Two powers, bright, heavy, warp the Abyss around them,
twins birthed from the moment of Love
birthed into the moment before Love.
They pull they desire
They push, they fear.
–From Notes From The Abyss, IV
Perhaps you’re aware of some of the recent conflicts between Traditionalist strands of Pagan and Heathen thought and more ‘liberal’ strands. Maybe you’re not. Either way, the differences between them seem impossible to reconcile.
For the Traditionalists, the revival of our ancient religions requires a return to other ‘traditional’ ways of thought, including an embrace of ethnic and racial identity, and disavowal of ‘modern’ conceptions of gender. For the more ‘liberal’ Pagans, rebuilding an earth-based spirituality requires an embrace of ‘progressive’ ideas about race and gender foreign to our ancestors.
For the Traditionalist, the views of the more Liberal parts of Paganism involve denying ancient truths about humans; for the ‘Liberals,’ the Traditionalists hold to primitive or regressive ideas that humanity no longer needs. And it would seem nothing could bridge the abyss between them. One side seems hopelessly racist and backward-looking, while the other side seems too New Age-y, arrogant, and blind to the real conditions of modern life.
Two opposites, twin polarities…there’s a magic for this.
Essentially Wrong
The apparent ideological gap between Traditionalist/Folkish strands and what some call the ‘Social Justice’ strands isn’t rooted in the personalities or really anything fundamental to the people on either side. No one is inherently ‘racist’ or ‘multicultural’ — these are just adjectives. And, actually, the beliefs about what is ‘inherent’ to humans cause most of the conflict between the two sides anyway. It’s where both sides are right and wrong.
To understand this, we need to look at our ideas about what is ‘inherent’ or ‘essential’ about humans, and look at a uniquely modern lie: Essentialism.
Essentialism is the belief that there’s something physically innate about humans which determines their identity. That is, there is a fundamental ‘essence’ which makes a human male or female, Black or white, European or Asian, or gay or straight.
It’s pretty easy to see how Essentialism applies to the Traditionalist strands of Paganism. But, as I said, it’s a mistake both sides make.
Gender Essentialism
Let’s first take one aspect of Traditionalist-thinking, seen in the writings of writers like Heathen Male-Tribalist Jack Donovan. From thinkers such as him, we have the idea that there is an innate man-ness to men which has been diminished by modern civilization and the emergence of feminism. In such a view, men are unable to fulfill their essential masculine characteristics (often: strength, protection, and warrior-hood) because of the feminization of society. They claim society demands they apologize for being men in the first place, and become victimized by rules against certain essentially male behaviors. Their answer to this problem? We must ‘return’ to an older, ‘traditional’ view of masculinity, usually somewhere in a mythic—and often ‘nordic’–past.
If this sounds ridiculous or wrong to you, please wait. You are probably doing the same thing.
“Goddess” spirituality, especially beliefs associated with Dianic Witchcraft or other matriarchist ideas are exactly as Essentialist as Male Tribalists. Is there something ‘essential’ and inalienable about women? According to this other side, women have an ‘innate wisdom’ (usually through the ‘mystery of childbirth’ or an innate connection to Mother Earth) which stands in opposition to the ‘masculine’ qualities which have caused the destruction of nature. In this view, male-dominance (“The Patriarchy”) has caused war, oppression of peoples, pollution, and other societal ills, along with enchaining women into subservient roles to men. Thus, men are inherently violent and destructive, or at least have strong innate tendencies to be those things that must be restrained by society.
Both sides come to the exact same conclusion—that the ills of society and the inability to realise one’s own potential is caused by the other gender.
Racial Essentialism
But before we look at more of the problems with these conceptions of gender—and where they come from–let’s look at another place where Essentialism is the cause of the divide between these two apparently polar opposite strands: race.
‘Whiteness’ has become a rallying cry for many ‘blood-and-soil’ Traditionalists, though they sometimes describe their actual ethnic or racial identity as European, Germanic, or Nordic. And this makes sense, of course, since they are attempting to bring back the culture, beliefs, and spirituality of the indigenous European religions. So, in essence, they’re reclaiming their racial, ancestral beliefs, just like any other racial group, right?
The problem is, of course, race. In order for there to be a racially-white religion, there must be such a thing as a category of humans called ‘race,’ and a category of race called white. And there must be certain qualities which are inherent or innate (that is, Essential) to whites which are not present in other races.
Thing is, those who oppose racism in the Liberal strands of Paganism often re-affirm the essentialist idea of race. If a blood-and-soil Traditionalist Heathen is claiming a racial/ethnic heritage unique to themselves, calling it white-supremacist only re-affirms the idea that there’s such a thing as ‘whites.’
Unfortunately, it’s not so easy to just drop the idea of a ‘white race’ because of the experience of Black folk in the United States. Since most on the liberal end of things have some idea of the history of slavery in the United States, you’re probably familiar with the idea of ‘white privilege.’ White privilege is seen by many as an inherent or Essential aspect of white people that cannot be gotten rid of, can not be washed off or exorcised. That is, whites are essentially a privileged race, and no white, rich or poor, anti-racist or racist—can claim otherwise..
So, while the blood-and-soil Traditionalist is being Essentialist by claiming that there’s something innate and inalienable about their ancestry as ‘white’ (or European, or Nordic, etc.), those who wish to fight racism are just as Essentialist by claiming that whites have inherent traits like privilege. In fact, it’s precisely upon this hypocrisy that some of the more political and ideologically fierce “New Right” theorists who influence many Traditionalists are happy to pounce.
Problem is? They’re kinda…right. The way most social justice activists understand privilege (like ‘white male privilege’) is indeed Essentialist. They treat these negative traits of being male or white as something that can’t be undone. White Privilege can only acknowledged, confessed and constantly guarded against … much like Original Sin
Fated Flaws
Original Sin is the Christian idea that some ancestral flaw was passed down from Adam and Eve which makes every human descendant of them inherently (that is, essentially) inclined to sin. In this idea, no human can avoid this primary flawed attribute, and nothing can ever eradicate this trait. It’s an essential aspect of every human, and it means each person is fated to commit sin.
This idea that anyone, because of some part of their Essence, is fated to do something, is called Determinism. It’s the insistence that Essential aspects of people determine and predict the way they behave, what sorts of decisions they make, and other characteristics of their being. In a way, they become ‘enslaved’ or at least bound by aspects of themselves they cannot change.
Gender and Determinism
We can see how this functions pretty easily in Gender Essentialism, which proclaims that men always act in certain ways toward each other, toward nature, and toward women. In some Matriarchist or Progressive thought, men act rapacious (the root of this word is the same as ‘rape’) towards the natural world, taking, using, and consuming without care for the things they harm. Essentially, it is in a man’s nature to harm.
The same sort of determinism happens to women, too. Women are said to be ‘slaves to their biology.’ For instance, an old conservative argument about women is that they are unable to see outside the needs of their family. Therefore, women cannot make self-sacrificial decisions for the good of a people or a nation. Basically, women are so innately nurturing, protecting, and life-affirming that their instincts would prevent them from engaging in a violent war against a foreign enemy.
Male ‘Tribalists’ and other Traditionalist theorists on the ‘man’ side accept these categories readily. They embrace the idea that men are innately rapacious, and even glorify male violence and sexual conquest. But those on the other side embrace these categories just as thoroughly.
We can see this best when a man commits a violent crime. “Women wouldn’t do that,” goes the argument. I’ve personally heard, “women don’t kill large groups of people” or “women don’t rape,” because it is not in a woman’s nature to do this.
Of course, instances of women murdering, raping, or ordering the State murder of others (think Margaret Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth) get completely ignored, just as all the examples of men acting nurturing rather than rapacious get ignored, too.
Counter-examples musts be ignored or explained away in order to protect the Essential gender category. This allows those with the most strict beliefs about Men and Women to entertain fantasies that, were they allowed to be more their essential selves, the world would be a better place. From the “Men’s Rights” crowd we get arguments that, if men were allowed to be the brutish, strong, conquering males they were born to be, there would be less violence against women (since, in their ridiculous reckoning, ‘feminism’ is the reason they are compelled to become violent). And from the other side we find the fantasies that global warming, pollution, and most social inequality would end if women were in power instead of men.
Race and Determinism
Determinism is an important part of Racial Essentialism, too. It holds that people in specific racial categories cannot help but act according to the essential aspect of their race. This is the root of Race-Theory itself; Blacks are ‘genetically inferior’ to other races, Asians are inherently mathematically-oriented, Caucasians are strong, privileged, and civilization-minded.
Because of its history, most of the negative essentialist qualities are assigned to Blacks rather than whites in the United States, including ‘criminality.’ That’s why, when a police officer shoots an unarmed Black man, the officer is given a greater benefit of the doubt when she defends the shooting. Blacks are seen to be Essentially and Deterministically prone to violence and criminality.
The result of all this determinism is that each person becomes bound and imprisoned to the Essentialist category. Men, who wish to act other than how they are told they are supposed to act, are still judged according to what men actually are, rather than what the individual man has done. Similarly for women, for whites, and for Blacks. And each polarity is bound in perpetual conflict to its opposite.
If it seems that what I am saying is coming from my own (Essentialist, Deterministic) existence as a ‘white male,’ we should remember that this is precisely the point that post-colonialist theorists like Frantz Fanon, as well as Malcolm X, made repeatedly. The essentialism which created a racial category called Blacks also created whites, binding them both into perpetual conflict that cannot be transcended or resolved by the categories themselves.
Racial conflict must exist as long as we accept Essentialist Race theory, just as gender conflict must exist as long as we accept essentialist categories of man and woman. Worse, the categories actually cause the conflict.
Now, let’s look at why and how those Essentialist categories were created in the first place, and then look at the magic which can undo this perpetual conflict.
Humans in The Machine Age
This is hard to wrap one’s head around, but the way humans view each other and themselves in the modern age is actually quite new. Race and Gender were not Essentialist categories for the vast history of humanity. There was a time—not very long ago—where no-one considered that there was anything innate, inherent, intrinsic, or ‘essential’ about certain groups of humans rather than others.
The Birth of the Homosexual
Maybe the best way to understand what it was like to not believe that there are Essential characteristics of Race or Gender is to look at the sexual Essentialism, particularly the ‘homosexual.’
Gays and lesbians often describe themselves as innately ‘born this way,’ just as heterosexuals might define themselves as biologically ‘wired’ to only have sex with people of the opposite gender. This results in situations where a man who doesn’t call himself gay or homosexual, saying something like, “I’m just a guy who likes to have sex with other guys” actually receives quite a bit of trouble for his statement. He is often said to have ‘internalized homophobia,’ or declared ‘in denial’ about his true nature.
Essentialist ideas of sexuality are much, much newer than essentialist ideas about gender, but only a little older than Race-Theory. Up to the 1800’s, it was never argued that a man who had sex with another man was innately inclined to do so. In fact, there was no word that described someone who desired sex with the same gender, only labels that described what that person had done. Words like “Sodomite” or ‘Buggerer’ were the equivalent of “Murderer” or “Thief,” defining not what a person is, but what act they had committed.
While the sort of person who has committed murder or stolen might be likely to do it again, we don’t tend to believe that there is some Essence of them that has always been a murderer or thief. Nor do we generally think that a person who has stolen was ‘fated’ by their genetics to steal.
It was once the same thing with people who we now call gay or homosexual.
The way our understanding about the innate/essential nature of sexuality changed occurred not through religion or philosophy, but through legal strategy and changes in the scope of scientific theory. There’s no space for the entire story in this essay (and Foucault has described it quite thoroughly already), but it’s important to keep in mind that our conceptions of what is innate about humans can shift, and often do so through external forces.
So, let me tell you about how our understanding of Gender and Race changed recently.
Women Make Bad Workers
Essentialism arose as part of what is often called ‘the mechanistic’ world view. Mechanistic-thinking was a shift in the understanding of the world from earlier, pre-industrial societies to one dominated by industrialisation, capitalism, and machines. It marked the end of an Animistic world-view where everything was seen as having soul or spirit.
You’ve maybe heard this idea already, especially if you’re familiar with “Neo-Animism,” Dianic Witchcraft, Deep Green Resistance, or many other ideologies. Forget what they say about this for a moment. Most of them place this shift very far back in time with the birth of agriculture and cities, basically so far back into prehistory where nothing can actually be done about it, and there’s no historical evidence to argue against them.
There was plenty of animism in Europe during the middle ages, as well as Pagan and Heathen beliefs. In fact, there was a Pagan kingdom in Europe up until the 13th century, and part of the Catholic reconquest of Spain up to the 15th century involved converting Pagans. Alchemists and astrologers continued to exist in courts up to the 19th century, and one of the fiercest criticisms of the Catholic church during the reformation was that it never fully eradicated Pagan and Heathen beliefs (as well as Witchcraft) from the common people.
The Age of the Machine was also the birth of modern Science and secularism. Both claimed that the world was not a magical place but one that was run by mechanistic laws which determined the behaviour of everything in the world. Before this, humans understood the natural world to consist of ever knotted threads of relationships and incomprehensible mysteries. If there were natural laws, they were either from the god(s) or the stars, and these natural laws were also magical laws.
Now, we approach the world, each other, and ourselves as assemblages of component parts, reducible to the physical material which comprises existence. The new science which arose during that time fixated on plumbing the inner secrets of the natural world, finding out what it was about a plant or a human that made them act certain ways. Starting from their own personal theories of difference, scientists, philosophers, doctors, and engineers dissected, disassembled, and otherwise took apart dead and living things to get to the core of their being—that is, their ‘essence.’
These attempts to determine what precisely made a woman different from a man—or what made someone from an African culture different from someone in an European culture—were no longer just a matter of curiousity. We must never forget that knowledge of all sorts—be it the court alchemists and astrologers of the middle-ages, the priests and augurers around Emperors, or the scientific advisers to world leaders today—has always been crucial to the powerful.
Most important of all, knowledge of how humans ‘worked’ during the start of the Age of the Machine was not just to understand how they ‘ticked.’ It was also to understand literally how humans work, because learning how to exploit human labour (and the wealth derived from it—also called Capital) unlocked the key to more wealth.
The mechanistic worldview accompanied the birth of factories for a reason. Factories were ways the wealthy could arrange human workers in such a way to maximize the wealth they generated. Because factory owners needed certainty in order to predict profit and expenses, the humans who became workers had to act like machines, too. They needed to stop doing things which were useless and counter-productive in a factory setting–like carousing, resting, social interactions, as well as activities involving family, like breast-feeding or caring for children.
This last part is really important, because it helps us understand how women became essentialized. Certain activities of women got in the way of a smooth-running factory. Pregnancy, menstruation,and breastfeeding all required breaks from working. It kept women from fitting perfectly into the new Machine-Category of ‘worker.’ Though there were plenty of other such human activities which got in the way of the creation of the worker (like resting and eating), women were the only ones who could successfully argue a natural, impossible-to-overcome limit.
Male workers weren’t able to claim the same natural limits that women could, so they had a harder time resisting the demands of their bosses. The only limits they could claim were the ones that all human had, like the need to sleep and eat. Also, because population had decreased significantly after the Plague and factory owners needed a steady supply of workers, birthing children (that is, more workers) was an important activity that factory owners couldn’t argue against.
So, women became an essentially different sort of person from men because they did not make ideal factory workers, and men did. But as I mentioned earlier, one of the things men could claim as a natural limit to work is one common to all humanity—the need to rest and the need to eat. Add to this all the other activities any human needs in order to survive and you can see how any factory owner would have a problem. A male worker couldn’t work 16 hours a day in a factory and still feed himself—all machines, after all, wear down.
This is how women got shunted into the ‘traditional’ (which was actually mostly new) gender role of housewife. To exploit male workers—to make them act like machines—men needed someone to perform all the tasks they no longer could do for themselves because they were working in the factories. Women thus had to become exploited by men in order for men to be exploited as workers.
Here we can see how to dissolve one of the primary complaints of the Male Tribalists, that modern men are forced to act less like men, less natural, less themselves. They’re actually almost right: men have been forced to act less natural, less like themselves. They’ve been shaped by the same social and political forces which forced them into factories in the 1700’s. They were forced into an essentialist gender role where they could not claim natural limits against the demands of the machine, as well as finding themselves now requiring a wife to perform all the activities necessary to keep them alive. But they didn’t lose their ‘maleness,’ they lost part of their humanity.
The exact same problem has occurred for women. Preference for male workers in the factories (again, no ‘natural’ limits to their ability to work) meant women got paid lower wages than men (as continues to the present). Worse, the Commons (land available to all in a community for grazing, foraging, fishing, etc.) were being destroyed, divided up fenced off and sold to individuals, so women had no access to the way to support themselves. They became bound into a position of reliance upon men to labor on their behalf, trading household work to men (husbands, lovers, sons, fathers, and also to domestic employers) in return for a share of the wage earned by the men.
So, when either side of the gender essentialists (male tribalists or matriarchists) look to the ancient past to construct their views of ‘traditional’ gender, they are accepting the Machine-Logic which was foisted on humanity during the birth of Capitalism.
Black and white, or Revolt
What about Race, then?
Race-thinking did not first become a ‘thing’ until late in the Age of the Machine, when scientists, theorists, philosophers, and others began trying to determine the relationship of the bodies of Africans and indigenous people to their culture. This involved an awful lot of dissection of the dead (and some vivisection on the living), particularly studying the shapes and sizes of human skulls through ‘Craniometry.”
Before the 1700’s, while the conception of difference between peoples existed, ‘race’ didn’t mean a separate line of humanity. To anyone familiar with European slavery, then, this fact presents an intriguing problem. The enchainment and forced-labour of peoples from the continent of Africa is seen by liberals as an inherently racist act. And while it was certainly justified by theories that Blacks were of an inferior race than Causasians, the slave trade wasn’t actually racist.
This isn’t to say that it wasn’t horrible, only to state that race-thinking was not a justification for the subjugation of people from Africa by the early slavers, because they had no conception of race as an essential category of human being. Race-theory (or ‘scientific racism’) actually came later, and was empowered significantly because it helped justify the continuation of slavery to those who thought slavery was immoral.
Just like the demands of the rich and powerful required the Gender Essentialism which brings us to think that women are innately one thing and men are innately another, Racial Essentialism arose to maintain another sort of labor: unwaged, forced, slave-labor.
There was another reason for the creation of Race-thinking. In the European colonies (including what is now the United States), poor people from Europe (particularly the British Isles), working in conditions as awful as the poverty from which they fled, started to befriend and make alliances with slaves. Neither group liked their rich masters/bosses very much, and both groups could see that they were paid much less (or not at all, in the case of indentured servants and slaves) than the wealth they created with their work. For both groups, the difference in their ethnic backgrounds, culture, and ‘race’ were much less important than their common enemy.
The workers from Europe weren’t considered ‘white’ until law-makers and bosses saw the potential revolt. Laws were passed which defined those workers as ‘white,’ and gave them different rights and privileges than the slaves from Africa or the indigenous people in the colonies.
Privileges were something actually granted to whites, rather than something essential or innate within them. And ‘white’ was a created category of human being, a new racial and judicial category of human being. An entire group of people, a small subset of Europeans, woke up one day to find they had no colour.
Transgressing The Essential
We can see that all these Essentialist categories require an opposition. The racial category of ‘white’ required there to also be a category of ‘black,’ otherwise white was a meaningless category. Women were not the only victims of Essentialism, because an Essentialist category of one gender required an opposition—Man—to also be essentialised. Even if one category (Black, woman) became subjugated by the division, its opposite suffered as well.
And unlike class categories which describe changeable characteristics (think “rich” and “poor,”) gender and race categories are seen as completely static. A Black person cannot become white, nor can a woman become a man…right?
Actually, this is the last important thing we need to understand about Essentialism; any attempt to escape, transgress, or transcend the dichotomies is punished severely by those who’ve built ideologies (or religions) around Essentialism.
Transgressing gender categories can be done multiple ways. Since heterosexual sex was originally an important part of Gender Essentialism (‘heterosexual,’ by the way, is also a new category, actually coming after the term ‘homosexual’), gays and lesbians were early targets of hatred, both by men and women.
A man who has sex with men is doing something non-essential to male-ness (despite, of course, ancient societies which saw same-sex relations as signs of higher manhood), so he inspired hatred from conservative Christians and Muslims who saw what they did as a transgression. Similarly, the existence of gay men erodes one of the core doctrines of matriarchist thinking, that all men treat women as sexual objects.
A sort of peace has been made with the queer man or woman now, because both sides have another enemy: the transperson. Transmen experience quite a bit of hatred, certainly, but the majority of the ire has been aimed at transwomen on all sides.
In fact, hatred of transwomen might be the only thing that unites matriarchist traditions and political groups (including Deep Green Resistance) with Fundamentalist Monotheism and New Right Traditionalist Heathenism. In fact, they’re all in perfect agreement with these words, written by Male Tribalist and Heathen Jack Donovan (but just as easily by Ruth Barrett, Lierre Kieth, or Pat Robertson):
The only way to prove you’re not afraid of trannies is to agree that transsexuals are not only sane, but heroic, and should be welcomed into any women’s restroom.
The transperson transgresses the Essentialist categories of male and female by moving from one to another, utterly eroding all social foundations for Essential Gender.
The same ire is levied against those who attempt to transgress race. “Miscegenation,” or the mixing of racial lines, is considered anathema by racial essentialists because it erodes the very concept of race. If a Black man has a child with a white woman, what race is that child? And if that child has a child with another such child, where did the essence of race go?
This question led to authorities who needed race to be essential to come up with bizarre calculations of what made someone actually Black. One drop of Black blood (one Black ancestor) was, in many places, enough to make a child Black, no matter how many white ancestors they had.
Similarly, though, the attempt to transgress whiteness by calling yourself “European” or “American” rather than white meets with anger both from those who believe in white separatism and those who believe that all whites bear a sort of Original Sin for the historic crimes of slavery. Is there a difference in culpability and privilege between a U.S. born woman of Irish immigrants who came to America in 1980 and a woman of the same age whose great-great grandfather owned and beat slaves in Mississippi? By the logic of Essentialism, there isn’t.
But you may by now be asking if there’s really an equivalence between all these positions. Is a goddess-loving matriarchist who believes transwomen aren’t women really equivalent to the Male Tribalist Heathen who believes the same thing? Or the social justice activist who believes all whites have inherent privilege and responsibility for slavery—are they really equivalent to the white Heathen blood-and-soil Traditionalist who believes in the existence of a Nordic race?
Yes.
They are equivalent, at least ideologically. I’ve my own moral preferences, of course, and those who’ve read me for awhile know which side I take in these arguments and which side I’d fight on if I had to fight. But ideologically, there’s no difference, and we need to stop pretending there is.
Anyway, this whole war is stupid. Besides, the rich and powerful started it, not us.
From Conflict, A Weapon Is Born
There is another way past these oppositions. Not many will like this answer though, because it involves giving up something we all believe to be essential to ourselves. But there’s a certain magic trick most of us know, one of the most powerful Mysteries in any of our traditions.
Think about the problem we’re in. If male and eemale are essential, unchangeable categories, then there’s no way to end the modern war between them. Likewise with race—Blacks and whites will always be at war with each other if Blackness and whiteness are divinely-ordained categories of human that can never be transgressed.
And who benefits from this relentless conflict? Governments and the rich: literally non-essential classes of humans for whom the rest of us are just workers, consumers, expendable soldiers in their wars.
There’s another way of looking at why we cling so tightly to Essential categories of race, gender, and sexuality. Something Essential about us as humans was taken away with the birth of the Age of the Machine. Our beliefs, our relationships to the earth and ancestors and gods and each other, our traditions, and our ways of life were severed, cut and ground down by the coming of machines and factories, waged-work and alienated urban life.
Our ancestors, Black or white, man or woman, lost their connection to the world and to themselves, lost what was most essential to our existence as humans. What was left to us was the drudgery of the long work day, cheaply-made products in faceless markets, and a deterministic Science that told us we are not what we decide we are, only what we have no choice but to be.
The Matriarchist and the Male Tribalist are looking to recover something essential about themselves, but all they have left to them is the false category of essential gender and deep, obsessive hatred of their opposite. The white Heathen and the Black activist are both trying to heal an ancient wound done to their ancestors, but cannot ever fully regain what was lost until both are liberated.
We’re caught in these polarities, neither side ever able to give in to the other, neither twin able to be complete without the other.
And therein’s the deep magic we need.
The alchemists knew this secret. Witches know what happens next. Astronomers have seen this in the stars. Druids study this mystery for decades. Even atheist Marxists know this trick, but would never admit that it’s a kind of magic.
When two stars meet, get caught in each others orbit and don’t slingshot each other out into the Abyss of space, they begin to revolve around each other. Their gravities conflict, both pushing and pulling each other until they hit a sort of equilibrium. But they don’t actually revolve around each other, but around a third center that arises from their conflict.
Druids know this to be the secret of triads, how two things which exist as opposites generate a third that is the resolution of their polarity. Hegelians and Marxists know this as the dialectic, how a condition generates its opposite that can only be resolved by a synthesis arising from the gulf between the two.
Esotericists know this by many names, including the lunar current and the Grail mystery. When the solar current and the telluric current arise in equal proportion, a third current arises, one only possible because of the other two. Alchemists and Wiccans know this by many names, as well—it’s the pursuit of the divine androgyne, or the Chalice rite, opposing principles of feminine and masculine, or lord and lady, birthing a new state of existence when united.
And Witches know this to be the secret of the Divine Twins. Two equal yet opposite beings, born of a severed unity. First the one, then sundered into two who both fear and desire each other, and between them rises the winged serpent, the peacock angel, the light-bearer.
It’s also the secret of love. When your fear of someone is equal to your desire for them, you are caught in their orbit. When their desire of you is equal to their fear, they are likewise caught, and you are both in love.
It is impossible for the damage done to women in the Age of the Machine to be healed without the damage done to men to also be healed. The same is true of Blacks and whites, and the colonizer and the colonized.
We can remain in perpetual conflict, clinging to our ‘essential’ difference, never finding ways to resolve the wounds wrought on our peoples by the archons of the Age of the Machine. And if so, the forests will die, the oceans rise, and wars will rage on.
Or maybe we’ll remember that it takes two to create a third, and perhaps take up the powerful weapon which arises in from this Mystery, finally wielding it against those who have actually stolen our Essence.
* * *
[Author’s Note: My second book, A Kindness of Ravens, is now available in print or digital. It includes several essays originally published here at The Wild Hunt.]
This column was made possible by the generous underwriting donation from Hecate Demeter, writer, ecofeminist, witch and Priestess of the Great Mother Earth.
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
It starts by redefining what we want to say and not accepting the definitions we were taught. It starts by questioning what we know and asking is this the only way it can be, or are there other possibilities? It starts by daring to think for ourselves and not accepting the words of alleged experts, by seeing that others might have their own agendas for what they say. It starts by looking inside and finding out who we are, not who we are supposed to be as told by others. Once we give ourselves permission to be unique we no longer need to worry about others being different.
Wow, that was a really good essay. Much to think about.
I’m sure you’re going to get a lot of comments along the lines of, “You’re right, but *my* side of the dichotomy is the correct one, and let me explain why…”
But this is definitely thought-provoking.
I wanted to share that while I don’t always agree with your perspective, your essays are intriguing. Great work.
Thank you for including the important (dare I say “essential?” 😉 fact that differential privileges and burdens were apportioned between kidnapped Africans and transported Europeans to turn them against one another and keep them from making common cause against their masters, long before anyone thought of measuring skulls or testing IQ’s.
“Certain activities of women got in the way of a smooth-running factory.
Pregnancy, menstruation,and breastfeeding all required breaks from
working. It kept women from fitting perfectly into the new
Machine-Category of ‘worker.’”
These arguments were and are the same ones used by many indigenous peoples for keeping the women from and in certain activities, not something that arose solely from the industrial age.
There is also a lot of science bashing – presenting the science of those times as a bad thing without acknowledging the good. Its a tool and any tool can be used for good or bad, and the good that arose from it is that we have improved human health and quality of life that wasn’t seen before. Something that shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as merely a tool for the powerful.
Which doesn’t explain the works of John Snow who, in their own concern for people found the source of stopped the cholera outbreak in Soho, London, in 1854.
His findings inspired fundamental changes in the water and waste
systems of London, which led to similar changes in other cities, and a
significant improvement in general public health around the world.
Or Alexander Fleming who actively searched for anti-bacterial agents, having witnessed the death of many soldiers from sepsis resulting from infected wounds and discovered Penicillin that saved the lives of millions.
And how about Jonas Salk discovered and developed the first successful polio vaccine. With Polio being one of the most frightening public health problems in the world. For example, in 1952 the U.S. had a Polio epidemic of nearly 58,000 cases reported, 3,145 people died and 21,269
were left with mild to disabling paralysis, with most of its victims being children. According to a 2009 PBS documentary, “Apart from the atomic bomb, America’s greatest fear was polio.” Jonas devoted himself to this work for the next seven years. And when he discovered a vaccine he released the patent for free – no royalties, just so it could reach and help more people.
“The Age of the Machine was also the birth of modern Science and secularism…. Before this, humans understood the natural world to consist of ever knotted
threads of relationships and incomprehensible mysteries.”
Um, science has reaffirmed this. In fact it was science that had guided me to a Pagan path. Science is simply always on the frontier of the wonders of Nature. Ask any scientist on the frontiers of our understanding of the universe, and they are in awe of it. That mystery is what inspires their work, and acknowledge that the more we know the more we realize how little we know. But that doesn’t mean we should try to study it in all its various fields. The notion that each field of science is completely separate from the whole is absurd. The scientific study of our world in such fields is merely to contribute to the whole of our understanding. Its an acknowledgement of the complexity of the cosmos. It would be quite hubris to go about it as just one category. And prominent scientists have stated that religious belief and science don’t need to be separate, and in fact for many scientists
it goes hand in hand – science adding to their religious experiences. On top of that, with the tool of science we’ve managed to unveil our world from a cosmic perspective which has time and time again brought many a scientist, philosopher and astronaut to a perspective that breaks our divisions – dubbed the Overview Effect. https://vimeo.com/55073825
“You develop an instant global consciousness, a
people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the
world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the
moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a
politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million
miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch.” – Edgar Mitchell
http://www.nedhardy.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2013/january/carl_sagan_quotes/carl_sagan_quotes_4.jpg
Outside of these things I thoroughly enjoyed the article for its depth and challenging thoughts.
In a much longer article, I might have been able better to distinguish the difference between my criticisms of the mechanist worldview and science, but suffice it to say for now that I am not bashing science, only the mechanistic worldview. For every horrible bit of science we’ve gotten (the medicalization of homosexual behaviour, lobotomies–primarily of women, eugenics, cranionometry, nuclear weapons, race theory) there’s also been just as many beneficial bits, as you point out.
What I am criticizing, rather, is the notion that mechanistic principles determine our behaviour. This has arisen again in much of evolutionary psychology, including the idea that homosexuals (such as myself) are ‘born this way.’
You’re correct–the idea that women’s biological activities prevent them from certain sorts of work have occurred in many societies and certainly didn’t generate during this time. However (as Silvia Federici points out in Caliban & The Witch), at no point before had women simultaneously been prevented from all other social/economic activities as a result through the destruction of the Commons.
What I am criticizing, rather, is the notion that mechanistic principles determine our behaviour. This has arisen again in much of evolutionary psychology, including the idea that homosexuals (such as myself) are ‘born this way.’ Whether mechanistic principles determine our behavior is still an open question. It is inconsistent to dump on a science for holding out the possibility of a finding that reinforces some disliked memes, and simultaneously claim a basic respect for science in the large.
“In a much longer article, I might have been able better to distinguish
the difference between my criticisms of the mechanist worldview and
science”
I honestly would like to read your thoughts just on that very topic. Sorry if you already have written on that and am simply not aware – if so feel free to link it in a response.
Evolutionary psychology is not a very disciplined field I have to say – most of it is theorizing without much to go on. As there is usually very little physical evidence to back up any hypothesis had. Even so, I honestly fail to see a problem with the hypothesis that homosexuals are born that way. Why would that be a problem? Especially if it is something found to be true? If its not true, then how is the question, “why do homosexuals exist?” answered?
“at no point before had women simultaneously been prevented from all
other social/economic activities as a result through the destruction of
the Commons.”
Athens 300 – 400 BC.
Being a city, in its very nature destroys the Commons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Classical_Athens
Bravo. You have cleaved the false dichotomies which I rant about (and no one seems to understand). Thank you for this essay.
I dunno. From what I have read, it seems like essentialistic notions of gender, ethnicity, and so forth have existed long before modern capitalism. One need only look at the Bible or classical Greek literature and philosophy to see that people have been defining strict delineations between male and female roles for thousands of years. For that matter, the entire social structure of Medieval Europe centered on the thoroughly essentialist caste distinction between the aristocracy and commoners. Capitalism, by contrast, has transformed the notion of class from an inherent part of your being determined by ancestry to merely a matter of how much wealth you have managed to accumulate.
Also, I would have to disagree with the claim that proponents of the white privilege model necessarily take an essentialist perspective on race. Most of them, what I have seen, seem perfectly aware of the socially constructed and historically contingent nature of race. They are not necessarily arguing that white people are inherently privileged or tainted with the guilt of slavery, merely that we live under a social system which affords privilege to white people and where the consequences of slavery are still felt in some fashion or another. As Marx once stated, “the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.” Racial divisions and the unequal privileges they carry are not an essential feature of humanity, but they are part of the historical legacy we have inherited and the social forces under which we live. We are not free to step outside that history and the social forces associated with it, anymore than we can ignore other socially constructed forces like the law or the economy.
And furthermore, I second the point Rua Lupa makes about your anti-scientific comments. Science and technology have made extraordinary contributions to the well-being of humanity. Without them, most of us would still be peasants toiling in fields with primitive tools, cowering under the rule of feudal lords, and subsisting on nutritionally impoverished gruel. Many of us would have died in childhood or infancy, others while giving birth for the dozenth time, and most of the rest from infectious diseases now easily treated with antibiotics and sanitation. Far too many people today take our relative safety from infectious disease, our ability to control pregnancy through contraception, the abundance of food afforded by modern agriculture, and so forth for granted. Hence the proliferation of people opposing vaccination, birth control, and other advances.
For the first part of your reply, I recommend any book by Foucault. Derrida would also help. Or a few minutes with an Oxford English Dictionary, tracing the etymology of words over time. A fun place to start is the word “Real” and “Realise.” Note how those two words gained certain mechanistic and essentialist meanings in the 1500’s and 1600’s. Another reference would be Thomas Laquer’s book, “Making Sex.”
For the second: the reason we are not free to step out of socially constructed categories is power and violence, not the weight of history. There are governments who specifically grant privileges to one racial or gender category over another through law and policing; they are the guarantor of the same privileging which occurs through economic and social means, as well.
Third: I’m really starting to suspect, as a friend of mine recently noted, that it’s proof of Capitalism’s transformation of social relations that any and every anti-capitalist critique is immediately equated with anti-science.
Technology is not a product of Capitalism.
I recommend David Graeber’s essay, “On Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit” for this.
Regarding your first point, I will admit that I have not read any of those and my knowledge of premodern societies comes mainly from reading some Plato and parts of the Bible, casual osmosis from Wikipedia articles, and so forth. That said, everything I have read would seem to suggest that essentialist thinking was quite prevalent even in ancient times. The countless rules enumerated in the Old Testament regarding sexuality and gender roles attest to a well-established notion that men and women were fundamentally different and must avoid transgressing their essential nature. Another striking example comes from the concept of metics in ancient Greece, forever denied citizenship in the city-state where they lived, no matter how many generations they lived there.
All this depends, though, how you define essentialism. I have always taken it to describe the philosophical position that things have certain inherent and unchangeable qualities that define them. Hence an essentialist conception of gender would claim that all men have one particular nature and all women have another and that nothing can change what they essentially are. Such a conception could certainly rest on mechanistic or scientific underpinnings, like the theory that men and women have different brain structures that determine their respective psychology. But it could just as easily rest on myths explaining the origin of men and women that ascribe different natures to them.
Regarding the second point, I was suggesting that one can uphold the white privilege analysis without necessarily claiming that race is a biological reality. People who argue that those considered white enjoy certain privileges are not claiming that whiteness is inherent, merely that society classifies some people as white and treats them differently.
Regarding the third point, you do state that “the Age of the Machine was also the birth of modern Science and secularism”. Since you obviously oppose the Age of the Machine, it certainly sounds like you are also criticizing science along with it. The criticism that science is mechanistic and deterministic sounds very much like an attack on science to me. And while it is true that technology does not necessarily depend on capitalism, it is fair to say that the animistic, pre-scientific world that preceded capitalism had considerably less technological advancement.
The point about the Age of the Machine spoke to me about the sundering of science from spirit. Science had previously been a form of inquiry into understanding the sacred world, which is one of the reasons why scientists who challenged things like heliocentrism had to contend with the Christian Church, because that challenged spiritual doctrine. Nevertheless, there was science and scientific progress.
Mechanistic science after the Age of Enlightenment made what I think was a necessary splitting of the disciplines at the time, but Rhyd’s writing points to the harmful consequences of that splitting in the long run. We’ve had a rapid acceleration of technology for good and ill. Mechanism divorces technology from spirit. We have the opportunity to heal that divide in ourselves and thus reconnect to the world soul, technological prowess and all. Many Pagans already do this, as I’ve seen in the comments—seeing science as leading them toward a deeper relationship with the world.
Wow! Thank you so much for a beautiful post on an important topic. You are working on the edge, don’t stop, this is so important right now.
Working with dualism and opposites is magic. Contradictions are everywhere, and we forget they are essential and paradoxically identical – and so we fight them instead of using them as transformational catalysts.
Two lovers revolve around a central point of gravity that creates a new identity.
Combatants do the same.
I recommend reading both of John Holloway’s books as they go deep into related subjects – Change the World Without Taking Power and Crack Capitalism. The second book especially has an interesting discussion of the effect of the machine age and essentialism, and the introduction of the concept of “work”. The book mostly tries to remind us that things have not always been this way.
From page 101 of Crack Capitalism:
“Labour did not always exist. It is not in every society that a specific activity considered to be ‘labour’ is set aside from the general doing of people. Certainly, some sort of activity is required to provide food and the other basic requirements of life, but this is not necessarily an activity regarded as onerous or separated in time from other activities. Thus, Marshal Sahlins, in his Stone Age Economics, writes of ‘that characteristic palaeolithic rhythm of a day or two on, a day or two off – the latter passed desultorily in camp. Although food collecting is the primary productive activity … “the majority of the people’s time (four to five daysper week) is spent in other pursuits, such as resting in camp or visiting other camps (Lee 1 969: 74 ) ‘” (Sahlins 2004: 23). He also quotes a nineteenth-century observer of the indigenous people of Australia: “‘In all ordinary seasons … they can obtain in two or three hours a sufficient supply of food for the day, but their usual custom is to roam indolently from spot to spot, lazily collecting it as they wander along (Grey 1 841, vol. 2: 263).'” In such a society, there is clearly no separation between labour and leisure, which means that neither exists. In pre-capitalist societies, the activities required for social reproduction did not harden into something called labour, nor did they occupy the same amount of time.”
Finally, recognizing that we’re all the same means that we all have to heal. Recognizing who did what when is an essential step to empowerment, but we’ve all been removed from the land at some point, our ancestors dispossessed. The generational pain of this is real for all of us. John Trudell speaks to this in the movie Reel Injun:
“Every human being is a descendant of a tribe. So these white people, they’re descendants of tribes. There was a time in their ancestry when they wore feathers, and beads and shells…a time before this colonizing mentality came and did to them, to turn them into the white people they are. And then it came and did it to us. The very same thing that happened to us, it happened to them.”
May we come together in whatever way is needed, and heal ourselves and the mother that supports us.
As a pragmatist — I enjoy the abstract discussions and arguments, sometimes passionately so, but in the end I come back to my local perceptions and those vicarious ones which I’ve learned to trust — I consider it necessary to review the basic premise of the scientific method:
Science says this is what we know today, and we are by necessity ready to see it falsified tomorrow. It should be noted that scientists per se either blithely or from a conscious agenda try to circumvent that. It’s usually in the realm of politics… but I digress.
My pragmatic filter is my tool to help me avoid (not always successfully!!) projecting my contemporary perceptions on those of people of the past. The rebuttals and other replies here so far are not being criticized with that. It’s just a point I believe needs to be made.
Rhyd’s use of “mechanistic” is a key distinction. It implies (very strongly at times) the rejection of falsification. Our history is rife with examples of that rejection, and its nearly universally detrimental consequences.
I don’t see science bashing here. I see a clear understanding of how science by itself is neutral, and people will skew it as they wish or need.
Rhyd Wildermuth is the perfect example of a chronic “Must’erbator. Examples of Musterbating :The world “must” treat me fair. People “must” be equal. People “must’ except me. What a ridged and infelxable way of veiwing the world. Such Whining and Obfuscating. Tisk tisk.