body
September 2008 
Book Review: Sacred Pleasure by Riane Eisler
1Vector3
Sacred Pleasure:
Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body - New Paths to Power and Love
by Riane Eisler
Reviewed by Rev. O.M. Bastet, Ph.D.
Head Minister
"Amplifying Divine Light in All" Church
"The Most Important Book of Our Time"
If I ruled the world, I would order everyone to read and understand and absorb and live the insights of this book. Then we could much more easily co-create a world of univeral peace, benevolence, respect, harmony, and personal and interpersonal pleasure and well-being. (Well, maybe with some input from other sources as well.)
If you want to understand what is really going on in our world today, what really made it this way and keeps it this way, this is the source of the info. [From a human not transpersonal perspective.] We have to understand before we can be effective and efficient at changing the world, so I recommend reading and re-reading and re-reading this book.
If you want to see the forest and not just the trees, if you want the essentials and not the distracting details, so you can focus your efforts and be as powerful a change agent as possible, here is your manual.
The writing is academic and poetic, analytical and passionate, abstract and personal. Her complex sentence structures are worth the effort. Let each "dense" sentence sit on your tongue and in your mind til you say "Oh, yes, of course, she means....." It gets easier as you go along.
For some of us, she is sometimes belaboring the obvious. For most of us, there will sometimes be blinding revelations. Whether everything she says is accurate is not, in my opinion, important. Whether it generates an empowering perspective, and sparks insights that bring amazing clarity to the world you see, and suggests effective actions, is important -- and for me, it did.
She connects the dots of things in our personal, bodily, social, political, economic, marital, child-rearing, community, and international lives that you would not normally see as related, connects them into a coherent picture of a whole that made perfect sense to me as a lifelong psychologist and world-improver. What could be more relevant subjects! Bodies, power, politics, sex, pleasure, pain. All the pieces organized into an amazing new and empowering picture.
She explores from every detailed angle the back and forth of causalities among sexuality, social and family life (especially the norms and the prohibitions,) gender roles, political and economic systems, child-rearing practices and education, personal psychology, bodily pleasures and pains accepted and inflicted commonly in a culture, war, freedom (or lack thereof,) power in all its historical and cultural evolutionary human (and animal) manifestations, and religion/spirituality.
Downsides? So far I have not detected any suggestion that any variety or flavor or version of dominance and submission could in any way be natural to male-female relationships. Couldn't there be healthy and natural versions of that? Also, for me, so far in my reading of the book, there is not enough differentiation between organized, institutionalized religion and genuine personal spiritituality. To me there was a fair amount of repetitiveness, but her points are so radical, that repetition performs a therapeutic function.
I believe Eisler makes it plausible to give greater weight to what Ken Wilber dismisses [middle of Chapter 6 of Boomeritis] as inconceivable: that half the human race could be effectively brainwashed for thousands of years. He says women are too smart for that. I say, he grossly underestimates the power of from-birth brainwashing, despite the undeniable collusion: women have (in my opinion) co-created their oppression, because it plays into women's "dark side." As a woman, intelligent and never even subjected in my family to any such brainwashing, I awakened only in early adulthood from the cultural trance, so I know firsthand its subtlety and pervasiveness and intensity.
The scope and yet depth and intimacy of Eisler's thinking, research, and understanding are rare indeed. And so admirable. This is a book that it took courage to imagine, research, write, and put out there, in my opinion.
I cannot sufficiently emphasize the practical usefulness of this book-- dense and academic and a "hard read" as it is -- as a guide for making changes in our daily choices and decisions, changes that will co-create our ideal world of peace and respect and benevolence.
Note: I am only halfway through the book, but this review wrote itself already. The online version of this review (link below) will be revised when I finish the book I might at that point engage with the actual ideas, which I have not done in this review.
The following mini-review of Sacred Pleasure is posted in the Books section of the Gaia Community website,
http://books.gaia.com/172155/sacred_pleasure/by_riane_eisler
An Essential for Personal Freedom
This is one of the most important books that exist. Everyone should read it. Especially if you want to get free within your consciousness, relationships, and life, of most of the social conditioning and programming most of us don't want any longer, that no longer serves us, that is not conducive to the kind of world we want to create.
For me, seeing the historical origins of so much of my programming was extremely liberating. Our conditioning is so subtle, and reading over and over about many facets of it, helped disentangle me from it. I also experienced a huge sense of validation for many of my differences from the culture I find myself in, and even from many of the "spiritual" writers and approaches I have studied.
The book is not an easy read; it is rather academic. Nevertheless I found it very emotionally powerful, so I recommend just plowing along and not worrying about understanding every sentence completely. She repeats herself often enough that eventually you will flow with her style (like tuning one's ear to an accent) and "get" what she is saying.
Despite all the academic stuff, it is becoming a page-turner for me. The more of it I am reading, the more I am gulping it down and finding it harder to tear myself away from it!
P.S. I have not read her first book The Chalice and The Blade, to which this seems to be an intellectual sequel, but she does summarize many of the essential points of the earlier book.
NOTE: This blog continues significantly in the Comments. Be sure to click on Comments below, and read those.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is presented and provided to you by
"Amplifying Divine Light in All" Church
Our main religious purpose and mission is to amplify the Divine Light in everyone. When you read this article, you will agree or disagree with its various points, and perhaps amplify your understandings of the world and yourself, and then you will know more about what is true for you. Knowing more of your own truth amplifies your Divine Light.
Thus, providing/presenting this article is one way for us to accomplish our mission and purpose. This article and our providing/presenting it are therefore an integral part of our exercise and practice of our religion. None of the contents herein are claimed as absolute Truth. They represent one possible perspective which might prove useful for you.
All rights reserved under the Common Law. This means please respect our creatorship.
We invite your comments and responses!
P.O. Box 905, Redmond, WA, USA, 98073 adliac@gaia.com
Access: Public
Om -
I enjoy hearing your excitement about this book. I love it when a book inspires me.
I haven't read this book, but I own a copy of it. Its a thick book I tell ya. You're interest makes me interested in it, but its not exactly where my mind is at the moment. I'd like to hear a synopsis of what you've read so far.
I don't think I've read her previous book, but I am somewhat familiar with her ideas and the previous researchers she bases her work on. I've read the criticisms of Gimbutas and of Eisler's previous book. A partnership society is a good thing to strive for, but I agree with those that say it probably didn't exist in the past… that Matriarchies existed at all is contested. Even if they did exist, they don't likely fit our romanticized idealizations. All ancient societies were most likely hierarchical with social inequality whether it was a king or queen as ruler, and some scholars see evidence of warfare and human sacrifice in those supposed peace-loving matriarchies. Based on the limited evidence, the conclusions of Gimbutas and Eisler aren't clear… and far from unanimous.
All of that said, I'm not an archaeologist nor have I researched this aspect of ancient cultures… but I wouldn't mind hearing from anyone who is more knowledgeable. Even if peace-loving partnership Matriarchies did exist, it isn't directly important to me… although, I always have an interest in the origins and causes of the way the world is.
Instead, I'm more interested to how this all applies to our present culture and to whatever culture we're evolving towards. Some of Eisler's insights about gender, sexuality, and relationship may still be valid whether or not her theory about ancient cultures is correct.
By the way, if I had to pick a theory about a partnership culture existing, I'd guess that it existed before any of the major civilizations whether matriarchy or patriarchy. Paul Shepard thought the disruption that causes violence in our nature came from the shift from hunter-gatherer tribes to agricultural villages. So, maybe I'd agree with Eisler if she just pushed her timetable back a little bit further.
I just came across something in Eisler's book that I most definitely agree with. She mentions bonobos which are more peaceful than chimps and which are genetically closer to humans than chimps. Bonobos might be able to show how human society was like at the stage of development known as the beige vmeme in Spiral Dynamics.
I get the sense that Eisler believes that something of this primal nature of the human species can be regained in a modern context. Paul Shepard believed that. He didn't think we had to return back to a primitive state in order to recreate a society that would bring out the best in human nature. So, how does Eisler see this change could happen?
Blessings,
Marmalade
Hello Orange Marmalade,
You discovered this blog pretty fast, even before it was announced via Status Report !! Appreciate your thoughts, and the opportunity to clarify some points by agreeing with you, mostly.
To me it does not matter whether her historical accounts are valid or not. How would any of us non-scholars even know? What matters to me is whether her account makes sense given all I have reason to think is true. What matters to me is whether her analysis of the current world makes sense. What matters most to me is whether her analysis and insights provide me with or allow me to come up with powerful suggestions for current action. On all three counts, the book does magnificently.
When I consider her characterization-analysis of what is going on, and the ALTERNATIVES she suggests, I believe their VALUE and USEFULNESS and POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS depend NOT ONE BIT on the accuracy of her historical analyses !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't say this with enough intensity: In no way would I advocate (nor do I think she advocates) any kind of RETURN to whatever was in the past, even if it WAS idyllic, which I concur with you, it almost certainly WASN'T. This kind of “return to the idyllic past” is a romantic fallacy Ken Wilber discusses a lot. I agree very strongly with all your ideas in this theme.
And I don't even think the bonobos are very relevant; there are plenty of other examples of both violence and non-violence that might be predispostions from our DNA (not programs, but predispositions.) I think that violence predominated in the so-called Beige Meme times, prehistoric times, but it really doesn't matter, because we are creating something new and we already see the human potential for both violence and peace.
(If you were alluding to Lemuria, pre-pre-history, then yes, but that is all speculation, unless one actually remembers for oneself, as some people do. But even remembering doesn't form an argument one can use for anything.)
We must take the best of the past and the best of the present and use those and also TRANSCEND them creatively, to forge our desired future. No return, no re-creation. Anew.
As I have not yet finished the book, I wouldn't attempt a synopsis. I am good at those, but generally rebel when people ask for one. This book is too valuable to read a synopsis of. Part of my reluctance to provide an easy way out is the personal transformation you undergo in the process of reading, all the examples that hit you in the gut or mind, for instance. And, for me, the value of reiteration after reiteration of what we take so for granted about “the way it is” that makes the current reality nearly invisible, but there is REALLY A CHOICE and there is another way. This was liberating to me, to the point of tears. I was trying to describe this in the mini-review. Reading the whole book is a personal transformational journey, apart from the insights, understandings, analyses, and recommendations.
I had the great pleasure of handing her a copy of my review, yesterday, as she was speaking in Seattle about her latest book, whose title I think is something like The True Wealth of Nations. She turns her attention there to what the economic system of a “partnership” society might look like, and how the currently available statistics on the actual positive financial benefits of a “caring” economy get buried.
I don't agree with her completely; for example, I don't think she realizes the intrinsic nature of government as a Dominator institution, but she sure makes a lot of good points and arguments in her current book (based on her summary at the talk.)
Her current personal focus is on changing the world by changing child-rearing violence and domestic violence, the “intimate violences” that Dominator societies use to perpetuate political control and warfare, including SUBTLE violences that so many societies including ours take for granted and find acceptable. She is going for the fundamentals, not the points of pressure that activism could (and all-too often does) focus on , but that would have less effect.
The international organization is called The Spiritual Alliance to Stop Intimate Violence, a public service project coordinated by (her) The Center for Partnership Studies. The slogan is “Family Peace to World Peace.” Websites are www.saiv.net, and www.rianeeisler.com .
My personal approach to actions based on her book would include child-rearing and education approaches, both in direct action and in changing consciousness around those, but her entire book shows the inter-weaving of all the pressures humans are under from every level and aspect and institution in their society, so while some change-points provide more leverage than others, we cannot ignore any level or aspect or institution. There has to be a synergy of co-creation of the new. Which is, indeed, what is happening. I think she talks more about that in the second part of Sacred Pleasure, which I have not read yet.
Well, stop now, or another whole blog here.
Thanks for your marvelous insights !!!
OM Bastet
I haven't read this book yet, but you can be sure that I will. Your enthusiasm is contagious. Also, I believe your sentence “…women have (in my opinion) co-created their oppression, because it plays into women's “dark side.”…” applies to all subjugated or oppressed human groupings. It is just so amazing to see it written out in front of me. I'm at work until Thursday and time is very limited, but I'll write more when I get a few minutes.
Thank you for this OM.
You don't think the bonobos are relevant?
Well, I hope the bonobos don't hear you saying that. : )
Apologies to any bonobos reading here whom I might have offended….. My bad…… :)
I can see one significant relevance, since you push me. their existence constitutes an argument against those folks who might claim that our DNA precludes a society like theirs.
Do you see anything UNIQUE that pointing to them contributes to the Conversation about human potentials for peace and violence, for domination or partnership? Reinforcing yes, but when I said “relevant” I guess I was thinking “uniquely relevant.”
Am I missing something? That would be nice !!!
Smiles, OM Bastet
I don't exactly might be uniquely relevant, but the fact that they're the closest genetic relative of humans is significant. For a long time, humans were compared with violent chimpanzees, but chimps aren't as genetically similar. Bonobos share more than 98 percent of our genetic profile. One source conjectured that humans anscestor might've been halfway between the two. Another source said that bonobos, because they never left the trees, may be closer to the common anscestor of both chimps and humans. Bonobos have long slender bodies with an ability to stand and walk upright which is more similar to humans than other apes, and their body proportions are similar to the australopithecines, a form of prehuman.
There are two main relevant points in terms of this discussion: matriarchy(along with what one person described as egalitarian), and sexuality.
Bonobos have a matriarchal society. The females are smaller than males, but through bonding they have higher status and females mostly ignore male attempts at aggressive assertion. Another point is that female bonobos nurse and carry around their young for up to five years, and the adult males remain attached to their mothers. In fact, the males status is through their mother.
They'e also very sexual and use their sexuality to resolve conflict… actualy, sounds like they use their sexuality in a large variety of situations… and supposedly age, gender, and familial relations are no boundary(oh my)… they even have a wide variety of sexual positions. Like humans, most sex is independant of reproductive purposes, and females seem to have orgasms. The main difference is that bonobos don't form heterosexual bonds, and instead all social structure is through the females.
Plus, sexual play(and imaginative play) relates to intelligence… such as can be seen with dolphins. Bonobos are very intelligent. They have self-awareness recongnizing themselves in a mirror and they can understand spoken human sentences communicating back with icons on a keyboard. Interestingly, humans have an instictual understanding of bonobo facial expressions and hand gestures.
I don't know if any of that was what you were asking for, but there you go. I've never studied much about bonobos, and all of the above info simply comes from an internet search.
Are the bonobos uniquely relevant? It depends on whether past human matriarchies(assuming they existed) were similar enough with bonobo matriarchal societies to be comparable.
BTW, Albert – kcidybom to the uniniated – I appreciate your comments above, and an opportunity to be crystal clear about a potentially politically incorrect statement. I do not mean that all women at all times in all circumstances consciously co-create whatever oppression they experience. I mean that there are certain inevitable “secondary gains” or neurotic benefits to being in the victim or oppressed role, yes, I agree, for anyone, but also especially for women because of their physical size and strength differential from men, and on the whole in general, many women have unconsciously colluded (perhaps a more accurate word than co-created, though spiritually, co-created is technically correct) in their oppression.
Marmalade, thanks for helping people learn about the remarkable bonobos. Most of what you said is in Eisler's book, except for the self-awareness and language part, which makes perfect sense in terms of the Koko gorilla experience and other communication experiences between humans and apes/monkeys. It's fascinating stuff.
I knew most of this when I said what I said, and I still say that all this does nothing much more than affirm/argue the high probability that humans have the genetic potential for more peaceful societies than they sometimes indulge in. But we knew that already, most of us did.
In my view, BTW matriarchal is not intrinsically superior to patriarchal. Neither is “partnership” in essence. That matrilineal or matriarchal (or the other variety I forget its name) societies might often end up more peaceful and more partnership, is NOT in my view inevitable; a higher probability, but not certainty. Therefore, matri-focal societies are not THE ANSWER to more peace nor more partnership. Eisler attempts to (and I think succeeds in) show(ing) what THE answer might be, and it's complex.
Here's a politically controversial statement: I believe we don't need more of the feminine in our patriarchal world. We need more of the healthy feminine and the healthy masculine. Both. Neither is present right now. I have written about this elsewhere, forget exactly where.
Anyway, I don't think we have any serious disagreements, Marmalade. Buw we both know more than when we started here, so it's great !!!!
Namaste, OM Bastet