Refining What 21st Century Progress Should Mean

I’ve recently come back from a trip to India.  As would be expected, they have totally different points of reference when it comes to societal codes. 

On the one hand, living of life that we keep behind closed doors or in back yards, they live out in the open, before anyone’s eyes to see: washing clothes, combing hair, feeding children, napping…   For a Westerner, it’s rare to glimpse what is usually private, intimate… and left me with a rather friendly invitation to focusing on our common humanity and daily lives. 

On the other hand, the sexual and the sensual so ostentatiously flaunted in the West are, in India, more latent and discreet. 

This got me to thinking about the society I would like to build, the one I would like to welcome my children; I got to thinking about what constitutes progress and how it comes about.

Oftentimes, countries that are emerging have the luxury of adopting the technological advances of the first world countries, then improving upon them thanks to a combination of their own vision and the benefit of others’ learning curves.   Instead of following the same slow curve of progress as the initiators, these countries can jump start at the heights where others’ progress has reached.  For example, despite widespread poverty, nearly 74% of India’s population (over 880 million), own mobile phones (http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column_why-india-has-more-cell-phones-than-toilets_1655351) and enjoy stunningly low rates for communications compared to many first world countries. 

But does this same “progress curve” rule apply to social and societal advancement?

Looking around some parts of India, I witnessed this:

But what did I discover on the cover of the Indian publication of GQ?

This is practically racier and more extreme than Western standards, which are already in great need of revision.

What I find disturbing is for “progress” and, I suppose, “freedom” to have the face of images that are so deprecating for women.  Should modernity be represented by visuals that suggest a woman’s main value amounts to her surgically enhanced breasts?  Is this what we should be aiming for?  Should we allow a great international media machine to pull countries with much potential and richness to slip into anti-progressive attitudes for women as a sign of advancement compared to traditional attitudes?

Is it progress for one’s body to be a commodity?  Is it progress for the person to be reduced to a sexual object?  I don’t mean to imply that beautiful women can’t represent anything other than sex.  But I do mean to imply that every time we mainstream and focalize on pornography (which used to have a reserved time, place, and function), we sideline the other hard-won aspects of woman-become-subject (vs. the “object” Simone de Beauvoir so aptly identified at the beginning of the 20^th century).  This ostentation also raises the pressure on overly busy women trying to “have it all” to unreasonable standards of Monotheistic Beauty & body in the seduction game, as well as feeds unreasonable expectations in terms of our sexual performance (as opposed to sexual fulfillment)…

The more extreme this ostentation becomes, the harder becomes the backlash of who reject such extremes.  Take, for example, the resurgence of French women choosing to veil themselves.  For some, it is a means to reject this sex-centeredness.  For others, it’s a means of survival in their environment (the creation of the group called “ni putes ni soumises” in 2003 brought attention to the regressive choice for young French women living in the “cités” to dress in bulky sweat suits or veil themselves to avoid being cast as a hoar and become an easy target for slander or even rape / gang rape).  Another example is the adoption of “women’s only” space on public trains and subways in India to help protect women from unwanted staring, fondling, or worse. 

But, in a modernized and/or modernizing world, surely we needn’t resort to veils or segregation to shield ourselves from an unhealthy objectivizing gaze?

Artist Shreyas Karle collecting data for the “closed space fantasy meditation” and studying “camouflage to get around censorship”

I usually balk at these types of innovations because, for me, men should learn to control themselves and change their gaze rather than forcing women to cover themselves.  There is no reason for making the woman simultaneously the victim and the one to pay amends while the actual perpetrators are shielded from any responsibility.

After all, is progress about makeshift protection or about reevaluating the rights and obligations of each empowered member of a society?

But for this, we need to get collectively clearer on exactly what “empowered” entails in a progressive society.  I have already voiced my opinion on this subject, but India’s hesitation between the dynamic progress of human industry and superficial Western codes of sexual liberation has helped me realize other adjacent issues to be addressed and unintended consequences to measure:

·         Where is our frontier for intimacy?  There was an article a year or 2 ago about young women getting piercings in the vicinity of their pubis to reassure themselves there were still some parts of their bodies seen by a select few.  We exhibit more and more of ourselves, enabled by social media to spill out all of our private lives over the world wide web… creating a greater need for exhibitionism and approbation… and in turn leading us to build our sense of self and worth only through the other’s gaze.  Intimacy is a means for reclaiming our own prerogatives and preferences.  But when it is eroded, our defenses and confidence erode as well.  To give a concrete example, check out the youtube “am I pretty?” in which young women, even young girls, ask the internet to rate their beauty.  They are clearly tying up their self concept to others’ gazes while diminuing their intimacy and personal territory. 

·         Where may we safeguard a harbor for desire?  For longing?  Love and lust are increasingly commoditized and beholden to our consumerist expectations of instant gratification whereas the bylaws of more lasting and fulfilling relationships seem to build according to a slower dance.  We should start giving the market of love a little more substance and a little less “eye candy”.  But as long as love is misused as a way of confirming our self-worth and societal acceptance (like in the “am I pretty?” videos) instead of self-discovery and growth, we will be demeaning one of the world’s most important renewable resources and sources of hope and welfare.

·         What is our responsibility for protecting our children and How far can we allow media to go with its soft to hard porn without it creating new social norms that cross a serious (albeit unintended) line of fostering children’s sexual exploitation (cf. The See Hear Speak Campaign)? 

These are the kinds of questions no one wants to consider for fear of taking away liberties.  But the other day, when I was walking in the street in a Parisian suburb with a dress whose skirt flowed just above the knee, I felt quite uncomfortable and isolated as young men made suggestive remarks and the other women nearby were veiled.   Could it be that if we toned down ever so slightly our race to sex-centeredness, we could preserve our right to dress lightly in full confidence?  It’s time for us to establish our own conditions on these questions before we find ourselves all locked-in a bind, far from the real liberty and progress we’re seeking to preserve.

Let me know what you think.

Talk to you next week for another bite from the apple,

Eve

When will we accept we are like quarks? Part 5: Love need not be crystallized

Once we’ve accepted that identity need not be definitive and individuals need not be singular, it follows that love need not be crystallized. 

This may seem obvious… and yet looking around, it seems that it isn’t quite so easy to apply to our current mores. 

Reading articles and talking around me, women today still are expecting to meet Mr. Right, Mr. Perfect, and/or her very own Prince Charming.  When (if) she does, he’s just right and great… often until the first complication (be it a difference, a misunderstanding, or frustration).  Her reflex?  Jump into the sea of interrogation:  is this really love?  Is he really the one for me?  Is he the man of my dreams?  Where is this relationship heading and do I like where it’s going?  Am I making too many concessions?  Am I losing myself?

These are healthy questions and illustrate that women of today feel entitled to their own demands, to keep control over their lives, and that they’ve at last come into their own:  they are no longer the ones by default to bow with docility to the man’s prerogative.    Women today are primed to avoid making a mistake that will lead to divorce but, just in case, they are also making all the preparations to be financially autonomous to always keep their options open. 

Let me be clear:  this moral, mental, and financial autonomy is crucial progress in the fight for equality and is to be maintained and supported.

However, the comments I hear don’t always breathe empowerment; at times they mask disappointment, resignation, or vulnerability.  Every individual and each of their cases are different, of course, but I see these types of start-and-go romances as serial “shooting star relationships” in which both individuals of the would-be couple begin by correlating their projected identities (who they wish to be and how they want to be perceived) then face disappointment when one or the other discovers that the person doesn’t necessarily or currently incarnate that promise in the day to day.  The most obvious example is the slew of on-line dating services and the promises they make for finding “your other half” or “someone just like you”.  But I have seen this in traditional 100% real-life relationships just as much as relationships beginning virtually on the web.   It isn’t a question of technology; it’s a question of expectations.

What is the expectation?  To meet “my soul-mate” with whom everything is easy, effortless, and pleasant.  An individual who can fulfill “my” every desire:  passion, adventure, friendship, partnership, a good parent for my children, perhaps a good “wife”, be close but give me some distance at just the right time without me needing to say it, with the right mix of challenge, support, empathy, coaching, respect, and playfulness.  The other is also someone presentable, who can carry good status, perhaps good financial prospects, and oftentimes capable of reflecting positively on ourselves and become new proof of our own success in life.  Above all, we expect love to be effortless… and that effortlessness is the ultimate proof of love.  Anything that requires work or effort means we’re forcing the hand of love and that it isn’t the “real” thing… and we throw in the towel.

I am convinced that much of today’s trouble in love comes down to these expectations.

For a long time, neither love nor, for that matter, family or success, was really determined by the individual.  Today, our expectation is to be “happy in love”, a love that matches a romance novel.  …While we’re also looking for the man or woman who will be our “wife” and a good “partner”.  These three roles can certainly be conjugated… but the expectation of perfect three is often a reservoir of frustration and disappointment because it comes down to fragmented perfection and performance in each role, which is never sustainable for a single person.  Worse, not only are our expectations severe, but when we don’t succeed, we suffer the disappointment… or even guilt… of failure.  For me, in addition to the ills of our performance society, the trouble begins with a certain amount of confusion about love. 

First, confusion about the role we expect love to play in our lives:  we seem to believe that the other will somehow authenticate or confirm the identity we are building for ourselves.  I call this the “confirmation maze”. 

Let me explain:  since the post-modernist breakdown of the institutions that used to edify Western societies (patriarchy, marriage, top-down hierarchy, authoritarian government, authoritarian God, etc.), women’s emancipation has opened the floodgates of choice.  Suddenly, we’re wonderfully facing the vertigo of boundless individual responsibility for what we make of ourselves and who we become.  We have the “liberty” of making ourselves who we want to be… but also the “dread” of losing ourselves.  As a result, in looking around, I have the impression that many romances fall into this “confirmation maze” in which the “catch” somehow confirms to us (as well as to others) the attractiveness of the projected identity we have constructed. 

This may seem to make sense in terms of societal status in which people attempt to marry up into a higher station in life, etc., but it doesn’t sit well with our other expectations of passion or romance… and it can actually prevent us from living love for its real merit:  an opportunity to build ourselves as individuals, and build a more humane world, as I express here below.

Second, we can also note some confusion over the Spacing of Love. 

Women seem to expect Mr. Right to fit into our space without taking too much of it (for fear of losing ourselves, our autonomy, or of making too many concessions).  This type of demand is currently applauded as proof of remaining “whole” in France and representative of a woman respectfully in charge of her life through-out much of the Western world. 

But it’s also a guardedness that inhibits much of the exchange a relationship requires to not be sterile or short-lived.   

A real relationship is built by exchanges that infuse it with life, a chemical reaction that leaves neither member of the couple unchanged.  It also creates and fosters a third entity (1+1=3) that represents the 2 beings together.  In this sense, both individuals can continue to grow, their individual growths nourishing, in turn, their common relationship and project. 

However, this synergetic growth system cannot happen as long as either part of the couple holds back.  And, here, I believe, is a real key to the problem:  we all have learned to share, to give… and believe we’re contributing our fair share… when, in fact, the lack is in the receiving.  Not material gifts, but in receiving immaterial exchanges in the realm of ideas, points of view, ways of living, habits, etc.  Kind of like the type of “sharing” we see on social networks where we each spend all our time showing and telling, feeling very creative and magnanimous… without ever realizing that we’re in a soliloquy, spinning in a solipsism and comfort zone in which we are barricading out our vulnerabilities, reinforcing our projected identities… trying desperately to preserve ourselves within the world… and making us incapable and/or unwilling to receive.

Yet with no receptivity, the contact, the interaction, the relationship… the love… can’t really be or become.   

In our 21^st century, we need a return for receptivity with which we stop seeing others as an infringement on our freedom / growth and begin realizing that it’s our interaction with them and their “alterité” that will enable us to grow.  Our individuality will be fortified by exchanging and building with them.  It stands to reason that instead of seeking someone just like us (our “other half” our “soul mate”, our “mirror image”), we could revel in our differences and all that the loved one can bring to us, learn from us, help us learn about ourselves, and all we could build together. 

This, I must warn, has to be symmetrical, from BOTH parts of the couple.  We have all seen couples where clearly one has been eaten up by the other.  That’s not the point here.  The man must clearly be emancipated to open up to his vulnerabilities and be socially liberated so as to be receptive.   For the same reasons, we should also avoid a role reversal in which the woman simply becomes the dominant partner.  Forget about trying to make someone the “wife”, someone the “bitch”, and let’s work towards a respectful balance capable of love and growth. 

We can improve the Spacing of Love if we resolve our confusion over the Timing of Love. 

We expect Mr. Right to come along and somehow presume he will stay forever “right”.  But if we learn to accept that life is dynamic and by definition motion, movement, change, it seems irrelevant to expect someone met at time T to always be an inert “perfect”.  We can’t expect (nor should we desire) the other to stand still, like a still-life, and not evolve.  We, ourselves, constantly (hopefully) growing will grow out of synch with the still-life who made that former “perfect” match…  Furthermore, we won’t remain “right” for the other either …  At least not unless we each embrace the positive power of the Dynamics of 3 (1+1=3 mentioned earlier : 2 evolving individuals plus a growing relationship). 

This dynamic is promising because it means that within a couple, each can meet and re-meet the other, evolving person repeatedly.  Evolution of each individual implies constant renewal.  Let’s discover what it’s like to live by the side of someone who has now changed careers, now been promoted, now become a parent, now started a new hobby… plus this discovery takes on greater relief through our own evolving perspectives that are also constantly changing according to our own ups and downs and growth spurts.  

Our Performance Society pretends like long monogamous relationships are proof of lacking dynamism, good only for the unambitious (I’m not referring to those with serial extramarital affairs).  They’re represented as a synonym of boredom, concessions, a sign of having “settled”.  That may be true of all those who are locked in by their still-life identities that miss out on the actual Dynamics of 3 (or more, if there are children) living, evolving beings who are prepared to discover and rediscover each other.  Songs talk of love like a cocaine rush, authentic only until all the mystery is gone – “I know him so well”.  But that seems a little old-fashioned today in the 21^st century in which we, at every level of society, have access to so many ideas, social networks, possibilities, radical career changes, more than one “life” to live.  The expected timing of love should therefore shift from being a question of “right” right now to a quarkish spherical timing of “in phase” to be regularly re-actualized and reactivated, reinvented. 

These 3 degrees of confusion lead to a major unintended consequence:  The general misuse/misconception/poor practice of love, underestimation of the need for love in our world, leading to a world lacking love, walled behind its vulnerabilities and defense mechanisms, losing touch with its humanity.

And when we lose touch with our humanity… we also lose out on our gains in collective intelligence as a species… and progress for future generations.

Rendez-vous next week for a new bite from the apple.  In the meantime, share your comments based on your own knowledge and consciousness! 

Make Love to Make Youth?

As I'm preparing my piece about the quantum elements of love, I got to thinking about an article I read in Direct Matin last fall by Mélina Gazsi called “Faire souvent l’amour, c’est vivre plus longtemps” which I would translate as “Making love often lengthens life expectancy”. 

To give you the gist of the article, French cardiologist and nutritionist Frédéric Saldmann explains, “Having sex 12 times per month can lengthen life by 10 years,” in part because, “it slows many illnesses such as prostate cancer in men and breast cancer in women, as well as cardio-vascular illnesses.”  Sex also helps burn calories, exercise the heart, oxygenate the bloodstream, reduce stress, insomnia, and migraines, etc.   The information is corroborated by other specialists and partly based on the study led by English neuro-psychologist David Weeks in 2007. 

Well, it’s good news to know officially that having sex is physically and mentally beneficial, even if it isn’t much news since sexual liberation in the 70s. 

But the article got me thinking about other aspects coloring our idea of sexual activity and norms these days.

1.  Sex vs. Fulfilling Sex.  In recent years, many PhD’s in various fields and countries have been making a point about Western society’s current sexual mores:  they are increasingly modeled on pop culture representations in which girls grow up on boy-conditioned sexual pleasure.  Meaning:  most girls (and by extension young women) are seeking and learning to do what will please the boy or man they’re with rather than cultivating her own preference in terms of sexual pleasure and fulfillment  (Check out The Lolita Effect by G. Durham or G. Marier's work on hypersexuality) 
This boy-conditioned sexual pleasure is, in turn, not so much his own, but is increasingly sculpted by porn movies which, often part of their sexual initiation, put in play sexual acts effectuated by actors and actresses who are not undergoing pleasure but rather dramatizing and caricaturizing certain fantasies.  There’s a great Ted Talk from Cindy Gallop called “Make Love, Not Porn” and who points out the great confusion that has been created  (Cindy Gallop: Make love, not porn (Adult content) - YouTube, website, http://makelovenotporn.com/) but I’ve also heard the concern expressed in such books as Ariel Levy’s Raunch Culture or movies such as Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation with Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson in which there are some great scenes following porn actors on the set. 

Boy-conditioned sexual pleasure is also sculpted by music videos.  Of course men’s hip-hop and rap videos are particularly guilty, in which a vast majority depict scantily-clad beauties shaking their booty around fully-clad, oftentimes homely, men who deliberately mix sex and violence themes.   But there are plenty more examples to be found, including the same themes that have been voluntarily taken on by women.   Rihanna sings, “sticks and stones may break my bones but chains and whips excite me.  I like it, come on!” and has the final image of her video a kind of cartoonish picture of her beat up.  Another, more innocent example, would be Shakira, a beautiful talented woman and singer, can’t avoid pretending to be caged and naked because she’s in heat.  And there are many, many more. 

2.  sex, another performance trap?  This is our private life, people!  Must we really quantify such an intimate pastime?  Ha!  Maybe there isn’t a god who will judge you for your good and bad behavior but you may be rewarded… depending on how often you have sex!  So buy more Viagra if you’re too exhausted or stressed to deliver.  Start another diet and get your breasts enlarged if you want a better choice of man in your bed.  But just a “quicky” won’t cut it – it’s like exercising, you need to keep it going before you start burning calories…  what?  You’re too tired and busy?  Nonsense!  Dynamic go-getters don’t need sleep, they just need a recharge…

What a farce!

What I find troubling is certainly not sex or sensuality.  But I can’t help but wonder:  is pleasure pleasurable when it’s borrowed?  Forced?  Required?  used as medication and/or therapy to avoid growing old?  When we’re simply trying to reproduce someone else’s pleasure?  Can play-acting durably procure the advantages of real living? 

Or, is anyone paying attention to actually doing what they want to do rather than giving into the societal spiral like exhibitionism à la Girls Gone Wild?  Is that empowering?  Or is it normalizing women’s total availability for boy’s or men’s wet-dreams?

The point is that many don’t even know what constitutes their personal pleasure.  How can we help both boys and girls, men and women discover their own sense of sensuality and intimacy independent of societal diktats?  Is role playing and performance and domination the clearest path to self-discovery, knowledge, joy?  Without even mentioning love, does it seem probable that such games and performativity, which require a certain amount of control to carry through pretending allow for the space of vulnerability and exchange that make sex delicious?

And if it isn’t exquisite, does it still lengthen life any more than other sports?