One: The Social Trigger of Realization
This all began with a woman asking me why I loved her. I slid into the corner of the bed, lit a cigarette, and took a draught of coffee.
"Many people respond to a situation in the context of society, either passively or actively. You don't. You respond to a situation within the context of the situation," I said
She nodded. And, with the cigarette still fresh in my hand, I thought Hrm...
"I don't know how I became that way, but yeah," she replied.
"It's a defense mechanism, I began, we are treated unfairly by our parents, and we feel a need to explain our isolation from them. But we cannot go against our own socialization, not at that stage, and so we look at society, the next circle of relationships around us and we say that society expects them to treat us a certain way, and so they do, despite their own individual conceptions, but because of what other people might think. And so we decide that society's preconceptions of what is right and wrong are in themselves flawed, and just as we have given into them, our unconscious tells us, so can we not hold them responsible for giving into society. (for it is our socialized unconscious that tells us we cannot find fault in our parents)
And it is the nature of our socialization that, as we identify with the greater worlds around us, we continually excuse our siblings, our friends, our government, our leaders, until we come to what we deem the Highest Order. In the Judeo-Christian experience, this is God. Or Science. Or the Universe. Or the Goddess, Gaia, the Whatever; it is irrelevant, for intrinsic to their nature (or rather, to our understanding, which is, in the end, society's understanding, our perception of their nature) are certain inalienable paradoxes. Or beliefs. Or faith; those things which are because they are; the social history of our community."
And when confronting those beliefs, one comes to one of four archetypical conclusions:
- These beliefs must be proven.
- If these beliefs are the foundations of our society then they are immutable truths.
- If our society is founded upon these beliefs then they must be upheld, lest society fall.
- . These beliefs are irrelevant.
Within these four responses lie the four binary facets of biological sentience; the Male (1), the Female (2) the Hermaphroditic (3) and the Neuter (4).
Two: Socialization and Biological Determinism
Defining anything at "male" or "female" is bound to raise the ire, or at least the concern, of more than a few individuals. However, they are the binary oppositions occurring naturally in nature; one is either male, or one is female. These are the two choices for biological creatures, excluding those who bud and the majority of fungi, of course but they will have their due later in this section. Also, I do not use (or ascribe) to the notions of 'masculine' and 'feminine.' These notions are purely social and will be dealt with in Chapter GNN: Defining Social Norms.
A species' primary evolutionary goal is to survive as a species. Within a species, he male's primary goal is to procreate, preferably often and with as many females as possible. The female's primary goal is to raise her young, preferably with the help of a male. This is the basic tenet of biological determinism and whether or not it continues to exist within the human community has been a focus of debate for quite some time. To purport than humanity has lost its sense of biological determinism is to say that women care nothing of their children and that men care nothing for fucking.
Which is always true to an extent. The feminist community, to whom the subject of biological determinism is of greater interest and concern than any other, (for reasons of biological determinism, as I will explain later, in Chapter ANN) often finds itself divided over this issue. This is because Aristotle (Socrates? Plato?) and many since were not wholly off the mark when suggesting that the human creature is divided into the Animal and the Mental. The difference between their theories and this one is that this theory defines the dichotomy as the Sexual and the Asexual. Or rather, the sex of an individual and their view of sexuality. So there will be men and women whose opinions on sexuality outweigh their opinions on the sexes.
And so there will be men who have little care for fucking and women with little care for their children. Equally, their will be men to whom fucking takes a back seat to someone who cares and nurtures themselves and their children, and women who are more interested in a good lay than a provider.
It is because of the nature of biological determinism that such explicit language is necessary. Our closest animal cousins (or not, depending on your current views of your society's beliefs) gorillas, are not inclined the same social functions as we are before having sex. Male gorillas are little concerned with opting for one mate, going out on a few dates, looking for signs and checking the vibe before making their move with the old yawn-stretch-and-grope. Female gorillas themselves aren't concerned as to whether their mate is in touch with his feminine side (more on that later), if he hangs with the right kind of primates, or if he gets along with her parents, uncles, etc. In a word, he tries to impress her into thinking he'll be there for her (sound familiar?) and she tries to hold him back until she's sure he's worth it (sound familiar?). And, if the right criteria are met, they fuck. To the male gorilla's credit, he rarely walks out on his kids.
To return to the subject by a more direct route, it can be said that biological determinism is a prevalent factor in every man and woman's socialization. A classic, often feminist example is the first question asked of new parents; "is it a boy or a girl?" (footnote: this is sometimes "what's its name?" but amounts to the same thing, given current trends in masculine and feminine naming rituals - see Chapter BNN: The Rituals of Naming )
The point of this example is this: The gender of a child is intrinsic to the child's identity. Proof of this is both grammatical and social: before the child is given a sex (see BNN / CNN), the child is neuter - "it." The social distinction, apart from the custom of boys being in blue and girls being in pink, lies in presents even from the baby shower months before. (footnote: this Judeo-Christian distinction comes from the Middle ages when boys, by far more valuable as they were the progeny to whom land and aristocratic titles fell, were dressed in blue, a very valuable color, indigo being a very soluble dye that quickly turned to black or just washed out. Girls, were dressed in floral colors, often pink, even then a symbol of something delicate and fragile and fading quickly in beauty) Ultrasounds are an invaluable tool in socialization as they allow the parents to provide a color scheme for the nursery and allow friends and relatives easy outs for difficult presents: boys can be given baseball bats, cars, blocks, and books with boys in them, while girls can be given dresses, dolls, more dresses, and books with girls in them. Within these categories there is little cross-giving, save that as single-child families become more prevalent, athletic-minded fathers are apt to give the rogue bat, ball, or team-mascot. Boys are, from day one, "handsome" "strong" "smart," while girls are "pretty" "precious" and "going to be a heart-stopper." About the only description shared between the two is the term "the cutest little thing," which turns quickly to "the ugliest little thing" once the more adoring parents and relatives are out of earshot.
Having digressed once again, I will conclude by saying that those who purport that biological determinism is a fallacy remember these examples next time they run across a friend with a new child. Or, even better, the next time they go shopping for fraternal twins of opposite sexes, buy a book about something mildly mechanical and a stuffed animal of any light color. Don't attach name-tags. Wrap stuffed in wrapping paper with blocks, a teddy-bear, and maybe a baseball bat on it. Wrap the book in anything pale colored with flowers, hearts, perhaps some ribbons. I'll bet you five bucks their mother (not their father) will kindly let you know that you mixed up the gifts.
Three. Socialization and the aSexual Urge
Sex, even sex that isn't a synonym or euphemism for fucking, puts a lot of pressure on a person. Conforming to social gender norms is much easier than the alternative. However, more difficult is the conforming to social sexual norms. There are, insofar as I can fathom, six social sexual norms: heterosexual male, heterosexual female, homosexual male, homosexual female, bisexuality, and asexuality.
The main pressure is towards the sex act. Birds do it, bees do it, educated fleas do it; it's the cliches that cause the trouble (footnote: Jeannette Winterson, Written on the Body) Millions of years (or less, depending on your views on your society's beliefs) of evolution (or some social / religious belief, again depending on your views) are weighing on you. The biological or sensual urge (again, depending...) towards the sex act is overwhelming by any measure. Even disregarding the Judeo-Christian ritual of consummating a marriage (which is too big to disregard forever - see Chapter DNN) current dating / college / rebellion customs weigh heavily on virgins, both those by choice and by default. And there is no indication that this urge ever fails biologically; the internet has shown us geriatric erotica beyond our imagination (note: WIRED 5.04 had a URL link, but I've loaned out my copy - check the Dr. Ruth site) and even created a few new brands, namely netsex and GeTsex ( n. [from Ge(t) Together, or GT] - sex with someone you've met over the net (IRC, anyone?) )
- For heterosexuals, some mimicry of the institution of marriage is generally assumed, often the institution of "dating."
- For homosexuals, some mimicry of the institution of dating is generally assumed.
- For women, some mimicry of trust and/or is often desired.
- For men, often a lack of any of the above is preferred.
With all of these factors pulling at each other, three alternatives are prevalent as time goes on:
- Marriage.
Marriage was once a mix of economics and necessity, either political, social or once again economic. For women, their status greatly increased in the community with marriage. For men, sexual access was often condoned only within the institution of marriage. Legitimacy of progeny was, in the Christian society, available only through the state, which was itself often responsible to the church. In Jewish society, ethnic heritage was (and still is) carried through the mother (see Chapter ENN: Rape), property a looser subject than in the Christian societies.
Marriage has become, however, a function of the state and legitimacy of insurance claims. Moreover, the ease of divorce and social move towards condoning sexual access to both women and men only when socially responsible (see Chapter FNN: The Hermaphroditic and Social Responsibility and Chapter GNN: Defining Social Norms) has led to the institution of marriage to become a sort of catch-all for both failed and blossoming relationships. This phenomenon is discussed at length in Chapter HNN: (title as yet undecided).
- Bisexuality
As a reaction to the pressures of the sexual urge, bisexuality can be the result of the impetus for a clearer understanding of the differences between men and women.
To note, there are two prevailing views on bisexuality. First is the view commonly held by heterosexuals, that is that bisexuality is some sort of freak occurrence that follows evenings involving too-much alcohol and features prominently only in Aaron Spelling programs and San Francisco. The second is commonly held by homosexuals, and that is that bisexuals are either confused or cheap, summed up in the immortal appellation: Threat or Menace? (originally appearing in Spiderman...seriously)
But bisexuality has other, historical etymologies. Aboriginal societies believed that bisexuals and homosexuals are in fact the same creatures, inhabited by both male and female souls. The Greeks, the male Greeks at least, believed that one could only be on-par with one's own sex, but that women were a necessary evil to perpetuate the race. The moral here is that bisexuality has been discussed in the past and in the present and is something that I am not going to go into, save in a biological parallel, the hermaphroditic, as the possession of both male and female organs.
Hermaphrodites are a sexual duality, performing either or both the male and the female role(s) throughout their lives. They exist outside the realm of the sexual, though are certainly capable of entering into it with no small foray into their society's views on sexuality. Returning to the parallel of bisexuals, they are at once both the male and the female animal within a social relationship. Just as the bisexual knows the differences between kissing a man and kissing women, the similarities and differences between falling in love with a man and falling in love with a woman, and knows the true sexual adversity of both sexes, being on both the giving and receiving end of dealings with both sexes, the hermaphrodite physically embodies the male and the female animal and thus knows, empirically, from the first stages of development, that the male and the female are symbiotic creatures who give and take depending on the context situation. In short, the hermaphroditic aspect is that which is concerned with the issue of fairness, or common sense and the exceptions to the rules all necessary for the species (in this particular case, the social species) to survive. The hermaphroditic aspect is discussed more explicitly (and less confusingly, as this sexual analogy is ad hoc) in Part Four: The Four Aspects of Individuality.
- Asexuality
The asexual urge is often defensive, selfish, or a biological or social necessity. It is the (sub/un)conscious removing of oneself from the whole biological organism. This includes those who do not remarry or find new partners after the loss (either socially or mortally) of a partner as well as those who consciously choose to cease their sexuality or withdraw from it, and those who, for whatever personal reason, never involve themselves with their own sexuality (see Chapter INN: Stoics, Celibates, and Castration)
Part Four: The Four Aspects of Individuality
Having defined the sexual and bio-deterministic aspects of individuality, I wish to focus now on the four terms which I will refer to throughout the remainder of this text. First, to recap the impetus for the text:
"The majority of people respond to a situation in the context of their society, either passively or actively. Others respond to a situation within the context of the situation and by doing so alienate themselves from the prevalent society and in effect create their own."
This is the visible effect of this text's thesis, which is thus:
"It is the nature of our socialization that, as we identify with the greater societies around us, we continually excuse our siblings, our parents, our friends, our peers, our government, our leaders and our gods until we come to what we deem the Highest Order inhabiting, in the end, certain inalienable beliefs that are the recursive foundations of every society we have passed through. They are because they are. And when confronted with those paradoxes, one comes to one of four conclusions:
- . These beliefs must be proven.
- . If these beliefs are the foundations of our society then they are immutable truths.
- . If our society is founded upon these beliefs then they must be upheld, lest society fall.
- . These beliefs are irrelevant.
Within these four responses lie the four binary facets of biological sentience.
- The Male Aspect
Fig. 1 - The Male Spectrum
(1-D : Power = Pole Position)
When viewing these beliefs, the Male reaction to enter into a personal, conflictive relationship with them; the beliefs must be either amalgamated into the individual, or defeated. Proving beliefs, however altruistic or half-heartedly, increases one's position in regards to the rest of society. Disproving beliefs requires a singular charisma in order for the new beliefs to take hold. Very few people have succeeded in this within their lifetime; the first one to come to mind is Adolf Hitler. However, he failed to take his beliefs outside the society within which his charisma carried him. In the case of certain scientific advances seemingly earned in this manner (Copernicus and Galileo, for example) their claims were recognized by the higher society only after they had been adopted by the majority. (see Introduction, Part Four #4 The Neuter Aspect, see Chapter GNN - Defining Social Norms)
For the majority, one's position in society determines one's power over the others in that society, which is the ultimate goal of one who is dominantly Male (see Chapter ONN- Nomenclature and the MFHN continuum). Position is largely based on reputation, which is effected by wealth and resources, but not limited to them; power is associative, both within the family and within society; you stand on those below you, you inherit your position, work to keep it, and have a large hand in who you leave the reins of power to.
- The Female Aspect
Fig. 2 - The Female Spectrum
(2-D : Power over Time)
Focused on the nurturing of society, the Female Aspect will view these beliefs as immutable truths, only if they further the growth of the society. Rooted in this aspect are such movements as World Peace, Save the Children, and other altruistic means. The paradox of the female aspect is that their control over the social norm is through their progeny. Most of the antagonism between the Male and Female aspects is the binary opposition of the quest for more power (of which war is a valuable resource) and the peaceful growth of society as a whole (which war and other power games disrupts).
From the Female aspect comes a realization that one's position is in a constant state of motion over time, relying largely on resources per capita, but also on the number of capita, of the household. It an immutable fact that you are born at a base level and you die at a base level. However, there is nothing to say the base level won't shift during your life time. The nurturing aspect strives to raise the base level and views any action contrary to the Female action as detrimental.
- The Hermaphroditic Aspect
Fig. 3 - The Hermaphroditic Spectrum
(3-D Power over Time on multiple levels)
It is the Hermaphroditic Aspect which compromises and adapts to change. As the prevailing winds of society shift, as science infringes on the divine and the functionaries of the divine rebel against what they see as sacrilegious, it is the Hermaphroditic who engineers the compromises and judges between the options until it comes to the "right" one. The effects of Hermaphroditic thinking are everywhere, from Morse and binary (it's either dot or a dash, either open or closed; decisions the Hermaphroditic can easily make) to such current issues as Corporate Paternity Leave laws. (if the species is to continue, women must bear children; for women to bear children, they must trust a man enough to procreate; for a man to earn a woman's trust, he must provide for her and the progeny; to provide for her and the progeny, he must have a job, but he must also be present for non-fiscal support; therefore it is reasonable for a corporation, which will need future employees, the current progeny, and for them to have been provided for, to allow the father of the progeny to take a paternal leave of absence to provide the non-fiscal support which will lead to productive future employees) The Hermaphroditic is responsible for the Law (a Neuter Aspect) to be reasonable. It is also the source of the syllogism (a = b, b = c, therefore a = c).
It is no wonder that the Hermaphroditic is most prevalent during childhood, and disappears slowly as socialization into the expected Male or Female Aspect is carried out. However, the Hermaphroditic is not necessarily good at making compromises, nor does it necessary change for the better. The main difference between both the Hermaphroditic and the Neuter Aspects and the biologically deterministic Male and Female Aspect is that there is, so to speak, no hard wiring to fall back on. In Judeo-Christian terms, the Hermaphroditic is the free will to choose between the two prevailing, bio-deterministic aspects and the Other, which is, often the Neuter.
Authority is based on one's position within a closed continuum. Those on either end of the continuum have the greatest power differential, but power differentials exist everywhere in between and can exist at different points along the continuum in different situations. (i.e. Person A will not always be in a position of power over Person B in every situation and vice versa) The further into the center of the spectrum you go, the more you see; this vision is not always reciprocated on the outside (i.e. you can see how your spouse and children get along at work, at school, and even within the greatest circle of society, but your spouse's peers will not always see into the family ring.
- The Neuter Aspect
Fig. 4 - The Neuter Spectrum
(1-D Power = Mass)
It is a disregard for society as a perpetual sexual organism that leads to a dominance of the Neuter Aspect; if one is asexual, there is no progeny to consider. If there is no progeny to consider, the fate of society is irrelevant. Authority is in the majority and the prevailing social winds. History is ignored unless it is considered by the majority to be of merit. Power does shift, but not through the individual's own designs. (The individual can be at any point, and can only effect the radical fringe directly, at which point the Neuter Aspect will likely shift into a role subservient to the Male or Female Aspect, accordingly)
All that matters is the current status quo is upheld. As laws have been proven as the best means of maintaining the status quo, then the laws should reflect the will of the majority. It is no wonder then that the Neuter Spectrum closely resembles a political right wing - left wing spectrum; this is exactly how the Neuter Aspect thinks. Rather, the Neuter Aspect is the most prevalent among those in the status quo in the modern age and therefore its social paradigm is the social paradigm."
Part Five: Dominance Equations and Nomenclature, in brief.
Everyone embodies these different aspects, this is the root of the thesis. What it leads to _is_ the binary opposition of inclusive identities;
Equation 1
m;F ;; |H;n|
m/M = Male f/F = Female h/H = Hermaphroditic n/N = Neuter
w;x = exclusive binary opposition (EBO) between "w" and "x" where neither dominates the other
w;X = EBO where "x" dominates "w"
w;x ;; y;z = inclusive binary opposition (IBO) where 1. the EBO of "w;x" is commensurate to the EBO of "y;z" and 2. the value of the opposition between "w" and "x" is commensurate to the opposition between "y" and "z"
w;X ;; y;z = an IBO as pt 1. above, however, while "y" and "z" are commensurate, "x" dominates "w"
|w;X| ;; y;z = an IBO where 1. "x" dominates "w", and 2. the EBO "w;X" dominates the EBO "y;z"
|w;X| ;; Y;z = an IBO where 1. "y" dominates "z" 2. "x" dominates "w", and 3. EBO "w;X" dominates "Y,z"
So, as in the first example, m;F ;; |H;n| we have in individual whose Female Aspect "f" dominates the Male Aspect "m" yet whose Animalistic Aspects ( m;F ) are dominated by the Social Aspects, of which the Hermaphroditic "h" is dominant over the Neuter. You can also use a less explicit shorthand of "mF|Hn|"
This equational paradigm is true for all inclusive oppositions, whatever the number of EnO (where "n" is an alphanumeric denoting the number of terms in opposition) or InnO (where "nn" is an alphanumeric denoting the number of EnO in opposition) i.e.
I40;E30; a;b;C ;; ||d;e;f|| ;; g;H;i ;; |j;k;L|
(note; use of the semi-colon is to distinguish from analogies, which use a similar equational paradigm big:small::tall:short = big is to small as tall is to short as used below
P:C::G:I::O:S
P = Parent
C = Child
G = peer Group
I= Individual
O= higher Order
S= Society
|
