For the first time an openly gay priest is to be ordained as a bishop in the Church of England. Why it is so much worse for him to be a bishop than a priest is not clear to me.
So far, by my reading of the media (admittedly, not very extensive), the quality of discussion on the issue has been very poor. The liberals are talking about changes in society, the virtues of tolerance and the scriptures as subject to interpretation. The traditionalists refer to the word of God in The Bible and the danger of a split over this issue. This morning on the radio, a Canadian priest argued that the consequences for the C of E in Africa would be disastrous, as it will accentuate the perception of the West as decadent.
What strikes me about the discussion is how little attention is paid by anyone to what is actually written in The Bible. Perhaps this is because there is actually so little on it – considering the fuss which the crissies make of it. Continue reading “Gaysex in The Bible”
I once attended a series of drama therapy workshops. As I entered the room one of the other participants – an ex-follower of the Bhagwan Shree Rajnesh – exclaimed ‘Oh good, we need some more male energy’. I looked behind me, but couldn’t see any. This remark expressed the core of Jung and his appeal: to reify gender-difference, and to do so in terms of ‘energy’. What this Bhagwanite saw – rather what she expressed – was not actually existing persons of a certain gender, but ‘energy’. This cameo points to that mystification of the real which is at the centre of the crypto-religion of Carl Gustav Jung.
I will nor be talking about ‘feminism’ so much as about the relevance – rather, irrelevance – of Jung for thinking about gender. The reason for doing this is, in part because to many he has seemed relevant to feminism. Though he has seemed relevant to feminism in a way which he has not to what preceded it, ie Women’s Liberation. The latter phrase refers to a material category and to a political process; the former to an essence and to theories from or about that essence. There is, of course, no question but that some women have found Jung’s vision attractive. Here is a typical expression of that attraction:
The primary appeal of Jung’s psychology to women … is that it is a ‘meaning-making’ psychology … Analytical psychology offers a balance to an overly rational, materialistic world … Jung defined the feminine largely in terms of receptivity …Jungian women feel .. receptivity is a quality much needed in the world, and that it is a form of empowerment
(WEHR Jung , p6)
One of the interesting features of this passage is its slippage from the category of ‘women’ to that of ‘the feminine’.
Continue reading “Jung and the (In)Comprehension of Gender”