WIE Editor Responds to My Blog Post About WIE Editor
(cross-posted from www.integrallife.com)
“Wow, how rumors are spread…
“I’m the WIE editor that you are referring to and I think my comments are being distorted in fascinating ways! If we want to create something new, develop as men and women beyond what we know to fully embody integral, we’re not going to do so by dragging along our concepts from the past–like “masculine” and “feminine.” If these terms actually mean agency and communion, we should say so. The polarity and sense of opposition that those terms describe come from modern consciousness–which is far from integral. What would integral consciousness look like coming through a human being who happens to be female? Male? That’s my inquiry–and I’m saying that we actually don’t know yet. We have to live into it and find out, letting go of limiting ideas that are rooted in the past (the Victorian past, to boot) and that so often conflate masculine (primarily meaning agency) and male, feminine (often meaning communion) and female.
And loooooong before there were these notions of masculine and feminine, human beings were happily procreating. You don’t need these modern binary concepts in order to do that!
–Elizabeth Debold”
My Response (cross-posted from www.integrallife.com)
“Essences
Hi Elizabeth,
I’m glad that you responded to my post. Do you agree that masculine and feminine are energetic essences that both men and women possess? And it’s these essences (when polarized with one another, not in an oppositional way, but more like magnetism) that creates sexual polarity or attraction that facilitates two human bodies coming together?
I find this to be a fascinating discussion. And am open and curious on your perspective here.
When you say…
“If we want to create something new, develop as men and women beyond what we know to fully embody integral, we’re not going to do so by dragging along our concepts from the past–like “masculine” and “feminine.”"
Are you suggesting that we not transcend AND include as we grow and develop into higher stages of consciousness?
The way I see it is that masculine and feminine types are prominent at every level of development, whether egocentric, ethnocentric, or worldcentric. So the pertinent inquiry seems to be, at an Integral level of development, how do masculine and feminine types manifest, look, feel, experience, and engage the world, others, and self?
- Kelly Sosan Bearer”
Loading...
Kelly, its hurts a bit to watch you fall back into your old habits moments after Elizabeth Debold has just corrected you. You go on to say “I see that masculine and feminine types are prominent at every level”, but all Debold is saying is to change those two words to agency and communion if that is what we mean by them, or eros and agape as she also suggested at the conference. I think it is an eminently reasonable if not pragmatically imperative suggestion, and simple enough to do. You lose nothing here- you still get the Deida polarity- but get to get rid of all the confusions and problems that Debold so nicely and eruditely outlined in her talk. I dont see why this simple switch is such an issue.
Trevor Malkinson - August 13, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Hi Trevor,
I wouldn’t say Elizabeth Debold has corrected me. I would say she offered her perspective. And to play the game fair, we are all ALLOWED our perspectives, are we not? Some are just more partial than others…
I for one, do not want anyone to give up their respected perspectives, but rather to allow room for others to emerge, to be able to move fluidly between perspectives, and to hold paradox, as in conflicting perspectives. Isn’t that what the Integral approach calls us to do?
I guess you were one of the five men in the audience at the theory conference for this discussion, yes?
The issue is not so simple you see… Masculine and feminine conveys much more than just agency and communion. Masculine refers to agency, as well as autonomy, justice and rights. Feminine refers to communion, as well as, relationship, care and responsibility. I just don’t see how agency and communion can convey all the above stated dynamics.
I am open to suggestions that make sense, this one appears to be overly simplistic.
Hit me up with a better suggestion…my blog is open
Kelly Sosan Bearer - August 13, 2008 at 10:17 PM
But agency and communion in horizontal, as well as eros and agape in vertical dimension, are ALREADY used by those who care or can handle such concepts without adding to their confusion. However, I don’t think any of those terms are synonymous to masculine/feminine. Indeed, while many times we don’t have enough terms so we must often use Sanskrit or Greek to have a richer, more nuanced vocabulary, in this case we seem to have just enough to make important distinctions. One should indeed talk of agency and communion if that’s the point, and one should indeed NOT equate those two or agape/eros with masculine and feminine. Since you (Kelly) have mentioned Deida previously in this context, his usage of m/f is again different because he doesn’t refer to types but instead to the phenomena/witness axis, in line with the original Shakti/Shiva and Prajna/Upaya tantric paradigm. So there’s yet another added connotation, a possible source of confusion OR fountain of semantic abundance.
I’m sure Victorian vestiges are troubling and problematic, but not everyone shares them. Even so, language is an organic artifact, very much alive and morphing, and there will always be a tension between interventionist and non-interventionist approaches, and introducing gender-neutral speech is certainly one way to refresh the way we contemplate some issues. In your previous blog post, you said that “ERADICATION of terms” was proposed and those strong words got my attention, but it also got me thinking. I’m not a priori against linguistic engineering, but any engineering should come from a clear idea, not from an inquiry into an emergent space (in which case an experiment may be proposed). And this all comes to the way we envision and enact sex & gender in 2nd and 3rd tier, with very clear understanding of axes used to polarize and juxtapose and organize multiplicity into fundamental dualities. It has already been proposed – and argued quite strongly – that in higher development there’s potential for BOTH gender neutrality/balance AND further energizing and polarization of the masculine and feminine in every sense. This apparent paradox would suggest (it seems) that we need to be very careful with interventionist, especially prohibitive, linguistic engineering and more playful with the existing vocabulary while sensitive to entrenched notions.
Plus, when considering limitation – or special attention – on using “masculine” and “feminine” in integral discourse, should we extend these to visual symbolism (anthropomorphic and abstract) and music perhaps? Anyway, I’m sure these two words will continue to provide ground for fruitful discussion for decades to come and then some.:-)
Godspeed,
Hokai
Hokai - August 14, 2008 at 4:37 AM
this whole dialogue is very western, from the top of the page to the bottom. so, ok .
work backwards from the source or brahman or god or the absolute (or wilber’s eros?) … where is gender? or polarity? it is a ascribed to the expression(s) of wholeness into the particular.
there is apparently duality. cool. so what, to the developed integral mind/being.
gregorylent - August 20, 2008 at 7:45 AM
” I’m glad that you responded to my post. Do you agree that masculine and feminine are energetic essences that both men and women possess? And it’s these essences (when polarized with one another, not in an oppositional way, but more like magnetism) that creates sexual polarity or attraction that facilitates two human bodies coming together?”
I know the question was not asked of me, but I will offer my perspective as well.
I’m on the fence about this whole “polarization” thing. My bias against Deida may be a part of that. I just don’t find his ideas cutting edge or even all that interesting to begin with.
But let’s say for a moment that I do agree about feminine/masculine “essences” and that they, as you say, “create sexual polarity or attraction that facilitates two human bodies coming together”, even if I agree with that, I would have to ask myself if it’s important to me as a spiritual practicioner that two human bodies come together in the first place, or if I, as a spiritual practicioner of the 4 noble truths, rather seek an end to the cycle of human bodies coming together at all.
Kim - September 2, 2008 at 1:28 PM