Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Man is a Cruel Animal
It was Joseph Conrad I thought of when I read an article in The Nation magazine this month about white vigilante groups that rose up out of the chaos of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans to terrorize and murder blacks. It was Conrad I thought of when I saw the ominous statements by authorities, such as International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, warning of potential civil unrest in the United States as we funnel staggering sums of public funds upward to our bankrupt elites and leave our poor and working class destitute, hungry, without health care and locked out of their foreclosed homes. We fool ourselves into believing we are immune to the savagery and chaos of failed states. Take away the rigid social structure, let society continue to break down, and we become, like anyone else, brutes.
Conrad saw enough of the world as a sea captain to know the irredeemable corruption of humanity. The noble virtues that drove characters like Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness" into the jungle veiled abject self-interest, unchecked greed and murder. Conrad was in the Congo in the late 19th century when the Belgian monarch King Leopold, in the name of Western civilization and anti-slavery, was plundering the country. The Belgian occupation resulted in the death by disease, starvation and murder of some 10 million Congolese. Conrad understood what we did to others in the name of civilization and progress. And it is Conrad, as our society unravels internally and plows ahead in the costly, morally repugnant and self-defeating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, whom we do well to heed.
This theme of our corruptibility is central to Conrad. In his short story "An Outpost of Progress" he writes of two white traders, Carlier and Kayerts, who are sent to a remote trading station in the Congo. The mission is endowed with a great moral purpose-to export European "civilization" to Africa. But the boredom and lack of constraints swiftly turn the two men, like our mercenaries and soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, into savages. They trade slaves for ivory. They get into a feud over dwindling food supplies and Kayerts shoots and kills his unarmed companion Carlier.
"They were two perfectly insignificant and incapable individuals," Conrad wrote of Kayerts and Carlier, "whose existence is only rendered possible through high organization of civilized crowds. Few men realize that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings. The courage, the composure, the confidence; the emotions and principles; every great and every insignificant thought belongs not to the individual but to the crowd; to the crowd that believes blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion. But the contact with pure unmitigated savagery, with primitive nature and primitive man, brings sudden and profound trouble into the heart. To the sentiment of being alone of one's kind, to the clear perception of the loneliness of one's thoughts, of one's sensations-to the negation of the habitual, which is safe, there is added the affirmation of the unusual, which is dangerous; a suggestion of things vague, uncontrollable, and repulsive, whose discomposing intrusion excites the imagination and tries the civilized nerves of the foolish and the wise alike."
The Managing Director of the Great Civilizing Company-for as Conrad notes "civilization" follows trade-arrives by steamer at the end of the story. He is not met at the dock by his two agents. He climbs the steep bank to the trading station with the captain and engine driver behind him. The director finds Kayerts, who, after the murder, committed suicide by hanging himself by a leather strap from a cross that marked the grave of the previous station chief. Kayerts' toes are a couple of inches above the ground. His arms hang stiffly down "... and, irreverently, he was putting out a swollen tongue at his Managing Director."
Conrad saw cruelty as an integral part of human nature. This cruelty arrives, however, in different forms. Stable, industrialized societies, awash in wealth and privilege, can construct internal systems that mask this cruelty, although it is nakedly displayed in their imperial outposts. We are lulled into the illusion in these zones of safety that human beings can be rational. The "war on terror," the virtuous rhetoric about saving the women in Afghanistan from the Taliban or the Iraqis from tyranny, is another in a series of long and sordid human campaigns of violence carried out in the name of a moral good.
Those who attempt to mend the flaws in the human species through force embrace a perverted idealism. Those who believe that history is a progressive march toward human perfectibility, and that they have the moral right to force this progress on others, no longer know what it is to be human. In the name of the noblest virtues they sink to the depths of criminality and moral depravity. This self-delusion comes to us in many forms. It can be wrapped in the language of Western civilization, democracy, religion, the master race, Liberté, égalité, fraternité, the worker's paradise, the idyllic agrarian society, the new man or scientific rationalism. The jargon is varied. The dark sentiment is the same.
Conrad understood how Western civilization and technology lend themselves to inhuman exploitation. He had seen in the Congo the barbarity and disdain for human life that resulted from a belief in moral advancement. He knew humankind's violent, primeval lusts. He knew how easily we can all slip into states of extreme depravity.
"Man is a cruel animal," he wrote to a friend. "His cruelty must be organized. Society is essentially criminal,-or it wouldn't exist. It is selfishness that saves everything,-absolutely everything, --everything that we abhor, everything that we love."
Conrad rejected all formulas or schemes for the moral improvement of the human condition. Political institutions, he said, "whether contrived by the wisdom of the few or the ignorance of the many, are incapable of securing the happiness of mankind."
He wrote "international fraternity may be an object to strive for ... but that illusion imposes by its size alone. Franchement, what would you think of an attempt to promote fraternity amongst people living in the same street, I don't even mention two neighboring streets." He bluntly told the pacifist Bertrand Russell, who saw humankind's future in the rise of international socialism, that it was "the sort of thing to which I cannot attach any definite meaning. I have never been able to find in any man's book or any man's talk anything convincing enough to stand up for a moment against my deep-seated sense of fatality governing this man-inhabited world."
Russell said of Conrad: "I felt, though I do not know whether he would have accepted such an image, that he thought of civilized and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths."
Conrad's novel "Heart of Darkness" ripped open the callous heart of civilized Europe. The great institutions of European imperial powers and noble ideals of European enlightenment, as Conrad saw in the Congo, were covers for rapacious greed, exploitation and barbarity. Kurtz is the self-deluded megalomaniac ivory trader in "Heart of Darkness" who ends by planting the shriveled heads of murdered Congolese on pikes outside his remote trading station. But Kurtz is also highly educated and refined. Conrad describes him as an orator, writer, poet, musician and the respected chief agent of the ivory company's Inner Station. He is "an emissary of pity, and science, and progress." Kurtz was a universal genius" and "a very remarkable person." He is a prodigy, at once gifted and multi-talented. He went to Africa fired by noble ideals and virtues. He ended his life as a self-deluded tyrant who thought he was a god.
"His mother was half-English, his father was half-French," Conrad wrote of Kurtz. "All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz; and by-the-by I learned that, most appropriately, the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs had entrusted him with the making of a report, for its future guidance. ... He began with the argument that we whites, from the point of development we had arrived at, ‘must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of supernatural beings-we approach them with the might as of a deity,' and so on, and so on. ‘By the simple exercise of our will we can exert a power for good practically unbounded,' etc., etc. From that point he soared and took me with him. The peroration was magnificent, though difficult to remember, you know. It gave me the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled by an august Benevolence. It made me tingle with enthusiasm. This was the unbounded power of eloquence-of words-of burning noble words. There were no practical hints to interrupt the magic current of phrases, unless a kind of note at the foot of the last page, scrawled evidently much later, in an unsteady hand, may be regarded as the exposition of a method. It was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you, luminous and terrifying, like a flash of lightning in a serene sky: ‘Exterminate all the brutes!' "




188 Comments so far
Show Allthe mighty xzorloc Loves Conrad!
He saw clearly tha nature of western thought and economic theory in action.
If our ethics could evolve at 1/8 the rate of our technolegies we might have a chance...a chance.
I fear we have no instrument subtle enough to deal with the vanity of our "elite" and their desire to systematically rape the corpses of our children as a funny sport for kings.
As the French Invisible Committee titled its 2007 political pamphlet, "L'insurrection qui vient" (The Insurrection that is Coming)...
Aiguiser la guillotine, Monsieur.
"You are an animal"
"No, worse--Human."--Nietzsche
Human animals are cruel because they are in pain. Each tries to make everyone else think that it is she alone who is free of pain. Everyone knows the truth. It is considered very bad manners to say the truth out loud.
All kinks of pain: physical, shame is painful, being is painful as it is beautiful, the pain of nothingness is a uniquely human malady, existential, mental, spiritual, the pain of freedom, the pain of slavery, especially to one's own appetites.
Excellent article Chris.
I think the quote you attribute to Nietzsche actually came from the 1985 movie "Runaway Train". The lead character played by Jon Voigt does quote Nietzsche: "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger".
"Human animals are cruel because they are in pain. Each tries to make everyone else think that it is she alone who is free of pain. Everyone knows the truth. It is considered very bad manners to say the truth out loud."
Holding firm to the Truth in this paragraph has brought me back to personal peace and pleasurable human relations (whether the person be Blue or Red) time and time again over the last year. Moving strictly into the realm of what is being said and beyond the feelings and their emotive form without their recognition in regard to the person in front of me has only led to personal violence and a contribution to over all world violence.
George W. Bush with his denying humor, Richard Cheney with his denying smug arrogance join us in not using "bad manners to say the truth out loud." They like most of us are unschooled in anything resembling a language of love and appreciation for life and reverence for death.
Chris Hedges adheres to the American taboo by omitting Israel. He also errs in omitting the American military-industrial complex with its need for war.
Hedges has frequently written on Israel, even as recently as Dec. 15: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081215_israels_crime_against_humanity/
While Mr. Hedges posts a lot of truthful articles, this one is pure bunk. First of all, he leaves out the obvious fact that those of us men who choose not to be cruel are treated like pariahs. Furthermore, most women are not cruel. So just because only a minority of people are cruel gives the author no right to classify man as a cruel animal.
Sioux Rose
DENNIS: Thank you for opening a different tributary in this discussion. From the very title, elected by Hedges, "War is the force that gives our lives meaning" it is evident the degree to which he identifies with the savage brute lowest aspect of human (generally male/patriarchal) expression.
The perspective shared by Conrad reminds me of that evidenced in the equally motifying story, "The Lord of the Flies." In both instances, you have young or mature men who were SOCIALIZED in a society that has a long record of militarism, and strong Christian (sin!) programming set free in areas where they are merely better armed. Firearms provide a distinct advantage to the bearer, who could be a non-muscular weakling, but suddenly is rendered a god (in homage to Mars) thanks to that diabolical invention!
To base what human society is about on situations where the fruit of behavior has long been tainted by beliefs that champion one against another, countenance immoral distribution of necessary resources, teach that one race or religion or people is "untouchable," is absurd. YES! The legacy of these social configurations lead to cruel behavior, thus there is a necessity to alter the arrangements that erode any premise for a just or fair or egalitarian society.
Old Europe was stained in the blood of the Inquisition, and the church frequently had enormous bounty but often left the poor to starve, teaching that they earned this status, it was "God's" will. How different is that from today's version of Calvinism that sees the most privileged in our society electing for themselves (through equally unscrupulous "leaders" and so-called representatives) a greater piece of the pie, knowing not enough crumbs are reaching the many? Do we deduce that greed is inherent to the human condition, because our democratic model is breaking down and all the demons are now let out of the box (that Pandora in myth left open)?
It is inordinately self-defeating to make assumptions about the full wingspan of human nature when THAT nature has been truncated, adulterated, subliminated at every interval by those who wish to turn person on person for their own dark ends.
Appreciating your comments! I never read this particular work by Hillman, but your comment brought to mind E.O. Wilson's theory of biophilia (Pulitzer Prize winner, for what it's worth), wherein he contends we humans have a deep and natural love of life. How this contrasts with Hillman's perspective! They are not necessarily contradictory. Your list of "good things" earlier could certainly be construed as biophilia, and I love this planet dearly for many of the same reasons. Further, as Theodore Roszak argued in THE VOICE OF THE EARTH, stunting, killing, or otherwise compromising biophilia could spawn just the kind of psychological damage that would generate the warped love Hillman postulates.
Peace would be nice!
Agreed. And thingophilia was spawned from another psychological crime called "marketing."
Agreed. And thingophilia was spawned from another psychological crime called "marketing."
Sioux,
Interesting perspective. From your second paragraph, I can see why silly books such as "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" sell all too well despite the crap that those books are made of.
On the issue of old Europe, I'm surprised that today's Europe is begging for peace compared to the US although the US is sort of beginning to change. Maybe? I'm guessing that after a while when people can no longer stand the church's empty promises and see through their exploiting schemes they change. I've heard of the idea of taxing the churches. If that happened, there would be plenty of state revenue to repair broken everything in my state.
Sioux Rose
There ARE archetypal energies that form a major component of human psychology. Women are not taught to identify with Mars. Up until recently few went into battle, but let's face it, it's been a major rite of passage for men of most cultures.
Indigenous cultures and those that pre-date the Judeo-Christian epoch also have different social structures that don't inevitably lead to war, or make war the FORCE that gives life meaning! I hate that concept!
Europe understood what paying for a war in lives and treasure costs... they were directly involved. The U.S. never had an adversary from a distant shore, short of our revolution. We may be overdue for such an event thanks to Bush fomenting every would-be terrorist around the globe, and enough nuclear materials floating around on the black market.
John Gray simplified things and knows nothing about astrology, but he does realize that women prefer to be listened to, whereas men are action-solve-it-oriented. Obviously not everyone fits this generic template.
Clap, clap, clap, right on sister!
Sioux Rose
HOOT OWL: Serena hates women as well as men. She just plain hates. You give the bravo to that? I look for a larger meaning, she tears it and me down. And that's something you wish to applaud? The woman is a projection screen of anger, as judgmental and filled with enmity as they come. She formerly posted under MRAVEN, I believe, and was just as filled with venom then. At least I can use my name!
Sioux Rose
Says an impoverished soul like you who cannot use HER name. Case closed.
Somewhere else in this thread there is some discussion about women being cruel. Break the spell! May a raven poop on both of you!
Clap. clap, clap. Enough reverse sexism already indeed, what good does that doing in bringing about an EQUAL cooperative society?
You know how the margins keep moving to the right as each comment gets posted? I've sometimes wondered what would happen if there were so many comments that eventually the margin would collapse so that each word was one line. What would happen after that?
These are the puzzles that keep me awake at night. Maybe soon I'll get to find out what happens.
There seems to be some indication that our minds get narrower and narrower as the margin squeezes in. Anyway, I'll help you keep this thread going until we find out! But I sleep at night, and away I go!
Sioux Rose
You know, I have responded to probably several hundred people in this forum, and I have never liked or resonated with you. Nor would I have responded if you didn't calumny against me. I did not attack you first. I shared my resume so you could ammend your characterization of me as "the phony astrologer." You worked in marketing to get a Mercedes, so we ARE on opposite sides of the fence. I never sold out for corporate toys... you did. You're probably in Mexico to make amends. Your whole perspective is punitive, and I take it warped by old Catholic thinking. Fine. If you stop attacking me, we can call it a truce. Obviously you are FREE to have your beliefs, but when you incite HATE, and you direct it at me, I may not wish to let that pass. There are many people I learn from in this forum, a number that I respect. I can see when they know more than I do about a topic, and I listen. I have never noted the slightest humility in you. Your favored tactic is equivalent to the person in the audience of a fine drama who throws rotten tomatoes. You may have a phD. but I know several who do, and their knowledge is quite narrow. What you sorely lack is the slighest spiritual consciousness. You put down those who have had more intimations of the Light than you have ever been privileged to have. If indeed the Raven allotted info to you, it was probably out of compassion; or maybe your guides realized the damage you could do to others on account of your vituperative tongue and manner.
I am ready to stop here and call it a truce. Otherwise, as a Moon Dance woman, I can't answer for where my moods will take me tomorrow relative to your provocations.
Mr Raven was me but I am honored you confused me with Serena, for she IMO from the posts of hers here I have seen is the most pragmatic poster on CD and probably the first to actually get off her butt and FIGHT for the oppressed in Chiapas. That is what it's going to boil down to if the left is going to start winning again in the U.S. like the hard ass IWW did in the 1910s and 1920s, and like hard ass Chavezs, Evo Morales do today. Do you think Chavez has any time for a bunch of upper middle class white rhetoric about "archetypes" and 300 dollar New Age "healing" weekends? More anarchist street fighters, fewer New Agers please...
If you think the DICK Cheney's of the world are going to wake up one day and hold a crystal and go ommmm oga booga, and read Starhawk and surrender the reigns of power in a voluntary fashion you are seriously deluding yourself.
P.S. I seriously doubt Serena hates all people, she is probably just sick of upper middle class people who equate talking about archetypes and channeling wealth and other bullshit is helping anyone as am I. I would guess her love of the indigenous people of Mexico is deeper than you or I can even conceive and watching them suffer makes her righteously angry as it ought to for any any feeling kind hearted person who hasn't had their feelings dulled by American consumerism in all it's guises mainstream and New Age.
I wouldn't call this piece "bunk," but I certainly agree that Hedges has an excessively dark view of humankind.
I respect the fact that he saw some truly dark things in his years as a war correspondent (read "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning" for further information) , but the hopelessness and despair that is a constant theme in all of his columns in becoming draining.
Note to Hedges: There is some good in the world. Not EVERYTHING is doom and gloom.
"I wouldn't call this piece "bunk," but I certainly agree that Hedges has an excessively dark view of humankind. "
Ah, thanks for the correction. After I read the article I had a bitter feeling. Sorry about that.
Wow, thanks Serena. Collectively we trash ourselves with the seven deadly sins while the seven virtues too are alive and well in the world. Whether it was your Raven friend who helped you to be so strong as to recognize your pleasures as well as espouse them publicly I don't know...but I do know it's with great enthusiasm that I say "rave on" Serena, "rave on".
I believe that inside very human has the inherent ability for good. Not evil. The evil is part of the temporary delusion we face in this world. It is not us. Everything in it's unnatural state MUST return to its natural state. Inherently made good, all will return to good at some point.
"Most women are not cruel?" Now that's an assumption worth questioning.
I can see why being gender blind is more important than ever.
Sioux Rose
You guys miss my point, you're too busy looking at the he/she part of it. I am stating that the attribute of pure selfishness articulated as violence (which is generally cruel) is an archetypal component of HUMAN nature. However, it is championed in war. Women may have learned to use their wiles in cruel ways as any second-class citizen will make use of what resources they do possess to leverage what they need and want.
My main point is that so long as we construct aggressive, hierarchical societies, where there will be people daily dealing with injustice at the bottom of these structures, anger, despair and a wish (on the part of some) to retaliate will flourish. It's about designing how we live so that the BEST/cooperative rather than the worst/competitive attributes of who we are come forward.
And what too many intelligent men do not get is that our societies are the PRODUCT of beliefs that center around God the strict/punitive FATHER, around MEN being given the power to make all the rules that concern BOTH genders, around MEN being given (up until recently and still undereway in parts of the world) exclusive right to ownership, etc. Women have adapted to this flawed paradigm, so don't be surprised when they take on the worse characteristics of "their masters." I am not doing an either-or, I am saying our life models bring out these darker impulses. They are unhealthy for both genders!
Per the usual we get trapped in the violence of the idolatry of labels instead of revealing in the qualities of now relationships where either gender can weld feminine or masculine creative energy, and display the other within a context 5 minutes hence.
Not so much missing your point as challenging the assumption expressed by the other reader. Your clarification, by distinguishing violence and subsuming it under cruelty, helps. Men are more violent than women (yes, championed in war), but women are no less cruel than men. Having said that, I want you to know I get your point, especially the concise wrap-up in your last paragraph. Having unequivocably NOT grown up to become an alpha male, a silverback, a dominant male, I have known cruelty from both genders. So please be careful not to blame all men for the patriarchical paradigm that is destroying us (you stray close to this by excusing the cruelty of women as a response to the faults of men). Stay on track with your main point: aggressive, hierarchical societies are unhealthy for humans and other species.
Go it easy on SR. She's aware of what gives guys a bad rap throughout history. We need guys like you to remove the stereotype. SR is also aware of women who likewise give their own a bad rap.
You say "go easy." I thought my comments were fair, even supportive. Am I missing something?
Aak, stupid me. I've been a bit too drunk and have been filled with too much lasagna for the evening. Sorry about the misinterpretation.
No worries. You and I seem to have a lot in common: PWD--posting while drinking...
Sioux Rose
FAST EDDIE: I accept your points, and certainly did not mean to lump all men. My main focus is the influence MARS holds over our world, particularly male socialization paradigms. I see the cruelty AMONG men for one another. I dated a marine who told me one guy in his training tried to commit suicide because the sergeant made fun of his penis. I know there are AWFUL rituals, rites of passage, males enact but I do NOT think it's human (or even male) nature. As I offered in the "Lord of The Flies" analogy, these behaviors are learned from societies that pit one against another, and champion brute force either through sports like boxing and football that garner HUGE fans and siphon enormous passion; or through films about heroism as seen in combat, or war itself. These insidious mechanisms, as we see in the mental state of today's returning Vets, destroy HUMANITY... all of us.
Thanks. You and I are crossing paths on these posts with some frequency lately. I am sorry if it seemed I jumped on your feminism. It was not my intent. We have things in common as well as differences (more of the former than the latter), and I appreciate your spirit and the equanimity you attempt to bring to your posts. I am trying to reign in my tendancy to attempt verbal humiliation of those with whom I disagree; you set a good example. (And I failed again, if you go back to the thread on the Rick Warren article!) Must be I need to go out for a walk in the snow...
Peace!
Sioux Rose
FAST EDDIE: I think many of us enter this forum to hone our own understanding, sometimes arguments. It can be an exciting learning enterprise; and I do try to show fairness, but there are a few posters who are so hostile and so guilty of the projection they accuse others of, that I lose whatever "patience of a saint" (that I am not) that can be summoned. These petty tyrants are useful in helping us to see where we still do react since the great work for each of us consists of taming our own natures and evolving them to emulate the Light.
This is the first on-line forum in which I've participated, so it's new to me. Formerly, I expressed myself in letters to the editor, in which I primarily honed my sarcasm (employing a "poison pen," as a friend put it, heckling the editors of the Seattle Times for their conservative views). Because the letters were going to the newspaper and into print, I knew I could only hope to be published (therefore, possibly heard) if I followed certain rules-of-the-genre, such as foregoing profanity.
I find that this kind of internet forum has more latitude, enabling hostility protected by anonymity. I quickly found that access to this greater latitude could easily turn my sarcasm to abuse. Within the first few threads in which I participated, I deliberately engaged one of those you might consider "hostile," and the exchange quickly became protracted and useless to both of us. I was a bit ashamed of baiting him (his "name" revealed his gender). I have resolved to be better aware of my own "hot buttons" and both react more thoughtfully (if I choose) or disengage more quickly (if I must). Frankly, it's HARD not to flame some of the people some of the time! Sometimes I crave the quick riposte! What else can you do with that rising gorge? Nevertheless, the use of "these petty tyrants" to "tame our own natures" is a wise path. Better to tame our own natures than to become someone else's petty tyrant. I'll keep trying. Thanks again.
Missed this comment before as I am getting lost over and over at different places in this growth. It's an idea-jungle in this internet! Were it not for the snow and idle hours indoors, I don't know if I would have ever dropped so deeply into this blogo-stuff. Not sure I'll hang around for very long.
We live on a hillside in Magnolia above Fisherman's Terminal, and for a week now have only been able to get in and out (or rather up and down) on foot. Fortunately, I haven't HAD to go anywhere but the grocery store, and we can divert through a park and wooded ravine to get down off the hill. So, in fact, these walks in the snow are one of the best parts of being snowbound. It also clears my head after all this thinking and writing (and arguing, and trying not to argue, and arguing with myself about whether or not it's really quite alright to argue), which requires, I think, no explanation. Today we saw a merlin being seriously harrassed by over a dozen crows. The crows had numbers, but the merlin was faster, and once she made the woods at Discovery Park, she was gone!
Back to the weather. We're now about an hour from sundown, and the conditions are "deteriorating" as they say. We had snow overnight that turned to rain this afternoon, and now the temperature is falling below freezing again. We're supposed to thaw and freeze through a couple more days, but by the weekend we'll be back into the 40s (degrees-F) with rain, so I expect by Monday the snow/slush/ice will be gone and consensus reality will be back to normal, and I'll be back to dealing with it.
@SR
"My main point is that so long as we construct aggressive, hierarchical societies, where there will be people daily dealing with injustice at the bottom of these structures, anger, despair and a wish (on the part of some) to retaliate will flourish."
Why not just simplify then and say we want a cooperative non hierarchical society and leave divisive gender based language out of it? The cooperative Rochdale principles manage to do this which is IMO a much better example than some pseudo feminist theory that blames all the worlds ills on male aggression. And yes you can say you are talking gender and archetypes and not biological sex but I still fail to see what earthly good adding gender in does at all towards advancing towards a more cooperative, peaceful, non hierarchical society. Scientists have a principle called Occams razor that says if part of a theory adds nothing to the explanatory usefulness of a theory it ought to be eliminated from the theory. I would say by Occam's razor we ought to eliminate the gender language and just focus exclusively on a more cooperative society for ALL people like the Zapitistas do in Mexico. They promote women and natives to highly honored positions in their villages without having to make a big deal out of it through some overarching pseudo theory, but rather from an ideal that it simply flows naturally from being an honest decent human being.
Sioux Rose
HOOTOWL: You are as dismissive of the pain of sexism as some are towards racial insensitivity. Women are raped on a daily basis, it's a BANAL war crime in our world. Women still are not paid the same wages that men are for the same work. Women are still left with batterers UNTIL they are harmed enough for the police, (still a macho boy's club in most instances) to step in.
When religion speaks of GOD as a UNITY of male and female traits, when women have equal rights all over this planet, when rape is no longer an act of war, THEN you can be so smug about dismissing the points I have raised. I have made it clear that the issue of aggression associated with a basic archetype imprints all of humanity; but it is and has generally been men--who after all wrote the creeds of religion and the codes of law and who have elected to go to war--who have cultivated a CULTURE of violence. That women have adapated to this horrific model with their own aberrant behaviors is a symptom of the dis-ease. Naturally there are positive and negative attributes attributable to all persons and both genders. I am talking about the way society has conditioned persons. Other than that, I agree with your point. Your analogy is incredibly glib in passing off so much injustice as if it was nothing. I don't think most men really understand what sexism feels like on the female's receiving end... what it feels like to see films use women as props for male action, or political bodies dominated by men STILL. The women who make it up the ranks act like men and therefore pose no threat to the status quo. I have discussed the archetype of this particular feminine expression (Athena) as it so suits Condi Rice, Hilary, Thatcher, and others. Or just read Jean Shinoda Bolen's work on these archetypes. She's a Jungian psychologist.
"When religion speaks of GOD as a UNITY of male and female traits, when women have equal rights all over this planet,"
I'm still waiting for people to catch up with John Lennon when he said "imagine no religion... "More people have died men AND women for the phantasms of the mind called religion and "spirituality" than all other causes combined including horrid greed.
Atheist hard leftists up through the late 50s realized that and then somewhere we lost the thread IMO.
Archetype schmarkatype, the problem is base levels of testosterone that causes animal level aggression and the fortunate fact that our minds have the ability to create abstract ethical systems that are stronger than the glandular impulses resulting from our biochemical makeup.
"When religion speaks of GOD as a UNITY of male and female traits, when women have equal rights all over this planet,"
I'm still waiting for people to catch up with John Lennon when he said "imagine no religion... "More people have died men AND women for the phantasms of the mind called religion and "spirituality" than all other causes combined including horrid greed.
Atheist hard leftists up through the late 50s realized that and then somewhere we lost the thread IMO.
Archetype schmarkatype, the problem is base levels of testosterone that causes animal level aggression and the fortunate fact that our minds have the ability to create abstract ethical systems that are stronger than the glandular impulses resulting from our biochemical makeup.
" but it is and has generally been men--who after all wrote the creeds of religion and the codes of law and who have elected to go to war--who have cultivated a CULTURE of violence. That women have adapated to this horrific model with their own aberrant behaviors is a symptom of the dis-ease."
In essence you are absolving women of all responsibility for their bad behavior with this disingenuous claim that when women behave badly that they are imbibing some bad male "archetype." How about instead owning up to the fact the Sarah Palins, Madeline Albrights, and Margaret Thatchers of the world are RESPONSIBLE for their own ethical decisions to behave badly and derive benefit from the oppression of people? This isn't an archetype problem it's an individual responsibility problem IMO. No one forced these people to adapt self serving ideologies, rather they CHOOSE to oppress, and I would guess if measurements were done they'd have higher levels of testosterone than their more ethical female counterparts. Rather than lose ourselves in some airy fairy realm of unprovable conjectures about "archetypes" we'd be better off measuring peoples testosterone levels on a yearly basis and teaching those people with elevated testosterone anger and aggression control techniques. If we are going to win against a hard right empire we have to do be just as analytical and pragmatic as they are IMO. While we sit in our self indulgent "spiritual" groups some asshole is loading up a helicopter gunship with 50 caliber machine gun rounds and the spiritual group is going to do shit to stop that. Or at the very least if we are going to be self indulgent with art (my choice) and "spirituality" we ought admit it's just that self indulgent and not helping oppressed people in any real way, unless that art is a flyer to organize a demonstration.
jonabark
I don't see what Sioux Rose is saying as sexist or distorted by moral bias. She is addressing real patterns, deeply ingrained. The sad representation of women in politics says far more about politics and what it allows, than what it does about women as leaders, spokespersons, actors in their communities. The higher one rises in a corrupted system, the more likely the fundamental corruption will affect the aspiring leader. The filters against challenges to the dominant paradigms are powerful and even more so in the egocentric world that surrounds the powerful.
Part of the deal here is that women have never organized around the hatred and denial of the the masculine the way man have around the hatred and denial of the feminine. Military training invokes mother, pussy, girl as weak , pathetic , the proper object of disgust , abuse and denial. Patriarchies also organize around men having dominance over women. In some ways it seems that there is little else men can effectively organize around than military dominance or patriarchal dominance. Other kinds of organizing are much more gender shared and often effectively led by women. I am probably overstating my case, and I don't think sex determines ones moral character or inherent propensity to cruelty, but hootowl don't you agree that we are born into social patterns that promote active and violent cruelty among men far more effectively than among women? The healing of this inheritance is painful, but freeing, and there are failures on all sides. i hear a lot of hope and wisdom emerging from the bleak and all too realistic picture of the human tragedy Hedges outlines, and have noticed a new tone on CD which feels more like community , and listening. Am I dreaming here? Are others perceiving this?
"i hear a lot of hope and wisdom emerging from the bleak and all too realistic picture of the human tragedy Hedges outlines, and have noticed a new tone on CD which feels more like community, and listening. Am I dreaming here? Are others perceiving this?"
Yes, I am perceiving this. Welcome! And please continue!
A general question: what the heck do we do when these threads get so damned long a person can hardly find his or her way through it any more???
jonabark
I don't see what Sioux Rose is saying as sexist or distorted by moral bias. She is addressing real patterns, deeply ingrained. The sad representation of women in politics says far more about politics and what it allows, than what it does about women as leaders, spokespersons, actors in their communities. The higher one rises in a corrupted system, the more likely the fundamental corruption will affect the aspiring leader. The filters against challenges to the dominant paradigms are powerful and even more so in the egocentric world that surrounds the powerful.
Part of the deal here is that women have never organized around the hatred and denial of the the masculine the way man have around the hatred and denial of the feminine. Military training invokes mother, pussy, girl as weak , pathetic , the proper object of disgust , abuse and denial. Patriarchies also organize around men having dominance over women. In some ways it seems that there is little else men can effectively organize around than military dominance or patriarchal dominance. Other kinds of organizing are much more gender shared and often effectively led by women. I am probably overstating my case, and I don't think sex determines ones moral character or inherent propensity to cruelty, but hootowl don't you agree that we are born into social patterns that promote active and violent cruelty among men far more effectively than among women? The healing of this inheritance is painful, but freeing, and there are failures on all sides. i hear a lot of hope and wisdom emerging from the bleak and all too realistic picture of the human tragedy Hedges outlines, and have noticed a new tone on CD which feels more like community , and listening. Am I dreaming here? Are others perceiving this?