DGD: Textiles-White Series 25 (clonografía), 2010 * *
III
* The horror of confusion
*
Tomás Segovia has devoted substantial texts on human sexual polarity, in one of them, "Letter to Women" tries fairness "is not [that] the love-o-heterosexual desire is 'natural' and the homosexual 'unnatural': they are the same love and desire, all love and all desire, which are not 'natural'" . [1] To Segovia, modernity has changed to a chaste disguise what was in the Greek tragic acceptance of beauty (which was essential to the meaning of pedophilia, while a mature male relationship with another very whereby young one, in a sense recovered both metaphorically and literally lost beauty and youth), according to Segovia, this acceptance is no longer possible in societies contemporary Western, "I say that this route is impractical because" he writes, "simply because they imagine, because I want-and because I believe that our entire civilization desired imaginary civilization rather heterosexual."
* Why "rather"? Attempt an answer to that question goes beyond all space, but could experimentally be assumed that the "rather" emerge in times when humanity requires repopulated after disasters and wars. Since Androandro Ginógina and in themselves do not guarantee procreation, societies "Prefer" to remove these two models of collective imagination and the range of possible choices on individuals. It should be stressed that this retreat is secular and socio-es-extradition is deeply rooted in religious and archetypal, is an excommunication, "unless banished from the imaginary, and Androandro Ginógina have been almost surgically excised from the collective psyche. This has become confusing , which is precisely (in a frenzied circle) the reason given, if you come to give reasons, to have "preferred" to remove them. Hence the catch: there's really a "rather" when there is a certain imbalance between the "options" (one of which is recognized in connection with the sacred while others weigh about curses).
* funny thing is that the androgynous model continues to prevail in the current period of intense global overpopulation, which suggests that rather than stocking factories and armies, modernity, and the prevailing patriarchy-is "more either "interested in avoiding confusion ; this trend, it is quite well known, not only results in a much more pernicious confusion whose expressions are obvious sexism, misogyny and homophobia and ideologies of supremacy (racial, political, economic, religious, cultural), the fanaticism of all kinds, and numerous individual and social psychopathy.
* Even in times that call themselves liberal and democratic, the State and the Church are decided by citizens, as if the dominant power was sure that every single individual and wish to imagine a civilization heterosexual rather, that it offers them the opposite of confusion, uncertainty and chaos, ie stability, security, order, and even, at the height of hypocrisy, happiness.
* *
A symbolic construction
*
The sexologist Cristina Martin refuses to eliminate two-thirds of the foundation myth of human sexuality:
*
I think there are two sexes that are combined to reproduce, and many other uses of sexuality, genital and non-genital, without purpose of biological reproduction, but may be unable to reproduce, sublimated in other areas-where behavior and values \u200b\u200bgenerally attributed to the male and female are combined in many and such diverse forms as the human imagination. There may, hypothetically, as many genres as if every human person interprets and reconstructs in its own way sexual imagery. Indeed the usefulness of the concept of gender as a symbolic construction is the understanding that the biological predisposition is not an absolute determinant and the plurality of experiences of sexuality is best understood in the field of gender. [2]
* The term "sexual imagery" seems to imply that planted on the biological truth, humans construct a world of conventions that only confirms one unchanging base. The so complex imagination could soar without a strong foundation in the simple (not confusing) fact: both sexes represented by the Androgyne. If "the usefulness of the concept of gender as a symbolic construction is the understanding that the biological predisposition is not an absolute determinant," even more useful would accept that the concept of sex is no less a symbolic construction . Biological predisposition, in fact, not an absolute determinant, nor is biology. It is necessary to reiterate: the universe is not biological but when looks a biologist, is a human being with certain predispositions. This could be balanced against the sexual bipolarity is not only human but the very foundation of humanity is, of course, but like everything human: as a creature, a project, a proposed operating a convention, not a "fact given. " Nurture, not nature .
*
is true: it could be as many genres as persons hitherto happy and proud to accept that "each head is a world, or at least could be," if every human being interpreted and reconstructed in its own way sexual imagery. " Why what arouses so much reluctance, therefore, postulate that sex could be as many as people? Why vanish joy and pride when, although it is postulated, each head would still be a world? Does it say "could be as many genres as people", or "could be as many sexes as individuals," is tantamount to saying that there is only one gender and sex, at least in the conventional sense of there is a world for all heads? Everything depends not on universal truths of "facts" scientific, eternal categories of biological divisions "real", but that every human being interpreted and reconstructed his way (which ultimately is but one way) human reality. Whether a suspect like this, as monumental as it seems, is that encloses the figure of the Androgyne barely acknowledges the existence, equally real , his two brothers myths.
* Western modernity falls heterosexism when deleting two mythic roots to privilege one, the one that best suits the structure of power. But Aristophanes fell into something like a "homosexismo" when it devoted almost exclusively to demonstrate the supremacy of the Androandros. And here it is worth noting some curious correspondence reverse in the founding myths. By Aristophanes homosexismo directly opposes homophobia of St. Paul in the verses that became the act of excommunication Androandro: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God "(1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
*
Aristophanes extends praise for the Androandro and just talk about the Ginógina, the Apostle Paul clearly includes Androandro between cast out of heaven (even bother to make a distinction between "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with men") but completely avoids the Ginógina (not just reads what is inferred : a reference to the "masculine" or "the women themselves with mankind"). The homosexismo of Aristophanes and homophobia of Paul allude to the male.
* The reasons for both failures of Ginógina (and, by extension, a similar silence has spread over centuries in the patriarchy) are interviewed by Carlos Espejo Muriel:
*
Since these civilizations [women] did not hold a special rank, his active participation and minimal footprint, more so when we refer to the sexual field, which enters the private plot. By this we mean that if the Greco-Roman world was a man's world, logically speaking, are dramatized, and efforts were made consisted fun just for men, then women did what no one cared (except if they did not expectations from them were: having children, be worthy wives, bringing the domestic economy, which included controlling the bondage of the house, offering pleasure the lord and master when asked, not to frequent public places, etc.). This is the reason that, unfortunately, only know a female character name of love "gay" among women, so beautiful Greek name: Sappho. Which means, first, that a real study on lesbianism is yet to be done (a good start would be to track the female initiation rites). Second, that everything that we can talk about lesbians do about speculation, since no data or facts that corroborate our hypothesis (that does not mean we can not think that they would also impose the model of submission to their slaves, and consequently to derive pleasure from them in the enclosed space of the home, or even access to other meetings such as those festive events that were held exclusively for women in Greece and Rome, but, again, all this although I agree it is in danger of collapse unless it is proven conclusively).
* However, the two omissions in the lesbian world, that of Aristophanes and St. Paul, fully reflect the emerging realm of patriarchy, and deliberate ignorance about women . The questions pile up: in the mythic basis of a matriarchy have also been three original sexes?, "also one of them would have been exalted and then rejected and emphasized regardless of the other?, and above all, would there be an imbalance existed in the Trinity tends to favor only one of the three models through eradicate the remaining collective memory?
* Beyond the hypothetical answers to these questions is necessary in an overview: none of the three models is "better" than others (clearly indicated by the simultaneous creation of three genders in the primal myth Plato wanted to claim) is its full reintegration which requires sexuality based on a human to complete myth, that of the true diversity (to associate it with confusion and chaos is nothing but a ploy to reaffirm the prevailing mythical paradigm). The look of both the original myth is clear: The founding meeting occurs just at the diversity, ie the peaceful coexistence of the three models, recognized on an equal potential and riches. A trinity rebalanced (ie, a range in which all individuals can choose between options equally powerful, integrated and connected with the sacred, which is the only way to connect with immediately.)
* Undoubtedly the moment lucid The banquet is one in which Plato, Aristophanes' lips, thus lays claim trinary founding myth:
*
We try not to commit any offense against the gods, fearing to expose a second division, and not as in-profile figures in the reliefs, which have no more than half a face, or cut into two dice. [...] If this ancient state was the best, must necessarily also be the one that best approximates it in this world, which is to possess the person you love as desired.
*
Every society is founded on a myth. Handle this myth and even mutilated to fit the requirements of power over individuals has serious consequences, especially if that myth is the eroticism: that makes sense of greater intimacy, the more unique individuality. Because there is nothing more subversive and more hated by the ruling power to return to the primordial human capacity: to choose the beloved as desired.
* *** *
Notes
* [1] Tomás Segovia: "Letter women, in inappropriate Notebook , FCE (Cuadernos de la Gaceta 42), Mexico, 1987.
*
[2] Cristina Martin, "Reading Notes on the concept 'gender'," in La Ventana. Journal of Gender Studies , v. 1, n. 2, Universidad de Guadalajara, Centre for Gender Studies, 1997.
* *
0 comments:
Post a Comment