|
Ever since Earth's living
organisms progressed from cell division to the
extraordinary innovation of sexual reproduction,
humans have been trying to come to terms with
its corollaries: physical asymmetry and death.
These two great issues have provided a continual
challenge to all human cultures; to philosophers,
scientists and almost every member of our species.
We also have assumed that our particular form
of self-awareness made these two issues of sexuality
and death exclusively human problems. Evidence from history
and anthropology attests to the almost infinite
variety of our cultural, social, political and
psychological responses to the challenges of
sexual asymmetry. Different cultures have opted
through the ages for almost every conceivable
form of distribution of power and influence
between men and women --- from outright female
dominance (as still practiced in some tribal
societies) and the matrifocal cultures of Neo-lithic
times to the generally patriarchal societies
so prevalent; in the world today. Sexual asymmetry
invites a much wider repertoire of responses
than its twin challenge: death, since, so far,
there has been little we humans could do beyond
extending our lifespan, in the face of our mortality. With the arrival in
1987 of the five bil1ionth member of the human
family, together with the post-war innovation
of reliable technological means of birth control,
our range of responses to our sexuality has
expanded with bewildering rapidity: from medical
ethics and religion to social morays, political
and economic measures as well as art, philosophy
and myth. All this social and technical change
around two such basic issues as sexuality and
death have made the past several decades ones
of upheaval, experimentation and, above all,
confusion. Inevitably, this has produced excitement,
and joy with the new freedoms, as well as much
pain, misunderstanding, loneliness and fear.
Deep religious beliefs are challenged; families
are divided; economic institutions are restructured
and laws changed. The farthest reaches of sexual
behavior, from avant-garde feminists' "turkey-baster"
insemination gatherings, homosexual bath-house
cavortings and all forms of pornography and
commercial exploitation have been explored.
Sexuality has been explicated with such precision
and clinical detail as to become banal and boring. The new technical means
or reproduction, from in vitro and in vivo fertilization
to surrogate motherhood have changed the definition
of parenthood, while the immortalists with cryogenic
dreams of future lives, have joined the medical
professionals in redefining death. For all these
seasons, the ultimate issues are on top of the
human agenda and we are forced to reconsider
our most basic feelings: love and fear and the
meaning of life itself. Not surpris1ngly, at
this zenith of the industrial age, these deep
existential questions reemerge in books, workshops,
poetry, art and music and even in Madison Avenue
consumer surveys.1Will we take refuge
from our fears by tightening our traditional
bonds of family and romantic love? Or will we
leap into the unknown -- redefining love and
relationship in this multi-cultural Age or Interdependence,
as planetary citizenship and learn to celebrate
our common bonds as members of the whole human
family? I believe that many
of us will have no choice but to continue to
explore the new .frontiers of relationship,
rethink the biological imperatives of parenthood,
territoriality and arrive at a new definition
of family and humanity itself. National boundaries
and identities are blending in the new global
melting pot. Seven great globalization processes
are steadily increasing our interdependence: The seventh great globalization
process is that or the re-alignment of nations
and their domestic restructurings in responses
to the above-mentioned six globalizations. Thus,
these globalization processes are highly-interactive,
dynamic, non-linear, irreversible and therefore
accelerating. As I have outlined elsewhere,2
there are now three identifiable zones of this
multidimensional planetary change: A key shift will entail
a new view of love. Romantic love between men
and women entered Western culture in 14th century
Europe, and perhaps earlier in other cultures.
Obviously, this well-worn form of dyadic, male-female
relationship has served humanity well--providing
for stable forms of child-rearing beyond the
primeval tribe. However, today in many industrial
and post-industrial societies this dyadic form
is failing. Divorce is increasing and giving
rise to ever-more single parent families (most
often headed by women), as well as homosexual
and lesbian couples and the growth of intentional
living groups of unrelated individuals. The
traditional Western ideal of finding "Mr.
or Ms. Right" and settling down to lifelong
monogamy has been fading since the sixties.
As Margaret Mead noted when asked her view of
marriage by a TV talk show host, "Marriage
is wonderful. I have enjoyed all my marriages."
Mead's view was of serial marriages: a "college
marriage"; a .child-rearing marriage; a
"fling" marriage; and finally a mature
marriage for the declining years. Traditional monogamous
marriages do provide emotional security at the
price of narrowed relational horizons, boredom
and lack of educational stimulation. While many
are said to be made in heaven, these traditional
marriages also involve mutual-security and need-satisfaction
and refuge from loneliness and risk-taking in
the social arena. Often, if one partner experiences
a spurt of growth, the relationship is threatened
and can rupture, as many thousands of case studies
have shown. Other stresses on dyads have come
from the women's movements in many countries,
where traditional marriages have often proved
to be breeding grounds of violence, incest and
child-neglect---far from their former benign
image. Thus, in today's massive
globalization processes and social upheavals,
it behooves us to examine new and extended expressions
of love~ caring end relationship, as well as
nurturance or both children and the increasing
numbers of elderly adults. The biggest issue
is that of redefining what we mean by "love".
Will it remain an almost exclusively dyadic
term with its ubiquitous sexual and parental
overtones? Or can its definition be broadened
beyond the immediate family of whatever kind,
so as to expand our abilities to care for each
other in the new, global interdependent, mu1ti-cultura1
sense of the human family, as a whole?3
The exclusivity associated with love implies
that it is a scarce commodity, and if
bestowed too widely, it will be "watered
down" and lead to shallowness of relationship,
lack of commitment or promiscuity. I believe that it is
time to re-examine such assumptions. Firstly,
it is not so much love that is scarce. In fact,
many people in modern societies are suffering
from frustration of their loving expressions,
due to lack of social arrangements, alienation
technologically-mediated isolation via TV, computer
terminals, job settings, fast foods, high-rise,
anonymous architecture, and in the West, the
cults of individualism and competition. Certainly
our time is limited by death, but we need not
hoard our love or give it only to one other
of the opposite sex and our .immediate family.
In fact, when we view love as a scarce commodity,
we find ourselves in a state of anxiety, fear
of abandonment and jealousy. These attitudes,
in turn, are rooted in a lack of self-love,
into which we are often acculturated by education,
religion or parental attitudes. Lack of self-love
then inhibits our ability to love others and
gives rise to fears of insufficiency, cravings,
isolation, anger and violence, which in turn
are exploited by advertisers and merchandisers.
Suppose that we change
our premise and adopt the view that love is
abundant and natural and that we have the ability
to call it forth in ourselves and others by
changing our attitudes. Such a shift may be
occurring in both men and women, as human development
proceeds and as women learn to be more social1y
and economically autonomous and men learn to
be more emotionally robust and nurturing of
themselves and each other. In this way we are
gradually moving beyond the purely pro-creative
stage of sexually-focused love between men and
women, as well as the recreationally-focused
sex of the sixties and seventies and the "open
marriage" fads of the era of "free
love" with its lack of commitment and immaturity.
Today, as futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard4
states, "this kind of sex has become disappointing,
burdened as it is by excessive arousal via.
advertising and unwarranted expectations."
Hubbard claims that the new stage is "supra-sex",
where creatively-aroused individuals freely
join in groups to co-create evolutionary path
for the whole human family. She believes that
Nature is inventing this next level of sexuality
by the joining not of genes, but, genius in
the spontaneous couplings and groupings around
creative expression and entrepreneurship, and
we need to notice what's working in these new
forms~ such as the popular "intrapreneurship"
within bureaucratic companies. The exuberance
released in these new relationships is already
expanding our ability to love more widely and
more deeply---beyond the fears and jealousies
of the exc1usive male-female dyadic relationship. I believe that we humans
must escape the prison of gender with its often
immature baggage of romantic love, sex, rivalry
and fear and learn the deeper lessons of unconditiona1love---the
on1y love worthy of the name. This conscious
effort to expand and exercise our capacities
for loving and altruistic, cooperative behavior
is now crucial if we are to survive in this
Age of Interdependence. Pitirim Sorokin, the
great sociologist and author of Social and
Cultural Dynamics,5 outlined
these challenges of developing altruistic behavior
in his last book, The Ways and Powers of
Love. Today individualism, greed and competition
as the mainsprings of our social and economic
life in much of the industrialized world are
failing us and have run their course. A re-balancing
toward our equal but unrewarded abilities to
cooperate and build community is now vital for
our social and individual health. We can no
longer hope to "own" each other, or
hang on to "entitlements" to love
that are not freely and reciprocally given and
continually renewed in loving, co-creative community.
As change sweeps on through our societies, we
are also learning to make our traditional, child-bearing
marriage contracts-more reciprocal and flexible,
sharing more fairly between the sexes the vital
task of parenting~ as well as community volunteering,
as I have outlined elsewhere.6 In fact, caring
is already a burgeoning new industry, with day
care, medical services, home helpers, and counseling
services, which has grown up almost by default.
Today, parenting, caring for the elderly and
infirm can no longer be an underpaid and devalued
task shunted onto women or "low-status"
social groups. Millions of women who used to
provide these services free in the home have
already moved into the job market to obtain
recognition and income. Thus, the monetarizing
of formerly unpaid caring work will continue
to be the fastest growing services sector, even
though, as I have detailed (see Fig 1.)
this adds no "productivity" to the
economy, but rather recognizes formerly
unaccounted productivity which subsidized the
official money-denominated, GNP-measured sector.
Care-givers in society are increasingly vital
and must be recognized and financially-rewarded,
while volunteer work in the community must be
viewed as an obligation of citizenship for both,
men and women, as well as children. I have explored
elsewhere7 the full dimensions of
the unpaid "love economy": all the
caring, sharing, parenting, volunteering, bartering,
reciprocity and mutual aid that buttresses the
official GNP-measured sectors of all societies.
Even in industrial societies this cooperative,
altruistic economy usually represents 50% or
more or all" the productive work performed.
For example in the U.S.A. alone some 89 million
citizens volunteer at least five hours per week,
in all age groups and socio-economic brackets,
for an equivalent money value of approximately
$110 billion in 1985, according to the Gallup
Survey of Princeton. New Jersey.
Thus we may begin to see how love was made artificially scarce by our social and economic arrangements (as have so many other commodities). We can then begin to relax our fears and jealousies, as well as our cravings and over-consumption of resources and polluting habits and begin to lead healthier, emotionally self-reliant lives. In this social milieu a new sense of genuine abundance can nurture human development and move us toward ending the battle of the sexes, as well as revitalizing our lives. In fact, living more fully in widening circles of creative, loving relationship can extend our life spans and make death less fearful. We have, at last, reached the stage of evolution when all of our individual self-interests are identical and altruism has become pragmatic.
End Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel Henderson, author of Building a Win-Win World and other books (www.hazelhenderson.com), co-created with the Calvert group of socially-responsible mutual funds, the Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators (updated at www.Calvert-Henderson.com). She created the financial TV series, Ethical Marketplace, premiering on Public Broadcasting stations in the USA in January, 2005. --------------------------------------------------------------- |
