The cartoon above is one of a series drawn by James Thurber, entitled The War Between Men and Women. The title of this post is a modification of the title of a collection of the works of Camille Paglia, Free Women, Free Men, which I'm now listening to her read to me in the relative comfort of my car as I go about my travels. Yes, there's almost certain to be a subtitle to the book of some kind, as seems to be the fashion, but if there is I can't remember it as I type.
I have a fondness for the incendiary Professor Paglia. She's libertarian, which I still think of as my own position when it comes to the imposition of government power regarding what people think, say and do (within reason--I'm an aspiring Stoic, after all). She seems to have a comforting respect for science, which is remarkable in an academic, as well as freedom of speech, and is opposed to what appears to be the attack being made on it in the hallowed halls of the Academy, and the oddly repressive and totalitarian views which are being thundered by its denizens at society in general and at the young in particular whom we hope to educate. And she's of Italian descent, as am I, being a direct descendant of the great Marcus Tullius Cicero. Well, not really, but I am clearly a Ciceronian and am of Italian descent.
I tend to agree with her as well that sex isn't entirely a social construction, and that there are certain biological differences between the sexes that cannot simply be disregarded, and may be disregarded only at our peril. I tend also to agree with her that there are feminists whose hatred of men has overwhelmed their ability to reason, and who see male and female in perpetual conflict until the male disappears. Where I disagree with her is in the emphasis to be given sex as a cause of or motivation for everything, or anything. It strikes me that she feels it to be the basis for all we do or have done.
It's odd, to me, that although she gives sex, as biology, such emphasis, she also contends that all we do or have done of any significance is the result of our desire to escape nature's hold on us. This is particularly true with respect to what men have done in creating society, technology, law. Men, if I understand her correctly, strive constantly to escape the overwhelming, suffocating dominance of their mothers, and their achievements are the result of this striving. Art, in particular, is humanity's effort to detach itself from nature, according to Paglia.
No doubt I'm putting her position poorly. Regardless, though, I find it odd that although she refers to our opposition to nature and efforts to conquer or subdue it, and lauds it, she clearly feels we're subject to our natures, specifically our biological natures. We are therefore, I would say, parts of nature. We're not in battle with nature or in opposition to it because we're not in opposition to ourselves. I think she makes the hard distinction between humanity and nature that's plagued Western thought since at least the time of Plato. In order to make that distinction, I think she must accept the mind-body distinction as well. Our minds are in conflict with nature, though our bodies are parts of nature, and our minds thus are in conflict with our bodies as well.
If we think of ourselves as part of nature, living creatures existing in an environment and interacting with it and other creatures, this sense of dire opposition disappears. We do instead what every other creature does, attempt to satisfy our desires and resolve or avoid dangers. We happen to have an intelligence which permits us to interact with other parts of the environment in a more satisfying and successful way than others (as far as our wants and needs are concerned), but that doesn't mean we're at war with the rest of nature. It's uncertain whether we can even claim to be unique in our use of language or in the production of art, given discoveries being made in the conduct of other animals.
As for the prevalence of sex, sex as the primary if not the sole cause of all we do or think, there's no question that it fascinates and obsesses us. But that, and the tendency to ascribe to it such causal significance, may itself be a social construction. It's importance is obvious. Not so obvious, to me at least, are the reasons that it is accorded even greater importance, why it is considered, in effect, all-important. Why does it figure so completely in our art, law and religion? Can this be said to arise solely due to biology, to our hormones, to our physical nature? Or, might it be the result of efforts made to glorify what can in fact be considered a "simple" biological need present in all creatures, to make of it by custom or otherwise something much more of a social and cultural feature than it need be for reasons that are not simply the result of our biology?
Also, and obviously, if we are in fact so driven by sex, it's questionable to what extent we can be referred to as "free" and if we can be so described, the question arises: Just how free are we, if what we do is so influenced by sex? What I suspect Paglia means to say when she speaks of free women and men, is that we should be free, just as she says we should be equal, under the law.
I'm suspicious of theories regarding human conduct, society and culture that posit a single cause for all, that envision a kind of First Mover behind what we do, to which all may be traced. Suspicious, too, of categories, like Apollonian or Dionysian. They may be useful generalizations, but are clumsy explanatory devices when applied to all we do and are. Our aims should be more modest. Totalitarianism begins with the belief that there is a single, simple answer or truth that has been found, and must be accepted by all. That's a belief system which isn't eradicated when another single, simple answer or truth has been found, which must be accepted.
No comments:
Post a Comment