Acrylic and pencil.
Author’s note: We can question the validity of differentiating between masculine and feminine principles or, indeed, the validity of perpetuating any dualisms. However, back in 1999 when I was writing my doctoral thesis, I found the following useful in sorting my understanding of the forces at work within myself and in the World.
Edited excerpt from Don’t Take It Lying Down: Life According to the Goddess – Just as the elements of the feminine principle emerge from archetypal reality, so do the elements of the masculine principle. We can see this in the patriarchal myths that still underlie the modern worldview. These myths have, however, become unconsciously accepted as absolute truth, determining beliefs, social values, and the current religious attitude to science.[i]
The basic character of the archetypal masculine has been described as rationalising, abstracting, and controlling, as in the myths of one supreme male God: the Judeo-Christian Jehovah, Allah in the Islamic world, and Zeus in ancient Greece, a king-like energy also personified in ancient and modern heroes. Psychologically, the masculine principle represents an emphasis on individual focus, rational intentionality and personal will; a sense of personal identity that rests in a separate self answerable to the law of the Father as God or King. The archetypal masculine has been described as focused, divisive, and assertive, while the archetypal feminine has been described as diffuse, connective, and receptive. Obviously both men and women can embody these qualities. Understanding and experiencing the differences can allow us to develop choice about which principle we call on in our lives.
Since the advent of Sky God religions, patriarchal consciousness is in the territory of eternal spirit, that which always was and always will be, a position fundamentally opposed to the genetic principle, the principle of creativity and generativity that underlies aspects of feminine consciousness.[ii] This reflects the philosophical stance of Socrates, Plato and Descartes in which all that is pure and constant is incorporeal, not of the body, with little place for subjective embodied experience. I have often wondered if the strong attraction to Eastern spirituality arises in part from this philosophical idea of eternal spirit. It is as if two generations of disillusioned Westerners have turned to Eastern spirituality without fully realising that they may still caught within a transcendent philosophy.
It is, however, a confusing task to sort this particular pile of beans and seeds. There is a fundamental paradox in patriarchal consciousness – it cannot avoid the use of nature symbols except in abstract conceptualisations such as mathematics.[iii] As symbols of the feminine principle, life-giving nature symbols do not belong in patriarchal consciousness. Even while it attempts to distort and degrade the nature symbols, patriarchal consciousness wants to take over the creativity of the life-giving power of the feminine. This can be seen in ordinary English language. The following sentences show words relating to the life-giving aspect of the feminine being applied to activities or projects of ‘masculine” creation;
Our nation was born out of a desire for freedom. His writings are products of his fertile imagination. His experiments spawned a host of new theories. Your actions will only breed violence. He hatched a clever scheme. He conceived a brilliant theory of molecular motion. Universities are incubators for new ideas. The theory of relativity first saw the light of day in 1905. The University of Chicago was the birthplace of the nuclear bomb.[iv]
A more recent addition might be: I create my own reality.
The root metaphor for creativity in the English-speaking world is procreation, predominantly the function of women. What patriarchal consciousness does, however, is translate the feminine function of creativity into activities and projects characterised by masculine principles, leaving the feminine principle without the pride of creation. And leaving many of us confused about the philosophies and spiritual paths we adopt.
One of the strongest links we still have to Goddess is through the life-giving power of the feminine. Women still give life through their bodies. This is so obvious that we forget the magic of it. Life does not come through men’s bodies, test tubes, or incubators; life still comes into being through women’s bodies. Despite contraceptive chemicals and more than two thousand years of negative conditioning, women’s bodies continue to respond to the cycles of the moon, to the rhythms of Nature. The ancient magic of the life-giving power of women is still with us.
Take a moment to consider the extraordinary fact that women have always been able to do something that men cannot do: grow and bring forth new life from their bodies. That we take this for granted (and even see it as a burden women must bear) represents a terrible loss of power. Women are the life-givers, and this is a sacred task.
Today we are on the threshold of losing this completely. To science and technology. To the misinformation of a patriarchal culture that denigrates Nature.
(Meet Mago Contributor) Kaalii Cargill.
[i] EC Whitmont, 1982, Return of the Goddess, Guernsey, Great Britain, The Guernsey Press, p 78.
[ii] E Neumann, 1991, The Great Mother, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press., p. 58.
[iii] ibid. p. 50.
[iv] G Lakoff & M Johnson, 1981, The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system, in DA Norman, ed., Perspectives on Cognitive Science. First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Logola, CA, Ablex Publishing Corp., pp. 74-75.