An Inquiry into the Feminine Principle

It is of little wonder why the concept of the feminine has survived even after strategic and concerted efforts to destroy it, or to tame it in certain cases. It is also of little wonder why these efforts have persisted.

First to take the second issue. The feminine is threatening! It is a contradiction to the very basis of our social organisation - patriarchy. Here I do not mean dominance of men over women, but rather the dominance of all masculine over all feminine - of positivisms over phenomenologies, of rationality over creativity; of economies over cosmologies.

It is the need to be uniform that drives society today, not the need to be free. The freedom is notional, subscribing clearly to prescribed definitions, not amenable to individual interpretations. This is the only way how the masculine can prevail and thrive. Sameness, rationality, solidity are its pillars.

The basis of all institutions in society today is this principle of the masculine. The state, the government, marriages, economies, religions... thats how they are sustained.

The feminine principle is about freedom. It is not necessarily the contradiction of the masculine, but just the freedom to BE.

Creativity, expression, emotion are fluid concepts. They cannot hold things together in the same way that sameness, rationality and solidity do. They themselves are beyond definition, abmiguous... Being boundless, limitless, they cannot be the basis for rigidity.

Within the divine feminine, space exists for every being, for every identity. There is no conflict, as the basis is acceptance of existence. The celebration of life in all its forms and experiences. It is not about taking sides, but of maintaining the balance of life. Of oneness, but not sameness. It is a continuum without compartments. Life and death both become the same experience - one being "oneness" with the world, and the other "oneness" with the other-world. The principle is of energy - shakti (the personification of which is the Goddess).

For hierarchies and materialism to survive, the masculine principle has to dominate. Only if there is "one truth" can there be an outgroup, the "other". Only if there is an "other" can finite resources be owned and powers be maintained. Only if powers are contained in that "one truth" can there be structure and stratification in society - the basis of good governance!

This explains the concerted efforts since centuries (atleast since the begining of "civilisation" and more so since the end of the "Dark Ages") to destroy the feminine principle.

It is seen as a threat to the structure and solidity of organised, civilised society. It is a threat to the preservation of power within compartments.

The acceptance of all expression and of all choice will render most of politics and perhaps all of economics redundant. This is seen as the begining of all anarchy - a return to, for instance, paganism over cleanly organised religion! It will signify the common ownership of resources, leading to a failure in creating wealth!

The feminine principle, however, will survive - as long as there is life. This is because the very principle of life is based on the divine feminine. The energy for survival, the co-existence and co-dependence with all other beings and energies, innovations, creativities, freedoms, choice, rights...all allude to the feminine principle striving to be re-established.

Of Love and Marriages...(part 2)

Added to the first part of this post is 2 years of experience... of wisdom and age. The understandings have changed, so have the perspectives.

The realisation has dawned on me that there is a reason why "love" had no mention in the historical literature on marriage - it is because the two are mutually independent concepts, perhaps even contradictory!

Love, by definition is an emotion. Hence being irrational, spontaneous, not knowing bounds. The more the irrationality the greater is the depth and the meaningfulness of love.

Marriage, on the other hand, is an institution. Created for governance of society, just like any other institution - the government for instance. The scope of governance here may seem different at some levels: social behaviour, family life, sexuality. But there is no denial that these in turn, relate ultimately to law and order, the prevention of anarchy, the preservation of social stratifications (caste or religion through endogamy).

The creation of an institution is always strategic. It is rational, intelligent and is defined by its boundaries. We know what DOES NOT constitute a marriage as well as what DOES, and these boundaries are universal... as universal as the boundlessness of love.

The success of a marriage is therefore, based on the degrees of rationality and the strength of its boundaries. The stronger the fence, the better the marriage! The strategic base of the institution of forming the alliance, completely on pratical matters, is what makes it so feasible, so universal, and so durable. It is due to these reasons why it has not become extinct as a concept (keeping with Darwinian selection).

Human beings are rational and intelligent. We are predisposed to organising our lives,our societies. We like order, governance and systems. The institution of marriage embodies all these qualities. That is the appeal. That is the secret.

Love may become extinct, but not marriage. The latter makes sense... it is here to stay!

Spaces

This is about spaces - geographical, physical, social, psychological... In complex ways they are related, they are interdependent, mutually determinate. Most obviously, they have manifested similar characteristics - the duality of apparent availability and access, and the contradicting fact of underlying extinction and exclusion of these spaces. Each of these spaces are scarce nowadays, and getting increasingly so... yet there is the impression, or rather delusion, of more openness, more options, more freedom - to express, to luxuriate, to move, to be accepted, to think... Yet, these are actually the times that i feel uniformity and sameness get rewarded like they have never before. Everyone is expected to follow the same fashion trends - in clothes, in hairstyle, in accessories; appreciate the same things - same artists, same authors, same musicians; achieve the same things - material wealth, same educational degrees, same careers. It is always logic and rationality over emotions; evidence over instincts; rules over rights; the strong over the weak; and the masculine over the feminine.... These are choices, if we are all making the same choices, then we are also thinking the same thoughts. This only goes on to imply that we have lost our individualities and hence, our SPACES. Only if you subscribe, do you belong. And your relinquishment of your space to think, decide, live gets rewarded with this sense of belongingness. Since we have already let go of our spaces, there is no individual thought or emotion left. Without this, the belongingness even, is not an emotional one. With the lack of spaces and their short supply, we are only competing with each other (even, rather more so with the people we 'belong') - competing to look better, younger, more fashionable, competing for the same jobs, the scores, the universities and the finite wealth. In this ruthless competion with the ever decreasing spaces, we feel alone...lonely...scared... bereft. And its precisely these feelings that lead us to this urgent and growing need to belong, in more and more superficial ways, with each other. We all know each other's insecurities and fears (because we all fell the same way!), but we still see each other as threats, and we still mask our emotions - we donot have the space to express, no space to feel! For this would make us vulnerable, and there is no space for vulnerabilities! It is a sickening mix of all these realities, this vicious cycle, that makes us escape from freedom...!!

Of Love and Marriages...

One of the most significant developments in my life lately has been the numerous weddings of friends. In the last two years 9 of my friends and 6 of my colleagues got married. and I am expecting atleast 4 more weddings before the year ends (thats a conservative estimate based on the ones which are planned, then there are those spur-of-the-moment ones too!). I thought, therefore, that "weddings" would be a pertinent concept to write about... Lets go back to the origin of the word. The Anglo-Saxon word wedd referred to the grooms pledge to marry, but also to purchase money or its equivalent in horses, cattle, or other property that he paid to the bride's father. So a "wedding" was literally the purchase of a woman for breeding purposes, involving an element of risk. The first marriages were by capture. When a man saw a woman he desired, he took her by force. To kidnap a bride, a groom enlisted the aid of a warrior friend, his "best man". Capture marriages dominated the prehistoric world. However, marriage by purchase became the preferred tradition, and even when it wasn't an overt sale of the bride for cash, everyone understood that she was being bartered for land, holdings, political alliance, or social advancement. A girl was a useful pair of hands in the father's household, but she was invaluable to the groom's, where she could work equally hard and also bear offspring. Closer home, the Laws of Manu that prescribe social conduct for Hindus, describe eight different types of weddings - when a man adorns his daughter and gives her as 'gift' to a man that he has summoned; when the man adorns his daughter and gives her as a as a gift to a priest in the course of a sacrifice; giving the daughter away after receiving cattle from the groom in return; when a man takes a girl away because he wants her, and gives wealth to her and her family in return; when a man and a woman join in sexual union out of desire; when a man forcibly carries a girl from her home after killing, breaking ang wounding; when a man secretly has sex with a girl who is intoxicated, asleep or out of her mind. The expression "to tie the knot" dates back to the Romans, when the bride wore a girdle secured by a knot, which the groom then had the fun of untying. Rituals of binding have also been popular throughout the world. In ancient Carthage, the couple's thumbs were laced together with a strip of leather. In Hindu weddings, the end of the bride's saree is tied to the groom's stole. Besides knots, rings, or other forms of jewellery, headgear and vermillion all signify marriage and bind the bride to the groom (usually all these symbols are borne by the women).

This is of course, a completely historical-sociological description of the concept, bordering on a feministic interpretation. There are a multitude of connotations of this multifaceted concept, ranging from romantic (as in marrying as a result of falling in love, to spend the rest of their lives together, as a declaration of their love to the world, etc.), to socio-economic (organisation of society for optimal division of labour), to socio-political (marriage to perpetuate and maintain patriarchal societal structures, as well as caste, religion, class, etc.).

Do note that "love" has no mention in any of these weddings, either as a reason, or as signified by any of the symbols associated with the process. Do note also, that Manu accepts rape and abduction as marriage. I assume it is needless to point out the status and role of the woman/bride in this whole matter as has been prescribed by the various weddings, and therefore, various societies.

Despite this, (or perhaps because of this) weddings have started to symbolise and signify everything, except the union of the two people concerned (but it was never meant to anyway!!)The wedding, its rituals and the significance, the scale and the grandeur never fail to amaze me. From Mr. Mittal to the landless labourer, everyone would exceed what is 'affordable spending' on a wedding by atleast double! Status has started getting determined by the scale and grandiosity of a wedding, entire films get made on this concept, industries run on the business of weddings, and of course, how can I overlook the weddings that happen because of the wedding (weddings are a prime ocassion for all matrimonial purposes: with all the dolled up girls and the eligible bachelors, one is definite to strike some metal, if not gold!!). The wedding often far exceeds the marriage in significance and relevance, despite both being embedded in the same fabric, no matter whatever interpretation one chooses. The concept has definitely stopped being just a ritual to signify the commencement of an institution (that of marriage), and has become an organising principle - a superstructure, almost. The power and universality that it represents is probably only next to that of sex !! (and of course, the latter wins due to its sheer unfair advantage of the absence of all associated baggage, and its place in the esteemed list of 'basic needs'!).

Patterns and Predictability

Our lives are full of patterns and predictability. As much as we may complain about them - on the basis of their consequent monotony - its a fact that we seek them out, we crave for them, we create them when there are none... Human beings seek patterns and predicatability. In studying perception (as a part of psychology) one understands the importance of closure in a perceived figure vis-a-vis the background, even in learning and memory, it is by creating associations, mnemonics, conditioning and patterns that we learn and memorise - even completely unrelated concepts (for instance, food and the bell in Pavlov's dog!!) Coming to think of it, memories of our life's incidents are always in patterns, in relations and associations. A song playing at the roadside tea stall, or a particular smell can transport us to a romantic dinner date, or our high school farewell, or a friend's birthday party where we all got completely wasted!! Its however, the same pattern...and it brings about the same predictability... Its actually amazing how much we seek these patterns. People can listen to the same song repeatedly only to revisit those fond memories over and over again, or they wear the same perfume for years. I even know of people who wear the same colour (in different shades, of course!). These patterns then cease being merely associations for memories. They start defining our identity. Our habits, our jobs, our everyday routine are all examples of this. They define who we are. The comfort that one gets by knowing what to expect (predicatbility) in our lives is almost immeasurable. You know what to do every morning, you go to the same place to work everyday and meet the same people, you know your family/friends will be there when you need them...The importance of this predictability can only be realised when the pattern is broken. The trauma that one goes through following a broken relationship, a death, losing a job, an illness - are extreme cases when one mourns the absence of this stability and predictability in one's life...Some people can handle this instability better than others, but people generally go through the same sequence (or rather pattern) of emotions and feelings. Of course, the intensity of the instability, the dependency that was there on that pattern, and the length of time that predictability existed are all determinants of how much the change affects the person. The adage - "time heals" - supports this. The "healing properties" of time are nothing but due to the predictability that it creates after a certain duration. Its not that one forgets, or that the pain becomes less - its just that one gets used to it, one expects it to be there, one can predict it...and therefore, a new way of life gets created with new patterns and new predictabilities!

Love : An attempt at demystification

Love is perhaps the most mystified concept in this world. Children often believe in magic and miracles and when they grow up they naturally extend this mystique to love. Yet it is apparently also the most common concept. From literature to entertainment, from social institutions to evolution - its this one single concept thats overriding. To Plato, lovers are incomplete halves of a single puzzle, searching for each other in order to become one entity. By giving up their autonomy, they find their true selves. 3000 years later, Freud talks about the same phenomenon using words like sublimation and resistance. But why should the idea of oneness - thats the core of love - be so compelling? Love changes all the physics in the known universe of one's emotions and redraws what is real and what is possible. Perhaps that is where the source of this mysticism lies... It is this mysticism, however, that drives a rationalist to an attempt at theorization, demystification and deconstruction of the concept of love (is it blasphemy, well, maybe!!). What would a taxonomical analysis of this sacred concept look like? First, one admires. The essence of love is fantasy. We fall in love with gods and goddesses of our own devising. We never see them clearly, we never see the forces that drove us to them, but we are predisposed to love them! The next characteristic is, what can be called 'crystallization' - the tendency for someone in love to idealize the subject, imagining him or her to be finer and nobler than any other human being. It is a mental process that draws on everything that happens to form new proofs of the perfection of the loved one. Then one hopes that the feeling will be returned. The paralysing shyness one feels in the presence of the subject of love (in more romantic terms - the beloved!); how important it is to act naturally - but also how difficult; the way the subject's/beloved's kind words can render one speechless; how the alternating current of hope and despair can fry one's nerves; the way the most trivial gesture can devastate a lover one moment and cause bliss the next; how music can convey the wordless depths of love; love's power to whitewash the true nature of the 'beloved'; and the pitilessness of self-doubt and self consciousness that savage one's heart... When This hope and the earlier admiration combine, 'love' is born! After this doubt creeps in with dreadful misgiving, as the love demands proof after proof of affection. When doubt is overcome, the second crystallization occurs, with the mind imagining every act as a proof of love. At this stage the opposite of love is death. If the idealized person should leave the mournful lover assumes it was his/her fault, and that happiness is lost forever! There is no consolation. the mind can no longer attach the idea of pleasure to any pleasurable activity. Love here is the optical illusion which leads to the fatal pistol shot! Certainty, familiarity, complacency - they all lead to pleasant relationships of companionship and good will, but not to the feverish adventure of being in love!! Love is a solitary feeling which exists whether its returned or not, and not the emotional event that takes place between two people. The loves of two people in love with each are seldom the same. Perhaps this is where it draws its mystique from...and perhaps this is why even in an attemot to demystify it, the rationalist cannot help but acknowledge the magic...