The Fertile Present

From the relative safety of retrospect, it is of course easy (often dangerously so) to dismiss outdated worldviews as failures of imagination or humanism, implying in the process that enlightenment is much more the product of the soul than of the culture. But were we swifted back to times of slightly greater ignorance by some point-proving deity, I'm certain, in as much as I can be, that we'd bugger up contact with non-agriculturalists too. Ethnocentrism, while not insurmountable, does appear to be prevalent to a certain extent in all cultures, and this could be attributive to a logical, possibly even biological, human reaction to foreign cultures of any sort, particularly when the former dominates the latter. This reaction is invariably compounded by the respective technological advances of the two cultures, with the more advanced claiming a higher place on the evolutionary ladder as a result. Consequently, they not only treat the other race as technologically inferior, but psychologically inferior as well, laying the foundations for what can only be a torturous future for interracial relations.

Phallocentrism, by comparison, goes a little deeper. The implication that womanhood is defined by manhood is widespread indeed, and still very much in effect today, often deeply ingrained in religious belief. Thus the advent of feminism relied on the assumption that manhood was a symbol of gendrical independence, and that a move towards the characteristics of masculinity would yield greater freedom. This assumption eschewed fundamental elements of the feminine psyche on the basis that they were 'weak', a further example of viewing masculinity as superiority. Of course, simply wearing pants and opening doors unassisted was hardly going to change matters, and the strong continued, and still continue, to exploit the weak. It also had the unfortunate side-effect of perpetuating the myth of phallocentrism itself, which overlooks the very reasonable argument that there could also exist a form of yonicentrism, whether subconsciously implanted by maternalism or developed as a yardstick against which a man could measure his power, similar to the notion of the savage and the civilised so often drawn upon in colonial times. In fact, I would argue that phallocentrism could not exist without some form of yonicentrism, and that its perceived power can only manifest itself in relation to the timidity behind traditional notions of womanhood.

Darwinism, or Survivalofthefitism, can be directly linked to these views, and is both the cause and effect of their continued existence. Because it is our reason for being (as we are), it is embedded deep in our behaviour, and even though so-called civilisation occasionally claims to provide equality for the muscular and meek alike, notions of inferiority stemming from power values crop up again and again, even if money has become the new benchmark. But it is also true that we now have a richer mine of knowledge than ever before, and we should not let its cumulation go to waste, biology or no biology. With this in mind, I think that now is the time for us to stumble over the vast mounds of academia in the hope of planting a brighter future on the other side, one free of war, discrimination, poverty, religion and art. You with me?