admin

The perils of positive thinking (2)

In my last post, I discussed the so-called Law of Attraction and the “positive thinking” fraternity which makes a great deal of money out of it (thereby, no doubt, proving their point – at least to themselves).

I think it is true that success breeds success and that positive thinking characterizes successful people, but where I really take issue with this stream of thought is when it comes to the prescriptions its practitioners facilely offer. Attempting, sans plus, to generate on ones own part a pattern of “positive” thinking to replace ones habitual mode of thinking is both futile and dangerous.

This is for at least two reasons.

Firstly, the notion that by pure force of mind one can overcome obstacles to success which stem from ones psychic makeup is an obvious fallacy because it is self-referential: psyche and mind are the same thing and to use one to change the other violates the first law of thermodynamics. More generally, this notion is entirely culturally determined and merely one expression of the general cult of mind which pervades Western society and Western thought. It is a prescription of “mind-over-matter” or, equivalently, since mind must be overcoming something internal and not merely external obstacles (if it overcame only external obstacles then there would be no problem in the first place, since the state of mind would by itself already be sufficient to overcome these obstacles, being unfettered and therefore absolutely free), well then of “mind-over-body”. But since mind is the problem, and mind already exerts hegemony over the body, it is obvious that the direction of influence must be reversed for true change in behavior to occur. It must, in other words, be a question of “body-over-mind” or “nature-over-nurture”. The prescription to cultivate positive thinking is therefore precisely wrong: unless understood as a prescription to cultivate the body.

Secondly, this prescription acts to reinforce the superego. The belief that there are good and bad attitudes, good and bad ways of thinking, is one we are all too susceptible to because it has been drilled into us since childhood. We accept that we should filter our thoughts and behavior, and in so doing become the perpetuation of the filters of those who influenced us in childhood, through manipulation and embedded violence.

Even without any exhortation to think “positively”, “negative” thinking attracts not simply social opprobrium but ill-concealed wrath. But what is “negative” thinking? Not only, as far as society is concerned, beliefs that I will fail, that everything and everyone is against me, and so on; attitudes, in other words, which obviously stem from ones own conditioning rather than objective reality. Rather, any challenge to the established order is quickly labelled negative in the same way, and not at all only by those who stand to gain from its perpetuation. This type of “negative” thinking, if itself not entirely objective, expresses what may be quite vital rage at injustice, incompetence, waste, pollution, racism, hatred and so on. It is, therefore, an expression of that commitment and lucidity without which change can never occur. Conversely, “positive” thinking eminently suits everyone with an interest in the established order. But if it can change nothing in the external world, what can it possibly change inside?

In the final analysis, the cult of positive thinking is nothing but a cult of self-hypnosis, of suspension of ones critical faculties and with them ones vitality. Like all cults, it is useful to those within its priesthood and worse than useless to those in its rank and file. Its viability rests on millenia of collective neurosis, with which it is symbiotic.

I invite you into your power, not to judge your thoughts or feelings but to feel them intensely and to know them in your heart; to emancipate yourself from the factors and forces which really hold you in slavery whilst calling themselves your salvation. When you are full of life energy, then you will radiate attractiveness and be able to realize your goals. But to be full of life energy you must embrace all that you are and use the energy you can find in your body to challenge the obstacles that are in your mind. Not positive thinking, but courage, heartfulness and action are the keys to an authentic, body-based, powerful spirituality and the force for change in yourself and in the world.

The perils of positive thinking (1)

Self-help philosophies are big business. The amount of shelf space devoted in bookshops to titles expounding the power of positive thinking is quite astonishing. You all know the kinds of book I have in mind. It is a genre which spans new age and traditional spirituality, applied psychology and business. Alongside the authors are the coaches and therapists, all of whom make a living from doling out lifestyle advice and running therapy sessions and workshops based on the same principles.

On-line the situation is no different. Indeed, many phenomena of this kind have really been boosted by the power of viral marketing. Let us take just one example which is probably familiar to many – “The Secret”, a self-help film produced in 2006 by one Rhonda Byrne. The wikipedia article is here. The central message is that believing in yourself sets in motion a positive dynamic which becomes self-reinforcing, leading to happiness and success – a cosmic law dubbed the “Law of Attraction”. Another classic of this genre is Napoleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich, an all-time bestseller, published, astonishingly, in 1937 and still hugely influential today.

I first encountered this phenomenon within what was then called the “house church movement” in the 1980’s. This neo-Pentecostal movement was in its origins quite ascetic, but became increasingly, and to my horror, pervaded by quite different notions coming from the American “TV evangelists”. God wanted you to be rich and successful and, if you weren’t, it was only that your faith was insufficient for the task. (This doctrine never sat well with the evangelical precept of saving grace, but seemed subjectively appealing to many because it chimed with their self-doubt and perception that there had to be a “quantitative” element to salvation, a notion of course familiar to Catholics and Orthodox).

In its secular form of the Law of Attraction, I believe it expresses, albeit very crudely, something quite true, but at the same time it misses something equally fundamental.

What is true is expressed in the popular adage “success breeds success” and has been identified by many teachers. Jesus is reported, somewhere in the gospels, as saying “to he who has, more shall be given; but to he who has not, even what he has shall be taken away from him”.

Funnily enough, though, few if any of the real spiritual teachers I can think of ever ended their days in wealth and comfort; and Jesus himself was crucified. So what’s going on? Was Jesus just talking of “spiritual wealth”, perhaps, something quite different from, and perhaps opposed to, worldly riches?

Of course Jesus did indeed call on people to forego worldly riches on occasion, though only when an obstacle to spiritual growth. Still, I do not think that spiritualizing perfectly down-to-earth utterances is a proper hermeneutic. Rather, the “Law of Attraction” itself implies a duality of destinies, paths either up or down, virtuous or vicious circles. Not only does success breed success, but failure begets failure. This duality is found back, equally, in the salvation doctrines of probably all world religions (though it may be a somewhat simplistic framework within which to interpret the soteriology of Buddhism or some nature-religions, paganism, Shamanism and so forth, which also suggests it may have a lot to do with the role of institutionalized religions in legitimizing the established social order).

This “either-or” of destiny implies that there are two communities and two poles to which individuals gravitate – a pole of success and a pole of failure. Strictly speaking, there is a “Law of Attraction” at work at both ends; and the closer you are to one, the more difficult to break out of its gravitational field into that of the other. Between the two, though, there is also a “Law of Repulsion”. Individuals gravitating towards the upper pole find themselves spending more time with others who are on the same path, and separate out from them by a process of reverse osmosis. This process is analogous to the processes of self-organization giving rise to order in the cosmos notwithstanding the tendency to entropy expressed by the second law of thermodynamics. On the side of those to whom fate has been less lucky, who are in the vast majority, envy and anger develop and are directed towards those more fortunate. For this reason, prophets, even if they seed a new level of consciousness in the human spirit, are almost always martyrs.

So much for the Law of Attraction as a law. As a self-help program, however, there is much more to be said; I will return to this in my next post.

On the energy economy of the masochistic body type

Some thoughts from personal experience on this topic. This entry is mainly based on self-analysis, on the basis of which I draw some general conclusions; I freely admit the methodological flaw in this way of reasoning (and even more so since I am not a “pure” example of this body type*), but those who are interested in a more systematic account will anyway refer to the literature on the subject. So:

By virtue of repeated violence and threats of violence during early childhood, the masochistic body type (“Maso”) develops two sets of marked body patterns.

Firstly, spasticity of the following muscles or muscle groups: (i) buttocks and thighs (gluteus medius and minimus, pectinius, quadriceps, rectus femoris, and the hip adductors); (ii) the deep pelvic and perineal muscles (the pelvic floor, which consists of three muscles, and the perineal pouch, see here for photo) involved in defecation and urination as well as in maintaining posture and (iii) the transversus and rectus abdominis muscles.

The original purpose of tensing these muscles was to protect the genitals from damage. The need to protect the genitals also has a symbolic interpretation and charge, insofar as it represents an attempt also to defend the ego from assault. The spasticity of these muscles is naturally paired with a lack of tonus in the muscles which move the hip and pelvis upwards and outwards.

Associated with this, a pattern of breathing is developed in response to pain and assault whereby oxygenation of the pelvic region is reduced, and thereby also its sensitivity to pain. This appears to involve primarily the transversus abdominis muscle, which is the deepest of the abdominal muscles and inserts into the linea alba (the line which runs from the solar plexus downwards). Spasticity of this muscle effectively shuts off energy flow along the front of the body, separating the pelvic region from the abdomen. It also limits the depth of abdominal breathing.

In addition to this, the Maso develops constrictions in the jaw and throat, running as far down as the solar plexus and also involving the pectoral muscles. These constrictions aim at inhibiting the vocal expression of anger and pain. The effect of constrictions in this segment is also to draw the shoulders forward and to compress the sternum from the manubrium (upper part of the sternum) which is compressed by the clavicles until the xiphoid process (region of the solar plexus).

In combination, these two groups of muscular spasticities arch the spine in the form of a C, a posture which expresses and communicates resignation and defeat.

Such spasticities develop in early childhood and inevitably have a permanent developmental impact at the skeletal level. The anatomy in particular of the pelvis/hip area is affected by the imbalance between muscle pairs which results from permanent tension in the adductor muscles.

The Maso’s energy economy is characterized by a high level of primary energy in the genital region but a limited ability to circulate and use this energy, requiring discharge at low thresholds, or otherwise manifesting as anxiety. Essentially, the Maso is unable to tolerate a high level of energy is his body, because of the fact that this energy overcharges the genitals. Compulsive masturbation is a way to avoid anxiety. Anxiety manifests itself because the discharge of energy has been blocked. As anxiety increases, discharge scripts are cathected. These scripts are typically sexual in character and develop into more or less developed forms of obsessive-compulsive behaviour. Such scripts may be actually enacted, or merely direct the expression of sexual desire. The masochistic character also has a tendency to overuse and possible abuse of alcohol. In my case there is also a tendency to compulsive eating and obesity, which is a common, but I am not sure whether general, characteristic of the body type.

Clearly, the therapeutic challenge is to loosen these two sets of primary rigidities and to deepen the breathing so that the pelvic area is better oxygenated.

*) As regards physical body armoring, however, I think this type predominates, both based on self-observation and on theoretical grounds which I omit.

Our love affair with nonsense

One advantage of undergoing depth body psychotherapy is the anger that it releases; from which my readers can surely benefit. Here goes a rant, therefore 😉

I am of the view that tantra is nothing more or less than an exploration and acceptance of who we really are as sexual, spiritual beings.

To embrace tantra is therefore to rebel against thousands of years of repression and manipulation of our identities by others, and to reclaim the bodies that we live in for ourselves. It’s a revolutionary engagement; nothing can be more revolutionary.

I could also add to my definition the mystical heart of tantra, which is the doctrine of non-duality. But it is not really a doctrine; it is really an evidence, if you know yourself.

To realize this evidence and to enact this rebellion, no-one needed to invent something called “tantra”. Humankind has been doing this forever, in a multitude of cultural forms. I do not believe that anyone, in any period, in central/south Asia had access to any unique insights regarding this problem. At best, it was locally possible in some periods to go further in exploring this path than others elsewhere had done. Nonetheless, this truth of the human condition is around every corner and accessible to everyone. It is a pure evidence, and it has become even more so as scientific knowledge has accumulated.

Being doctrineless, tantra is wonderfully compatible with all forms of authentic knowledge that exist, both scientific and spiritual. A movement calling itself “tantric” can reinvent itself constantly and is perfectly justified in doing so, since its practices are judged only by the canon of utility, and not of truth. Collectively, I believe we have discovered much about what is useful on the path of self-development; I believe we have discovered nothing about what is true.

It is, of course, understandable, indeed inevitable and even (maybe) desirable, that tantra – like other spiritual movements – manifests itself in movements and communities with a concrete form, and which develop allegiances, language and rituals of their own. This development both aids the spiritual growth of community members and is necessary to the propagation of the message and methods of the group. I have nothing, even, against its “branding” and I am very tolerant of quirkiness in its self-conception and self-expression.

But let’s remember that the very nature of non-duality implies that no doctrine can be “right”; all language is metaphorical and contingent. Nothing is more than a pathway to self-knowledge, and an infinite number of such pathways exist.

Which makes me wonder why so many self-proclaimed tantrikas give such a damn about lineages, ancientness of traditions, Hindu deities and so on; and even when they don’t, still path lip-service to a host of tantric myths and try to anchor what they are doing in the authority of the past.

That seems to me paradoxal, since tantra is all about living in the here and now…

This attachment to form, ritual and myth raises some more fundamental questions about what the nature of tantra is, and about the spiritual marketplace we inhabit, within which movements identifying themselves as tantra compete for attention.

It won’t have escaped the attention of even the most casual observer that this marketplace is unusually crowded, with numerous generic, branded and even patented therapy methods, bodywork modalities and spiritual practices competing with each other in terms of the hyperbole of their claims of efficacy.

The most successful (in terms of the following they attract) are usually those that promise the most for the least effort, or which particularly suit the personalities of the would-be disciples : notably in terms of those individuals’ desire to avoid personal responsibility for their spiritual path (or physical or emotional healing or well-being) and cast this on to the willing shoulders of ego-driven gurus.

Why is this so?

In my view and experience, leaving aside exogenous life events like illness and bereavement, and solitary practices like prayer and meditation, there are only two things which can effect long-term positive change in personal behavior. These are (i) love and (ii) work designed to release underlying tensions in the bodymind.

Furthermore, as far as love is concerned, I am convinced of its power but I am unsure of its duration if it is not accompanied by abreactive work.

Tensions in the bodymind being manifested physically (although they are not purely physical in their etiology), a physical dimension to such work is indispensable. That leaves a broad panoply of activities which are not without value, though their relative value may be discussed (and may vary from person to person). However, it excludes, at the same time, a vast bunch of stuff which is of little value, no value at all, or quite negative in terms of its value because it distracts people from real solutions to their problems. For example, Tarot, numerology, mandalas, angels, mantras, crystals….It also puts into perspective the possible value of other modalities whose only reasonable mode of effective action is through the love and acceptance they communicate (though also limited energetic effects as well as autosuggestion are possible). In this category I would place, for example, reiki (see here for a review of its clinical effectiveness). I would be still more skeptical about other physical methods which do not involve significant manipulation, such as sophrology.

All of these modalities, apart from competing with tantra in the aforementioned spiritual marketplace, are, perhaps surprisingly (at least to me) actually embraced by many people who practice tantra, as a complement to their own practice.

This is, I believe, very damaging for the credibility of the practitioners concerned and for the layman’s understanding of what tantra has to offer, which is nonetheless so brilliantly set out in books by Osho and others.

At my last workshop with Advaita, I was particularly pleased to hear two spiritual myths debunked, myths with which many tantra practitioners coexist quite happily.

One was the notion of karma. According to Advaita (I paraphrase her), this is an immoral notion designed to encourage resignation in the face of violence. We are born with no form of original sin, whether Christian or oriental. On the contrary, we are born innocent and we are corrupted by parents, teachers and society. I entirely agree with this important, and objectively indisputable, moral standpoint.

A second was the zen notion of emptiness. According to zen, one should strive after emptiness in order to feel compassion. I think I understand this one and for me I have no problem in embracing that notion. Yet when Advaita says that we can only feel compassion from plenitude, it is a vastly more helpful conception to normal people. What prevents us from feeling compassion is what prevents us from feeling ourselves. And the search for emptiness can all too easily become a quest to repress feeling and emotion.

Having brilliantly debunked these concepts, though, why stop there?

I don’t doubt that it’s profitable to peddle the kind of nonsense you can find on www.schoolofawakening.com, for instance; but is it helpful to the soul? And therefore, is it ethical?

In any case, tantra it is not.

Death and the Maiden

Trying out post-by-mail from my mobile phone. Advance apologies if there are any issues with the post!

"Ich bin nicht wild, sollst sanft in meinen Armen schlafen," pronounces Death in the eponymous poem about a young girl’s fear of an untimely end.

And the figure of a nubile, unclothed girl in an embrace with the gory, macabre personification of death has fascinated many artists over the centuries, perhaps seeing in her the ultimate representation of life, or simply of human vulnerability and frailty.

Yet what of death, indeed? Untold stories have been created by humankind to postpone or relativize its embrace. It seems to me, however, that death is something very trivial. It is simply the inevitable end of life. As such, it is not at all problematic, it has no consequences whatsoever, and except for taking appropriate prudential measures tied to ones family responsibilities, it may be completely ignored.

So live now. Stop making excuses. And by "now", I don’t mean in five years’ time, or even later today. I mean, NOW!

Virtue in education, ou comment faire de bons Belges…

I was at a party organized at my daughter´s school today, and I had another epiphany.

When we chose the school (I’m happy to say she’ll change next year – whether that will be an improvement is of course not preordained), we noticed that there was a very big emphasis on codes of behavior. It was kind of a bit too much, but nothing objectionable that one could put one’s finger on. On the contrary, who could disagree that it was a good thing to learn to listen to others, to take their feelings into account, to be on time in the classroom, and many other laudable aims and intentions?

Plenty of parents hope that school will instil in their youngsters a sense of discipline and standard of behavior which they, as parents, feel they have failed to do at home. This takes on occasion extreme forms in response to desperate parenting failures. We rather hope that school is a place where our children would have fun and learn self-expression; in the right environment, we would expect the rest to follow without any need for compulsion. But of course we also know that not everyone brings up their children like we do, giving the teacher a more difficult job, and we wouldn’t want our daughter to be terrorized by children that are out of control, so I guess we thought we could live with the school’s approach.

As expatriates, and given that she would only spend one year in the school, we haven’t been very closely involved in the life of the school. The only thing that I have found constantly disturbing in this school is the lack of tenderness and joy on the part of the teaching staff. They don’t smile much, and treat children brusquely to say the least. But otherwise – a normal school. Nothing really to complain about.

The event was themed around tolerance of diversity, with plenty of other laudable themes thrown in for good measure – like environmental stewardship and so on. Pretty much as I would imagine American high schools – full of public displays of allegiance to the school’s moral code. Except we’re talking here kindergarten and primary.

I have lived in Brussels for 20 years, so I pretty much know the place. It has been my experience that many members of the educated population present a sycophantic public persona, which is apparently polite and very conflict-averse, but behind which the rage is barely masked – utterly unprovoked verbal aggression is not difficult to solicit from the most innocent of comments or questions. So one might wonder whether this school is typical or counter-cultural.

A casual glance at the faces of the parents present at today’s event, at their body language, or casually eavesdropping on their conversations convinces me that as far as the parent population is concerned, it is typical. And of course I cannot fast-forward 20 years, but both self-selection and the conservatism of social institutions make it highly likely that the children as adults will not be so very different from their parents.

So is the moral education not working?

Of course it is not working. Moral education does not work. We have been amply warned by Nietzsche of the social role and the effects of Morality, and we should have listened better. What is Good flows directly from Lebendigkeit, vitality. The extinction of resistance to the behavioral code you wish to impose can only beget outcomes that are, at the very best, socially convenient; the anger locked inside expresses itself exactly as I have already alluded to.

The insidiousness of this is that it is so hard to argue with and stand up against. Almost no-one will understand you. Don’t we want our children to grow up to be good citizens? To prosper through their connections to their peers?

And so the groupthink marches on, and the Gleichschaltung is assured of success.

There is one word for this: manipulation, and it is a power game whose true nature yields rapidly to analysis. Exactly as many manipulative mothers, my own included, constantly remind(ed) their children of how much their behavior disappoints them, hurts them, how “good boys and girls” don’t do things like that.

Well fuck you. Children owe no duty to their parents in a world where parents have no regard for their children. Children are easy to exploit and emotionally manipulate, but Macht macht kein Recht, power is not morality.

Just before going to that party, I was reading another article from the school promoting the doctrine of non-violence, I believe in the Marshall Rosenberg tradition. I of course agree that when our spontaneous reaction to something is a violent one, we should try to come to an understanding of why that is and maintain our emotional states in consciousness – which is not quite the same as rejecting violence, but it comes close enough in practice. Everything that is said in that article sounds right – about understanding the different perspective of the other, how one’s own psychic wounds predispose one to certain emotional reactions and so on. The problem is that this discourse will inevitably be instrumentalized, implemented in such a way as to impose anyway the will of the more powerful individual by manipulation.

The words don’t matter; only the motivation and consciousness matter, and these will not be changed by words. The realization of this was what underpinned the great post-colonial emancipation movement; and when violence is provoked, it is also legitimate and understandable, even if it is not always wise or enlightened. Even if the original provocation was very well disguised in seemingly philanthropic dress (behind closed doors, be assured the violence is as real). Then, as Sartre put it in his preface to Frantz Fanon’s Les Damnés de la Terre, “this irrepressible violence [in response to colonial exploitation] is neither sound and fury, nor the resurrection of savage instincts, nor even the effect of resentment: it is man re-creating himself”.

These days I am shaken by rediscovered violence from my childhood. I love it, I feel alive, each time I abreact it (of course I don’t hurt anyone; or myself) I come into a new space of greater consciousness and joie de vivre. As for aggression, it is positively sacred in my eyes.

My children don’t need to be brainwashed into subscribing to pretty ideologies and to the relationships of power which vehicle them and are profoundly opposed to their own sense of self.

Social incidence of sexual abuse

@phdinparenting on Twitter, the author of the simply great parenting blog www.phdinparenting.com (obligatory reading for all readers of my blog who have small children) reasonably enough asked me to back up my statement there – in response to her question on the subject – that approximately 100% of people had suffered from sexual abuse as children.

The answer doesn’t need a lot of space, but more than 140 characters for sure, so I am posting it here!

I have basically three reasons for making this statement (although I admit a certain residual hyperbole):

1. My experience in numerous personal development workshops, in which people who never suspected they had been the victims of sexual abuse, have realized through the therapeutic work, that in fact they had. This implies that any self-reported survey must underestimate the real incidence of the problem. (In any case, we also know that even people who ARE aware they have been the victims of sexual abuse, often do not talk about it, even anonymously).

2. Retrojection from people’s current behavior and attitudes to sex, based on my understanding of the psychoanalytic basis of such attitudes. Sexual neuroses are very widespread and must have their origin in pregenital sexual experience, even if (see the next point) no actual physical abuse has occurred. (Freud famously concluded from what he thought was overreporting of pregenital sexual abuse in therapeutic contexts that childhood sexual fantasies, and specifically the Oedipus complex, played a major role in the development of neurosis. I am not so sure that Freud was not simply unwilling or unable to accept the extent of actual abuse in society.)

We do have data on sexual dysfunctioning – we know (lower bounds for) the incidence of, for males, premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction, though we have less idea, because we have less basis to measure it, of the incidence of penile insensitivity; and for females, of partial or complete anorgasmia and of less common conditions (in the female) like what has been colloquially called “sex addiction”.

3. Most importantly, I probably have a wider definition of sexual abuse than is commonplace, but I would like to defend this definition; it is real sexual abuse because it leads to sexual neuroses (I have a correspondingly wide definition of sexuality itself).

Thus, whilst I am quite confident that the incidence of physical sexual abuse is high enough (ie too high, and at least 20% on a conservative consensus estimate), I would also view as sexual abuse all of the following:

Genital mutilation in both sexes
An attitude towards the child’s sexuality which is based on adult perverted sexual scripts, regardless of whether or not these have actually been acted upon (but in some measure, I am sure they almost always have)
Bizarre, unnatural and perverted attitudes to sexuality generally (I’m very tolerant and these are not morally loaded terms for me, but the lack of a healthy model can only have the effect of at least blunting the child’s natural sexual development)
Poor or inexistent sexual education, especially timely information about periods and ejaculation
Parenting behavior which degrades or humiliates the child, even if not explicitly in its sexual identity

And that’s a short list – I could go on.

We should also remember that the sole force capable of corrupting the child’s sexuality is not the parents – unfortunately, if at least you believe you can get parenting right. Parents are not all-powerful. Other adults in the child’s environment may abuse it sexually and many of the indirect forms of abuse are, I believe, totally endemic in the school system, at least it is my experience (or let’s say it is my deep fear, because I don’t get to sit in my toddler’s classroom).

So, in short, societal violence and attitudes to sexuality basically corrupt us all. Actual sexual acts between adults and children are themselves endemic, but if you escape them, their direct ripple effects to society anyway result in everyone being caught up, if not directly, then at very close quarters.

I haven’t the slightest doubt that if we could simply respect the sexual identity of children, we would transform society beyond anything we can even imagine today.

Of Gods and Goddesses

Our general understanding of the ontogenesis of polytheistic systems in the space which came to constitute the Indo-European world is approximately as follows, and owes a lot to Marija Gimbutas.

Prior to the Indo-European incursions, the religion of Europe, but probably also of central and south Asia, was essentially matriarchal in form (or “matristic” to use Gimbutas’ preferred term). The central Goddess-figure embodied fertility, the earth and procreation, and by extension the nurturing values of motherhood. The ancient world also knew, however, a variety of other female goddesses having varying personalities and attributes. The Triple Goddess is widely attested, representing the phases of the moon and the phases of the life of a woman through youth, maturity and old age. Other Goddesses offer other role-models or express other, “darker” dimensions of womanhood – think of Kali, Astarte or Hera.

Gimbutas doesn’t make a big point of it as far as I know, but we need to supplement this description with certain other elements. Primitive religion certainly knew divinities who were emanations of natural phenomena – the Sun, moon and other planets; rivers and seas; mountains; the weather, and so on – all the forces to which primitive humans were subject or which filled them with awe. We do not know if these divinities were endowed with gender from earliest times. All pre-Indoeuropean languages of Eurasia which are attested (Basque, Etruscan, Kartvelian, Iberian, etc) do not have grammatical gender, so the assignation of gender to forces of nature was presumably not self-evident. It seems also likely that phallic cults predate the Indo-Europeans; certainly they do so in the Indus Valley civilization, but it seems very likely that the various phallic gods attested from European religion – of which the most notable would be Priapus and Pan – in fact belong to a pre-Indoeuropean stratum of religiosity which recognized not only the nurturing role of the earth-mother but also the complementary roles of both sexes in procreation, something reflected in the metaphysics of ancient near eastern creation myths as well.

Into this somewhat pacific universe characterized by a complex female and rather simple male divinity accompanied by various nature-divinities, erupted the Indo-European warrior class which bore androcratic religious traditions, mirroring their social organization; these traditions then took precedence over, though they existed alongside, traditional beliefs.

It is easy to speculate that, whatever complexities there may have been in pre-existing cults devoted to male fertility (sublimited as the essence of the male in the word “virility”), these were swiftly ousted or relegated to a secondary position by the rich array of male divinities which the conquerors brought with them. Where it suited them, nature-divinities could also easily be shared out between the genders and, indeed, on more than one occasion have their gender changed from female to male, as happened when traditional Tibetan religion (Bön) was supplanted by Tibetan tantric buddhism.

The Goddess, on the other hand, while subordinate to the male divinities, suffered from no such process of substitution and continued to merit the devotion of indigenous populations. Even in her much-disguised Marian incarnation, numerous local specificities and attributes continue to exist to this day. In Ancient Greece she seems to have survived particularly well, and with the rise of neoclassicism, Goddess worship found its way back into the mainstream of the European tradition, albeit in disguised forms. Many men practise it in a transparently pagan form to this day – there is a mass market for portrayals of beautiful women inaccessible to the majority of males, and I would take issue with the feminist notion that they are routinely viewed by men as mere passive and frequently degraded objects of their sexual satisfaction (although within pornography itself, this unfortunate tendency is probably on the rise). These (abstractions of) women are routinely honored by their male acolytes with the giving of their semen.

Regardless of how accurate this account is from a historical standpoint, it pretty much represents, I believe, our collective preconscious – the array of symbols available to us denoting female and male. Masculinity is associated with a reduced set of militaristic attributes which characterized also the ancient Indo-european male pantheons, whereas femininity is associated with a much wider set of creative, healing and nurturing attributes of which males have no ken.

Whenever it is admitted that men may also possess or develop such attributes, this is invariably referred to as “getting in touch with their feminine side”. Women, on the other hand, rarely get in touch with their “masculine side” – the phrase would rather imply capitulation to the paternalistic world order (which I decry as passionately as anyone).

As a man, I have one thing to say to this: Quatsch!

It is not acceptable for me that women get to relate to such a funky bunch of goddesses, and I have to look in the poverty of the militaristic traditions of a bunch of destructive barbarians for inspiration as to what my masculinity means. Yet in the Shiva/Shakti dualism, Shakti is the clear inheritor of all pagan Goddess traditions, whereas Shiva, at core, is the Rudra of the Rig-Veda, “fierce like a formidable wild beast”. Not only do I not accept this, moreover – I consider it a ludicrous distorsion of who I am, and a pervasive, destructive cultural meme which impedes anything approaching a full expression of masculinity in the modern world.

Have I committed here tantric theocide? I hope so. For the Oedipus myth teaches us powerfully that only when the father is overthrown can the son come into his power.

Society 2.0

There is a lot of debate (whether any of it is informed in nature, I have no idea) about how the interactive internet – aka Web 2.0 – will impact on society at the level of individuals’ behavior and the tolerance of diversity. Many people seem to fear that the knowledge that much of what one does is now in the public domain will make people more conformist and paranoid, trivialize social debate and make society grey and vulnerable to the worst kinds of populism. What is already hardly carried out in public for fear of social opprobrium will be pushed back into greater and almost total obscurity. Very few people seem to be of the opinion that self-publishing (and indeed third-party publishing of ones personal data) will have the opposite effect: make people more aware of diversity, more willing to differentiate their public persona, and more tolerant of others.

The weight of opinion around this topic is quite easy to understand, and not particularly easy to argue with. It is not obvious that, on the whole, differentiating one public persona is incentive-compatible; in a world where reasons to reject people – in professional and social fields – are much more in demand than reasons to admire them, revealing who one truly is – unless who one truly is happens to match the greyness society demands – seems to suffer from a prisoner’s dilemma. On the other hand, the drive for self-expression runs deep in human nature; one needs only to recall the bravery of anti-totalitarian movements around the world to be convinced of this: what revolution was ever, in the narrow sense we are used to thinking in, incentive-compatible for those who led it? Eppur si muove. In business school we are taught that differentiating ones product and operating in a profitable niche is a much more fruitful strategy than succombing to the “commodity magnet”: the race to cut costs and appeal purely on price is a cutthroat one indeed.

So there are at least some arguments on either side, however easy it is to be pessimistic. But my point is not this. I do not, in any case, believe that social outcomes are preordained; social conditions underlie the trajectory of history, but free will, charisma and leadership nonetheless play a role out of all keeping with what one might naively imagine. As it is said in Zen, it takes only one candle to dissipate the darkness. Social prognostics may entertain others; I am more interested in moral action and social change.

And in this regard, things are clear. I suspect, in some very approximate sense and on the important assumption of continued if imperfect democracy, that this game knows two long-term equilibria: one in which there is a large set of conformists and a small set of individualists (which shrinks much more if minority rights are undermined by the large set of conformists), and one in which tolerance of diversity becomes the norm.

The outcome will depend on you and I; on the small acts of heroism whereby often unsophisticated individuals stand up for what their heart tells them is true and right, at least somewhat regardless of personal cost. Managing one’s on-line persona is reasonable (and there’s a lot of guidance on how to do it) – first impressions matter. Yet allowing paranoia to prevent us exploiting the huge potential of the worldwide web for personal development and social change is not. Someone determined enough could uncover a lot about my identity and use it maliciously against me, I have no doubt; but I think it is morally incumbent upon me to take that risk which is the reverse side of the tremendous opportunity I have to change people’s thinking and behavior for the better. And that’s what leadership is about.

Ich schütze deine Lebendigkeit

Welcome to my new mantra. I would like to recommend it to parents and schools the world over.

This came to me in German on the plane back from Istanbul and I don’t quite come up with the translation I want (that in itself probably says something about the alienness of the concepts from our daily reality), but in German it’s absolutely perfect. I defend/will defend/am defending/protect your vitality/vivaciousness/spontaneity/natural élan, something on those lines.

We devote, as a society, as educators and as parents, a tremendous amount of effort towards extinguishing the natural high spirits of children. It’s embarrassing, inconvenient, annoys others or ourselves, brings (and indeed it does) unfortunate consequences in terms of accidents or social opprobrium. And I am not saying education is unnecessary: clearly children need to learn to live in the world as it is, and to defend and protect themselves. Yet our profoundest duty is precisely the reverse – to allow our children to carry their spontaneity and aliveness through into adult life.

So this is my promise to my children; I hope it may also be yours.