Ok, I think I've got it... · 6 October 2008
What is the relationship of authoritarianism and intimacy?
This was the question I was trying to find. Questioning patriarchy isn’t a demand for gender-bending. People express their genders in so many different ways. It’s great! This has to do with personal history; and it has to do with your hormonal profile (seriously, this is fascinating: variations in hormone levels and intimate self-expression.) The energy in my self-expression is more dopamine than anything, equal parts serotonin and testosterone, and kind of low on the estrogen. And I wear high heels and, as they say, lipstick. Anyway. Gender is beautiful.
What I’m bringing to light is this very difficult, basically unseen masculine domination. I’m only doing this because I’m trying to understand a very wise teacher’s insight that yoga is going nowhere as long as it remains patriarchal. It’s pretty interesting, knowing me, that I’ve left this topic alone until now… but that’s why patriarchy continues. We’d rather not bother.
It’s like the editors of Ashtanga News, when I wrote to them about this mind-blowing article exactly a year ago. I asked, privately, why in the world they’d post something so old-school patriarchal and they said “we were just repeating what the previous woman had posted.” Yes. Exactly. This is how masculine domination gets legitimated! It’s passed on as if it’s just great and something to celebrate, and the non-critique is justified by saying it’s not our responsibility. At the time, I let it go. That is kind of bullishit on my part and all others, now that I think of it. Check out the comments on the post, too. It’s pretty amazing there was no real discussion there—only a few women expressing shreds of angst. Great illustration of the barriers to looking at this but also the fact that it's right here in front of our faces.
MM said that patriarchy is more evident in women teachers in this scene than in men. That’s true to my experience as well. In my experience authoritarianism is women’s effort to claim lineage-based authority—that is, authority within a still fundamentally patriarchal lineage. So in its manner, its still patriarchal. I could go all Pierre Bourdieu to argue this, but I have a sense that people will agree. Authoritarianism is pretty much a patriarchal thing. Yeah?
If practice is more about obedience than about self-exploration, what’s the point again? Reproducing domination seems to me to be a really large barrier to inside-intimacy as well as relational intimacy.
Sorry this is all scattered. My head’s in three places. Thanks for the patience as I try to find some traction on this topic… this blog is not normally such a haphazard scene. But it seems like a really good idea to figure out how to talk about this specifically in the context of ashtanga practice, and given the abysmal starting point here, I’m a bit at a loss for how to begin.
BTW, check out the penultimate post at Budismo e Yoga—in the article on ashtanga, there’s this wonderful discussion under the heading “Dharma en el Corazon.” The author writes that it is a great blessing to be able to use the practices of self-study without having to wrestle with the inherited baggage of a Guru system and the superstitions and self-denials this entails. I wrote to this guy to ask him if I can do a better translation of the article since the auto-translation probably isn’t great, and he said he'd be happy to work on that with me. but he did not write back. I’d go ahead and translate it anyway, but that’s a bit imperialist. A certain meaning is always lost in re-interpretation and I hesitate to take liberties with the author’s native language without his permission. I'll try to work up an English version when I have time.
Posted by (0v0)
Categories: astanga yoga
, social theory
Previous entry: Not to belabor the point, / Next entry: (dark)
Comment
Commenting is closed for this article.
A clarification from the writer at Budismo y Yoga:
It is proper to also acknowledge to your readers that I do also recommended under the heading “Conclusions” that one has to go all the way back to the Guru Parampara (Guru System) but “after” self-study, analysis and reflection (which is the vajrayana buddhist approach). Then, as you become very well informed and self-sustained in your opinions and knowledge you can commit, with a clear mind to this Guru system. Obviously—as a result of this—you would choose a Guru that represents also a high self-study, analysis and reflection qualities at the least; or further ethical, moral and emotional values.
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 6, 02:19 PM · #
Children without mothers. That’s what it’s like for the ashtangi family of practitioners. They have no one that makes jelly or dinner for them. They don’t get snuggles and bedtime stories. Who’s there to teach them how to be strong and soft at the same time?
Posted by: Susan · Oct 6, 04:01 PM · #
“Who’s there to teach them how to be strong and soft at the same time?
Yin Yoga?
And I’m being serious. It seems like the “yin yoga as complement to ashtanga” movement has gained a lot of steam over time.
Posted by: cody · Oct 6, 04:13 PM · #
Wait. It’s almost like you’re saying this practice de-values femininity.
Yoga is shamanic! It’s intense! Buck up! (?)
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 6, 04:44 PM · #
A few things in earnest:
1. This is wading awkwardly towards something very important (to me at least). Thanks for all the effort you (ovo) are putting into this and blogging in general. Ahem.
2. The idea that what we are calling yoga needs some sort of direction/directors ‘or else’ seems to me to be (yet another) expression of teleological patriarchy.
3. Lineage obsession amongst those ignorant (or dispossessed) of their own cultural/familial ‘lineages’, ever noticed this?
4. Related. Usual difficulty in dealing with gender/authority q’s (and a lot else besides): data/opinion coming from such a narrow range of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. Times ten in ashtanga land. For me, coming from a clannish, essentially matriarchal working class background in the North of England, ‘patriarchy’ (in the sense that we are using it) is redolent of war and hard work. That it brings bad news seems obvious to me but perhaps this is just an instinct( though an instinct you can sense quite clearly in even a brainbox like Eagleton).
So 6. That others don’t find that ashtanganews article mind-blowing is astonishing to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise or relativize it.
5. Coming to Guru later on in life. Just reading Balsekar on this last night. Vanaprasta?
Posted by: meniscusmerangue · Oct 7, 01:02 AM · #
For one, I liked, “if you find yourself counting things”...Hah! I count ANYTHING I’m left alone with for more than about three seconds. Dopamine-ville here we come.
Can there be authoritarianism outside, beyond, patriarchy? I find myself chewing on the overlaid circles here. For example, would we call Mussolini’s Italy patriarchal? A fascism built on blood and tribe, in a way, right? Or to put it another way, is nationalism patriarchal? Where do these circles overlap?
I think the home-practice quantity in my ashtanga really negotiates with the patriarchal potential. Sure, there’s a guru and a lineage and whatnot, but I’m a thousand miles from that, even if I “do the formula” on a mat. Hmmm.
And about “strong and soft”: for what it’s worth, Sweeney says that one restorative or recovery day a week can really mellow ashtanga over-achievement complex.
MM you get points for saying, “teleological patriarchy.” mmmmm, vocabulary.
Posted by: patrick · Oct 7, 04:42 AM · #
but Patrick, doesn’t the whole concept of “yoga criminal” reinforce the authority inherent in the practice, even if it’s a home practice?
Posted by: cody · Oct 7, 05:07 AM · #
Yes… interesting.
And… doesn’t the idea of coming to a Guru late in life or after much rational consideration reinforce the idea that you need a man from a manly lineage to get somewhere?
Why preserve the idea of a guru if it’s bound up in patriarchy?
Why do we long for a teacher? I think there are great reasons (discuss…) but also small reasons (wanting to be seen and appreciated, abject Erich Fromm style fear of freedom, a habit of performing rather than taking action).
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 7, 02:36 PM · #
Lineage obsession amongst those ignorant (or dispossessed) of their own cultural/familial ‘lineages’, ever noticed this?
Wow. I had not noticed it in this way. There's a lot there.
Does it also relate to just the drive to identify with mother India? I have in the past alleged that it does, and this I suppose is why. I was a big travel junkie in my late teens and 20s. And after a while I noticed that my other friends who, like me, were crazy to learn languages and get out of America had something we were running from at home. There’s a level of curiosity that’s taken for granted in liberal arts philosophy students who plan careers and journalists… but then there were those of us taking the cultural immersion in a different way. In a really intense escapist way tinged with forlorn, lost abandon. In my case, it was parents who required that at 18 I become a member of a Fundamentalist church and severed financial support when I declined. They feared the world beyond the US border so I left. In rage. Such a messed up situation, but what do you do? I couldn’t be honest about the anger that drove my adventures for several years. It was only seeing others who were also extreme adventurers and also alienated in some way that helped me to figure myself out.
But… there are many forms of dispossession. Not always so personal or dramatic. Argh. This is a big one. Makes me think that the initial connection of screw-America super-alienated hippie culture and the first western ashtangis might have some pretty interesting psychological nuances. The result of that connection has been excellent and rich… but hmmm…. Wow.
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 7, 02:42 PM · #
Today, I practiced the inhale. I moved inside the breath. I spent a while in child’s pose at the end and I practiced the third series. It felt balanced. I thought about how hard it is for women in particular to stay balanced doing third series, and thought about finding balance in the moment rather than by looking outside of the practice for it. I’ve got a mentor that would call foul and say all ashtanga’s obsessive performance art and addiction to the prana-drug, but I dunno about that. Still, without some awareness of man-dominance, I’d be practicing and relating to the practice in a very, very different way. And I only have a vague awareness of male-dominance or of the obsessiveness that a patriarchal culture may, um, engender in us.
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 7, 02:46 PM · #
If we insist that the guru is some old fella with a beard and an axe then, yes, the manly lineage is the only way out of these backwoods but…
You’ve dealt (and deal) with one beetle-browed longbeard who wasn’t always fair to his women pretty successfully – surely you can handle this lot in the same way?
I know it can be difficult but it is possible to reclaim (or just rediscover) ancestral and cultural lines, woven and stray, in everything from plants to print media. Interesting where this one can lead. So…
Alienated hippie ashtangi comes home to realise that he/she is not so different from the postal worker’s dog (or the one who feeds the dog), and just gets on with things.
Alternatively, alienated brashtangi comes back even worse off than before, with a brass neck and a bag full of cultural plunder.
I remember someone writing about monetarism, existientialism, solipsism and bad advaita. That’s what this is but with a value-added daddy complex.
Posted by: meniscusmerague · Oct 8, 06:47 AM · #
Careful MeniMe, I might appoint you guest blogger if you aren’t careful.
For now, this.
“Reclamation” too has a mindless darkside. Some lyrics,
Oh take my hand sweet
Complete your release and bury your feet
And married we’ll be…
Were laying in the shadow of your family tree
Your haunted heart and me
Brought down by an old idea whose time has come
And in the shadow of the gallows of your family tree
There’s a hundred hearts soar free
Pumping blood to the roots of evil to keep it young…
I’ll be your mind
Is it safe to say that we’ve waited patiently
Call me on time
And well go over to Nana’s place disgracefully
Fall into line
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 8, 11:54 AM · #
Cheeky sow
Posted by: meniscusmerangue · Oct 9, 12:30 AM · #
The sentence “Gender is beautiful” really struck me.
Where does gender, or more specifically, the allocation of gendered traits to people of a particular sex regardless of their natural proclivity for such things end, and male domination begin? When these traits are enforced as they are, from the time a child is small enough to say “Easy Bake Oven,” do they not become inextricably linked? Is it possible that the very concepts of gender, of masculinity and femininity, (not the individual characteristics associated with them, but viewing their concepts in aggregate as being irrevocably tied to individuals of a particular sex) not part of the problem that led us to male domination in the first place? Can we really get rid of one without getting rid of the other?
I don’t know the answer, but it’s probably obvious that I’m beginning to think we can’t. Now, when we have a day where any man who feels so inclined can sport high heels and lipstick without receiving a second look, maybe then, I’ll think gender can be beautiful.
Posted by: monkey · Oct 9, 07:54 AM · #
One more question (but this one isn’t the slightest bit rhetorical). You mentioned in a prior post that the advanced series makes women into men, or something to that effect. You have also said it is difficult to maintain balance as a woman practicing that series.
What does that mean? Is it a reference to the arm balances and strength required? I’m not practicing third, so I can only imagine what it is you’re referring to, so I’m wondering if it’s something about it that creates a “masculine” physique or if you’re referring to its energetic effects, or something else entirely.
Posted by: monkey · Oct 9, 08:08 AM · #
Monkey, delighted to hear you here. I really like your thoughts and will respond presently…
(I was wondering if anyone would bite on that third series masculinization provocation I threw out there.)
Maybe your questions here and on the previous post call for a Redux post….
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 9, 11:01 AM · #
As for you, MeniMe,
Is that a no?
:(
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 9, 11:03 AM · #
Not a ‘no’ but a feeble squeak against the sort of patriarchal diminution one has come to fear (an expect)from the shadow-cast of yard-wide shoulders. Gruff toccata.
Posted by: meniscusmerangue · Oct 10, 12:43 AM · #
Terms of diminution are not always terms of domination.
But maybe I’ve spent too many years in affectionate Latin America.
Anyway, I had this idea that you expressed your regards through insults. Surely I would not be so gauche as to overpraise you. Though the offer stands.
Posted by: (0v0) · Oct 10, 12:11 PM · #