Still on Dan Brown’s Recuperation of the Sacred Feminine
August 19th, 2009
Cultural symbols have some kind of consistency. And rightly or wrongly (I mean, one could always present arguments that would show the inappropriateness of a symbol or sets of symbols), the associations have been formed and set through the millenia. One cannot simply do away with a symbol that has been passed and accepted by cultures/traditions, etc. One can, however, question and undermine the seeming “naturalness” that these symbols have come to acquire (like what Nietzsche, Derrida, among others, have done).
The association of “black” with “male” and “white” with “female” (at least, symbolically) is not consistent with, and I’d even say, goes against the grain of, tradition of symbolical associations with gender archetypes. Check it out for yourself. Research on this topic.
Even the very moral association of “black” with “evil” and “white” with “good” is consistent with the disparaging of the “feminine principle” that Brown himself presents in his novel.
Which leads me back to Nietzsche… the earth/matter, feminine, black, deceptive, as opposed to the spirit, male, white, beholden to the truth… and which does he champion?
Neither.
Rather, he asks, probably with a grin on his face, “What if truth were a woman?” (which can be read as “what if the truth were lying/deceptive?”)
So, again, rather than simply overturning the tables or reassigning the good values with the opposing pole (i.e., saying that “male” is “evil” and “female” is “good”), one gains an insight into the interconnection/interweaving/inter-reliance, complexity, and perhaps, even complicity of the bipolar signs/symbols into our understanding of this world.
The world is to a large extent, amoral, and because of this, both cruel and innocent. It is us humans/cultures who assign values, depending on our perceived needs/wants in given situations. It is when these values harden/ossify that they become dangerous to life/living.
best regards,
ian