubt that man and woman has biological differences that shaped different responsibilities according to the gender. However, these differences, through the ages mingled with culture and tradition, formed subjugation and subordination of one gender by the other; and gender issue (sexism, lineage, patriarchy, etc.) becomes the major themes in contextual theology. Therefore, new anthropology of partnership between men and women is the need of the day in almost every society, particularly in tribal society.

Man and Woman in Tribal Society
            Since all of us, at this stage, are aware of the detriment of women and the benefit of men in the tribal society, the paper will not go in detail to every nook and corner relating to man and women in the society. Rather, attempt will be given to summarize the trend of co-existence between both sexes in the tribal society.
The position of men and women in tribal society, as in the other community, is not equal. Quoting K. Thanzauva in regard to this,
The weakness of tribal community lies in the relationship on men and women in which women being regarded as subordinate to men, and have been oppressed and derived of opportunities. This should have been transformed by the power of the gospel when the tribal people embraced Christianity, but the relationship seems to be basically remaining unchanged.[1]
V.V. Thomas, positioning men and women in their traditional roles from subaltern perspective, expounded that, women are mothers, wives, daughters-in-law, etc. in the domestic domain. Their work is seen as supplementary and subsidiary.  Men are fathers and husbands, considered as the producers and head of the households. The work of men is seen as more important and productive within the household and community. This viewpoint makes women as passive recipients and not actor themselves.[2]
The contribution of women, in the tribal society, is located in the household economy and remains unacknowledged and invisible. Meanwhile, the development, even in a wider sense, is focused primarily of men. These summed up the relationship between men and women in tribal society, both before and after accepting the gospel, in almost all realms; socially, politically, economically and religiously.

Following points are some of the assumptions concerning the existential position of men and women in the tribal society.
i. Family and society is patriarchal in nature among the tribal – rule of male members. Majority of decision making body comprised of men. The voice of women member cannot be compared with her larger male counterpart.
ii. Women are responsible for taking care of all domestic works which is not considered as work while she also has to work for production. No domestic work for men, that means he had his leisure time while women work very hard for family.
iii. Almost all the tribal communities in NE India practiced male-linage except Khasi, Garo and Jaintia in Meghalaya who practiced matrilineal but the society is still patriarchal. The good thing is that their condition is comparatively better that those who are under complete patriarchy, which is also seen among the Ao Naga tribe, according to Mary Head Clark, a pioneer missionary.[3]
            iv. The customary law gave preferential option to men for the right of inheritance and ownership; men are usually favored as long as they are in the bloodline. But here we have a question to the family who has no male heir.
            v. Both men and women worked for production for family, but men manipulated resources. Although marriage is submission, sharing and sacrifice (3s) for each other, husband controlled wife herself and her production.
            vi. Men has wider outreach in the society, while the social universe of women is restricted that affects their mobility
            vii. Women are not given equal treatment as men in the church especially in NE Indian tribal church. Pertaining to discipleship of equals, even if few selected are ordained (e.g. Rev. Dr. R.L. Hnuni of BCM), it cannot be taken as granted at large. Ordination and other ministerial practices are deprived of women. Only men can apply for ordination in the church. This rejection diverge the concept of Old Testament ‘Qahal’ and New Testament ‘Ekklesia’.
viii. At the basic level, gender refers to power relationship. The power relationship of men and women is not equal and made complex by various mentioned social inequalities. The interplay of gender relationships through those entire social inequalities has contributed to differential status of men and women.[4]
           
A Search of a New Anthropology of Partnership
            Taking the context of men and women in the tribal society, equal partnership and being humanity in co-existence must be realized with praxis. If the search had been launch, the society will surely profit along the way, even before reaching the ideal state of partnership anthropology. V.V. Thomas convincingly blurts out the wound of gender disparity and how to heal, and searching for new anthropology of partnership. He explicated that,
The socio-cultural division that exists between men and women has taken deep roots not only in the psyche but also in society. The result was that men and women arrive with different notions of self-worth and identify. To bring about changes in their position, men and women must overcome several psychological and religious barriers that they are locked in and change the mindsets of several actors in their lives. A whole range of actors and relationships comes into focus to understand the ideology and dynamics in gender.[5]
            The tribal society faced challenges and aspiration that cannot go unattended. The tribal traditions and costumes, in some way, have put tribal human-hood to dire situations. The church and the society failed to equalize men and women by restricting full involvement. Popular observation is that there is equal status between men and women in the tribal society. But in contrast to this, the trail of patriarchal-culture persuasion has left marks on womenfolk.[6] No one can deny this. Thus, beyond the present experiences and conditions, the tribal society as a whole, must seek for ways by which the society could find new anthropology of partnership that will fetched true Christian human rights.
            Concerning tribal experiences between men and women, Awala Longkumer raised two questions? How do we, as theologians, respond to this situation? What kind of theology we want to formulate to respond to such a complex and yet sensitive tribal society?[7] A realistic theology, not just an ideal utopia which is abstract, is needed to respond to the tribal reality which is appropriate to all societal members. To answer the questions in the search for new anthropology of partnership, two theological formulations will be highlighted.
           
Co-humanity - K. Thanzauva
In his search for new human community, K. Thanzauva envisioned ‘co-humanity’, taking Karl Barth’s concept of ‘image of God’ in which image of God is to be found in the relationship of God and human being, and man and woman rather than in the quality of human being. Co-humanity here means to live together in mutual love, trust and friendship. Adam cannot survive without Eve; this regards equal partnership of men and women.[8]
The traditional relationship of men and women must be transformed by the power of the gospel into equal partnership of men and women. The old pattern of relationship must be transformed to build a new, just, participatory and harmonious society which will be free from discrimination of any kind. For this task, the tribal society must identify the biblical basis that affirms male and female as the image of God. In Christ, both are incorporated into one body, the church.[9] This is affirm by the concept of ekklesia with its characteristics of Pneumatic democracy (I Cor. 12:12-13) and Messianic corporation (Gal. 3:28).

Community of togetherness - Eyingbeni Lotha
            Eyingbeni Lotha, cited C.S. song who said, “It is suffering together, and loving together. It is this togetherness that makes a community a community”. Lotha continued, communitarian life is an ideal among tribals, but it becomes authentic only when all aspects of life are live out ‘together’ by all. Male chauvinism is a betrayal of a community. So, community transformation must be characterized by a change in attitude, action, stereo-typing roles, customary laws and unwritten expectations which are demeaning of women. This vision can be reality with hope in Jesus Christ.[10]

Conclusion
            A just simple dream can be realistic vision, but only if one dares to attain it with living hope. A vision for shalomic tribal society is not just abstract but concrete utopia. Therefore, a search for new anthropology of partnership in tribal society is a challenge for theologian, because this is what the tribal society requires.
            Image of God means that human being is endowed with all that is necessary to enter into communion with God, and with others, and to exercise responsible stewardship of the created world.[11] Hence, the difference in ability/capacity of men and women are to be recognized as productive workforce. Both of them must be located in wider institutional framework.[12] This means equal partnership in the family, in the society, in the Church, and most importantly in the heart. Thus, men and women are to be the stewards of the world in togetherness with harmonious, peaceful co-existence, co-operation and sharing.


[1] K. Thanzauva, Theology of Community: Tribal theology in the Making (Aizawl: Mizo Theological Conference, 1997), 192.
[2] V.V. Thomas, Understanding Subaltern History: Theoretical Tools, reprint (Bangalore: BTESSC, 2014), 93.
[3] K. Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 195.
[4] V.V. Thomas, Dalit and Tribal Christians of India: Issues and Challenges (Malapuram, Kerala: Focus India Trust, 2014), 137.
[5] V.V. Thomas, Dalit and Tribal Christians of India…, 136-137.
[6] Eyingbeni Lotha, “Community of Togetherness: Perspective in Doing Tribal Women Theology,” in Tribal Theology: A Reader, edited by Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat: TSC-ETC, 2003), 166.
[7] Awala Longkumer, “Experience of the Tribal Women,” in Dalit-Tribal Theological Interface: Current Trend in Subaltern Theologies, edited by James Massey & Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat: TSC-ETC & New Delhi: CDS, 2007), 124.
[8] K. Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 211.
[9] K. Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 212.
[10] Eyingbeni Lotha, Community of Togetherness…, 178.
[11] Jose Kuttianimattathil, Theological Anthropology: A Christian Vision of Human Beings (Bangalore: TPI, 2013), 98-99.
[12] V.V. Thomas, Understanding Subaltern History…, 94.


[1] K. Thanzauva, Theology of Community: Tribal theology in the Making (Aizawl: Mizo Theological Conference, 1997), 192.
[2] V.V. Thomas, Understanding Subaltern History: Theoretical Tools, reprint (Bangalore: BTESSC, 2014), 93.
[3] K. Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 195.
[4] V.V. Thomas, Dalit and Tribal Christians of India: Issues and Challenges (Malapuram, Kerala: Focus India Trust, 2014), 137.
[5] V.V. Thomas, Dalit and Tribal Christians of India…, 136-137.
[6] Eyingbeni Lotha, “Community of Togetherness: Perspective in Doing Tribal Women Theology,” in Tribal Theology: A Reader, edited by Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat: TSC-ETC, 2003), 166.
[7] Awala Longkumer, “Experience of the Tribal Women,” in Dalit-Tribal Theological Interface: Current Trend in Subaltern Theologies, edited by James Massey & Shimreingam Shimray (Jorhat: TSC-ETC & New Delhi: CDS, 2007), 124.
[8] K. Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 211.
[9] K. Thanzauva, Theology of Community…, 212.
[10] Eyingbeni Lotha, Community of Togetherness…, 178.
[11] Jose Kuttianimattathil, Theological Anthropology: A Christian Vision of Human Beings (Bangalore: TPI, 2013), 98-99.
[12] V.V. Thomas, Understanding Subaltern History…, 94.

Comments