Be The Change…

people

Mahatma Gandhi said that we should be the change we wish to see in the world.

With that sage advice in mind, I’ve decided that the change I wish to see in the world is less hatred, less closed-mindedness, and less bigotry in all its forms. I’ve been contemplating the chat that the current occupant of the White House had with Billy Bush a few years back – you know, the one in which he boasted about how happy he was to be able to sexually assault women with reckless impunity –  so I’ve been especially focused on misogyny as a toxic mindset (it’s just one of many that we humans employ, but I have to start somewhere…).

I’ve always been left feeling sort of embarrassed and squirmy whenever I encounter the old time-y convention of referring to our entire species as “man” or even “mankind.” It feels to me like a very outmoded and unhelpful way of reinforcing the notion that male humans are somehow inherently more important and valuable than all the other kinds of humans. And every time we adhere to this convention, we’re preserving and feeding that notion in some small but definite way.

I decided to use a Carl Jung title as an example here. And please don’t get me wrong: I love many of Jung’s ideas, and I feel that his work has had lasting importance. I’m a huge proponent of the benefits of looking at existence through a metaphysical lens, and Jung’s work is hugely influential throughout all of modern metaphysics. This was, after all, the man who gifted us with such worthy concepts as archetypes, synchronicity, individuation, the collective unconscious, the psychological “shadow,” the anima and animus…

But take a look at one of Jung’s well-known works, the last one to occupy him before his death in 1961. It’s called Man and His Symbols.

Man.

His symbols.

This is a highly misleading title. Symbols are undeniably a gigantic part of both our inner and outer worlds…but they’re hardly the sole province of the male. And men are hardly the sole component of humankind, or even the sole important component of it. Letting this convention persist in our culture is a backwards-looking move that feeds into the agendas of people who want to keep other people down, even if it seems to be doing that only in small and mostly innocuous ways. The problem is that repression is actually never small or innocuous…especially when you’re the one who’s being repressed…

So I’m suggesting that whenever possible, we try to repair our world by overturning this obsolete convention. I know we can’t retroactively change the title of Jung’s book (even if I did enjoy changing it for the accompanying image) or the million other such references already out there…but moving forward, we can do our best to not rack up any further usages of “man” and “mankind” when what we really mean to say is “humanity.” I guarantee that I’ll be doing my part in this, practicing what I preach.

This is how we shape the world, and how we can be the change we wish to see in it:

People

…and our symbols.

 

6 comments

  1. I like Freya Aswynn’s take on ‘man’:

    Mannaz:
    Germanic name: MANNAZ
    (Anglo-Saxon: MAN; Old Norse name: MADR; Phonetic value: M)
    Traditional meaning: man
    The term men in old Germanic languages, as for example in Anglo-Saxon, denoted not just the male section of the folk.

    The words for man and woman were “weapmen” and “weavemen” respectively; clearly the former means men with weapons, and the latter translates literally as “men who weave,” i.e., women. Thus the word-ending “-men” was used for both sexes and it is in this context that the Mannaz rune should be viewed.

    This rune not only means “man ” or “mankind,” it is also the name of mankind’s ancestor and progenitor. It signifies relationships between people sharing the same environment and should therefore be taken to mean people, legal affairs, and mutual cooperation in general in divination.

    It can be find here, and in a few other places: http://aswynn.com/2008/04/07/the-runes/
    🙂

    • Thanks for adding to the thought process here! I haven’t always loved everything about Ms. Aswynn’s work, but I agree with the main point here. And funnily enough, I was considering putting up a follow-up post focusing on Mannaz, and the way that it always seems to get translated as meaning “man,” even though the concept might be better summed up as “humanity!” You beat me to it… 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s