In Part 1 of this article, I talked about the well-known Chinese philosophy symbol of yin-yang which represents the dynamic, ever-changing and complex nature of the cosmos.
To me, yin-yang is a reminder that dichotomies - seeing the world in simple sets of opposites - can be false and misleading. At its core, yin-yang says, ‘You might see two things as opposites, but they are not in reality. Do not being misled by false dichotomies.'
But we often do, and we often are.
In Yin-yang not, I outlined many things that yin-yang does NOT say or symbolise; specifically, it is:
- not about opposites
- not about achieving balance
- not a feature of things or behaviour
- not an inherent nature of an object or person
- not able to be separated into yin apart from yang; not ‘added’ up to a whole
- not about one ‘half’ being superior to the other.
One common example is when people talk about men as yang and women as yin or hold up the yin-yang symbol as justification for rigid, opposite and separate gender roles for men and women as a 'natural' way of the world.
While I’d love to restore yin-yang to its original and complex meaning, I know I can’t turn back the tide. As I mentioned in Part 1, we humans are attracted to and easily satisfied by simplistic thinking.
But at least I can explain why yin-yang is seriously not a rationale for our gender stereotypes.
And turn up in justifications of current gender roles it does, all over the place.
Here’s our first example: The wife had a different point of view entirely [from the husband]. Well you'd expect that wouldn't you: yin and yang - that's how relationship work.
In fact, yin-yang does not say that women are yin and men are yang.
And it's definitely not a matter of adding half yin (woman) + half yang (man) = good whole (hetero couple).
Instead, each person is seen as a dynamic expression of yin-yang flowing over time and situation. Because each person is conceptualised as a 'whole' being, each man and each woman expresses both yin and yang. Chi (energy) manifests within the 'whole person’ and between the person and the rest of the world. Or should do so. Even if we take the perspective of a couple as a 'whole system’ to be considered, then yin and yang is supposed to flow constantly and unhindered within this whole.
Another example: Feminine energy is supposed to be yin, receptive, gentle, intuitive and fulfilling. Masculine energy is supposed to be yang, active, fast, fierce, emptying, goal-oriented and focused.
And this one: Order and chaos are the yang and yin of the famous Taoist symbol: two serpents, head to tail. Order is the white, masculine serpent; chaos, its black feminine counterpart.
Well, in fact, yin-yang does not say that each of the expressions of yang energy have any relation to each other, apart than their 'yang-ness'. Neither do all the expressions of yin have anything else in common. So dark and downward and soft are all manifestations of yin chi, but there is nothing else in the nature of dark that is like soft or downward in any other way. While south and recessive are both considered yin, south does not equal recessive. Likewise, talking and light are both yang, but talking is not a feature of light. (Bear with me.)
And yet some people do this when they talk about people - they say that feminine traits are all the other manifestations of yin energy (and that women should have them, as per the first example above), and that masculine traits are all the manifestations of yang.
This has led many people to make a simplistic interpretation that masculinity equals yang, strong, light, active and femininity equals yin, yielding, dark, passive, etc.
Not just wrong, but completely back-to-front!
Of all the misinterpretations of yin-yang related to gender, this one annoys me the most. Seriously not what yin-yang says at all.Instead, it says that yang energy is expressed through the manifestation of strong, active, light, and what have come to be called masculine traits* over time, in each and every person - both men and women. Likewise, yin manifests in what have come to be called feminine traits* in every person. They are more appropriately called yin and yang human traits.
What yin-yang actually symbolises is that the relationship between 'south and north' in the same type of energy relationship between 'soft and hard', which is the same type of energy relationship between 'listening and talking'. It symbolises that ‘feminine traits relate to masculine traits*’ in the way that ‘south relates to north’ - not that ‘feminine is south’ and ‘masculine is north’. And seriously not that 'feminine is receptivity' and 'masculine is direction'.
Writing those sentences feels slightly crazy. But those who use yin-yang to justify gender roles do this all the time.
Because yin-yang is usually explained by examples, some people just link all the examples together while overlooking the philosophical principle being explained.
Interestingly, people only seem to link together those expressions of yin traits (like submissive and quiet) and yang traits (like dominant and expressive) that suit their existing firm ideas about gender stereotypes. And this slides very, very quickly to statements that women should be submissive and quiet, and men are naturally dominant and expressive. (Yet one never hears that men should be much more north.)
One final example: He lamented that this phenomenon of “yin waxing and yang waning” (ascending female role and descending male role) would destroy national integration and vitality.
No, not at all; yin-yang is not a rationale for superiority or anyone being more important than anyone else. It is value-free. There is no hierarchy in the energy flow of yin and yang energy flow. In fact, this is exactly what the yin-yang symbol says is NOT the case.
The misconception that men are yang and dominant was also used to suppress the mother sun goddess of the Shinto religion by the emerging patriarchal Buddhist culture in Japan. It seems yin-yang was used in a way similar to the supplanting of matriarchal paganism by patriarchal religions across large areas of Europe.
And yin-yang pops up as a reference in gender stereotypes right up to today.
This idea is often used to say, 'We need two opposite genders', to argue for a rigid dichotomy of gender roles, and the ongoing assumptions (by some) of the superiority of ‘yang men’ over ‘yin women’. They hold that yin-yang presents a sound argument that clear dichotomies - a world of simple opposites - is the nature of reality, see even the ancients thought so; there’s no discussion to be had further about gender.
On the other hand, some focus on the dots within the black and white halves of the yin-yang symbol. They describe human 'wholeness' in terms of men having little bits of 'yin' in them and women having little bits of 'yang' in them. (Not too much, mind you!)
This has gained traction in some areas of pop psychology because it seems to align with the work of the psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, who called ‘the unconscious woman’ within a man the anima - the traits of tenderness, compassion, vulnerability, friendship, relatedness, creativity, imagination and intuition. He called the ‘the unconscious man’ within a woman the animus - the traits of courage, assertiveness, analytical thought, decisiveness and a drive for achievement.
In this theory, each of us carries the whole range of what he called the 'archetypal' feminine and masculine traits; these latent traits can either be expressed or repressed as each of us is moulded by society into an adult. According to Jung, psychological disorders and ill health are related to the repression or denial of our necessary range of traits.
A focus on the two halves or a focus on the dots misses the point. Both are based on a warped and wrong understanding of the yin-yang symbol as representing opposites or dichotomies. The core message of the yin-yang is: 'things might APPEAR to be opposites, but they are NOT in reality.' And this applies to thinking about men and women too.
The common misinterpretation of yin-yang about gender is a product of the deep attachment of humans to seeing the world in simple and static dichotomies that I explored in Part 1. Combine the human tendency to only 'see' the world in simplistic dichotomies with the values of patriarchy - and you explain much of human social history and people's ideas about gender. Including those who refer to mystical symbols about dynamic unified harmony to justify their oppression of other people.
But then, maybe that’s not really a dichotomy!
In the final part of this article, I consider how the false dichotomy of feminine vs masculine is blinding us to human diversity and complexity, and to other ways of thinking about human wholeness and wellbeing.
* Sentences like this can be hard to understand because masculine is a problematic normative word we use to talk about human traits - we read the word: masculine but we think: man - we interpret them as defining each other; see Mae’s article on Gendered adjectives on why this is such a problem. For our purposes, it helps to think of the word traditional in front of the words masculine/feminine traits in terms of the yin-yang.)
Images sources, all used under Creative Commons
- Yin-yang fish: Ruben Artworks
- Yin-yang list: Peter Jacobson
No comments:
Post a Comment
We would love to hear your comments. All comments are moderated - so after you have your say, click Publish (bottom left), then you should get a pop up about approval. If it is your first time commenting, you may get a Blogger site request to confirm your name which will be displayed with your comment. Fred or the other writers will do their best to get back to you in a day or two!