An intrusion of matriarchal consciousness

Abstract: It is argued that Western general consciousness, in parallel with an ongoing cultural dissolution, risks moving in a "matriarchal" direction. The phenomenon represents an inroad of matriarchal consciousness into patriarchal culture, with forbidding consequences, namely the formation of a neurotic culture at a lower level of consciousness. This is unacceptable in the face of the advanced challenges of the future. The distinctive character of a culture, in terms of its cultural and psychological advancement, is a very precious thing that can give the individual the right soil to grow in, while it will suit his inborn constitution. The painful questions of race and ethnicity can no longer be sidestepped. Historically, delirious racial elitism has been counterpoised by an equally unfounded homologous view of humanity. Guided by the latest findings in human genetics, it is high time to arrive at a balanced view of ethnic diversity.

Keywords: race, matriarchal, patriarchal, heroic, psychic gradient, ethnic unconscious, symbiosis.





(added Oct 18, 2011: European Psychology...)

Introduction

In this essay the much contested terms matriarchal[1] and patriarchal are employed in an attempt to explain the different natures of civilisation, also in modern times. Regardless of the obvious ethical and economical aspects of immigration, it represents an inroad of matriarchal consciousness into patriarchal culture, with forbidding consequences. The mixture of different ethnic groups plays a role in this development. It can be met by heightened awareness of the psychological diversity between ethnic groups. This could enable the individual to discover and to accept his own nature, and allow him to strike root in his own culture in a more decided way.

A backside of the ongoing mingling of cultures is the lowering of the general level of consciousness, and how it more and more tends toward the matriarchal end of the spectrum. By this is implied a psychology which, for better or worse, is rooted in a collective mother complex. This will lead to a split psychology, such as decadent aspects of modern American culture, which still honours patriarchal principles of emancipation and freedom, yet allows free rein to opulence, status, power and prestige.

In order to meet the challenges of the future it is necessary to prevent a regress of modern consciousness and to remain at a patriarchal level. It follows that the painful question of race can no longer be circumvented. The notion of a constitutive "gradient" (or inclination) of consciousness might help to explain the difficulties that varying ethnicities encounter in trying to adapt to societies foreign to their own mentality. However, the fact that patriarchal Western culture has ruled the roost in the latest millennium does not bespeak the superiority of the "Caucasian race". Matriarchal cultures, in historical India and Egypt, for instance, were once in the forefront. In history, the tables are always turning.


Human evolution and epigenetics

Right now a revolutionary paradigm shift is undergoing in the science of genetics. It is called epigenetics. The term "epigenetic" refers to heritable traits that do not involve changes to the DNA sequence. The DNA sequence is only part of the genome. The rest, which was earlier viewed as redundant rubbish, is now termed epigenome. Some epigenetic features are inherited from one generation to the next. Multigenerational epigenetics is today regarded as another aspect to evolution and adaptation. An example of this is the paramutation observed in maize. In humans, epigenetic changes have been observed to occur in response to environmental exposure, that is, a sort of Lamarckian inheritance (vid. Pembrey et al. 2006).

This is a most remarkable turnover in favour of depth-psychology, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Despite the controversy over his ideas, Freud refused to cede with his "Lamarckian" notions. Carl Jung also received much critique for his idea that the collective unconscious has acquired traits over the millennia. Genetics has been regarded a much slower process. For instance, in Jung, an important argument is that man's experiences during medieval time affect us strongly today, and is the foundation on which we stand as modern people. The medieval world, and classical antiquity, is part of our unconscious. However, other ethnic groups, such as African tribes, lack this layer, says Jung. Other people still, such as the Chinese, have a different configuration of the collective unconscious, although the foundational layer is the same for all people on earth. The cultural forging of our unconscious nature is crucial to Jung's theory of archetypes.

The young science of epigenetics would be able to corroborate such notions. Not only climatological, epidemic, and nutritive experiences can be transferred to coming generations. Culture is the most fundamental force that has shaped man's life through the aeons. Its effect is, in all likelihood, established in the genome in a few generations.

...The even greater surprise is the recent discovery that epigenetic signals from the environment can be passed on from one generation to the next, sometimes for several generations, without changing a single gene sequence. It's well established, of course, that environmental effects like radiation, which alter the genetic sequences in a sex cell's DNA, can leave a mark on subsequent generations. Likewise, it's known that the environment in a mother's womb can alter the development of a fetus. What's eye-opening is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the epigenetic changes wrought by one's diet, behavior, or surroundings can work their way into the germ line and echo far into the future. Put simply, and as bizarre as it may sound, what you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great-grandchildren (Discover magazine, here).

The concept implies that genes have a 'memory'; what you do in your lifetime, and what you are exposed to, could in turn affect your grandchildren. Epigenetics proposes a control system of 'switches' that turn genes on or off. The things that people experience, like nutrition and stress, can control these switches and cause heritable effects in humans. The switches themselves can also be inherited. This means that a 'memory' of an event could be passed through generations. A simple environmental effect could switch genes on or off, and this change could be inherited.

According to the above article in Discover magazine (here) "...the epigenome can change in response to the environment throughout an individual's lifetime." Hence, I propose that culture is very likely to play a role. The notion that factors of epigenetics could determine a person toward the animation of certain archetypes is consonant with this. I hypothesize that the individual could become more warlike in cultures which have historically been involved in conflict.

The article continues:

...Remarkably, the mother's licking activity had the effect of removing dimmer switches on a gene that shapes stress receptors in the pup's growing brain. The well-licked rats had better-developed hippocampi and released less of the stress hormone cortisol, making them calmer when startled. In contrast, the neglected pups released much more cortisol, had less-developed hippocampi, and reacted nervously when startled or in new surroundings. Through a simple maternal behavior, these mother rats were literally shaping the brains of their offspring (ibid).

Apparently, the psyche of the rat is altered by an epigenetic switch, which can be turned on at will by the mother. In light of this, it's not far-fetched to propose that certain ethnicities, partly due to epigenetic factors, can become more heroic and ambitious, while others will tend toward the matriarchal spectrum.

In the field of traditional genetics, too, new facts have surfaced that question old preconceptions. According to recent findings (Dunham 2007, here), human evolution has been moving at breakneck speed in the past several thousand years. Today, we are quite different from people living a few thousand years ago. The new findings also show that the human genome in the different continents have diverged and continue to do so. Although this research is still in its infancy, it seems to corroborate notions of constitutive racial differences, and the breakneck speed in which they develop.

Furthermore, in a process called 'biased gene conversion', there is an increase in the rate at which certain mutations spread through a population, regardless of whether they are beneficial or harmful (ScienceDaily, here). Factors of accelerated genetic evolution, factors of epigenetics, rapid cultural and dietary changes, and local ethnic interbreeding, all contribute to the rapid establishment of new racial characteristics. Yet, it seems today that we are bound by an unfounded homologous view of humanity, and that our present view of cultural and genetical evolution implies a resignation to fate. In the light of the recent findings, it's becoming more and more obvious that humanity must start cultivating its character and put greater emphasis on aspects of heredity.


The Issue of Race

The recent progress in genetics has ramifications in the area of racial and ethnic diversity. Intellectual people have an extraordinary distaste for notions of racial characteristics, because it brings with it a bad historical odour, and it reminds Americans of the race laws. But those laws will not return just because we discuss the issue of race. In point of fact, the greater plasticity of hereditary traits, and the acceleration of human evolution, implies that the biological divergence of races must be regarded an ongoing reality, but it also means that elitist notions are passé. Race is not such a fixed category as Alfred Rosenberg thought, and a certain race is not predestined to success, thanks to a fixed set of ancient genes. Paradoxically, this means that we are finally relieved of the fanatical forms of hereditarian elitism.

C.G. Jung, discussing the race issue, says:

The resistances of the white man in Africa to "go black", or "native" as he put it, produced so powerful an undertow in his spirit that it caused tensions which were almost unendurable. These either caused him to succumb, or to reject and hate the dark man who had served to evoke these tensions...[t]he farther man grew from his instinctive self the more intense was the rejection in the European that we call prejudice and hatred...The Protestant rule was the product of a more exclusively rationalist development which cut man off more from his natural self. But either way, it was an evasion because the task of modern man was not to "go primitive" in the African way (Post, pp.53-54).

What is causing this fear of "going black?" What is implied by the relative inability of black men, and other ethnicities, to adapt to Western culture? Let's view it in terms of a psychic gradient. Broadly speaking, there is in the "white" culture a strife toward higher accomplishment, an advancement of consciousness, a movement of emancipation. But among certain ethnic groups one can detect a general movement toward the other end, namely to belong in an unconscious community, to swim with the tide. The psychic gradients, I would argue, go in different directions.

In traditional psychological terms we can, among certain ethnic groups, speak of a collective mother complex, i.e., a constitutive psychological dependency that gear them toward collective adjustment, whether it's the small group or the overarching society. This overall tendency is weaker among other ethnic groups, where the individual has an incentive for independency.

A case in point are the ancient Egyptians who would want to remain in the warm embrace of the unconscious, where life was regulated according to Maat, the eternal universal law, and everything was cyclically created anew. In later civilisations where emancipation of consciousness is the underlying motif, we have abandoned cyclical time and adopted finite linear time.

A Swedish journalist related how she gave an expensive watch to a helpful Egyptian young man, but he got angry and threw the clock out of sight. He wanted to remain unknowing of time, and, as far as possible, live in the embrace of the unconscious. Rural people in India are often the same, they do not want to advance their consciousness. They entertain their polytheistic cult which serves the purpose of remaining in a blissful state of unconsciousness. They have no wish to kill their gods by integrating the archetypes which they stand for. Instead they elevate them in worship.

Comparatively, our white culture will always tend to disrupt the gradient toward unconsciousness. I, as a white man, would tend to challenge, to question, to disrupt any attempts toward accomplishing a "steady state" of consciousness, i.e., a mind at comfortable rest, as it were. The notion of "democracy", in itself, demands of its practitioners that they develop their consciousness in continual conflict. But people at the other end of the spectrum prefer a universe which is delineated from the beginning, like the ancient Egyptian concept of Maat, the primordial divine law.

In this context, emancipation would be understood foremostly as a psychological process. A psychologically emancipated person can think what he likes, and can direct his energy in any way he wants, independently of the surrounding collective. So I'm not foremostly discussing economical emancipation and education, etc., although there is certainly a connection.

The gradient of consciousness, its direction, might be a powerful factor in causing segregation, and might explain why some ethnicities have difficulties blending in with society. A matriarchal consciousness, i.e., a characteristic gradient of consciousness, is not appropriate for a Western European patriarchal culture. Hence a particular individual, an immigrant possibly, will tend not to individuate, but remain in a psychological backwater. Had he lived in a traditional environment, suitable for his psychological makeup, then he could individuate according to the premises of that culture. It's a different form of individuation, but he will come to maturity.

An important difference between patriarchal and matriarchal cultures is the level of differentiation in the principles of eros and logos. Marie-Louise von Franz says:

Man in our civilization is ahead of woman in the civilizing process. In South India, the humanizing of woman, and of eros, seems to be ahead of the West. There women are proud of their femininity, and there is a more differentiated attitude to eros. In the West, there is toughness, vulgarity, and lack of differentiation of the eros level, and far greater logos differentiation than in the East (1993, p.26).


Ethnic unconscious

The previous account would rhyme with notions of a racial or ethnic unconscious. It's true that C.G. Jung, when discussing the collective unconscious, does not want to talk of "race-specific contents". However, there is in Jungian psychology a notion of a "cultural complex" which originates with Jung's early work on complex theory, and his discussion of ethnic and racial psychological characteristics.

Jungians have always subscribed to a notion of a "group unconscious" and even speak of it at the family level. When a child has problems, it might really derive from the family unconscious. The child cannot be cured if the family isn't cured.

Likewise, an ethnic group can be possessed by an ethnic complex. The typical individual is to a great part a collective being. While he is an individual in his conscious domain (and must be respected for that), in his unconscious he is in great measure a collective being. Therefore, an individual cannot only be analysed as an isolated entity, but we must also look for a sickness in the collective, possibly a cultural complex.

A certain cultural complex, which is helpful for adaptation in an individual's indigenous culture, might become an impediment if that person migrates to another culture (or that culture migrates to him). His cultural complex could then become a factor of neurosis. It is becoming more and more obvious that cultural complexes are more "hardwired" than we earlier thought.

Joseph Henderson, a colleague of Jung, discussed the notion of a "cultural unconscious", which he introduced in an address at the 2nd International Jungian Congress in Zürich in 1962 (vid. Singer 2002). This idea has received much attention lately in the Jungian world (vid. Singer 2004).

Henderson situates the cultural unconscious topographically between the collective unconscious and the personal unconscious. Michael Vannoy Adams has his own take on this. He says, "I redefine the 'collective unconscious', it comprises not only archetypal factors but also stereotypical factors, which include apparently 'racial' factors (collective attitudes and behaviors that are really ethnic factors)." He has forcefully criticized the negligent attitude of the human and social sciences to racial and ethnic issues from a perspective of the collective unconscious (cf. Adams 1996).


An heroic consciousness

The way in which white African farmers describe the black workers serves to illustrate a certain "gradient of consciousness". Farmers typically portray them as good men and women, who work during the day, and then sit down by the fire at nights, telling stories and having a good time. But they just don't seem to have any aspirations in life, they are somehow lacking in ambition.

Compare with the typical Westerner, who tends not to be lacking in ambition, even if he has little schooling. At least he intends to start some business in car repair, or whatever. It seems like they have an "upward gradient" of consciousness, whereas many an African has a supremely gifted talent at "feeling good in his neighbourhood", even if nothing essential happens during his entire life. It is wholly logical. The social consequences are painful enough for the ambitious individual who attempts to break lose from collective identification.

I have also noted that, among Africans, Arabs, Syrians, and other ethnic groups, there is a strong tendency to keep to themselves, to socialize with people who look like themselves. Certain ethnic groups tend to put much emphasis on the microsocial perspective, and the individual is to a great extent carried by the collective.

This social principle could be explained psychologically by a "leveled gradient", which implies that there is no impetus toward individual emancipation. The foremost principle is instead to be carried by the collective, as opposed to having ambitions and to journey somewhere in life.

In my country, when white kids are put into a major school, they seem to adjust to ethnic variety, while the black kids, and other foreign ethnicities, tend to bunch up and surround themselves with familiar faces. They have a higher level of anxiety, and they more often react with fear and aggression. The situation in the U.S. seems to be very similar.

It seems like the "tribal consciousness" is more pronounced. The individual and the tribe are one. Comparatively, Western culture is more "heroic". It reflects on the achievement and the emancipation of the individual, which, in a Hollywood film, also proves to be a great boon to the collective. Compare the centrality of the hero myth in historical Western society versus African cultures.

What, then, will happen if the "heroic" European consciousness is allayed in a melting pot where racial amalgamation, including social and cultural assimilation, is taking place? The level of consciousness of a people is the foundation of its cultural region. Beethoven, Matisse, Edison and Einstein have all managed to evolve their inner talent because Western culture is, at its core, supportive of individual emancipation and growth.

Comparatively, Islamic cultures tend to be paternalistic, not patriarchal, while behind the facade the mother principle rules. Everything tends to revolve around the ideal of the mother, including the motherly boons of safety, nourishment, and comfort. There is no marked heroism in such cultures.

How does our occidental humanism compare with the non-reflective and more encompassing culture of Islam? Would the named individuals have been able to flourish in the Islamic circle? Instead of resorting to crude concepts of racial superiority, I have proposed the idea that the accomplishments of successful individuals must partly depend on our way of individual emancipation, our "hero cult", a cultural factor which also has taken root in the genome of the general Westerner.

The creative Western individual is heroic in the sense that he strives to become a true individual able to choose his own path, something which releases the creative force inside. But, while the emancipated person embraces a true individuality, he also becomes problematic, not given to an African outlook of "feeling good among one's neighbours". This is borne out by the biographical record.

Ethnic differences dispose people toward different societal systems. Some ethnicities can never comply with, or feel at home in, our Western patriarchal and heroic culture. The homologous view of humanity adopted by politicians and columnists flies in the face of empirical facts. The average member of a certain ethnic group can only do himself justice in a culture that recognizes his constitutive capabilities. If the culture encourages it, one can grow to maturity according to constitutive premises.


Matriarchal consciousness

A gradient toward individual accomplishment, perhaps triggered by epigenetic or evolutionary factors, could play a role in socialization. Certain ethnic groups would fare better in a collective project when his intelligence and zest awakens. The people who today live in Cairo are the descendants of the pyramid builders, something which many Westerners find it hard to perceive.

In the historical perspective, I have no illusions of "racial superiority". Comparatively, where were we Europeans at 1500 BC, when the Olmecs started building impressive cities in Central America? The Olmecs had a written language, and the oldest written artefact yet found, a stone tablet, is from about 900 BC. Over the centuries tables are turning. In a millennium or two Western culture could again be in demise.

I propose that those ethnicities that are deficient in an emancipative gradient would do themselves much better justice in a matriarchal culture, a modern equivalent of pre-Columbian Central America, where people were enveloped by society on all sides. Those societies were constituted like a great Mother goddess, an advanced collective thought-process, as it were. The intelligence of the Toltec, Maya, Aztec, etc., comes to expression in their vast knowledge about mathematics (they knew about the zero), astronomical exactitude, and their architectural achievements.

By comparison, our modern patriarchal societies do not envelop the individual, but instead expect initiative and commitment from him. Advancement depends to a higher degree on the individual. An emancipative type of consciousness in the general population will give rise to a patriarchal culture. If this is correct, then culture is, to a higher degree than expected, determined from within, and not only from environmental factors.

The conclusion is that certain ethnicities, due to a different unconscious structure, would fare much better in a society that honours matriarchal principles. If this is true, then the building of an African civilisation according to Western patriarchal principles could be counterproductive. The result is only discouraging. Both the individual and collective society are rendered impotent and deprived of vitality.

By way of illustration, a matriarchal consciousness could be likened to a moonlit night, when things appear blurred. A patriarchal consciousness, on the other hand, functions like a bright cone of light. It sees all the details, but outside the cone everything is black, due to a contrast effect. This makes it smaller in scope, but more precise, something which finely illustrates the scientific mind.


An ongoing regress

In ancient cultures, such as the Maya and the Egyptian, the leading principle was the material and the tangible, such as worldliness, prosperity, beauty, social status, etc. This is ameliorated by the matriarchal consciousness itself, while it naïvely experiences that matter is spirit, too, or at least nearly so. In ancient Egypt the corpse, after having been turned into a mummy, was also the god Osiris. What we moderns view as the most revolting material object was actually the highest spirit.

Luxuriousness and well-being were the ideals, because this life was simultaneously a life in the spirit. There is a crux. In order to maintain a matriarchal frame of mind, it necessitates a low level of consciousness, a constitutive naïveté which allows the subject to actually find meaning in his worldly endeavours, collecting riches and objects of status, such as a beautiful house, etc. The worldly thing is spirit to him. The modern patriarchal consciousness, on the other hand, has lost that naïveté. At this level, it makes no sense to waste your life chasing after glistening "glass pearls", in whatever form.

I have argued that the tendency toward an archaic level of consciousness not only derives from a divided genetic makeup, but also from the purely psychological tendency of "going black". Americans, as a case in point, make a curious impression while they seem much engulfed in matters of success and material wealth that they more and more make the appearance of an ancient matriarchal culture. Today, in the U.S., the Christian prosperity movement preaches wealth and opulence as the very goals of a life in the spirit: "Jesus wants you to be rich" [and the] word of God is the gateway to the world of wealth." (CNN 2006, here). According to TIME magazine, 61 percent of Christian Americans believe God wants people to be financially prosperous (cf. Biema 2006). Similar to aboriginal peoples Americans have this strong penchant for anything that sparkles; anything which endows its owner with status, whether it's titles, big cars, Nobel prize medals, or maybe even a more splendid barbecue than the neighbour. Many Americans, like the aborigines, still put great value in "glass pearls", as it were.

Most revealingly, it is becoming more common among Americans to believe that a rich person is morally better than a poor person, and that the latter deserves no better. This is an unmistakable sign of an encroaching matriarchal consciousness, while it employs essentialistic social hierarchies, as exemplified by the ancient Minoans. The Cretans, for instance, thought that if a person was prosperous and handsome, then he had greater value than other people, because the gods smiled at him. So the prosperous man is being taken care of by a good Mother, which is his matriarchal universe. Thus he remains a privileged child, maintaining an undeveloped personal morale. In this way the regress to relative unconsciousness brings with it the ambivalent and amoral qualities of the unconscious.

The ongoing backslide to a matriarchal level of consciousness is an ominous sign. A collective consciousness on the downgrade combined with a highly technological civilisation is not a reassuring combination, especially not in the face of today's religio-political and climatological crisis. The individual in this context cannot easily gear down and make less demands on opulence and well-being, something that will have destructive environmental consequences. Due to his constitutive naïveté he might be practically unable, like a child, to see factual problems beyond the horizon. In fact, only the visible is regarded as real. The weak consciousness of the ego creates the danger of being overhauled by a collective unconscious phantasmagoria.


The patriarchal conception

The patriarchal conception originated with the formulation of monotheism, and reached a peak with Plato, Jesus, and St Paul. According to the patriarchal thinkers, it's not the visible and tangible which is the leading principle, it is the invisible life in the spirit which means something. What really counts are the properties and characteristics that transcend the world. Plato declared the equality of women, despite the fact that they appeared to be the weaker sex. In the ideal state, he said, women would take up 250 seats of 500 in the parliament. It would have caused one or more raised eyebrows among fellow philosophers.

St Paul reasons in a similar fashion. While it's invisible nature that counts, "[t]here is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 03:28).

As a result the poor man has equal status before God as the rich man, and this is what underlies today's egalitarian principles in Western society. According to the patriarchal conception, the poor man has even better chances of passing through the "needle's eye" while he is not being exposed to corruption by money and societal status. This is emphasised by Jesus when he says, "...many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first" (Mat 19:30).

This is this advanced thoughtway that Western civilisation is now receding from. The principle of the equality of all men (that we are spiritually of equal value) comes to expression in equality in legal proceedings, medical treatment, etc. Americans, especially, have more and more come to sidestep the patriarchal principle, which represents a tremendous achievement by medieval man. It gradually took root in the souls of people, and not only in institutions, and in roman law. Today, the matriarchal regress undergoing in modern man generates compensations from the unconscious, as in the following dream of a forty-five year old woman:

I entered my house toward evening. The entry hall was empty, without furniture; there was only the bare floor. On it, lying on a pile of straw, was a shabbily clothed man who looked like a tramp. I knew it was Christ. He shone with the whitest dazzling light, for his body was made out of glowing-hot metal! Smiling, he said to me, "You could do me a favor. Take a bowl full of water and poor it over me to damp down my radiance." I carried out his wish, and the water steamed from him with a hiss. Now his body was made of dark metal, but very limber and alive. He said with a smile, "Thank you." (M-L von Franz, 1999, pp. 72-73).

Symbiotic relations

Europe goes through a radical change of culture. Traditional patriarchal culture elevates personal capacity and independence as ideals. A transition to matriarchy is now underway, when people turn to the symbiotic ideal. In order to achieve symbiosis it is necessary to drive away those people that stand out from the group. This will achieve homogeneity, when all people are constituent parts of one and the same collective psyche. Hence there are only two alternatives: (1) symbiosis or (2) expulsion. This means that mobbing at workplaces and schools will continue to increase, and there exist no therapeutic methods to prevent it. Comparatively, an ideal patriarchal society fosters psychologically independent individuals, and mobbing is therefore a minor problem. Indeed, each and every one is a deviant on account of his/her individual nature.

A true individual keeps other people at arm's length. This is essential to be able to relate, in the true sense of the word. However, the symbiotic ideal (which can be likened to the mother's symbiosis with the child) destroys all possibilities of a relatedness proper, as it leads to the merger of psyches. Note that certain immigrant etnicities, especially Africans, often experience Europeans as cold and rejecting. Unlike the Western Europeans they are symbiotic by nature, having their roots in the matriarchal cultural circle. It's not possible to repair this split other than through a regressive turn in the European population, who will become symbiotic, too. A matriarchal regress must lead to catastrophic consequences for our civilization. It will not only lead to the demise of many individuals through mobbing, but our psychological independence and enterprising spirit will wither away. Already today, employers complain at the lack of moral competence among the youth. This is a consequence of the Mother-society—the Likeness-society.


Conclusion

In the present time, we are falling away from the conquests of original Western consciousness and acculturation. This is a process that must be stemmed, otherwise future will strike back with a vengeance. Diplomacy and politics, alone, cannot solve the problems of the world. A high level of consciousness must be revitalized and maintained in the general population.

Today's upsurge of matriarchal reasoning ought to be resisted and criticised. After all, responsibility for the world cannot be entrusted to a people at an archaic level of consciousness. It is necessary to relieve the general Westerner of his empty materialistic aspirations. He needs to gear down, and begin to "think small", not the least for environmental reasons.

If our beautiful earth is going to survive, as is often argued, we are dependent on an advanced technology and the hard sciences. However, a conscious regress would be detrimental to science and engineering. Therefore a more urgent question is the collective level of consciousness. A better understanding of the constitutive nature of mankind, including the wisdom of the unconscious, are very important to maintain a high level of consciousness.

Much of this boils down to morality. How is a people who is stuck in an adolescent stage going to take responsibility for the world, as in the urgent matter of global warming, for instance? So where does the general Westerner stand today, in terms of level of general consciousness and grade of maturity? This is a cause for concern.

The difficulties created by the mingling of cultures give rise to overcompensations in the form of a naïve belief in the boons of a multicultural society. Among the politically correct, there is a puritanical unwillingness to confront the issue. Due to an unconscious dissonance in society, an indigenous evil risks growing stronger and stronger, while the assurances that we are on the right path become more and more zealous and one-eyed. But it's only the well-known tactics of the ostrich, namely to bury one's head in the sand.



Mats Winther, Jan 2008.












Notes

(1) There exists no agreement as to the meaning of patriarchal and matriarchal. Wikipedia says: "Though some modern anthropologists and sociologists assert that there are no known examples of human matriarchies from any point in history, there is no consensus about this question [and due] to a lack of any clear and consistent definition of the word 'matriarchy' the term 'matrifocality' has begun to be preferred by several anthropologists to refer to societies with focus on women and especially mothers though not necessarily dominated by women or mothers."
I, however, make use of the term "matriarchal" from a psychological point of view. Even if society is seemingly ruled by warlike men it could be ruled by a woman anyway, namely the mother goddess. The mother complex could be in ascendancy. Anthropologists and feminists tend to look at the outer relations, that is, whether it's matrilineal, factually ruled by women, etc. What they don't seem to appreciate is that the society can be ruled by the "woman in the unconscious", namely Magna Mater.






AFTERWORD

Phallocentrism as veiled matriarchy.



"...There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries," said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. "It's not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better..." (NY Times article, 'In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice' here.)

I have argued that immigration, together with degenerative factors in Western culture, forces society toward the matriarchal end of the spectrum. By this is implied a collective psychology which is rooted in a collective mother complex, where the male is often unconsciously identified with the "Mother's phallus" (a notion deriving from world mythology and from Freud).

The "phallic personality" is a well-researched theme in psychoanalytic literature. Among certain ethnic groups, phallocentrism has emerged as a step on the ladder in the evolution of consciousness. The phallic personality tends to be reckless, prideful, and narcissistic, prone to violence and intimidation.

The phallic individual compensates his mother tie with an aggressive persona, trying to appear like the powerful man which he is not - he is merely the erect phallus on the body of the Mother. This creates the well-known machismo personality. He could also be called the male chauvinist type. This personality structure appears in all ethnicities, but he is more common among certain ethnic groups. These cultures, due to their phallocentrism, are often branded as "patriarchal". But underneath the phallic personality structure hides the mother complex. This is the reason why I brand them as a veiled form of matriarchy.

As ethnicities at this cultural level is now migrating to Western Europe and North America, an understanding of the psychological determinants is becoming more acute. Today, we often see headlines about criminality or domestic violence among immigrants, honour killings, etc. I contend that this phenomenon is strongly predicated on the "phallic" bias of immigrant ethnicities. Although it is regularly understood as frustration deriving from being an outsider in society, these antagonistic feelings are amplified in the phallic individual.


European Psychology and its Rooting in the Interiority of the Middle Ages (added Oct 18, 2011)

Some people appreciate the freshness of the "naive realism" of the Africans, and other Third World ethnicities. It contrasts starkly with the restrained persona of the ethnic Swede or Englishman, whose attitude of reservedness derives from a constant occupation with the inner world. We are still looking inwards, an attitude which the medievals instilled in us. However, as I will point out in the following lines, a psychology of "naive realism" will cause great social damage, and in the end pose a threat to the democratic order. Therefore it is imperative that the Western world remains true to the perspective of interiority. The notorious propaganda against the "Dark Ages" must cease. We must begin to appreciate the enormous impact of European Middle Ages in our lives today. In fact, in a sense, we need to go back to the source, to reawaken the Middle Ages, to replenish interiority.

As Westerners have slowly begun to understand, Muslims moving to the West have a curiously anti-Western way of looking at things. Sharia is very much about regulating reality. For instance, this curious idea that women must always hide themselves behind large sheets of fabric—what's all that about? The focus on ego-protection is very central to the phallic-narcissistic level of culture. If women are allowed to show how attractive they are, the male is gripped by desire—he wants to own that woman who happens to pass him. But as he cannot have her, he experiences this as a violation of his ego. His ego must needs suffer constant narcissistic injury in a society which has not been adjusted according to very strict norms of control.

This deep feeling of offence is difficult to comprehend for Westerners who do not suffer from a narcissistic syndrome themselves. Such a psychology has much in common with the chronic neurotic type. These people experience it as a violation of their ego if there exists another person in a discussion group who surpasses them intellectually, but who refrains from mutual narcissistic reinforcement (vulg. "butt-licking"). The latter ritual is very common among neurotics, and they seem to enjoy it as it is very gratifying to their ego.

It is interesting to discuss the neurotic type as an atavistic phenomenon, a throwback to the phallic-narcissistic stage, perhaps influenced by genetic factors. The phallic-narcissistic psychic economy is inferior, while a modern psychic economy is more advanced and adaptable to the modern society. I posit the idea that neurotics tend to fall back on the primitive phallic-narcissistic way of functioning as a form of atavism. It's the same notion as an advanced machine, e.g., an airplane that is governed by computers and electric signalling. Should the advanced system malfunction, then it can be steered with mechanical wires. Likewise, a malfunctioning human psyche can fall back on a more primitive mode of functioning.

Psychoanalysts have always observed that neurotics appear infantile in diverse ways. So they have always thought that the neurotic is stuck in a childhood way of functioning. This is another way of putting it, of course. But what if this "infantile" psychic economy represents an atavism, and what really happens is that the neurotic makes use of the "backup system"? In a sense his illness is rooted in childhood, but it is really a throwback to an earlier epoch in our history.

Arguably, had the neurotic existed in that earlier epoch, he would not be neurotic, but his psychic economy would harmonize with the surrounding. There would be no disruptive modern people around who insist on thinking freely and questioning things. Society is wholly regulated and all people always keep to the olden ways. Now and then, every 100 years or so, the priest or medicine man presents a new idea. Otherwise society is like a big Kindergarten, where people are fitted into their respective roles, and there is really no such thing as true individuality. Arguably, this is the reason why neurotics are so keen on creating a regulated Kindergarten society. They want society to follow the olden ways, that harmonize with their own inferior psychic economy.

In the Muslim world and elsewhere, women who reject their suitor sometimes gets acid thrown in their face. This is another way of destroying their attractive power and thus healing the ego of the offender. Those who, for instance, have power of intellect or beauty, and who won't lower themselves to mutual narcissistic reinforcement, are experienced as deadly threats to the weak ego. This could help to explain the unthinking nature of the phallic-narcissistic societies, and their cultural inferiority in everything that concerns the intellect. Arguably, the idea is to remove everything from society that risks harming the ego, thereby creating a harmonious society. As people at the phallic-narcissistic level are extremely prone to suffer narcissistic injury, society must be built on very strict control; rules, rules, rules, control, control, control. Beautiful women must be imprisoned behind four walls or their faces scorched, intelligent people must be removed, one way or the other. This will create an orderly society without incessant injury to the ego and adherent narcissistic explosions of rage.

Arguably, the Islamic ban on iconic representation, especially of the human form, is predicated on the very same ego defensive tactic, to remove that which stirs the acquisitiveness of the ego. At this cultural level, the personality lacks the powers of control present at the Western level. Therefore, control must remain external, in the form of 'sharia' law, for instance. The "locus of control" is different. To Western man, with the exception of the neurotic type, "desire", "beauty", "fear", etc., are experiences that derive from the inside. To dwellers of the Third World, it's the other way round.

Most notably, Africans typically experience that fear comes from without. If a black man passes a stranger he might experience a sudden fright. This means that he has been hit by something from outside, namely a form of evil emitted by that stranger. From this moment, he knows that the stranger is evil, some way or the other, and he has to take measures to defend himself. In Europe today, black people think they can return the evil spirit, and make it bounce back, by staring at the person who evoked their fright. They return the effects of the "evil eye" by reflecting it back as a mirror, they believe. In this way disease can be avoided, etc. The president of the Association of African-Swedes stated publicly that "-I see evil in the eyes of Swedes". For the same reason it is common to spit after Swedes, similar to the practice of spitting at black cats.

To the Westerner the locus of control is different as we are endowed with the capacity of "projection". A characteristic of projection is that it can be withdrawn. If something evokes a feeling of fear, we are capable of withdrawing it immediately. So, yet again it is decided that a projection has emerged from the inside. As control has thus been internalized, there is less need for control on the outside. There is no need for the primitive ritual defenses that are so damaging to the social situation. I contend that the capacity of interiority is a necessary condition for the establishment of democratic society. There is an underlying expectation that the individual can take charge of himself.

A Westerner who sees an attractive woman wearing a short skirt knows, in the general case, that the sexual attraction he experiences comes from the inside. It is his own sexuality which is stirred and he can therefore control it. In fact, his feeling of attraction has nothing to do with her. That woman likes to be beautiful and attractive because it strengthens her well-being. To a man lacking in interiority, however, that woman has emitted her sexual power which has hit him from the outside, and that's what causes his sexual arousal. It is tantamount to a sexual invitation. This psychological discrepancy creates immense social problems in Europe, today. It is also the reason why many immigrants experience European women as "whores".

The capacity of interiority was cultivated during the European Middle Ages, when it decidedly took root in the human soul. The interior psychological perspective has its roots in Antiquity. It began to take shape around 600 BC(?) with the introverted ascetic traditions. Via pre-Christian Gnosticism, Stoicism, and Platonism, it blossomed out as Christianity, as formulated by Jesus, St Paul, St Augustine, etc. In history books, it is again and again pointed out how "inferior" Europe was during the "Golden Age" of Islam. The "ignorant" Europeans took recourse in faith, while the Muslims successfully cured many ills thanks to the teachings of Avicenna.

It is a correct observation that Europe was lagging behind in the area of external knowledge. But this is a necessary consequence of the strong focus on interiority. This capacity, largely an effect of the strong devotion of the medievals, is what underlies European psychology today; our internal control locus, our democratic mentality, our capacity of not rushing to conclusion, but methodically to extract the truth. The Third World has never undergone such an era of interiority, which partly explains their backwardness today. Although medieval Europe is portrayed as inferior, in reality it was superior in terms of interiority, undergoing great suffering from the plague, etc., learning to withdraw projections from the world.

Thus, faith became firmly rooted in the soul, as well as all other passions. When there exists no inner faith, there is a call to establish it on the outside, i.e., to institutionalize and regulate faith according to religious law. When passions grip the ego from outside, there is a call to create a perfectly regulated and undemocratic society, to take control of the demons.

In this context it is relevant to discuss European-American cultural clashes. Ethnic Europeans can have projections and swiftly withdraw them, without even noticing that they occurred. They expect this capacity of the Americans, too. But it seems like the Americans (in very general terms, of course) have started to move away from the perspective of interiority. They expect other people to make them feel good, i.e. not to brusquely tell them the truth, but rather to make a false pretense, smiling when you ought to say what's on your heart, etc. Europeans, for their part, like to "tell it to your face" without much ado. Should the other party experience it as "evil", we expect him to withdraw the projection within a second. As a consequence, Americans can experience Europeans as overly frank and lacking in esteem.

European businessmen experience the American attitude of pretense as extremely frustrating. They travel back to Europe and wonder why the order never arrives. In fact, the Americans only wanted him to feel good, they never intended to place an order. In fact, this very attitude is very outspoken among primitives. To the frustration of the anthropologists primitives tend to say the things they believe that the researcher wants to hear, in order to make him happy.

This movement away from interiority is a worrying development. We begin to see a similar pattern in Europe, today. I have observed that some people have taken to smiling at every black person they meet, to convince him that he is not an evil demon, i.e. a racist. Traditionally, this is known as a false smile as it is just a mask of pretense. However, to the average African immigrant there is no such thing as false pretense since reality is what the outside impresses on you. If a person smiles at you it will make you happy, and this means that something good has come from the outside. It is a wholly uncritical and unthinking attitude, completely foreign to the European consciousness. If we are going to handle the looming social problems of society it is high time to abandon the homologous view of humanity. A good understanding of human variety will aid us in confronting future social problems. Psychological understanding, in itself, will have a good therapeutic effect on the very many people who are made to suffer due to the changing psychosocial patterns in society.



References

Adams, M. V. (1996). The Multicultural Imagination: "Race", Color, and the Unconscious. London and New York: Routledge.

Biema, D. van, Chu, J. (2006). 'Does God Want You To Be Rich?' TIME magazine, Sep. 10, 2006, here.

Franz, M. L. von (1993). The Feminine in Fairy Tales. Shambala. (orig. publ. 1972.)

  --------       (1999). Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche. Shambhala.

Singer, T. (2002). 'The Cultural Complex and Archetypal Defenses of the Collective Spirit'. The San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal. Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002 pp. 5-28, here.

  -------- (2004). The Cultural Complex: Contemporary Jungian Perspectives on Psyche and Society. Brunner-Routledge.

Pembrey ME, Bygren LO, Kaati G, et al. (2006). 'Sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses in humans'. Eur J Hum Genet. 2006 Feb;14(2):131-2 (abstract here.)

Post, L. van der. (1978). Jung and the Story of Our Time. Penguin Books.

Watters, E. (2006). 'DNA Is Not Destiny. The new science of epigenetics rewrites the rules of disease, heredity, and identity'. DISCOVER magazine 11.22.2006, here.


See also:

Dimitrova S. 'The New Image of the Self in a Multicultural Perspective' here.

Dunham, W. (2007). 'Rapid acceleration in human evolution described'. Reuters, Mon Dec 10, 2007, here.

CNN: American Morning. Aired September 26, 2006 - 08:59 ET. See here.

ScienceDaily. 'Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?'. Retrieved January 31, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126203207.htm (here).

EuropeNews. 'Danish Psychologist: »Integration of Muslims in Western Societies is not possible«'. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from http://europenews.dk/en/node/21789 (here).

Winther, M. (2010). 'Insights into the Race Issue' (here).

  --------  (2009). 'Symbolic Poverty' (here).

  --------  (2010). 'Critique of Feminism - a discussion' (here)





© Mats Winther, 2008