The Cultural Bias.
Original Sin is the ongoing cultural corruption of the created
given.
My dilemma is caused by my
culture and not by the created given.
Andrew Szebenyi
Life would be so much more simple if we were to live it in terms
of the realism of the created given and not in terms of some dysfunctional
principles. Many things we thought to be for ever have changed, because life is
an unfolding process. What we once thought to be part of human nature, may have
been no more than a historically stable situation, unchanging but only for a
while. We humans were around for a very short time in comparison to many other
forms of life on earth. Evolution is written in terms of hundreds of millions
of years and not in mere decades and centuries. And, as we can clearly see, the
process works very well. We are here. We should learn from its wisdom. And that
is even more so if we understand the process of evolution as the way God is
creating life and unfolds its natural history. I use the expression Òcreated
givenÓ for everything God makes, and says, it is good.
But we do have to interpret things right, and right is our humble
best for every given moment. Reading the creation story in the book of Genesis,
it is the proper method to go back in time, understand the culture of the time
the book was written, and so discover the theological content of the text,
making it free of any cultural bias. We can then bring this theology back into
our own time and culture. This way we can separate and protect the faith
content of the text from all the cultural biases of ancient times. I do not
mean to say that we have no faults of our own, but at least this is a step in
the right direction toward present understanding.
Take for instance, the idea of God creating in time, in six days
that is, and then getting tired by all the work of creating, God rests on the
seventh day. This is what we read in Genesis. All these expressions about work,
and getting tired, and need for rest are, of course, based on human experience
and are, therefore, heavily anthropomorphic. The idea in Genesis that God
created us in GodÕs image, does not justify the effort on our part to create a
god for ourselves in our own image. In other words, anthropomorphism,
interpreting non human situations in terms of human experience, is a cultural
bias of the time the book was written. As it is, God is the Creator of space
and time, a created framework of a created world, which we understand in our
created way, in space and time. In all this, God as Creator of time is in GodÕs
absolute present. We really haven't got a clue what absolute present, the idea
of the I AM, may mean, because we cannot be anything else but anthropomorphic.
Nonetheless, if we were to fuse the anthropomorphic images, which are really no
more than a style of writing of the time, with the faith content of the text
about creation, we set up a dilemma for ourselves. The so called literal
interpretation of the Bible of fundamentalist Christians is a way to make such
fusion which then leads to useless controversies. The style of Genesis is
simply anthropomorphic. The style of today implies anthropomorphism with
caution.
In addition to the anthropomorphic slant of the Genesis text,
there are other cultural biases which may discolor our present understanding
and appreciation of the Scriptures. It seems to me that much of the writings,
in both Old and New Testaments, are saturated with male chauvinistic,
patriarchal thinking, which is taken for granted to a point of being identified
with human nature as part of the created given. All one needs to do to be
confronted with this bias is to read the first two chapters of the book of
Genesis, or to look at MichelangeloÕs painting of the creation of Adam in the
Sistine Chapel in Rome. God is a powerful male, who created Adam, another male.
It was an afterthought to create Eve, who was taken out of the man and formed
into a woman in order to ease his loneliness and to be his helper. The woman
was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. The created world was clearly a
world of the male. The only glimmer of some equality between female and male is
given in verse 27 of the first chapter, but even here it is buried under
heavily male chauvinistic thinking.
ÒGod created man in the image of himself,
in the image of God he created him,
male and female he created them.Ó
This male chauvinistic, patriarchal cultural bias has been with us
for centuries, and is the cause of a great deal of sinful injustice which is
being recognized more and more today. Male chauvinism is a form of arrogance
and, as all forms of arrogance, it is based on ignorance. I would like to
consider briefly the absence of any biological foundation for this cultural bias
about male superiority. The two points in view are the story of the Y
chromosome, and the process of embryonic development.
The story of the Y chromosome is most revealing. It is known that
in the human situation the sex of the child is usually determined by the
presence of two X chromosomes for the girl and an X and a Y chromosomes for the
boy. Some may say that it is the
male who determines the sex of the child because of his contribution of X or Y.
This is not true. The sex of the child is determined by the interaction between
the genetic materials on two chromosomes, one from the mother and the other
from the father. In addition, the Y chromosome carries very few genetic
determinants. It is in fact a rather altered and a much reduced X chromosome in
which hardly more remained than a few genes associated with maleness, and an
area to join the X chromosome during the pairing of homologous chromosomes in
the prophase of the first meiotic division during the formation of gametes.
This reduced situation of the Y chromosome also implies a certain genetic
weakness of the XY combination of chromosomes, because the lack of genes on the
Y chromosome provides no protection against harmful recessive mutations on the
X chromosome, which may come from either parent. In any case, the idea that the
woman has been taken from the man, as it is narrated in the book of Genesis, is
a cultural bias and has no scientific support. The contrary may be more
realistic and appropriate. After all, the Y chromosome is a modified X.
In the process of fertilization, are the two parents contributing
to new human life equally? Not at all. The contribution of the mother is far
greater than that of the father. And this is already true before fertilization,
at the formation of gametes which involves two cell divisions resulting in four
cells. In the case of the male gamete, all four cells become functional sperms.
Each contains the genetic materials from the father, half of which is from his
mother, a small amount of cytoplasm, a set of enzymes to be able to enter the
ovum, ATP for energy source, and a tail for locomotion. During fertilization it
is only the genetic material that enters the ovum. All other parts remain
outside and have nothing to do with the rest of the process.
In comparison, the two cell divisions involved in the formation of
the ovum result in four cells but only one of these becomes the large ovum. The
other three are small polar bodies which contain very little cytoplasm, and do
not function as gametes. The reason for the asymmetry of cell divisions during
the formation of a single large ovum is to retain in one cell as much cytoplasm
as possible, with all the nutrients, enzymes, energy producing structures, and
so on. After fertilization this ovum, now called a zygote, has to survive on
its own resources for days before it reaches the uterus where it will be able
to form a placenta and receive nutrients from the mother. All told, the
contribution of the woman toward new human life outweighs by far the
contribution of the man. And so again, male superiority is not supported by the
realities of our biology.
It is toward the end of embryonic development that the male and
the female genital structure differentiate. They both start from the same
simple arrangement. In the girl child the result of development remains close
to the original arrangement and retains its cyclic nature. In the boy child,
because of the presence of testosterone during a critical period of
development, the anatomical changes are more profound and the cyclicity is
abolished. Since being a woman seems to be closer to the origins than being a
man, the idea that the woman has been taken from the man, as it is
narrated in the book of Genesis,
has no biological support. Again, as in the case of the Y chromosome, the other
way around would be a more realistic proposition. In any case, in a sexually
dimorphic species, like we are, the Genesis statement that Òmale and female God
created themÓ should be sufficient without any male chauvinistic bias of an ancient
culture. So we should take it from there.
In view of cultural biases, I propose here a practical guide. All
created given is good. God says so. They are given us for our benefit, to use
and enjoy them. Any effort to raise them to God with prayer and thanksgiving
renders them very good. On the other hand, the abuse of any created given is
sinful. Abuse means to use something in such a way that it may cause harm to
oneself or to others. In the light of this general guide, and for the sake of
love and respect for life, let us consider some real life situations.
We all have been brought up with certain ways at the dinner table.
In this matter of etiquette and customs I can speak only for myself from my own
experiences. I was a child, and Mom made a delicious dinner. I was hungry. We
sat down at the dinner table as a family at noon, the custom in Hungary where I
was born. First we said a prayer, and I remember that prayer very well, since I
have been saying it ever since. Translating it into English it went, ÒSweet
Jesus be our guest, and what you gave us make it blessed. Amen.Ó Then we ate
our dinner, which tasted really good, and I got full and satisfied. All these
took place in the framework of our culture in a ÒcivilizedÓ manner. You know,
eat slowly, chew your food, donÕt slurp the soup, donÕt put your elbow on the
table, donÕt speak with your mouth full, donÕt let your eyes be bigger than
your stomach, so finish whatÕs on your plate, and so on. All told, at dinner we
enjoyed GodÕs created gifts, MomÕs culinary skills, and the loving care of them
both. It was all very good, the way it should be. What would be abusive and,
therefore, sinful in all this? Overeating, or not eating enough. Both would
cause us damage by making us sick. It is all very simple.
I go a step further in my thoughts. My body is my home. Not the
clothes I wear. I put those on, take them off, change them, throw them away and
get new ones. My body is my real home, with all its parts, including my belly
button, reminding me that I have been once attached to my Mom in her belly, and
from there I was born being at home in my body, a created given. It feels good
to be in touch with myself physically and mentally. This is my body, my home. A
created given that is good. I am to take care of myself. Very much like getting
hungry, which is then satisfied pleasurably by eating, my body with all its
parts has similar needs for pleasurable satisfaction through the caring touch.
A gentle massage is a great way to find release from all sorts of harmful
tensions. Just as hunger, the need for release, sensual as well as sexual,
comes as a natural healthy need, while overindulgence as well as denial would
make me ill. All this could be very simple and straightforward. But
unfortunately, in our Judaeo-Christian-Western culture, Òthe shit hit the fanÓ,
as some may say. Robert T. Francoeur in a historical overview puts it very
neatly.
ÒIn general, the Jewish tradition has escaped the antisexualism of
the neoplatonic dualism of body/soul
that has been so influential in Christian thought. The Judaic tradition
affirms sexuality as a blessing, a gift
from God which grounds and stabilizes the family.Ó ÒIt is assumed that
every Jewish man and woman will marry and have children. The first commandment
of the Torah is ÔYou shall be fruitful and multiplyÕ. Hence there is no place
for asceticism, sexual or otherwise. Celibacy is condemned and there is little
tolerance or understanding of the single life.Ó
ÒThe early Christians unfortunately lost the positive Judaic view
of sexuality. In its place, under the influence of Paul, Jerome, the Desert
Fathers, and especially Augustine in the third century, Christianity adopted a
pagan dualism from Hellenic and neoplatonic philosophy that has permeated
Christian thinking about sexuality
until the present. Linked with Judaic patriarchal dualism, this pagan
body-versus-soul dualism created a strongly antisexual ethic. Men were
portrayed as rational, spiritual, and good, provided they avoided the
contaminating touch of women. Women, for their part, were passionate, earthly, and Ôthe outpost
of hell, the gateway of the devil.Õ They could, however, achieve salvation,
preferably in virginity, but also through childbearing. A strong ascetic
tradition exalted martyrdom, virginity, and celibacy.Ó
ÒMarriage and sexual intercourse could be tolerated but only if
they were used exclusively for continuation of
the human race. Sex for pleasure was not allowed.Ó ÒSex was licit only between husband and
wife, and natural only when it was not enjoyed and nothing was done to
interfere with its procreative purpose.Ó
To complete this overview, here is a quote from Augustine from the
Sermons on the New Testament. Sermon 1, ¤ 23.
ÒThose famous men who marry wives only for the procreation of children,
such as we read the Patriarchs to have been, and know it, by many proofs, by
the clear and unequivocal testimony of the sacred books; whoever, I say, they
who marry wives for this purpose only, if the means could be given them of
having children without intercourse with their wives, would they not with joy
unspeakable embrace so great a blessing? Would they not with great delight
accept it?Ó
Into this negative and dualistic culture I have been born and have
been brought up by very loving and caring parents, who did for me the best they
could. Many things have changed since then giving questions a color of realism
and need for truthfulness not allowed to be given before. The cultural
negativity of originally pagan neoplatonian dualism toward the created given of
the human body is not only dysfunctional but also destructive to a healthy way
of life today. As matters develop, we can no longer find refuge in denial, or
hide behind authority. We must search for true and functional answers to many
questions about the positive meaning and appreciation of the human body with
all its created given, our true home. The right answers may provide the
resources for a process of liberating healing from the tyranny of a many
centuries old cultural bias of fear and negativity. May be this effort on our
part will set us free and will enable us finally to attend to even more
important matters, such as ecological balance, global social and economic
justice, and peace.
How do we change and heal the centuries old and deeply ingrained
bias of mistrust and negativity toward one of the most precious created givens
we have, our sexuality. I believe through new insights and new understanding,
as we examine the problems presented to us today and try to respond to them in
the light of love and respect for life, we may have a good shot at it. But
first we must set the stage.
The list of dysfunctional and destructive, and therefore sinful
cultural biases would not be complete without mentioning one more. And that is
the mental construct of a static cosmology, originating in the ancient Greek
philosophy of Aristotelian unchangeable essences, and baptized into
Christianity by such eminent scholars and teachers as St. Thomas Aquinas, and
then brought into full bloom by a revival of classics in the Renaissance,
reaching powerfully into the present. According to this long standing tradition
of our Western culture, the world around us is finished and closed. It is done.
All changes are minor accidents and variations which do not effect the
unchangeable essence of reality. Consequently, we speak of eternal principles,
and we assume a position of infallibility at the summit of teaching authority.
If there is something new, it is resisted first. When it proves to be
undeniable, it is embraced and said that so it has been always taught. We look
at the world in terms of a snapshot, and do not see the dynamism of an
unfolding reality. What is needed is the realization that nothing is just
given, but is given in a process. And so creation becomes evolution. And
infallibility in practical matters is to say the right thing at the right time,
and not the same thing for all times. The second Vatican Council paid tribute
to this dynamism in terms of aggiornamento, the need to adjust and adept our understanding
to changing circumstances. Some may say, this is nothing but relativism. That
is not the case. Take the idea of love and respect for life. What this idea
meant yesterday in practical terms of various needs may not be the same today,
because today we encounter new circumstances and new problems. If we do not
face up to them and act accordingly, we become dysfunctional, which would then
be not in line any more with love and respect for life.
So let me return once more to this matter of wanting to change and
heal the centuries old and deeply ingrained bias of mistrust and negativity
toward the most precious created given we have, the needs and functions of the
human body, including our sexuality. The solutions and answers to such complex
problems as this do not come easily. We must work for them. And we must do this
labor in a detached and dispassionate manner to be able to remain on target.
Fortunately, we do have a method that can provide the right conditions. It is
the scientific method. It does not begin with principles but with observation,
and then it allows us to ask relevant questions, and to go even as far as to
formulate some tentative answers to our questions. But then we have to test the
validity of our answers before we may conclude to functional understanding.
I was driving on Meadowbrook, close to the university area in
Syracuse New York. A strip of pavement on the right side of the street is
marked off for cyclists and runners. I passed by a young girl running. She was
probably in her twenties, wearing tight shorts and T shirt. All details of the
outlines of her body were displayed for all to see. I found her beautiful and
attractive, but I was torn between two responses. One, to say to God: Thank you
for all the most wonderful things you made. The other, to avert my eyes and
look past her as if she did not exist. Which of the two responses would have
been abusive to this young woman? I believe, the second one because that would
have made her an object of denial. But the second response is the one demanded
by my cultural upbringing in its negativity toward the human body. The result
of this denial is the lack of habituation that could channel the multitude of
stimuli into a few more specific and more controllable ones. Such absence of habituation
may be functional in a situation when our survival requires the maximization of
reproductive success against high death rate, especially in terms of child
mortality. This has been the case through all of our history until the last
century. Today, what is needed is reproductive restraint to balance a
population explosion never experienced before. Today a process of habituation
may be of great practical value.
Balance is the key to survival. In other words, in evolutionary
terms, an off balance situation has no survival value and will be lost. In
human population ecology, we study the balance between birthrate and death rate
and the conditions required to maintain a population size below the carrying
capacity of the earthÕs natural resources. It is quite clear that our present
off balance situation requires of us a magnitude of reproductive restraint
which is two children for most families. The old directive, supportive of large
families, is contrary to love and respect for life today. As always, we must be
practical about all this. After all, biologically speaking, how many years it
takes for a couple to have two children. Only a few. What are they supposed to
do for the rest of their married lives? Abstain from intercourse? Live like
Òbrother and sisterÓ? And all this because it has been traditionally assumed,
probably based on the need to maximize reproductive success as much as
biologically possible to balance high death rate, that every marital act must
be open to procreation? As conditions changed, such directive has become
dysfunctional and is in need of adaptive change. What remains, however, is also
the need to maintain a family life that is stable, nurturing, and loving,
supported by the many expressions of our sexual natural given.
Some would say, very well then, promote natural family planning.
Experience shows that for many NFP is neither natural, nor planning. Its
failure rate is high in proportion to the irregularity of the womanÕs
reproductive cycles, which creates a situation promoting irregularity and a
further increase of failure. The method destroys the spontaneity of sexual
relationship, and from a global point of view it is far too sophisticated and
even contrary for many cultures today.
The moment we perceive all functions of the human body as created,
natural given and remove them from the quarantine of negativity and denial, our
system of values changes. These changes effect our lives including our
relationships profoundly. As it is, with such changes, we move into a yet unknown
and unexplored world of human life. Our guide is the knowledge that all created
given is good by their very nature, and our appreciation of them in terms of
love and respect for life is appropriate. What is evil is their abuse causing
harm to oneself or to others. We should then formulate our understanding based
on observation as life unfolds for us, and adjust the practical wisdom of our
principles about the old and the new accordingly.
¥
*