Thursday, February 29, 2024

He and She and She

 

 

A recent survey published by the Public Religion Research Institute included the shocking conclusion that 28% of Americans aged 18 to 25, colloquially known as “Generation Z”, identify themselves as LGBTQ.  It is a dramatic rise from earlier generations, including my own, the “Baby Boomers” – persons born during the years from 1946 to 1964 – in which only 4% identified themselves as LGBTQ.  News of the survey’s results prompted comedian and talk show host Bill Maher to joke that this dramatic upward trend in percentages implies that, in the not-too-distant future, “We’ll all be LGBTQ”.  As I reviewed the press releases which summarized this survey, and even visited the website of the organization, my greatest regret was that the results were not broken down by gender, because I had noticed many years ago an interesting trend which seemed to be limited to the female sex.

 

My first discovery of this trend was when I came across a survey published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2005, titled “Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 15–44 Years of Age, United States, 2002”.  One of the questions posed to respondents was to identify the nature of their sexual attraction.  For men, the alternative responses were “Only female”, “Mostly female”, “Both”, “Mostly male”, “Only Male”, and “Not Sure”, and similarly for women, the alternative responses were “Only male”, Mostly male”, “Both”, “Mostly female”, “Only female”, and “Not Sure”.  The responses were divided into five age categories: 18-19 years, 20-24 years, 25-29 years, 30-34 years, and 35-44 years.  Among the male respondents, the answers showed no clear trend among these age categories, with the “Only female” category getting the largest percentage, averaging 92.2% among them, and the “Mostly female” category getting the second largest percentage, averaging 3.8%.  Together, the “Mostly male” and “Only male” categories averaged 2.2%, and the “Both” category (apparently representing complete bisexuals) averaged only 1.0%.  (The “Not sure” category averaged 0.8%).  But among the female respondents, a marked trend did appear among the different age categories.  Their complete results were as follows:

 

Age

Only Males

Mostly Males

Both

Mostly Females

Only Females

Not Sure

18-19

80.1%

12.8%

4.9%

-

-

0.8%

20-24

82.5%

13.3%

2.3%

0.3%

0.5%

1.0%

25-29

82.1%

13.5%

2.4%

0.7%

0.6%

0.8%

30-34

86.6%

9.8%

1.9%

0.5%

0.4%

0.7%

35-44

89.2%

7.1%

1.1%

1.0%

1.0%

0.6%

 

What immediately becomes apparent is that there had been a marked change in the proportion of females who considered themselves exclusively heterosexual, falling by over 9% from the oldest category (which included Baby Boomers and some from Generation X) to the youngest, accompanied by nearly a 6% increase in those who considered themselves mostly attracted to males, and a relatively sharp rise in the “Both” (bisexual) category, from 1% to 5%.  The overall impression left by this data is that women, unlike their male counterparts, have become more “fluid” in their sexual preferences over the past few decades.

 

Now of course, as political polls have starkly demonstrated in recent years, survey results such as these must be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.  With sex surveys in particular, respondents might be reluctant to be completely honest in their answers.  And even if these trends are reflective of reality, they open themselves up to alternative explanations.  For example, the fact that the percentages of women identifying themselves as mainly or entirely attracted to other women, which are lower among the younger respondents, rather than indicating a downward trend over time, might simply imply that many women don’t realize they are lesbians until later in life.  Similarly, the higher percentages of younger women who identify themselves as not entirely heterosexual might reflect the “college lesbian” phenomenon, in which women of those ages tend to engage in more sexual experimentation.  And so while I was surprised by these differences between the male and female respondents, with the female respondents seeming to show a gradual but significant change in their sexual preferences over time, I did try to refrain from jumping to conclusions.

 

But then, about a decade later, I encountered an almost identical survey, also performed under the auspices of the CDC, published in 2016, titled “Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Orientation Among Adults Aged 18–44 in the United States: Data From the 2011–2013 National Survey of Family Growth”.  While the response categories were the same, the age group classifications were condensed from 5 to 3:

 

Age

Only Males

Mostly Males

Both

Mostly Females

Only Females

Not Sure

18-24

75.9%

14.4%

5.3%

1.7%

1.0%

1.8%

25-34

79.1%

15.4%

3.3%

0.3%

0.9%

0.9%

35-44

86.6%

9.2%

1.7%

0.7%

0.6%

1.3%

 

These results seem to confirm that a trend has been occurring, and is continuing, with now just 76% of the youngest cohort (college-age women) reporting that they are only attracted to men.  And only 79% of the next highest age bracket, which roughly represents the same group surveyed in the college-age bracket a decade earlier, reported that they are only attracted to men.  This is lower than what the college-age bracket reported in that earlier survey, which seems to undermine the “college lesbian” (i.e., transitory sexual experimentation) theory.  However, the 35-44 age bracket in the later survey includes a higher percentage of women in the “Only Males” category than their counterparts in the 25-34 age bracket of the earlier survey, so perhaps this indicates that the “experimentation” phase lasts beyond the college years, through the early thirties, before reverting to more conventional sexual behavior patterns.

 

Again, this is probably lending more interpretation to the survey results than they actually merit, but it is hard to challenge the overall impression that a clear trend in American female sexuality is in evidence.  I’ve not seen any more CDC surveys since the one that came out in 2016, but I did happen upon a more recent study published in 2021 titled “Sexuality in Emerging Adulthood”, which was authored by Elizabeth M. Morgan and Manfred H. M. van Dulmen.  This one included an annual survey of college-aged persons from the years 2011 through 2019, and used categories almost identical to those of the CDC studies.  As with the earlier CDC study, the annual survey showed little change in the sexual preferences of the male respondents over time, although the percentage of men who identified as exclusively heterosexual was lower than the CDC study, at only 85%.  (The percentage of men who indicated that they were mostly or exclusively attracted to other men was also about twice as high as that reported in the CDC study.)  But in this study, again, there were clear trends among the female respondents in nearly all categories, with the percentage of women saying that they were only sexually attracted to men falling from around 77% in the beginning of the study period to about 65% in the final year (2019).  (The same study indicated that while there was no trend among males reporting that they had engaged in sex with other men, with an average of about 10% saying that they had done so, there again was a clear trend among women, with the percentage reporting that they had engaged in sex with other women doubling from 9% in 2011 to 18% in 2019.)

 

 

And this brings us back to the most recent poll, with its surprising result that 28% of Gen Z Americans identify themselves as LGBTQ.  Again, this result should be treated with at least a little skepticism:  A Gallup poll done in 2020, which posed the same question, found that only 16% of Gen Z Americans identified themselves as LGBTQ, which is more consistent with the earlier studies.  But on the other hand, a poll conducted by Ipsos, a global market research and public opinion firm, in early 2021, found that 14% of Gen Z Americans said that they were attracted mainly or entirely to the same sex, and 21% said that they were equally attracted to both sexes.  The poll also found that just 51% of females in that generation now said that they were sexually attracted to men only.  This result, if true, would reveal a very dramatic shift in female sexual preference over the past few decades, with over 8 out of 9 females in the Baby Boomer generation identifying as exclusively attracted to men, and only 1 out of 2 females doing so in Gen Z.  It echoes a general conclusion that emerged from all of these most recent studies and surveys: that the growth of bisexuality among females is a principal if not predominant cause of the growing percentage of LGBTQ adults in America.

 

But what could cause such a dramatic shift in female sexual preferences (and behavior)?  Certainly there are a number of contributing factors, including the sexual revolution, with its advocacy of a wider variety of sexual practices, and a more general social acceptance of sexual identities and preferences that are not confined to heterosexuality.  But these alone could not account for the significant disparity between genders in these changing sexual preferences.  I believe that there is one, fundamental, thing that is driving this shift among females.  It is pornography.

 

Many years ago I read an article about a psychological study that had identified different ways that males and females react to erotic images or movies.  (And here I can enjoy the greater latitude given to me in writing on this subject in a blog, rather than an academic journal, where I would have to locate said study and cite it.)  The author(s) of the study found that a woman, when viewing a male and female engaged in a sexual act, could mentally place herself into the image and role of the female, and thereby experience the act vicariously in her imagination, with the female performer essentially becoming her avatar.  For men, on the other hand, this was a more difficult thing to do, because the men, when viewing a man and woman engaged in sex, tended to view the male figure as a rival.  His presence in the image was intrusive, and an unpleasant distraction.  Now I can’t remember if the study went on to make the following conclusion that I am about to state, but I think that it is a pretty obvious one.  At some time in the past, purveyors of pornography came upon a simple solution to this problem.  Rather than showing a man and a woman having sex, they could replace the man with another woman.  The (heterosexual) male viewer could then enjoy the image of a woman (or rather two women) in various stages of undress and in the heat of sexual passion, without having to contend with the unpleasant distraction of looking at another man.  It proved to be an eminently successful solution, but in order to make it work, pornographers had to popularize two conventions: the “lipstick lesbian” (i.e., a beautiful actress/model portraying a lesbian whose beauty conforms to conventional standards appealing to the male gaze: clean-shaven bodies, high heels, make-up, etc.) and the pansexual female.  Several decades ago, when the availability of pornography was confined to seedy adult bookstores, which most women avoided, women in general were probably completely oblivious to these conventions, unless they happened to glimpse examples of them in adult magazines like Penthouse.

 

But this all changed when pornography gradually became more accessible to a general audience – both male and female – and moved beyond the boundaries of “girlie magazines” and the “stag films” that were often shown at bachelor parties.  Cable television provided the avenue of entry to this more general realm.  I remember this well, because I was in college at the time, and whenever I would visit my parents during break, I would enjoy the cable television premium subscription package that they had, which included a wide assortment of offerings, including some clearly intended for an adult audience.  During my visit, after they went to bed, I would stay up and peruse some of these adult offerings, like the “Adam and Eve” and “Playboy” channels.  These featured softcore pornography, which avoided showing explicit images of male or female genitalia, but otherwise left little or nothing to the imagination in portraying the various sexual activities of the performers.  They included heterosexual couplings of course, along with indulgences in relatively benign fetishes, but the lipstick lesbian and pansexual female were popular presences here as well, with prolific scenes of very attractive females kissing and romancing other attractive females, and coupling with them in ways that, again, left little or nothing to the imagination.  These, then, constituted the type of sexual behavior that was considered suitable for pornography tailored to a broader, cable television audience.  What was never shown on these adult channels – at least back then – were bisexual or homosexual males, as their behavior was apparently considered unsuitable for that same audience. 

 

Eventually, the offerings of these softcore pornography channels were superseded in popularity by adult-oriented, “after dark” programs made available by mainstream channels, such as HBO and Cinemax.  These were generally featured in the very late evening or very early morning hours, and often only on weekends.  They were still softcore pornography, but the features were scrubbed, polished, and standardized into something that apparently was considered more appropriate for a popular cable television channel.  The female performers were almost always in their twenties, usually Caucasian, sometimes Asian, and rarely black, while the male performers tended to be a decade or so older than their female counterparts, usually Caucasian, sometimes black, and rarely Asian.  The movies followed a very predictable format.  They were generally light-hearted in tone, with a comedic or mildly melodramatic plot interspersed with scenes involving sexual coupling.  The standard number of these sex scenes tended to be four, and followed an almost identical format: with the first being male-female, the second female-female, the third male-female, and the final sex scene constituting a sort of grand finale involving more than two people (e.g., a male-female-female menage a trois, or two or more couples engaged in an orgy).  And it was not uncommon for each of the two females involved in the lesbian scene to be a participant in one or the other of the heterosexual love scenes, further popularizing the fictional convention of the pansexual female.  (I must confess again that I made these observations not as a result of a dispassionate academic research investigation.  However, having said that, I will add that these films were ultimately disappointing to watch: because they were so routinized in the manner that they set up and choreographed each scene, they actually made sex appear boring!)

 

This, then, was the fictional erotic universe created to satiate the heterosexual male’s lust: one in in which men seduced women, and women seduced both men and each other.  Cable television had liberated this universe from the obscure, backwater realm of the adult bookstores and sex shops, and brought it to a more general audience.  From there, it seeped even further into the general consciousness, as the lipstick lesbian and sexually fluid female made a growing appearance in popular television programs and movies.  But there has been one other, seismic shift in the landscape of pornographic fantasies, and that has been the rise of internet pornography.

 

In 2007, two websites were created that featured pornographic videos: XVideos and Pornhub, and they have since become immensely popular, with XVideos now the 9th, and Pornhub the 14th, most visited websites in the world.  (Internet pornography had already existed at least a decade before these companies came into being, but they have been largely responsible for its general surge in popularity.)  The innovation that is at the base of these websites, and the many others like them that exist, is that they present an “a la carte” approach to viewing pornography:  Search engines enable viewers to find and select videos that cater to their particular tastes and fancies, including the age, race, ethnicity, and gender of the performers.  And while most of the popular pornographic website providers, such as XVideos and Pornhub, endeavor to portray themselves as benign purveyors of this material, with requirements, for example, that all featured performers be at least 18 years of age, that they are voluntary participants, and that video submissions featuring their performances have been made with their consent, the websites have not escaped controversy, with accusations levied against them of some videos involving human trafficking and the involuntary participation of persons featured in them.  But even if these accusations are unfounded, there are two additional unsavory facts about these providers.  First, unlike the offerings of adult entertainment on cable television, the internet videos are explicit, showing full nudity, including genitalia, and so are of the “hardcore” rather than “softcore” variety shown on cable television.  And second, these offerings are available, and at no cost on many of these websites, to anyone who has internet access, with the only gatekeeping generally being a requirement that anyone entering the website confirm that they are at least eighteen years of age, without having to verify this in any formal sort of way.  It is highly likely, then, that many children are now getting their first exposure to sex through viewing videos on these websites.

 

But has this been a principal cause of the growth of bisexuality among young females?  If, as the recent surveys suggest, this trend has been accelerating over the past decade or so, then the timing seems to be right, as it coincides with the massive growth in popularity of internet pornographic websites.  But on the other hand, because these websites are driven by search engines, users are actually choosing what types of videos they view.  Pornhub publishes on the internet an annual demographic summary describing who its users are and their viewing behaviors.  Globally, it reports that the percentage of female viewership has grown from 24% in 2015 to 36% in 2023.  In America, the percentage of female viewers is a little lower, hovering around 30% over the past few years.  The share of viewers in the youngest age category, 18-24, was at 23% in the U.S. in 2023 (27% worldwide), and it can be presumed that this includes children who are only claiming to be 18 or over.  The Pornhub report also includes a ranking of the most popular search words worldwide, by gender of viewers, and while the entire lists have changed over time, with various words rising and falling in popularity, the top picks have been very consistent over the years.  Among female viewers, the most popular search word is “lesbian”.  (Among male viewers, it is “Japanese”.)  So there is a definite curiosity among female viewers about lesbianism, perhaps stoked by other causes, but easily addressed and satisfied by pornographic websites such as Pornhub.  (At least some of these female viewers may actually be lesbians, of course, but given the very low percentage of females who identify themselves as such, even in the more recent surveys, it is likely that most of these female viewers are not.) 

 

What to make of all of this?  I must admit, again, that I am no puritan, and my attitude toward sexual behavior in general is probably consistent with much if not most of the general public:  If it brings happiness and pleasure, only involves consenting adults, and is creating no collateral harm, then where is the reproach?  And I must confess, too, that like many if not most male heterosexuals I find scenes and images of female sapphic behavior titillating.  But the pornographic industry, in creating and popularizing a fantasy world in which these behaviors are believably commonplace: one in which (heterosexual) men will be men, but many if not most women have a fluid sexuality that makes it just as easy for them to be seduced by another woman as by a man, seems to have succeeded in creating a phenomenon where life is increasingly imitating “art” (if I may use that word).  And I wonder if we men might someday be finding ourselves confronting the old adage: “Be careful what you wish for.”

 

There are at least some feminists who might actually welcome these trends, because there has always been a branch of radical feminism which believes that the cultivation by females of a sexual attraction for one another is an effective way of neutralizing a major factor contributing to their dependency on males.  But as this behavior has increasingly become a reality, such feminists will find themselves (if I may use the expression) “strange bedfellows” with pornographers, who have played a large if not dominant role in bringing about its emergence.

 

The physicist Neils Bohr once famously said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future,” and predictions often go terribly – even laughably – wrong when they are simply based upon extrapolations of present trends.  And so at the risk of descending into absurdity, I will venture to describe some future scenarios where trends in female sexual behavior may be leading us. 

 

At one extreme, if this trend continues unabated, and bisexual behavior among females becomes common and in fact a societal norm, we might find ourselves living in the female counterpart to that strange episode in human civilization – classical Greece – when it was customary for a middle-aged man to have both a (female) wife and a young male lover.  But such a society may be a very dystopian one for many men, particularly those who are victims of what has been called in recent years the “Boy Crisis”.  This refers to the increasing marginalization of boys and young men in society, who are lagging behind their female counterparts in educational performance, and, among the working classes, finding it increasingly difficult to find the kind of gainful employment that their fathers and grandfathers found in the manufacturing sector.  Many of these young males are descending into antisocial behavior, including drug and alcohol abuse, and crime, and many more are finding themselves underemployed, or working low wage, menial jobs, or not working at all.  It would be challenging enough for such men to attract a mate, but much, much more so if they now find that they are not just competing with other males, but with females as well, for the amorous affections of women.  If the trend toward female pansexuality is a global one, and one that is not just confined to America, then in those countries where “gendercide” – sexually selective abortions favoring male over female infants, for reasons of economic security – has been practiced, young men will face the additional challenge of finding a mate in a much-reduced female population.  One could imagine a society in which it is not uncommon for adult males to be living in their mother’s basement, unmarried and with little or no means of self-support, wiling away their hours in an alcohol- and cannabis-fueled haze, listening to music, gaming, and watching pornography, perhaps enhanced and intensified with the latest advances in virtual reality.  Mothers of these aimless young men will only be able to turn to their husbands (or wives), roll their eyes, and shrug their shoulders in helpless exasperation. 

 

In fact, there is already an emerging class of men, identifying themselves as “Incels” (involuntary celibates), who have abandoned all hope of having a sexual/romantic relationship with a female.  (I should remark at this point that I have never given much currency to the theory that the growth in female bisexuality is due to the death of masculinity, brought on by feminist critiques of conventional male behavior and intensified by concerted protests against sexual harassment, such as the “Me Too” movement.  The idea here is that men in general have been systematically intimidated in order to compel them to avoid engaging in traditionally masculine behavior, with the result that they have become less attractive to women.  When I think back to the days of my youth, long before the phrase “toxic masculinity” entered the popular lexicon, I remember that the men who were most successful on the dating scene – who had what is sometimes called “animal magnetism”: an apparent ability to attract female admirers with little or no effort – were not “alpha males” who dominated their peers.  They weren’t even “macho” men, in the generally understood sense of that word.  Instead, they had an easy-going manner about them – a natural gregariousness.  Any air of self-confidence that they exuded was of a serene sort, which, rather than coming off as arrogant or condescending, only made women feel comfortable and safe around them, never intimidated, and certainly never bullied.  They exhibited a playfully nonchalant attitude about sex: they enjoyed it, and were not hampered by any inhibitions, and yet acted as if they could “take it or leave it”: an attitude completely devoid of desperation or compulsion.  And this attitude, ironically, was like catnip to their female companions, stoking their own passions.  These men, then, while often athletic, were the antithesis of the brutish boors that have populated the “Me Too” horror stories.)

 

Coincidentally, while I was putting this piece together, I came across an article in The Guardian authored by Gaby Hinsliff titled “I was puzzled by younger women’s reaction to Barbie. It turned out Gen Z men held the answer” (February 2, 2024).  She was referring to the different reaction among her generation of women to the Barbie movie (who simply saw “colour and fun”) and that of Gen Z women, who seemed to see in it a much more serious message about the growing divide between men and women.  She writes:

 

Something is happening to Gen Z that belies lazy “woke” stereotypes. As young women become dramatically more liberal, young men are getting more conservative, not only in the US but – according to a Financial Times analysis – from South Korea to Germany, Poland to China. Though the divide is relatively modest in Britain, polling this week found that one in five British men aged 16 to 29 who have heard of him think warmly of Andrew Tate, the YouTube misogynist currently facing charges in Romania of rape and human trafficking (which he denies). So much for all those well-meaning school assemblies on toxic masculinity.

 

After providing examples of the trend toward political extremism among Gen Z males, she concludes:

 

But if the political implications are alarming, there are more intimate consequences, too. Why on earth would the Swiftie generation want to settle down with men who seem to hate them, ranting on dates about how feminism has gone too far and scoffing at ideas they hold dear? The angriest Kens may be heading for the kind of lonely lives that, if anything, might only intensify their embittered search for easy scapegoats.

 

It’s still unclear what exactly is driving all this, with possible causes ranging from social media polarisation to pushback against #MeToo, economic trends such as more women than men going to university (with consequences for lifetime earnings), or the so-called bachelor timebomb in South Korea and China, where young men outnumber women and so struggle to find partners. Such a complex phenomenon won’t have simple answers. But unless young people of both sexes are happy to end up living alone with their cats, it’s probably in all our interests to find them.

 

The scenario that Hinsliff describes is that of an outright growing hostility between the sexes in Generation Z, and while she doesn’t mention trends in sexual behavior, one wonders if these are a contributing cause of the mutual sexual alienation she describes, or a consequence of it, or both – in a sort of descending spiral of antipathy.

 

            So much for the dystopian future.  But while this might be the fate awaiting many young men, others will continue to find avenues for success that provide them with a decent living and a comfortable lifestyle, thereby enabling them to fare much better in finding and maintaining romantic relationships, and for them the future could be very different: potentially even a utopia, of sorts.  Such men, with their bisexual wives’ or girlfriends’ full support and participation, if not outright encouragement, might spice up their love lives by occasionally – or even permanently – bringing an additional woman into the relationship.

 

            There is another – probably more likely – scenario, however, which is that things will be pretty much the same as they are now.  After all, there have been many trends, and innovations, and inventions in the past that, on their first appearance, were seen by many to threaten the survival of the family, or the American way of life, or civilization in general: such as mass immigrations of the “wrong” sort of people, secularism, jazz and – later – rock and roll, pot, the birth control pill and the sexual revolution, ultraconservatism, ultraliberalism, even automobiles and television, not to mention the internet in general and social media in particular.  So far, at least, the general features of the family have survived all of these threats and onslaughts intact.  We are a more permissive society, and a more tolerant one of alternative lifestyles, but I suspect that most of us see this as a generally good thing, which actually makes our world a better one than that of previous generations.  Greater sexual fluidity among the female population may simply be a new and permanent feature of our society, which incorporates itself seamlessly into the fabric of that society.  Perhaps, too, in spite of the increasing rate of growth of pansexuality among females that the most recent surveys suggest, this will eventually level off, leaving the majority of the female population still generally heterosexual in orientation, although no longer rigidly so, with the ultimate consequence that while many will have interesting dating histories, most will still follow in the tradition of their mothers and grandmothers, forming long-term relationships with men.

 

The glamorization and popularization of female homoeroticism continues to expand, in movies, television, television commercials, and has even breached the bounds of pornography on the internet to more mainstream websites, like YouTube, with “hot girls kissing” videos and the like.  To what extent the expansion of this phenomenon continues is anyone’s guess, but I believe that it is here to stay, as a permanent feature of our cultural landscape.  I wonder, though, if there will be a backlash to at least some aspects of the phenomenon, at least where pornography is involved.  Even feminists who believe that female sexual fluidity is a form of empowerment may conclude that its furtherance by pornography has turned out to be a Faustian bargain with the devil, because in doing so it has only increased the sexual objectification of women.  And those in Gen Z, who have become famous – or infamous – in their intolerance for even the expression of ideas that they consider to be illiberal, may eventually push for the regulation or even banning of internet pornography.  Of course this, too, could have negative collateral consequences, if it opens the door to the sort of internet censorship that is now common in totalitarian countries like China.

 

As an aging Baby Boomer, I have had the luxury of following this trend in female sexuality with a detached fascination.  I can only wonder what kind of society awaits the men of future generations.  (I should mention that while most of the studies that I cited showed no significant trends in male sexual preferences within their survey periods, a comparison across the studies over time suggests that the male population, too, is undergoing a transition to greater sexual fluidity, with the only difference between the sexes being that the female population is undergoing the transition at a much faster rate.)  And while I may have little or no personal stake in the outcome, I still peruse any new publication of sexual surveys like the ones I have described here with unbounded curiosity.  They seem to describe a social transformation underway of potentially seismic proportions, but one which is rarely openly discussed.

Monday, April 24, 2023

Critical Mass



Writing as a guest columnist for the Economist magazine a few months ago, musician and artist Brian Eno declared:

 

Right now we are living through the emergence of a movement of unprecedented scale and scope – the biggest movement in human history, facing up to the biggest challenge in human history.  Let’s call it the “climate-change movement”, but then let’s acknowledge that it is not just about climate change but impinges on every hot topic of the moment: the rethinking of democracy, electoral systems, economics, migration, inequality, agriculture, women’s rights, resource extraction, common ownership and personal lifestyle.

 

You may wonder why this planet-wide conversation about the future is not bigger news. The problem is that it is good news, which, as everybody knows, does not sell newspapers or drive clicks. Only the spectacular parts of the climate news (floods and fires) are dramatic enough to make it onto television, so we get to see only the bad news. Underneath the news, though, slow and deep, is a movement of long horizons and structural rethinking, not attracting much attention until it gets angry. But a rich and robust root system is growing, and its first green shoots are starting to break the surface.

 

Brian Eno

While I have the highest regard for Brian Eno, and respect his artistic genius as well as his ideals, I must sadly say that I’ve heard all of this talk before about an emergent movement on the cusp of changing the world.  As I noted in an earlier entry: “Okay Boomer” (https://johnsemeraldtablet.blogspot.com/2020/05/okay-boomer.html), a similar ideal was expressed in Marilyn Ferguson’s 1980 book The Aquarian Conspiracy.  In its opening chapter she writes:

 

A leaderless but powerful network is working to bring about radical change in the United States.  Its members have broken with certain key elements of Western thought, and they may have even broken continuity with history.

 

This network is the Aquarian Conspiracy.  It is a conspiracy without a political doctrine.  Without a manifesto.  With conspirators who seek power only to disperse it, and whose strategies are pragmatic, even scientific, but whose perspective sounds so mystical that they hesitate to discuss it.  Activists asking different kinds of questions, challenging the establishment from within.

 

Broader than reform, deeper than revolution, this benign conspiracy for a new human agenda has triggered the most rapid cultural realignment in history.  The great shuddering, irrevocable shift overtaking us is not a new political, religious, or philosophical system.  It is a new mind – the ascendance of a startling worldview that gathers into its framework breakthrough science and insights from earliest recorded thought.

 



As I noted then, the 1970s and 1980s were characterized by a number of such ideas, which shared the common belief that through the collective enlightenment of a growing number of individuals, a critical mass would emerge that would change the world in a number of profoundly positive ways.  There were a number of such “Aquarian” movements around that time that stressed personal growth and enlightenment as a vehicle for general social reform, but none of these led to the fundamental social transformation that was hoped for or promised, in spite of the fact that half a century has passed since the decade that spawned them. 

 

And, as I survey events in the world and in my own country, I find little evidence that such a widescale positive, enduring change is imminent.  In China, the most populous nation in the world, the citizens are living under a condition of extreme political repression, and its leadership is carrying out an international agenda that is strictly pragmatic and devoid of any underlying basis of moral values.  And in the United States, a prosperous nation (it ranks 8th among all nations in terms of GDP per capita), where citizens enjoy a large measure of personal liberties, one of the two major political parties has all but denied that climate change is a serious problem, and has offered little support for any significant measures to address it, and has often resisted them outright.  One would expect that at least in countries where citizens are relatively prosperous and/or free, there would be tangible evidence of a large and growing number of enlightened persons actively engaged in improving the world.  Perhaps Brian Eno is right when he says that they are there, but are simply being ignored by the news media.  But although I count many if not most of my friends as having liberal sentiments, I see little evidence of the concerted activism among them that would lead to significant positive change on a large scale.  I don’t even harbor much hope that there will be a large enough majority of them to enact enduring solutions through the political process – at least in the foreseeable future.

 

And just what kind of enlightenment would convert a person into a functional world-saver?  Clearly, just becoming more fully aware – and critical – of the world’s injustices and environmental problems is not enough.  There is no shortage of “armchair liberals” (of which, admittedly, I must include myself).  There of course have been many instances in history where bringing a problem into the public consciousness in a stark or compelling way has galvanized the masses to demand reforms, as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin did with slavery, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle did with unsanitary practices in the meat-packing industry, and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring did with environmental issues.  And while raising the awareness of a critical issue in such a way that it leads to collective action cannot be discounted as an effective catalyst for positive social change, I think that what is being envisioned by the “Aquarians” and others like them is something broader and more enduring.  It would be a sort of enlightenment that changes one’s entire perspective on life and existence, in a holistic sort of way, but more than this, it creates a fundamental and life-altering shift in one’s personality, compelling active, positive engagement with the world to a very significant degree.  It is not hard to imagine that if a sufficient number of these individuals emerged, they could reverse the downward spiral of our civilization and put it onto a healing trajectory.



 

But the hope and promise of positive enlightenment growing into a world-saving force has appeared many times in our history, long before the present – even long before the hope and expectation of an “Aquarian age” that infected the popular consciousness half a century ago.  Perhaps the most significant historical example of this is the rise of Christianity, whose central figure preached that the most important two commandments are to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.  Early converts to this movement believed that their faith had changed them in a fundamental way: had enabled them to become “reborn” in a spiritual sense.  Admittedly, the earliest Christians entertained no ambitions about growing in numbers to a size large enough to transform their civilization, let alone the world.  Their hope was in a heavenly kingdom that was yet to come, populated by a community of saints.  But by the time the Emperor Constantine had personally converted to Christianity in the early 4th century (and that otherworldly kingdom of the early Christians, which many expected to arrive in their lifetime, had failed to appear), there must have been growing hope among Christians that as their religion continued to gain the tolerance and even support of the empire, and won an increasing number of converts, then it would eventually create an earthly version of that heavenly kingdom.  Saint Augustine, however, writing about a century after Constantine’s conversion, continued to stress the importance to Christians of that otherworldly kingdom, since Rome had been recently sacked by Visigoths, leaving the future of its empire in doubt.  Ironically, when the Gothic invaders themselves eventually converted to Christianity, this made the dream of an earthly Christian kingdom once again tenable.  And in fact, for over a millennium, until 1806, much of Europe was ruled by what was known as the “Holy Roman Empire”: a Christianized version of the empire that had fallen to the Goths and other Germanic invaders.  Sadly, however, the Christianized nations – both within and without the Holy Roman Empire – fell far short of the ideals of the earliest Christian teachings.  There were organized persecutions of pagans and heretics, and mob-induced persecutions of Jews and other non-Christians.  The Crusades were fought – at the Christian popes’ direction – against non-Christian nations.  And eventually, after the Protestant Reformation, there were extended, violent wars between the Christians themselves, allied to different sects, and Christians even found themselves persecuted by Christian monarchs, if they failed to belong to that monarch’s particular sect.  It is hard to fathom how a movement founded on the ideal of universal brotherhood and devotion to a moral, benevolent deity could – upon reaching a critical mass in civilization – have produced such horrible results.

 



But those who blame all of the evils of western civilization on the rise of Christianity go too far in their condemnation.  At the very least, one can ask if that civilization would have been more benign and less bloodthirsty if paganism had remained the dominant religion of Europe.  I doubt it.  I can attest, too, from personal experience, that I have known many individuals whose Christian beliefs have provided a solid moral compass in their lives.  I am sure that this has been the case for many persons who have lived by that faith.  As Brian Eno has said about his own movement, the rank-and-file benevolent Christians are not “spectacular” and therefore not newsworthy.  It is those in power who make the news, and throughout history power has corrupted many a leader, warrior, or even preacher who has called himself a Christian.

 

And of course it goes without saying that the evil done in the name of Christianity, or even just by Christians themselves, runs contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the writings of St. Paul.  And this is not just true of Christianity.  Something just seems to happen when a spiritual idea or discipline gets formalized into a religion – particularly one that gains power in numbers.  Even Buddhism, a doctrine that is probably most associated in the general public’s mind with the very word, “enlightenment”, contains dark episodes in its history, as in imperial Japan in the 1930s, when many Buddhist leaders supported and collaborated with the militaristic regime.  Ichikawa Hakugen, an eminent Japanese Zen Buddhist scholar who lived at that time, reinterpreted many fundamental tenets of Buddhism in a way that justified such collaboration.  But much earlier, in 9th-century China, Buddhists themselves had been the targets of widescale persecution, culminating in the destruction of thousands of monasteries and tens of thousands of Buddhist temples.  Their persecutors, ironically, were practitioners of Daoism – a philosophy famous for eschewing formal doctrines of any kind – because they had grown jealous of the growing popularity of Buddhism in China.

 

This, then, seems to be an almost an inevitable outcome of mass enlightenment:  A system of beliefs inspired by spiritual insights – usually originating from a wise, illuminated teacher – gains a growing number of adherents, and with the growth of the movement and the passage of time, there is a perceived need to formalize the system with a codified set of laws and practices, and a clear division between clergy and laity – between leaders and followers, but the organization that emerges becomes politicized, both internally and externally, inviting all of the inherent risks of corruption, abuse of power, and outright hostility toward “non-believers”.

 


A different – almost opposite – pitfall of enlightenment is the sort associated with Buddhists, Hindu yogis, Muslim Sufism, and Christian mysticism, in which the attainment of enlightenment becomes a sort of end in itself, and the “awakened” practitioner becomes divorced from the world of ordinary day-to-day activities, often as a recluse or a member of a monastic community.  The purity of their lifestyles, as admirable as it might be in itself, provides little tangible service in improving the world, beyond extending their enlightenment to new converts and acolytes.


But has there ever been an activist enlightenment, in which an “awakened individual” actually becomes more engaged with the surrounding world, in an attempt to reform it, improve it, even save it?  Sri Aurobindo, a pro-independence activist in early 20th-Century India, provides an interesting biographical example.  After being imprisoned for a year in solitary confinement for suspected revolutionary activities, Aurobindo turned from politics to spirituality, receiving instruction from a Maharashtrian yogi.  Over the next two decades, he developed a spiritual system called “Integral Yoga”, which at its core has his assertion that the physical world is not an illusion, as so many mystics contend, but is real, and in its reality is subject to evolution and transformation.  The traditional attainment of higher consciousness, Aurobindo argued, is merely an intermediate step, which can be followed by a descent back into the world of day-to-day existence.  He termed higher consciousness “Supermind”, which, once attained, can enable one to play an active role in evolving the entire world and its creatures to a greater level of spiritual advancement.  In his words:

 

Supermind is a plane of perfect knowledge, that has the full, integral truth of anything. It is a plane that man can rise to, above his current limited mentality, and have perfect understanding through revelations and power that is leaning down on the earth's consciousness. One can open to it, in order to transform the various aspects of one's being, as well as set right the conditions of life, . . .



According to Aurobindo, one who has attained the Supermind, or supramental consciousness, becomes, in his words, a “Gnostic being”, and he believed that when a sufficient number of these Gnostic beings appeared – reaching a critical mass – then a new world order would result.  Aurobindo contended that his Integral Yoga was actually based on ancient traditional Indian holy writings, such as the Upanishads.  And yet, he apparently believed that very few if any human beings had ever moved beyond the traditional, passive mode of mystical illumination to the next, activist stage which would catalyze the spiritual evolution of the physical world.  His anticipation, or hope, was that through the practice of integral yoga, the widespread appearance of such individuals would finally occur.  While his spiritual system attracted many followers in the 20th Century, it seems to have run its course, falling fall short of a number capable of catalyzing global spiritual evolution.

 

Occultism, in many of its branches and guises, has also been touted as providing a path of higher learning and even transformation to its adherents.  Much of the popularity of occult disciplines – such as astrology, alchemy, Hermeticism, and Tarot – can be attributed to the common belief that they are ancient in origin: either relics from some scientifically and spiritually advanced antediluvian civilization, or wisdom passed down, through the ages, by an unbroken chain of Masters, perhaps since the dawn of humanity.  The belief is generally unfounded, with most of these disciplines, at least in their current form, having been introduced within the past two thousand years.  In many cases, modern occultists have even fraudulently credited works of their own creation to earlier sources, in order to give them a greater air of authenticity.  But Carl Jung, and many psychologists and mythologists inspired by his writings, have conferred a greater legitimacy on various forms of occultism by suggesting that they provide universal symbols that have survived in the collective unconscious of humanity, and periodically find expression in art, mysticism, and religion, not to mention intense personal psychological experiences.  Well-intentioned, scholarly occultists have attempted to distill the deeper symbolic meanings of the various occult disciplines.  Some of these occultists, like Paul Foster Case, went even further, by endeavoring to integrate the fundamental insights of astrology, alchemy, Hermeticism, Tarot, and even the Jewish mystical tradition of Kabbalah into a unified wisdom teaching.  In 1933, Case founded a school of thought called the “Builders of the Adytum” which was dedicated to the passing on of “Ageless Wisdom” to those who wished to seek it and thereby to ultimately find the “Way of Liberation”.  As with Sri Aurobindo, Case and others who had similar perspectives about the ultimate wisdom of occultism believed that by attaining this wisdom, human beings would not only elevate themselves to a higher spiritual and intellectual plane, but would then become agents for the elevation of humankind in general.  But, as with Aurobindo’s followers, those associated with the “Builders of the Adytum” and similar occultic movements seem to have fallen short of reaching any level of influence.

 


It is of interest to note, however, that there have been occultic fraternities, such as the Freemasons, which seemed to have lived up to the promise of enlightened individuals within their fold enacting positive social change.  The rolls of famous Freemasons include Ben Franklin, George Washington, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Voltaire, and Sir Alexander Fleming, and another occult fraternity, the Rosicrucians, counted as their members Abraham Lincoln, Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Francis Bacon.  But it is an open question whether the actions of these individuals were actually shaped and motivated by their involvement in these organizations, or the fraternities simply attracted persons of character and merit at the time that they lived.  Both the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians have certainly had members whose contributions to society are mixed, at best, such as the Freemason J. Edgar Hoover, and the Rosicrucian Napoleon Bonaparte.

 

Of course, there is and always have been many popular books providing guidance on personal enlightenment, particularly during the past century, including A Course in Miracles, published in 1976, and the works of Eckhart Tolle, such as The Power of Now, published in 1997.  Dr. Joseph Michael Levry, in his book Lifting the Veil: The Divine Code, originally published in 1994, combined the teachings of Jewish mystical Kabbalah with a brand of yoga (“Shakti Naam”) which, he promised “will take away your fears, and empower you to reach your goals at the same time helping others to reach theirs.  These teachings will expand your consciousness, purify your mind, and illuminate your life.”  But more than this, he asserts that:

 

This book is for Yogis, Kabbalists, doctors, serious health practitioners and everyone who desires to walk the distance from the head to the heart, so as to contribute to a positive evolution of the human race.

 

Even the Jewish Kabbalah itself, an ancient form of mysticism which had been the subject of serious study among scholars such as Aryeh Kaplan in the 20th century, was popularized by Philip Berg and the Kabbalah Centre later in that century to give it a broader appeal, eventually gaining popular celebrities as adherents, with promised benefits going beyond simple spiritual illumination to more practical things like personal success, good health, and the finding of an attractive mate.  And conventional motivational speakers, who had traditionally provided guidance on attaining these more practical things, have increasingly moved from the opposite direction, expanding their list of promised benefits to a heightened spirituality. 

 

An intriguing variant of the enlightened activist has found expression in a series of books authored by Bill Plotkin, most recently in his The Journey of Soul Initiation: A Field Guide for Visionaries, Evolutionaries, and Revolutionaries (2021).  Plotkin believes that with proper guidance, any person can proceed through a series of stages that will ultimately result in his or her transformation to an “eco-soulcentric” being, committed to saving and improving the earth by relying on a unique, personally-tailored set of skills and insights that were obtained as a result of that process of transformation.  He sees the process as occurring in 5 distinct stages – preparation, dissolution, soul encounter, metamorphosis, and enactment – and likens it to the transformation in nature that occurs when a caterpillar enters a cocoon, undergoes a metamorphosis, and emerges as a butterfly.  This metaphor and its application to human transformation is not unique to Plotkin, of course:  As I described in a previous blog entry, “The Invisible Hand” (https://johnsemeraldtablet.blogspot.com/2019/03/recently-i-happened-to-finish-abook.html), Na’im Akbar uses the very same metaphor, and in a very similar way, in his book Natural Psychology and Human Transformation (1977).  In that entry, I drew parallels between Akbar’s model of transformation and the “hero’s journey” described by mythologist Joseph Campbell.  Interestingly, Plotkin strives to distance his own model of transformation from that of Campbell’s, contending that Campbell’s is describing a rite of passage in which, after going through an ordeal or some other unusual and overpowering experience while removed from his familiar surroundings, a man (it is traditionally a man in these earlier rites of passage) returns to his own people with the necessary insights and capabilities to be a more functional member of his community.  But I think that this distinction is forced, and misses the point of Campbell’s fundamental insights.  Campbell (along with Akbar) is also describing a personal transformation that can only occur when one is thrown into a sort of chaotic trauma and is forced to tap into a reality that is not grounded in the conventional cause-and-effect, timebound, perceptible realm, but instead lies beyond this, and contains a deeper, more profound wisdom that can be drawn upon to change oneself, and perhaps change one’s community as well.  Whether the source of this wisdom lies in the collective unconscious – a sort of genetic, primal, symbol-infused memory bank common to all human beings – as Carl Jung would contend, or instead is a transpersonal intelligence that somehow pervades the universe and can be drawn upon under certain propitious circumstances (or both), this wellhead seems to be the source that enables those who tap into it to produce great inventions or inspired works, or acquire world-changing personal destinies, or at the very least to become a more fully functional, wiser human being.  

 

(Source: The Animas Institute)

Plotkin also strives to make a distinction between the transformational processes that initiates of his system undergo and the various shamanic traditions and initiation rituals that have existed in various places since the dawn of human history.  But many of those initiates who have undergone the processes described in his books have engaged in shamanic-type things like extended wanderings in the desert or wilderness, and what can only be described as mind-bending experiences brought on by unusual encounters or mental episodes (these latter sometimes fueled by hallucinogenic substances).  He concedes that similar shamanistic practices in earlier ages might have produced “eco-soulcentric” human beings, which he refers to as “Adults” or – in those who have attained the highest levels of this form of enlightenment – “Elders”, but admits that there is no evidence to confirm this.

 

In fact, Plotkin is among those individuals who believes that in the primitive recesses of our past, we were living in a more paradisical state, unsullied and uncorrupted, until:

 

. . . [W]ith the advent of agriculture and farming – the domestication of selected animal and plant species – came, inevitably, the pathogenic notion of personal property and the inexorable outcome that some people would conclude that hoarding things for themselves is a good idea. . . .

 

. . . The Tribe becomes increasingly materialistic, competitive, anthropocentric, and violent – and disconnected from the natural world in which everything shares freely with everything else and there is no waste. . . .

 

He is, of course, not the first person to entertain this idea of a Fall from Grace.  (I describe others in “Okay, Boomer”, https://johnsemeraldtablet.blogspot.com/2020/05/okay-boomer.html.)  It is a pernicious myth that has gone beyond its religious roots and infected many well-meaning secular intellectuals, as well.


 

I have heard it lamented that the oppressive encroachment of civilization on indigenous cultures has run roughshod over the shamanistic traditions that they often possessed, along with whatever eco-friendly wisdom that were inherent in them, to our collective detriment, and I had once held at least some sympathies with those views.  But recently I happened to watch a movie titled Fire on the Mountain: A Gathering of Shamans (filmed in 1997 and available for free viewing on the internet) which documented a “ten day retreat of tribal elders, wisdom keepers, and medicine women from five continents” and which was highlighted, at the end, by a visit from the Dalai Lama.  When I started viewing the movie, I really intended to be personally moved and impressed by these diverse, time-honored traditions that were in danger of obliteration.  But as I got into the movie, I was shocked by my overall reaction.  It was one of derision.  The ramblings and ceremonies of these various groups of shamans, and the occasional squabbles that erupted over conflicting world views between them, just looked profoundly silly to me.  I came to the sardonic conclusion that it was no wonder that these traditions have been, or will be, run over by the progress of civilization, because they are generally grounded in nonsense.  I also recently watched another documentary titled Art Meets Science and Spirituality in a Changing Economy, which covered a retreat that took place for 5 days in 1990.  This one, as the title indicates, featured artists, scientists (at least some of whom, like biologist Rupert Sheldrake, entertained theories outside of the mainstream), economists, and members of various spiritual disciplines.  This retreat, too, featured a visit by the Dalai Lama (who seems to have made it a permanent feature of his personal career to make cameo appearances like these).  And it strangely echoed the one with the shamans, with the general lamentation that our contemporary civilization, with its scientific worldviews and ways of conducting business, has estranged itself from the world (or universe) at large in a very toxic sort of way.  This lamentation was expressed very eloquently in both retreats, but what both completely lacked was the identification of any concrete, practical solutions for rectifying this problem, or an alternative comprehensive worldview from which such solutions might emerge.

 

The people of India, a land historically known for its deeply mystical traditions and the yogis, fakirs, and other religious sages associated with them, did not rise out of its general squalor and misery because these sages reached a critical mass of numbers or influence.  It happened when India’s political leaders embraced market-based capitalism, which is often derided by people like those who attended the retreats as one of the toxic byproducts of civilization.  Nevertheless, there are real ecological problems that we face, and that seem to be reaching the general crisis stage, if they have not already.  And while I am frustrated by those who minimize the severity of these problems by expressing their unbounded confidence that civilization and innovation – often induced or enhanced by market-based mechanisms – will solve them in due time, I have to concede that they have a history of examples to justify their optimism, when doomsayers in the past, asserting that overpopulation, pollution, or large-scale extraction of vital resources would lead to global calamities by such-and-such a date, have been repeatedly proven wrong.  But even scientists are now expressing concerns that we are reaching the limits of innovation, and that we might be on the cusp of facing global problems that could overwhelm us.  Perhaps we really have reached a point where only a general reorientation to the world will enable us to restore a sustainable balance between preserving both our civilization and the general ecosystem of which it is a part.  Plotkin believes so, and that his – if I may coin the term – “neo-shamanism” will produce this reorientation among the “Adults” and “Elders” who successfully undergo the transformation, but again, only if they reach a critical mass:

 

.  . . Once there enough true Adults and Elders in a human community, their visionary projects link up in such a way that the whole society goes through a developmental evolutionary unfolding. . . .

 

. . . [T]rue Adults and Elders are the imaginal cells of emerging eco-soulcentric butterfly societies.  Taking this idea a step further, we might imagine that these butterfly societies will eventually serve as the imaginal cells of the next phase of human evolution – from a caterpillar species to a butterfly species – and this might in turn result in the next major step in Earth’s evolution.   As a species, we are now in a Cocoon.  What percentage of butterfly societies will be needed globally before Earth begins to transform into a butterfly planet?

 

I still worry, however, about that final critical step from personal enlightenment to enlightened action.  Even if these “Adults” and “Elders” have the motivation to do everything in their power to change the world, or, in Plotkin’s words, to contribute to an important major next step in Earth’s evolution, they still have to face the naked power of the gun (as Mao Zedong famously said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”), and those unenlightened leaders or militants who have no reservations about using blatant force, not to mention subtler but equally effective powers of aggression and suppression.  And for this reason, and the others I outlined above, I continue to be skeptical about “critical masses”, in whatever form they take, from the early Christians, to the New Agers of the 1970s and 1980s, to the contemporary followers of those who are holding out the hope of a path to global reform by promoting their own various programs of personal enlightenment. 

 

Perhaps, in our present time, a modern-day Buddha, or Jesus, or even Mohammed might usher in a new phase of higher spirituality that will appeal to the masses and rock the foundations of civilization, in a good way.  On the other hand, if a global crisis appears of sufficient severity, perhaps one or more capable and principled secular leaders will bring out the best in us: inspiring and motivating us to address and resolve the crisis in a substantial and enduring manner.  But each of these hopeful alternatives, while not entirely implausible, also seem highly unlikely to me, and for this reason, I remain skeptical . . . and pessimistic, and am certainly not pinning my hopes on the emergence of a “critical mass” of wise and committed human beings to change the world.  But my pessimism is not unbounded.  While it is dangerously complacent to adopt the view that there will always be saviors and/or innovators who keep us from moving beyond the brink of destruction, it cannot be ignored that many in history who have tapped into that deep, mysterious well of sub/super-conscious wisdom have invented or accomplished some remarkable, often world-changing things.  So maybe it is not a critical mass that is required, but simply the guidance and contributions of individuals who have taken a sufficiently deep dive into that well, and who can then usher us into a higher phase of civilization, or perhaps of evolution itself.