Dystopians on estrogen, by Carolyn Baker (EB)

Many years ago I embraced the sensible and insightful gender perspective of the psychologist, Carl Jung, who argued that both genders contain qualities of the opposite gender, and that those qualities have both life-supporting and life-destroying aspects. Therefore, in Jungian fashion, collapse must be understood and explored from the perspectives of both genders. The typically male perspective would in the case of Peak Oil, emphasize things like facts, statistics, pipelines, percentage of supply, demand, and long-term consequences. It would instruct us, warn us, and suggest various courses of action.

This reminds me of a post by A Thomist: Politics, the domination of nature, and prudence. UPDATED. Prudence is not the same as art, but very few treat peak oil simply as a problem of technology or of art. All of the numbers, graphs, charts I've seen are part of essays acknowledging that the solution to peak oil is a change in lifestyle.

From the female perspective, these concerns are in no way irrelevant or unimportant, but may motivate us to embrace an even larger perspective. By "larger" I do not mean more global but rather, a perspective that includes the body and emotions as well as the intellect. It isn't just about having a womb and the capacity to give birth. However, a woman's fundamental, bone-marrow connection to life and generativity is uniquely female. Perhaps this is the reason that in many indigenous societies, including the Iroquois Confederacy, the clan mothers' authority superseded that of the warriors who could not go to war without their permission.

What this is about is the pivotal aspect of the female psyche that is relational rather than combative or problem-solving. The feminine principle in both women and men asks: How can we connect with each other in a manner that supports survival and enhances our lives as we navigate the destructive aspects of collapse? How can we build alliances, join with neighbors and villages to sustain our families and communities? From the feminine perspective, the egos of certain "key players" matter much less than the collective lessons that the unprecedented phenomenon of collapse may be inviting us to learn.

The feminine principle always compels us to go deeper and rather than asking "if" the world as we have known it is really ending, asking instead: What is the essence of the project of civilization? What makes its continuance axiomatic? What compelling signals invite us to callit into question? Tom Petruno's January 24, Los Angeles Times article, "Economy In Shock: It's Failure Overload" opines that our problem is "failure", assuming that the success of civilization is the most desirable option, without of course, asking the more profound questions about the nature and consequences of civilization or whether or not its continuance is preferable to the alternative.

There are some Peak Oil survivalists who believe that nothing can be done, and therefore they can only look to protecting themselves and their families when things get bad. Others, however, see the solution in relocalization and the rebuilding of community. Very few of them do not see that the solution is a truly political one--as opposed to a solution implemented solely by the National Government.

As for building up community and friendships--are men not as concerned with these as women? Both men and women are concerned with the communal and domestic spheres, and with the concerns of family--but in different ways. Sure there are some men who only live for themselves, and see politics just as a hobby, or something to further their self-interest, but women can be as individualistic as men.

And what theologian or philosopher worth his salt hasn't talked about the purpose of civilization? I would not say that communitarians and "classical" political philosophers are exhibiting feminine traits--rather, they have a better understanding of what the complete life involves than many of our contemporaries.

Are men particularly concerned with the demands of justice while living in community, while women are especially concerned with the needs and affairs of the family? Our women politicians may claim to be concerned with community, but how many of them do not advocate the welfare state as the way of bringing about the communal good? (I would contend that the welfare state violates justice in many different ways.)

An empire constructed on conquest, hierarchy, and competition is inherently heroic and deems any opposite an abject failure. In its stultifying, constricted, superficial world view, there is no space or depth which might expand the conversation and eliminate the need for polarization. Characteristic of life-destroying male rigidity, civilization marginalizes those who question it without examining its own raison d'être, and of course, because it cannot include, only dominate, the feminine perspective is not part of the conversation. This is not to say that any particular reporter embodies "life-destroying male rigidity". Journalists in corporate media are parts of systems of empire whose interests lie in selling newspapers, magazines, and books which have never been about asking the deeper questions but rather perpetuating the fantasy that there is nothing more glorious and propitious than empire.

Civilization marginalizes those who dissent? Does Ms. Baker share something with the anarcho-capitalists? I would hold that in a centralized, bureaucratic state, truth and originality are stifled when they threaten those in power and the status quo. In a degraded 'democracy,' do politicians not serve their masters and the desires, rather than acting for their benefit? We are not talking about virtuous (male) behavior, but vicious behavior. (Are feminists who deny their nature able to compete for long with the vicious males they seek to imitate? I wonder.)

What leaps out at me here is that word so supremely characteristic of the feminine principle, wholeness. While males preparing for collapse are certainly supportive of wholeness, the feminine experience is in itself, one of wholeness. The female psyche is wholeness, containing the capacity to include, embrace, and hold a variety of opposites in our bodies and souls. In a collapsing world, is it not crucial to understand how this outlook is embodied and expressed in contrast with how males might respond to the unraveling? Is not the notion of sustainability itself a concept engendered by the principle of wholeness?

"Wholeness," though, is used equivocally with respect to community or harmony with the creation and with respect to a woman's perception of her own nature and vocation. The former is integral unity while the later is related to the woman's substantial unity. Sustainability is a concept that looks at the stewardship of mankind over the rest of the world.

Which brings me to another point--if we are dealing with sin and the need for metanoia, then there can be no real solution to peak oil and the over-(or unsustainable) consumption of our natural resources without God. But is 'religion' a 'feminine' affair? Human souls can be said to be 'feminine' with respect to God and grace, receiving God and the Divine Life from God himself. But I think it is correct to say that this is to use the word analogically, and not univocally.

It seems to me that if there are differences between men and women these do not extend all the way to their relationship with God. Rather, these differences are rooted in the roles they play in the generation and rearing of offspring, and how they relate to one another. (Moreover, the latter also seems to be rooted in the former with respect to questions of authority and leadership. Are the differences between how men and women relate to the extended family and to the community at large then founded upon the dynamic of domestic relations?)