"The Geeks vs. the Jocks" ⊕ Technopagan Yearnings

"The Geeks vs. the Jocks"

Commentary on the latest essay by Isaac Bonewits

I'm a fan of Isaac Bonewits from way back. His writings on dualism helped me formulate some of my own philosophy. I've given about a dozen copies of Real Magic as gifts over the years and three or four copies of Witchcraft: A Concise Guide. I've bought his CDs. I've bought his stickers. I even have a bag with his "one nation, indivisible " design. Back before the World Wide Web and before I accepted that I was Pagan, I used to give minister friends and fellow seminary students copies of The Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame xeroxed from my semi-hidden copy of Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon.

Seminary students? Well, yes. I was a bit spiritually confused for a while and I thought I had been called to be a Christian minister. But that isn't important right now.

One of my hobbies is history, some would say it crosses over into obsession. I'm particularly interested in history that shows exceptional people. But I know in the humanities, there is seldom one "right" answer, so I try to seek out contrasting views. Yes, I've read Smith's The Wealth of Nations, but I have also read Karl Marx. Hayek and Chomsky are both in my library, along with West and Friedman.

So this is my background before I read Mr. Bonewits latest essay The Geeks vs. The Jocks or Why Liberals Lose Elections. It is also one of the few essays I feel strongly enough about to justify comment.

To his credit, Mr. Bonewits clearly defines this essay as an opinion piece, and he has never been one to hide his politics as the "ultimate truth." It's not my intention here to question Mr. Bonewits opinions or debate his politics. I am concerned with some of the basic assumptions presented as fact.

"Much of this is related to mammalian power and status displays. The "top dog" is such because he has the power to mate, forcibly if he wishes, with all the other dogs, male and female alike. The ancient conflict between the warriors and the clergy castes explains more than just why modern Pagan men might be ambivalent about Pagan priesthood and why Germanic/Anglo/Latin cultures are so homophobic. It also explains why the general American, British, and Latin American public don't elect many liberals or most women to high office, and why male homophobia towards gay men is qualitatively different than that towards lesbians."

I believe Mr. Bonewits is overlooking a great deal of history. Much of our civilization has been built on the premise that there are ways to achieve goals without thumping heads or raping women. For example, Roger Dawson identifies eight forms of power and only one, coercive power, bears any resemblance to Mr. Bonewits premise. While I won't deny that competition is one basis of our modern society, I doubt that it has all the sexual impact that Mr. Bonewits attributes to it.

Three brief asides here. First, not all gays today accept the dominant/passive roles, and there is some evidence that wasn't entirely the case in classical civilizations either. Second, not all American homosexuals are liberal, some have achieved considerable influence as conservatives. And third, for all the bias that Americans show against homosexuals, there appears to be an even stronger bias among many homosexuals against bisexuals.

In some circles, any of these statements would get me labeled as homophobic, yet the only thing I have done is show some of the ways that the "homosexual community" is less monolithic than some would have us believe. Just as the "homosexual community" speaks with more than one voice, so does the criticism of homosexuality in America. It doesn't help that some of the more public gays have chosen a very flamboyant in-your-face activism whose goal seems to be less about acceptance and tolerance and more about legitimizing and supporting dangerous sexual choices.

You have no idea how ironic it is for me to be saying that. But as much as I "tasted the fruit," I never had more than one partner per night. And usually I got to know the lady for at least one date before notching the headboard.

My real point is that if gays identify themselves as people who happen to be homosexual rather than gays seeking a political sanctification of risky choices, they are more likely to be accepted by the majority of Americans. A committed couple will get more acceptance than someone making a spectacle of themselves for the six o'clock news.

No, that will not solve all the problems, but then I won't promise that it will. And yes, a male with effeminate traits (no matter what their sexuality) will draw scorn and occasionally abuse from some men. Mr. Bonewits has done a marvelous job in some of his previous writings identifying some of the reasons for this reaction.

American society in particular has become more accepting of homosexuality, but gays are still perceived as fringe elements and out of the mainstream. This perception has been exaggerated by both the media and certain people on the left who are more interested in finding differences than finding commonalities. This perception of gays and lesbians as a "fringe" has arguably done more political harm than anything the "majority" has done. In short, identity politics doesn't play well in Peoria.

Women have been elected to every high office in the US, except for the Presidency. Granted, they haven't been elected in the numbers reflecting their percentage of the population, but it wasn't all that long ago that the public perception of women was as "stay at home wives." It's only been about thirty years since that perception began to change.

The Mother image is a powerful archetype, and most people do respond to it. It is not surprising that many female office holders cultivate this image. Since both the "warrior" and "corporate" mindset are condemned by some liberals, I am not sure what other options are available for strong women to cultivate.

"Despite loud claims to the contrary by conservative pundits, most intellectuals are, in fact, political and social liberals. Liberalism requires long-term thinking, looking at complex solutions to complex problems, and paying attention to group welfare rather than just individual welfare. These mental skills are all different from warrior-thinking, which is why university environments throughout the Western world are full of liberals, except for the obligatory campus jocks and contrarian intellectuals. Dualism, the belief that all topics have only two, completely irreconcilable, sides to them, then pushes members of both the liberal and the conservative groups to ever more-extreme positions."

In a paragraph mentioning dualism, ironically Mr. Bonewits has implied two definitions at opposite ends of the scale and delegated political affiliations between those two polarities, all while blaming the other side for any communication problems.

Liberal = long term thought = collectivism = complex solutions = good idea

Conservative = short term thought = individualism = simple solutions = bad idea

I've seen this particular tactic used mostly by certain Christian fundamentalists when logic and evidence do not support the point they wish to make. "We're the Elect, we have a deeper and more complete understanding of Scripture than is available to the mere unbeliever." It dismisses all other competing opinions and interpretations simply because it doesn't fit the dogma. I'm surprised to see it from Mr. Bonewits.

But we also have that word "liberal" which has no less than three meanings.

Classic liberalism limits government power and tries to protect individual rights and private property. This view came directly out of Enlightenment thinking and was the centerpiece in Adam Smith's writings. This is still the meaning used in Europe, but in America today this definition fits libertarianism.

Since the early 20th Century, the word liberal in America has been used a form of personal freedom but government intervention in the name of social justice. Basically it is a collective (and vastly diluted) form of classic liberalism by way of social democracy, progressive would be a more accurate term.

Since 1972, some of the more radical progressives have moved the "mainstream" definition even further. So much so, that by current American standards, I think JFK would qualify as a right of center moderate.

Mr. Bonewits does not mention that the virtual exclusion of conservative (and libertarian) thinkers from the humanities departments on university campuses had much more to do with politics than with the merit of their ideas. This certainly didn't stop some of them from forming private think tanks, mostly free from both Federal and university funding.

Unfortunately, this backfired on the liberals who stayed in those same departments. As the new Voice of Authority™, liberals didn't question or challenge their central assumptions. Think tank conservatives (and those who followed their work) quickly got into the habit of defending and debating almost every point. When conservatism emerged from it's exile, leading conservative thinkers were more than prepared to debate and challenge any liberal thought that they encountered. The leading liberal thinkers were content to speak from the Voice of Authority™ as long as they held sufficient political power to get attention. In the aftermath of the 2000 and 2004 elections, liberal groups were trying to fund liberal think tanks to "get their message out." It's still a little early to see if they are successful.

I would agree that most if we stretched the "classic" definition to it's broadest sense, most intellectuals would qualify as social and political liberals. But outside the humanities, I think Mr. Bonewits would find it impossible to apply his claim to all intellectuals. That community is also less monolithic than some claim.

I really feel that the dispute here is not over who is the better long term thinkers, but which standard of measurement will be used. For example, if a liberal measures success by a lower prison population and a conservative measures success by a lower violent crime rate, each is going to be adamantly opposed to the actions and opinions of the other.

I'm not quite sure why Mr. Bonewits introduced Tolkein , but I will point out in passing a central part of the story was that the Gandalf and others of the Wise were prevented from using the greater part of their power by the dominion of the One Ring, which meant that the use of any magical power opened up the user to corruption.

Mr. Bonewits does mention the French "system" in contrast to the American "system," he does unfortunately not mention the 75 years following the French Revoution, nor does he mention the Reign of Terror. These are certainly parts of history that should be considered in any comparison of the two systems.

In conclusion, I do not think that the division between "warrior" and "priest" is quite as drastic as Mr. Bonewits seems to. Indeed, I would say that the most effective humans are those who managed to find the balance between these two extremes within themselves.

Posted: Fri - August 12, 2005 at 05:44 PM
◊
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

You are reading
→ "The Geeks vs. the Jocks"

Go to the

entry index