the imaginative conservative logo

Pope Francis

In his famous press conference on the plane coming back from Rio, Pope Francis called for a more profound theology of woman–he even used the word “mystical”. For what he might mean, see “Sincere Gift“, and also Paul Evdokimov’s Woman and the Salvation of the World: A Christian Anthropology on the Charisms of Women.

One of the most difficult question that arises in any such discussion is whether there is such a thing as “masculinity” and “femininity”. Clearly at a physical level, male and female characteristics are not too difficult to define. There are also clusters of psychological characteristics that we commonly associate with these terms. However, in the latter case it is much harder to reach agreement. This is partly due to the fact that women rightly object to being caricatured, or imprisoned by a definition.

As with all our knowledge of the world, we can only base ourselves on what the senses reveal to us. Within those images we glimpse Forms or “archetypes” (by abstraction, according to St. Thomas). These Forms are real, and without them neither our knowledge of things nor the things themselves would exist. Another way of putting this is that we can “read” the face of nature in the light of the spiritual world, and in this way discover its meaning. As Pope John Paul II used to say, the body makes the invisible visible.

If this is the way we know thing in general, it is surely reasonable to read the sexual characteristics of the body and the psyche in the same way–that is, in the light of archetypes. Evdokimov is not afraid to say that the “gifts and charisms of the Spirit determine and are normative for the psychic and the physiological. A woman is not maternal because her body is able to give birth: it is from her maternal spirit that the corresponding physiological and anatomical capabilities are derived” (p. 16).

Of course, materialists would say we are reading archetypes “into” the things we see (in other words, making them up). This is the very point at issue. Our society is so steeped in materialism that the reality of the archetypes is no longer accepted. We are left with the “nominalist” view that things have no essences, but only exist thanks to the names or descriptions we choose to give them. For the modern mentality there are no archetypes, only stereotypes. And that mentality leads to the displacement of truth by power as the ultimate value in our society. Nothing is true, nothing exists, except what we decide (or force others to accept) is true.For that reason, archetypes are vitally important, if we are to build a society that is not based on will to power. As Evdokimov says, the “archetype alone transcends all the truisms concerning faithful spouses, pious widows, and, more generally, all women who are reduced to the one dimension of ‘domesticity.’ Such stereotypes present only purely historical point of reference: patriarchy, the reign of the male” (p. 23). The Book of Genesis is dealing in archetypes, and so showing us how to interpret reality. Adam and Eve are the Forms of Man and Woman (whether or not they were also historical figures, at a time when the archetypes themselves were manifested more directly.)I don’t think the way forward is to compile a list of masculine and feminine characteristics. Rather, if we believe in archetypes we will simply be more sensitive to the subtle differences that manifest themselves within individual men and woman. We will be less concerned to force both sexes into a sexless stereotype to accord with our anti-traditional prejudices. To be equal is not to be the same.

As a civilization we have abandoned our belief in the archetypes –not just of man and woman but even of good and evil. We’ve been trying to chart our course without them. But they haven’t gone away, and an archetype spurned can be a dangerous thing. The society that denies differences based on form is a society built on sand–almost literally, if you think of sand as a heap of individual particles. The ideology of individualism, which comes from nominalism, assumes that everyone is basically the same, that each member of the human race a unit that can be packed, labelled, sorted, and organized any way we choose. The bumpy, complex, interesting diversity of real-life men and women–the fact that we fit together better in some ways than others, and that we work better in collaboration than in competition–comes from the archetypes, the forms that create this diversity. Vive la différence!

Books related to the topic of this article may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore.

Print Friendly
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."

Please leave a thoughtful, civil, and constructive comment: