Saddam, Phone Your Mom!
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2450 30 Oct 90 "SADDAM, PHONE YOUR MOM!" OR ELLIOTT THINKSHEETS THE ANTIBIBLICAL MYTH OF PRIMORDIAL GYNECOCENTRIC PEACE 309 L.Eliz.Dr., Craigville, MA 02636 Phone 508.775.8008 Noncommercial reproduction permitted An irreverent (to Saddam Hussein), uproarious current popsong spoofs (1) SH & (2) the ever more widely held dysfunctional no- tion that the world, if taken away from the boys & given to the girls, would be more peaceful (a no less romantic, though slightly more intelligent, variant of the latter being that it'd be more peaceful if the world were taken away from the boys & given to the girls & boys [usually, in that order] together). If we could just get Saddam to phone his Mom, she'd yell "You getthehellouta Kuwait RIGHT NOW!" & (so goes the myth) he'd do it! A more nuanced, sophisticated version is that though she wouldn't do it, that would only be because her natural anti-war psyche had been corrupted by the androcentrism prevailing in her culture &, indeed, in all cultures for the past 5,000 - year "detour" of natural human evolution.... This Thinksheet is a bibliocritical review of Riane [Tennenhaus] Eisler's THE CHALICE & THE BLADE: OUR HISTORY, OUR FUTURE (H&R187188), a radical feminist antibiblical rewrite of history. Most radical feminist literature I only glance at / read reviews of, but I try to give a thorough read to any piece that is overtly antibiblical: that's why I call this review "bibliocritical." 1 A refugee from Hitler's spectacularly-disastrously androcentric Europe, perhaps she can be forgiven her spectacularly-disastrously gynecocentricity, which she labors to defend against the charge of gynarchy (usu. called "matriarchy"), the dominator model at the opposite end of the pendulum's swing from andrarchy (usu. called "patriarchy"). Her prejudicial theory is that--though when the boys are in the center, power is vertical, hierarchical--when the girls were in the center, power was horizontal, partner- ship. The second phrase of her subtitle tells you what she makes of this reconstruction of prehistory from paleoarcheology. 2 Biblical scholars are familiar with the proleptic error, the prochronism of attributing to the ancients a later emergent (eg, reading a differentiation back into an undifferentiated stage). Instance Gn.3: In disobeying God, Eve & Adam violated their conscience. But they didn't have a conscience when they disobeyed! The responsibility of conscience came as the result of moral consciousness ("know what is good and what is bad"), which they acquired when they ate the apricot. What we have here is a highly sophisticated etiological divine/human-encounter story, superior to all its world-rivals for conveying (1) divine/human communication as constitutive of humanity, (2) obedience as the fundamental note in that relationship from the human side, & (3) the complexities & ambiguities of human existence ("Life is not a feast, it's a predicament."--Geo. Santayana). The simple reason we give this story the name of "the Fall" is that its essence is the naked disobedience of the original human pair. The naked shock is that the disobedience was not punished within the compass of the story (ie, they didn't die) but rather was rewarded (by their acquiring conscience-- or perhaps more broadly, knowledge--if "know good and bad" is taken to mean the knowledge range, ie to "know everything")! The storyteller's enemies may be seen peeping around the story's edges: was the Fall out of the blessed ignorance in communion with God into the cursed knowledge of alienation from God (expulsion from Eden)? What, now, is our author's innocent prolepsis? Innocent in the sense that nowhere does she seem aware of it. It is that she reads peace back into prehistory, before war came into being. The error is not hers alone but is common to most post- WWI I paleoarcheologists-prehistorians, whom she quotes endlessly (giving a scientific patina to her fiction, her "social construction of [prehistoric] reality" [to appropriate a Berger/Luckmann title]) . If we pseudohistoricize the Fall, are Adam & Eve really human beings, or zombie slaves? And are her pseudohistoricized prehistoric beings really human, or are they only doe-like placid, ignorant of war & so not having chosen peace instead? Scientifically, the most she can manage is a myth of primordial gyneco- centric placidity, doe-likeness. Her logical error appears if one thinks of the fundamentalists' myth of Adam-&-Eve original righteousness (instead of original goodness). 3 Her diatribe uses lightweight Jos. Campbell, not heavyweight Mircea Eliade. The 2450.2 former is, as she is, antibiblical; the later is evenhanded, scientific. And she loves Bible-hating Ashley Montagu, who on her paperback cover says her book's "the most important book since Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES." (On a walk in 1952, AM said to me "My life work may be thought of as an effort to stand Darwin on his head" [ie, give natural dominance to cooperation rather than competition].) 4 Like most grandmothers, she hasn't one good thing to say for war. Her simplistic moralization of history can be stated in this double formula: girls + "peace" = good: boys + war = evil. Natural enough: girls' powers do not include the heavy musculature of building/destroying/defending/attacking. Girls psyche themselves up into thinking themselves & their powers superior, & this illusion of superiority distorts how everything is seen & felt. (Of course ditto for the boys, pari passu; but I'm reviewing a girl's book. I believe in what she says she believes in but doesn't, viz partnership, which I often state as "the mutual superiority of the sexes.")....Male heavy musculature correlates with the male's higher testosterone, the drive-adventure hormone, & adventure is one energy of war--the others being greed (for power & land, as in the case of Saddam Hussein) & defense....which leads me to say that our author's placid prehistory has a few parallels in contemporary "stone-age" tribes who live off by themselves, not encountering other tribes & cultures & thus having no need to defend themselves. But with the immense population increases of historic times came Kulturkampf, the pressing-clashing of peoples against each other, & therefore war, which (& her argument has this advantage) is becoming too destructive to have as bright a future as it's had a past. (Yes, I believe that in the past, on balance war's done more good than harm. The last war [Rev.19.11-20.10] will do more good than any previous war--but of course Eisler rejects the Bible, its wars, & its battle imagery, & apocalyptic: all that belongs in history's "detour" into male dominance. For her, war is nothing but the antonym of "peace" (though for her this is irreversible: "peace" can exist, & did in prehistory, without the presence, threat, or memory of war. Nor does she have any kind words for militarily achieved & maintained peace, the arts of peace flourishing under a military umbrella--as pax romana, pax britannica, pax americana [eg, Japan flourishing under the American military umbrella].) 5 Our author admits that prehistory is, for us, a jigsaw puzzle more than half of whose pieces are missing; yet she does not practice a theory-modesty commensurate with this fragmentariness of our knowledge. Eg, she has no doubt that female figurines prove "worship of the Goddess"; & that the association of female artifacts with life's untowardnesses proves that the feminine was thought to control evil (rather than, I suggest as another possibility, contain it--as in Kali--in which case ritual would include propitiation of the negative feminine, to defend the community against evil from the feminine).— This cocksureness leads her to assume what she cannot prove (viz, her cultural-transformation theory of prehistoric cultural superiority under the Goddess), & proceed to erect an elaborate sociohistorical structure thereupon. This reminds me of Francis Bacon's view of false philosophical systems as like stageplays in which the playwrights have invented imaginary worlds--idola theatri ("idols of the theater," one of the four types of "idols of the mind" [the other three being idola tribus "idols of the tribe," common to human nature; idola specus "idols of the cave," of individual origin; & idola fori "idols of the market," arising from the need to communicate & the pitfalls of languagel). This classic exposition of the kinds of inducement to thinking-errors appeared in the Year of the Mayflower, 1620, as NOVUM ORGANUM, a bold attempt to replace Aristotelian syllogistic deduction with induction as the base for the development of axioms of successively greater generality, the whole structural process to be under continuous inductive criticism--the process we came to call "science." The Mayflower pilgrims intended to extend freedom to honor & worship God: Bacon's intention was to extend to the utmost humanity's dominion over nature-- a dominir-q-, now imperiling nature & therefore humanity (as Eisler & I agree: we now need a NOVUM NOVUM ORGANUM, a less penile & more uterine way of thinking about the biosphere & our human part in it, & in this sense a less "masculine" & more "feminine" way: I say yes to her intentionality & no to her conceptuality). 6 Antibiblical worldviews may attack the Bible (1) for having the view that something went wrong or (2) for being wrong about what went wrong. Darwinism is 2450.3 an example of the first type of attack, & Marxism & Eislerism are examples of the second type: where the Bible says the Fall, Marxism says classism & Eislerism