#6 Men, agents of and pathway to cultural metanoia (gender)
Men, far from resisting the implications of the power
of words, received and/or uttered, like the kids in Narnia, have a waiting door
into the secret “forest” of our sensibilities and our verdant imaginations
(both personal and the “other” whether writer or friend) where the words we choose
become historically archived imprints of our identity, our legacy and our most
important dreams and aspirations.
If each and every moment of our existence, and that
moment in the life of each other person were imagined as an integral and indelible
scratch on the cave of eternity, rather than an impulsive, reactive and
frightened response coming from the vault of our fear and neurosis, “fired” as
a way to fend off what we can only conceive as “a threat,” imagine the
transformation we can achieve together. Words, deployed as the arrows from the quiver
of our fear and distrust, can and will only generate a similar and parallel
response of the arrows from the quiver of the other’s fear.
Now that we have accumulated more than a surfeit of military
weapons, as well as clouds of environmental gases that can and will eradicate
our species, surely taking a look at how we might have arrived here might be
instrumental in restoring the honour and the benefits of a perspective that
points to the shared goal of survival and a new kind of planetary “garden”. Surely
we have reached a tipping point in the manner by which we perceive/conceive/conceptualize
our identity and the purpose/meaning of our existence, individually and collectively.
One of the primary cornerstones of our identity points to our “use” of words as
tools, weapons, and instruments of power over our colleagues, and our adversaries.
Anything outside of ourselves, especially for men, including the universe
itself, has been historically conceptualized as “for our use” and for some even
our “dominion” over the universe.*
Not incidentally, our “reading” of these words
provides an authentic opportunity to reflect on the significant difference
between a literal denotative interpretation of these words and a metaphoric,
connotative, mythical reading. Our chosen lens or perspective on our experience,
in all faith communities, of the words that have been transmitted as the sacred
belief of that faith community need and deserve a finely tuned reading and
interpretation of those words. Not necessarily needing a philosophic or
academic doctorate, but rather an acknowledgement of the history and origin of
those words, from other human beings, depicting their best estimate of the
origins of the universe, and reflecting a basic awareness of the multiple “voices”
and meanings and reverberations of their words. There is no justification here for
the “power-over” interpretation, as we have come to understand power in the
manner by which we have destroyed habitats and eradicated millions of species,
ostensibly to “serve” our most base and self-centred interests, passions and ambitions.
Rather, merely to underline the early perceived differences between the human
being and all other species, the words in Genesis offer a pre-historic
conception, as our acceptance of and gratitude for that mythical gift is no
less needed.
Clearly, the western allegedly Christian culture has
imported these words from Genesis into the often-aggressive and virulent debate
between “creationists” and evolutionists, and the implications for those opposing
viewpoints in designing school curriculum. As a similar “incorporation” of eternity
into our conception of the universe, only this time from the other end of time,
we are invited to begin our own seeding of our imaginations and conceptions of
our place in “time” as in the nunc fluens (the flowing now, of the river of
eternal time from beginning to end).
Writers from all ethnicities, geographies, religions,
languages and historical periods have been able and willing to stretch their
own and their readers’ intellectual, imaginative and even affective and
spiritual horizons to embrace both ends of time, while at the same time
accepting and even depending a micro-measuring of its relevance in the scope of
our brief existence. This experience need not be restricted to only a “faith”
or religious dogma. In fact, such a reduction signifies a reduction and
constriction of our perception/conception of God, while perpetuating a
separation of the secular from the sacred. Words really do matter, whether we
are tweeting to our colleagues, or framing our identity and existence in the
world.
Not only will an enlarged and enhanced exposure to the
words of our best and most revered authors and poets provide new and more
varied word choices for each of our encounters and relationships, that additional
reading will inevitably contribute to our growing confidence in all of our
relationships. Not only by providing specific word choices, but also by providing
scenes, scenarios and comparative situations to those we currently face,
exposure to the imaginative gifts of our authors and poets enhances our
perceptions, diagnoses and thereby our interventions for whatever situations
enter our paths. As one contemporary CEO put it, “Give me a literature student
who understands the patterns elicited and detailed in literary works, and I can
and will teach him/her the details of the balance sheet!”
The wisdom of that highly sophisticated and cogent cornerstone
of that CEO’s hiring policy and perspective, however, seems to have been lost,
avoided or outright rejected by the curriculum designers in many western
universities, (while pandering to the STEM demand of the current training
vogue). It has also been glossed over by those responsible for religious theory
and praxis, preferring the false safety and security of a “hardened,
fossilized, rigid and immutable” set of religious “beliefs and dogma” rendering
the ecclesial hierarchy, and the corporate edifice into another “law enforcement”
agency, against the presumed and assumed “evil” of human beings. Even the
elimination and/or reduction of basic courses in Literature from many of the
STEM curricular requirements, and from the medical and science faculties robs
those students, and the culture they will server, demonstrates an endorsement
of the erosion of the importance, the relevance and the enrichment that can
come only from “words” and their intimate, irreversible and deep connection to
our most secret and creative thoughts and feelings.
Historically, men have attempted to divide another of
the indivisibles of human existence, thoughts from feelings. The zygote of
sacred/secular and the zygote of intellect/emotion ought never to be completely
separated in the insemination of our world view, and our identity. The zygote
is the fertilized egg cell that result from the union of a female gamete (egg
or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm), in the embryonic development of human and other
animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single
cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells. Just as we cannot eliminate the
zygote of egg and sperm from our human biology, we cannot either eliminate or
negate the need of such a fertilization, prior to individual cleavage into
subdivision of the many cells of our bodies, that can be compared to the
process of growth and development that is unique to each of us.
And here is another word that demands the attention,
the integration and the nurture in the culture deemed by the masculine gender
of the western culture:
ANDROGYNY: the combination of masculine and feminine
characteristics into an ambiguous form. Androgyny may be expressed with regard
to biological sexual gender identity, gender expression or sexual identity.
However, is befits the dominant literalism of our current thinking, public discourse, and reductionism, we have eliminated the “psychological” and the cultural and the spiritual and the intellectual and the imaginative potentialities of this concept. Far from reducing it to a merely biological, physical, expression, the word and its connotation has far more expansive and extensive application. It can be applied to a world view, an attitude, an appreciation of our individual and unique psychological identity, as originally offered by Carl Jung, the psychiatrist and theorist whose attribution of the “anima” (the female spirit) in all men, and the animus (the male spirit) in all women. For Jung, these unconscious traits “reside” in the Shadow, “the inferior being in ourselves, the one who wants to do all the things that we do not allow ourselves to do, who is everything we are not. The shadow is the personal unconscious; it is all those uncivilized desires and emotions that are incompatible with social standards and our ideal personality all that we are ashamed of, all that we do not want to know about ourselves. It follows that the narrower and more restrictive the society in which we live the larger will be our shadow….(Frieda Fordham, An Introduction to Jung’s Psychology, Penguin, Great Britain,1966 p.49)
“The unconscious of a man contains a complementary
feminine element (anima), that of a woman a male element (animus). The most
masculine of men, will often show surprising gentleness with children or with anyone
weak or ill; strong men give way to uncontrolled emotion in private, and can be
both sentimental and irrational; brave men are sometimes terrified by quite
harmless situations, and some men have surprising intuition or a gift for
sensing others people’s feelings. All these supposedly feminine traits, as well
as more obvious effeminacy in a man. This latent femininity in a man is, however
only one aspect of his soul, his anima. An inherited collective image of woman
exists in a man’s unconscious with the help of which he apprehends the nature
of woman.” (Fordham, op. cit, p. 52)
Here we can explore the intersection of the complexity
of human psychology and the dictates of a restricted, repressed and constricted
definition of masculinity by too many men in North America. Fighting, denying,
ignoring, refusing to acknowledge and also punishing (especially as a function
of a religious, spiritual and ethical theory and praxis) or even competing with
another of the many concepts that remain beyond empirical definition and measure
and scientific study, the anima, North American men hoist themselves on our own
petard: harm ourselves by our own plan and attitude and intent to harm those we
consider to be too effeminate for our comfort. There is no escaping our own
anima, nor is there any place for such an elimination or its vindictive
punishment inside our faith communities, nor within the legal constraints of
our civil and criminal law.
Rather, we need to become open to, receptive of and
embracing that side of our identity (our anima), not restricting our conception
and belief of masculinity to what can be empirically perceived by the senses.
It is not only our adolescent football of hockey team members who reject
anything hinting of the “fag” the “wuss,” the “girlie” and the “cry-baby”. Too
often these epithets are uttered in derisive contempt by our mothers, our
girlfriends (behind our backs), our work-mates, our classmates. And of course,
stamping on many of the political debates about KGBTQ rights, this drumbeat of
the masculine denial and rejection of even the spectre of an anima in the most straight
men without being acknowledged and accepted, especially among the most power
men among us, this denial results in further persecution of the LGBTQ community,
both socially and criminally.
With respect to our faith institutions, too, a denial
of the unconscious male anima has for centuries resulted in the rejection of non-celebate
clergy, gay clergy, and the concept that the deity must remain conceived, perceived
and presented to the laity as exclusively male. It has also led to an
impossible and unenforceable divide between male clergy, and male faculty from
their female parishoners and students respectively.
Based on the assumption of
the “weakness” in power of the female “clients”, this fallacious premise
ignores and denies the biological impetus to connect and to relate. It also
perpetuates the perceived inferiority of the women, who themselves have a
self-respecting and powerful voice either to accept or to reject invitations to
relationship from men, regardless of the perceived power imbalance. From the
masculine perspective, the sign hanging from the window of a co-ed’s room in a
university residence rings loud and clear: “What part of NO do you not
understand!” There are far too many instances of men presuming and assuming the
consent of their sexual partners when such consent has not been offered. And
there are also too many instances of women who originally consented to relationship
and later, after the termination of the relationship, betrayed their own
original consent and the “now offending” male, in an act of willful and illicit
and jealous vengeance.
Is it only an appreciation of the potential of an
androgynous deity that can and will ameliorate much of this contemporary shackling
leg-iron that enslaves much of “establishment” society? It could also free many
members of the LGBTQ community who, like many men and women in the straight
community, struggle with rejection and alienation based on an innate fear of
sexuality.
As the still dominant gender in our contemporary
culture, men have much both to atone for and to learn about who we are, and how
we might more effectively and mutually relate to our female partners, daughters
and mothers. “Taking care of our own business” of knowing who we are, and whom
we can become including both an enhanced vocabulary and an enhanced perception
of our worth and value, as individuals and as a gender seems like a reasonable attainable
goal.
*Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the flesh of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home