Transcription
The purpose of this video is to explore the idea of matriarchy and patriarchy as described by Eric Fromm and Johan Bachofen. Fromm was a 20th-century psychoanalyst and philosopher whose ideas this channel is dedicated to. Bachofen was a Swiss jurist, antiquarian, and a professor at Basel University in the 1800s. Bachofen's theory of the mother right, or *Das Mutterrecht*, published in 1861, is a key foundation of his approach to the concept of matriarchy and patriarchy.
Fromm summarized that it was Bachofen who presented the first major challenge to the naive beliefs that patriarchal society was a natural state of affairs and that man's superiority over women was a self-evident matter. He revealed a picture of totally different societal forms and cultures in which women had played the leading role, in which she had been Queen, Priestess, leader. He brought to light societies in which only descent from the mother mattered and the father was not recognized as a blood relation of his child. Bachofen believed that matriarchy stood at the beginning of human evolution and that the dominance of the male prevailed only after a long historical process.
On the basis of his analysis of religious documents of Greek and Roman Antiquity, Bachofen came to the conclusion that the supremacy of women had found its expression not only in the sphere of social and family organization but also in religion. He found evidence that the religion of the Olympian gods was preceded by religions in which goddesses, mother-like figures, were the Supreme deities. On first reading, this felt unexpected, counter-intuitive indeed. Fromm said that Bachofen's theories of matriarchy were, if not entirely ignored, disputed by most anthropologists. This was also the case in the work of Robert Briffault, who continued Bachofen's research and confirmed it by a brilliant analysis of new anthropological data.
Joseph Campbell said that one has to keep reminding oneself, when reading this perceptive scholar, that in Bachofen's day, the size of Helen's Troy and Phase 3 had not yet been excavated, nor any of those early Neolithic villagers that have yielded the multitudes of ceramic naked goddess figurines now filling museum cabinets. Campbell notes that Bachofen himself was impressed by the novelty of its findings: "An unknown world," he wrote, "opens before our eyes, and the more we learn of it, the stranger it seems." Campbell said that for his efforts, Bachofen was mercilessly massacred in the academic journals. One of the learned reviewers wrote, "408 closely printed pages full of the queerest, most adventurous dreams; dreams that in their profundity pass at times into realms even of consummate imbecility."
Marsha Robinson said that *Mother Right* is such a contradiction that Bachofen's exhaustive search for evidence of matriarchy in classical Greco-Roman myths and histories by persons such as Herodotus, Pliny, Strabo, Plutarch, Aristotle, Ovid, Virgil, and Cicero has been dismissed as non-historical. Many of the sources that Bachofen used failed to follow the rules of history established by Leopold von Ranke in the 19th century. Bachofen experienced something that many scholars of African, indigenous American, Asian, and pre-Roman European history also encounter. Fromm said that there is little doubt that many single objections to the matriarchal theory are justified. Nevertheless, Bachofen's main thesis—that we find an older layer of matriarchal religion underneath the more recent patriarchal religion of Greece—seems to me to be established by him beyond any doubt.
Both the historical question of matriarchy and the problem of gender are essential to Bachofen's work. However, one of the aims of this video is to demonstrate that the full scope of this subject amounts to more than a debate about who is most oppressed historically or today. Although the Battle of the Sexes is part of the problem, it isn't necessarily the central axis that it is often presented to be. And furthermore, there are fundamental pros and cons to both matriarchal and patriarchal systems. Of course, the words matriarchy and patriarchy indicate hierarchies, and so it follows that they are associated with systemic domination and oppression. However, Fromm crucially stated that the difference between the patriarchal and matriarchal order goes far beyond the social supremacy of men and women respectively, but is one of social and moral principles. Matriarchal culture is characterized by an emphasis on ties of blood, ties to the soil, and the passive acceptance of all natural phenomena. Patriarchal society, in contrast, is characterized by respect for man-made law, by a predominance of rational thought, and by humanity's efforts to change natural phenomena. [Music]
The words matriarchy and patriarchy specify systems of hierarchy. In line with Bachofen, Fromm said the matriarchal and patriarchal principles go beyond this, but it is worth stating that systemic hierarchy is a patriarchal rather than a matriarchal principle. Fromm said that the matriarchal principle is that of unconditional love, natural equality, emphasis on the bonds of blood and soil, compassion, and mercy. The patriarchal principle is that of conditional love, hierarchical structure, abstract thought, man-made laws, the state, and justice. Fromm also warned that the purely matriarchal society stands in the way of the full development of the individual, thus preventing technical, rational, artistic progress. The purely patriarchal society cares nothing for love and equality; it is only concerned with man-made laws, the state, abstract principles, obedience.
Fromm touched upon how this can manifest in relationships between parents and children. He saw a negative expression of the matriarchal principle as motherly over-indulgence and infantilization of the child, preventing their full maturity. Whereas for the patriarchal principle, he warns fatherly authority can become harsh domination and control based on the child's fear and feelings of guilt. Just to clarify, this use of motherly or fatherly is not confined to respective gender and could apply to any kind of parental influence. Expanding upon this further, Fromm said that the patriocentric individual and society is characterized by a complex of traits in which the following are predominant: guilt feelings, docile love for paternal authority, desire and pleasure at dominating weaker people, acceptance of suffering as punishment for one's own guilt, a damaged capacity for happiness. The matricentric complex, by contrast, is characterized by far fewer guilt feelings, a feeling of optimistic trust in parents, unconditional love, and a greater capacity for pleasure and happiness. Along with these traits, there also develops the idea of compassion and love for the weak and others in need of help.
Outlining the positives and negatives of each system, Fromm wrote that the positive aspects of matriarchal society lie in the sense of equality, universality, and unconditional affirmation of life. The negative aspect lies in its bondage to blood and soil, its lack of rationality and progress. The positive aspects of patriarchal society lie in its principle of reason, law, science, civilization, spiritual development; its negative aspect in hierarchy, oppression, inequality, inhumanity. The positive aspects of matriarchal society and the negative aspects of patriarchal society are nowhere more clearly represented than in Sophocles' *Antigone*. Antigone is the representative of humanity and love; Creon, the totalitarian leader, the representative of state worship and obedience. We'll be making a separate video about Fromm's analysis of *Antigone* and *Oedipus Rex*, so consider subscribing if you'd be interested in watching that.
Fromm said whether a matriarchal or patriarchal system is better is hard to say; the question in this form is wrong because you might say the matriarchal system emphasizes the elements of natural ties, of natural equality, of love, and the patriarchal system then emphasizes the elements of civilization, a thought of the state, of invention and industries, and in many ways of progress in comparison to the old matriarchal culture. Our aim must be not to have any kind of hierarchy, either matriarchal or patriarchal. We must come to a situation in which we relate to each other without any attempt to dominate.
It is also worth expanding Fromm's criticism of hierarchy by including his concept of rational versus irrational authority. Fromm said that power can mean one of two things: domination or potency. Far from being identical, these two qualities are mutually exclusive. To the extent to which an individual is potent, they do not need to dominate and are lacking the lust for power. Power in the sense of domination is the perversion of potency. It is widely believed that we are confronted with the alternative of having dictatorial, irrational authority or of having no authority at all. This alternative, however, is fallacious. The real problem is what kind of authority we are to have. When we speak of authority, do we mean rational or irrational authority? Rational authority has its source in competence. The person whose authority is respected functions competently in their task; they need not intimidate people nor arouse their admiration by magic qualities, as long as they are competently helping instead of exploiting. Their authority is based on rational grounds and does not call for unquestioning obedience. Rational authority not only permits but requires constant scrutiny and criticism of those subjected to it; it is always temporary, its acceptance depending on its performance. The source of irrational authority, on the other hand, is always power over people. This power can be physical or mental; power on one side, fear on the other, are always the buttresses on which irrational authority is built. Criticism of the authority is not only not required but forbidden. Rational authority is based upon the equality of both authority and subject, which differ only with respect to the degree of knowledge or skill in a particular field. Irrational authority is by its very nature based on inequality, implying difference in value.
Likewise, Fromm wrote that the relationship between teacher and student and that between slave owner and the slave are both based on the superiority of one over the other. The interests of teacher and pupil lie in the same direction; the teacher is satisfied if they succeed in furthering the pupil; if they have failed to do so, the failure is theirs and the pupil's. The slave owner, on the other hand, wants to exploit the slave as much as possible; the more they get out of them, the more they are satisfied. At the same time, the slave seeks to defend as best they can their claims for a minimum of happiness. These interests are definitely antagonistic, as what is of advantage to the one is detrimental to the other. The superiority has a different function in both cases: in the first, it is the condition for the helping of the person subjected to authority; in the second, it is the condition for their exploitation. The dynamics of authority in these two types are different, too. The more the student learns, the less wide is the gap between them and the teacher; they become more and more like the teacher themselves. In other words, the authority relationship tends to dissolve itself. But when the superiority serves as a basis for exploitation, the distance becomes intensified. Of course, this difference is only a relative one; it is only in an ideal relationship between teacher and student that we find a complete lack of antagonism of interest. There are many graduations between these two extreme cases. Although in reality the two types of authority are blended, they are essentially different. Fromm wrote quite extensively about authority, submission, and disobedience, which will be explored in future videos, but it must be emphasized that the earlier statement about Fromm's opposition to hierarchy should not be viewed out of context as an oversimplification of complex human power dynamics. [Music]
In Fromm's words, equality implies that despite our differences, no person should be made a tool for the purpose of anyone else; that every human being is an end and a purpose in themselves. This means that each person is free to develop their peculiarity as an individual, as a member of a given sex, and as a member of a given nationality. Equality does not imply the negation of difference but the possibility for its fullest realization; that unfolding and development of the peculiarities of each person. Using the word peculiarities, Fromm said, "I should like to remind you how strange a fate this word has had. If we say today that someone is peculiar, we don't mean anything particularly pleasant. Okay? This should be the greatest compliment we can pay; saying that someone is peculiar should mean that they have not given in, that they have retained the most valuable part of human existence: their individuality; that they are a unique person, different from anyone else under the sun. Each person is a universe for themselves and is only their own person." Our goal is the realization of our being, including those very peculiarities which are characteristic of us and make us different from others. Equality is the basis for the full development of difference, and it results in the development of individuality.
Fromm believed that the sexes were equal but different. He said these differences color the personality of the average person. This coloring may be compared to the key or the mode in which a melody is written, not the melody itself. These "natural" differences are blended with differences brought about by the specific culture in which people live. Whilst the question of nature versus nurture is a pertinent one, Fromm emphasizes another point. He warns against a certain mindset which cannot help but confuse difference with inequality. They are influenced in their thinking by their contempt for anyone who has less power than themselves and by their "love" for those who are powerful. A human relationship based on respect for the dignity of every person simply escapes them. Whenever they sense differences, they have to seek for an implied superiority or inferiority. Insofar as they can show differences between groups, they believe that they have proved that one is superior to the other. Those who hold to the principle of human equality should not be misled into accepting this false premise. Social conditions can be created which will develop the positive side of the peculiarities of all persons, making for a richer and broader human culture.
Fromm continued that it is a sad commentary on the times that one feels the need of emphasizing that differences in and of themselves scarcely lend themselves to any judgment of value from a social or moral point of view. They are neither good nor bad, neither desirable nor unfortunate in and of themselves. The same trait will appear as a positive feature in one personality when certain conditions are present and a negative feature in another personality when other conditions are present. For example, if somebody's character can be called orderly, it can mean one of two things: either it indicates something positive, namely that they are not sloppy, that they are capable of organizing their life; or it can mean something negative, namely that they are pedantic, sterile, or without initiative. Orderliness is at the root of both the negative and positive outcomes, but the outcome is determined by a number of other factors in the total personality. Only if we forget about the stereotypes can we develop a sense of that equality to which each person is an end in themselves. [Music]
Joseph Campbell said that in Beethoven's 19th century, the Hegelian concept of a dialectic of statement and counter-statement, thesis and antithesis, in the rolling tide of history was a commonly accepted thought. Bachofen saw the dialectic as of the mothering, feminine, earth-oriented and the masculine, mastering, idea-in-heaven-oriented powers. Fromm saw the male and female aspect in the world, in the universe, and each of us as two poles that have to retain their difference, their polarity, in order to exercise their fruitful dynamism, the productive force that springs from that very polarity. You would not say of the positive or negative pole of an electric current that one is inferior to the other; you would say that the field between them is caused by their polarity and that this very polarity is the basis of productive forces. Certain symbols express this difference: day and night, sun and moon, left and right.
Another interesting reference Fromm includes is matriarchy as the realm of love and the blood bond as opposed to the male Apollonian realm of consciously deliberated action. The Apollonian realm, after the Greek god Apollo, can be understood in opposition to the Dionysian realm, named after the god Dionysus. Apollo was known as the god ruling the sun, light, archery, art, poetry, and healing, amongst other things. Dionysus was the god of wine and wine-making, fertility, ritual madness, and festivity, amongst others. Correspondingly, the Apollonian realm inspires reason, order, intellect, whereas the Dionysian realm is associated with amorality, primal instincts, and chaos. Nietzsche wrote about these dialectic principles in books such as *The Birth of Tragedy*. The patriarchal principle and the Apollonian realm correspond very closely; however, the Dionysian realm does not run parallel to the matriarchal principle in the same way. The unconscious lawfulness speaks of its quite distinct from the Dionysian principle of chaos and amorality. In matriarchal culture, we have confinement to matter; in patriarchal culture, we have intellectual and spiritual development. In the former, we have unconscious lawfulness; in the latter, individualism. Fromm speaks of the sun and the moon as symbols of polarity, and masculine sun and a feminine moon. Apollo is god of the sun, and interestingly, Fromm said that light is always and everywhere a symbol of the male principle. He also comments that the waxing and waning of the moon is closely connected to the thoughts and desires ancient people had concerning death and resurrection. It is not until agriculture is introduced that the sun plays an ever greater role.
George Boas saw life and death as an integral part of this polarity. He said the fundamental duality of existence was observed in the opposition of male and female, of the active and the passive, of Heaven and Earth, of the sun and the moon. Such duality could not be left unresolved. At a time when abstract science was not yet formulated, people had to express their ideas in symbols which were clear to them, as the symbols of mathematicians are clear to us, and such symbols remain in the form of myths. Pliny describes a picture by Socrates the painter in which Ocnus is shown twisting a rope, while behind his back a donkey gnaws off the end which he has just twisted. Creation, then, is but one end of destruction; destruction, the beginning of creation. The beauty of myth and symbol lies in their synthetic power; in the picture of Ocnus, both the beginning and the end are seen in a single glance, as united as a picture. It is composed of discrete elements: the man, the rope, the donkey; but as a symbol, it is unified by its meaning. Referring to the same painting, Bachofen said that in opposition to the creative, increasing activity, there is an activity which dissolves and diminishes. Two forces are locked together in eternal battle; two equal currents oppose one another, and through their antagonism the eternal youth of create is preserved. What is the number of living compared to the incalculable hordes of the dead? What is the span of time allotted to the living compared to the eons forever augmented by the fleeting present moment? It becomes a mere mask worn for one brief moment. All these ideas are suggested by the end of the rope; all that remains of centuries of work. This is probably my favorite Bachofen quote.
Bachofen also stated that it has been said that myth, like quicksand, can never provide a firm foothold. This approach applies not to myth itself but only to the way in which it has been handled. Multi-form and shifting in its outward manifestation, myth nevertheless follows fixed laws and can provide as definite and secure results as any other course of historical knowledge. Everywhere there is a system, everywhere cohesion, in every detail the expression of a great fundamental law. As Campbell said, we are on the way here to Jung's collective unconscious. To quote Bachofen again, "There are two roads to knowledge: the longer, slower, more arduous road of rational combination and the shorter path of the imagination, traversed with the force and swiftness of electricity, aroused by direct contact with the ancient remains. The imagination grasps the truth at one stroke, without intermediary links. The knowledge acquired in this second way is infinitely more living and colorful than the products of the understanding." As Campbell said, one can see why the academics shuddered and the poets were delighted. It was this informed recognition of an implicit psychological, moral import in all mythology that chiefly recommended Bachofen to the poets. [Music]
Philosopher K.E. Kren said that according to Bachofen, matriarchal society was a primeval democracy where sexuality was free of Christian depreciation, where maternal love and compassion were the dominant moral principles, where injury to one's fellow people was the gravest sin, and where private property did not yet exist. Campbell said that sex was motivated by lust and with no understanding of the relationship of intercourse to conception. Engels references this in his *Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, saying Bachofen pointed out that the ancient classical literature gives us many indications that monogamy was preceded by a prior state. He has shown that the line of descent originally was traced only through the female line, from mother to mother. In Fromm's words, Bachofen suggested that in the beginning of human history sexual relations were promiscuous, that therefore only the mother's parenthood was unquestionable; to her only could consanguinity be traced, and she was the authority and lawgiver, the ruler both in the family group and in society. Bachofen assumed that in a long drawn-out historical process men defeated women, subdued them, and succeeded in making themselves the rulers in a social hierarchy. The patriarchal system thus established is characterized by monogamy, by the authority of the father in the family, and by the dominant role of men in a hierarchically organized society. The religion of this patriarchal culture corresponded to its social organization; instead of the mother goddess, male gods became the Supreme rulers. Fromm also said that it took long stretches of time before a connection was made between the sex act and pregnancy, before the belief that a woman gave life to a child by herself, without any external influence, was relinquished.
Virgin birth is found in so many myths and religions, including Christianity. We find this ancient belief still preserved. This fact is not so surprising when we consider that long periods of time had to pass for human beings to understand that the growth of plants, of fruits, and bulbs did not proceed by itself, but that seeds were required for Mother Earth to bestow her riches; to understand that whoever sows reaps. This led them to plants and to plow, to domesticate and breed animals.
The coffin said that religion and law developed through the transition to agriculture. Communal property was superseded by individual ownership, and hetaerism by matrimony. As the self-generating swamp vegetation gave way to the tilled soil, the wild swamp is replaced by the acts of the tiller of the soil, who opens the womb of the Earth with his plow.
From said that concern for material welfare and earthly happiness is presented as one of the central ideas of matriarchal society. In the matriarchal concept, all people are equal since they are all the children of Mother Earth. The aim of life is our happiness, and there is nothing more important or dignified than human existence and life. The patriarchal system, on the other hand, considers obedience to authority to be the main virtue. Instead of the principle of equality, we find the concept of the favorite son, the one who is the most suited to become the heir and successor to property and worldly functions.
Keller's crowds characterize matriarchal society by alluding to the old legend of the sumptuous fruit tree and the miraculous spring, both dried up when people converted them into private property.
Prom stated that mercy and justice represent the matriarchal and patriarchal principles, respectively. The coven characterized matriarchal law as an unconscious lawfulness, as the equity of the left hand, often in opposition to the strictly formal logic of the civil law. Campbell described the matriarchal, brutal order of justice as the justice of the balance: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth—retaliation, yet with the mitigating, softening, humanizing principle already at work.
From identified that in the matriarchal order, only the natural and biological are worthwhile; the spiritual, cultural, and rational are worthless. Matriarchal natural law is characterized by the dominance of instinctual, all-natural, blood-based values. In matriarchal law, there is no logical, reasonable balancing of guilt and atonement; it is dominated by the natural principles of the talion—of returning like for like.
Bakofen said that justice based on duality must be the law of the talion; the punishment must fit the crime; the two pans of the scale must be evenly balanced. However, Bakofen continued, the action which is supposed to restore the balance brings about a new disturbance in the equilibrium of the parts. The avenger of the murder is virtuous and criminal by the same act. This form of justice is an eternal, never-ending conflict. Murder begets murder, and the demon of the race rages down the generations until all are destroyed. Dual justice is a repetition of the conflict between the two eternally opposing forces: the force of creation and the force of destruction. Death is seen as a debt to nature, as Fromm points out.
A key difference between the two principles is the respect for the bonds of blood as opposed to the bond of marriage, which is highlighted in Bakofen's interpretation of Aeschylus' Oresteia. Clytemnestra had killed her husband, Agamemnon, in order not to give up her lover, Aegisthus. Orestes, her son by Agamemnon, avenges his father's death by killing his mother and her lover. The Furies, representatives of the old mother goddesses and the matriarchal principle, persecute Orestes and demand his punishment, while Apollo and Athena, the representatives of the new patriarchal religion, are on Orestes' side. The argument is centered around the principles of patriarchal and matriarchal religion, respectively. For the matriarchal world, there is only one sacred tie: that of mother and child, and consequently, matricide is the ultimate and unforgivable crime. From the patriarchal point of view, patricide is the paramount crime. The murder of a husband does not concern the Furies, since to them only ties of blood and the sanctity of the mother count. To the Olympian Gods, on the other hand, the murder of the mother is no crime if it is carried out as a revenge for the father's death. In Aeschylus' Oresteia, Orestes is acquitted. This victory of the patriarchal principle is somewhat mitigated by a compromise with the defeated goddesses. They agreed to accept the New Order and to be satisfied with a minor role as protectors of the earth and as goddesses of agricultural fertility.
The coffin said that the ancients looked on marriage as an agrarian relationship and borrowed the whole terminology of marriage law from agricultural conditions. We find expressions such as to plow, to sow seed, to plant. Now we can understand the full meaning of a custom recorded by Plutarch, namely that the newlywed bride and groom were shut up in their chamber with the priestess of Demeter. The mystery of the seed grain was the mystery of marriage.
From said that marriage is an essentially economic function and is by no means a "natural" arrangement. Thus, it is not linked, not even in its origins, to claims to the exclusive sexual possession of a partner.
From argued that matriarchal societies are characterized by a high degree of sexual freedom and laxity. That form of morality which demands chastity arises along with the evolution of patriarchal society and the economic conditions underlying it. Chastity was first a ritual requirement for attaining magical powers, as in the Near East, Egypt, and Greece, and a civic virtue, as in Rome. It was not until the advent of Christianity that chastity attained the status of a high ethical or religious value. The gradual change that Christian Riga brought about in sexual attitudes expressed itself first in literature and then gradually, albeit never completely, in social life. For centuries, sexuality has been stigmatized as morally bad and at best morally indifferent if sanctioned by the sacrament of marriage. Every activity which was not for the purpose of procreation, and particularly all deviances, were considered to be morally evil. The general assumption underlying this attitude was that our flesh was a source of corruption and that only by suppressing instinctual demands could goodness be achieved. Freud accused his culture of sacrificing mental health to the demands of Puritan morality, but another effect of sexual taboos is no less important: the development of intense guilt feelings in every individual. Since almost every human being has sexual strivings, these very strivings must become an inexhaustible source of guilt feelings if they are stigmatized by the culture as evil. Guilt feelings make a person prone to submit to authorities which want to use and subdue them for their own ends. Indeed, maturity and happiness conflict with the existence of an all-pervasive sense of guilt. These guilt feelings are of great social importance; they account for the fact that suffering is experienced as just punishment for one's own guilt rather than blamed on the defects of the social organization. This eventually causes emotional intimidation, limiting people's intellectual and especially their critical capacities, while developing an emotional attachment to representatives of social morality.
From said that the decisive feature is the attitude of matriarchal society towards nature: its orientation toward material things as opposed to intellectual and spiritual realities. Nature is the center of matriarchal culture, and humankind ever remains a helpless child in the face of nature. Matriarchal principles also speak to tradition, generation, and living interconnectedness through blood and procreation. Despite the matriarchal connection to the Earth, Fromm believed that ancient religious ideas definitely did not spring from a worship of nature but from the desire to attain magical powers.
From said that in the course of cultural evolution, conscious esteem for bearing children has diminished. There are various reasons for this. To the degree that human labor declines in importance in the overall economy and is replaced by technology, the role of woman diminishes. In a society based mainly on agriculture and animal husbandry, security and wealth do not depend primarily on technical and rational factors; it is nature's productive force—that is, the fertility of the soil, the effects of water and sunlight—that plays the decisive role in human life and death. The crux of the economy is the mysterious power of nature, giving birth out of itself to ever new products essential for human life.
Trump said that over time, natural productiveness was supplemented with rational productiveness. The course of evolution of human society is characterized by an increase in the importance of rational productivity. Technology and machines are the result of reason's growing impact on matter, which leads to an ongoing increase in productivity and the creation of new and useful goods which add to the enjoyment of life.
The coffin said that Hellenic people no longer look for the spring of immortality in the child-bearing woman; now they look for it in the male creative principle. In Campbell's words, maternity pertains to the physical side of humans, the only thing they share with the animals; the paternal, spiritual principle belongs to us alone. Here we break through the bonds of hetaerism and lift our eyes to the higher regions of the cosmos.
From said that Freud, from his patriarchal standpoint, saw a woman as a castrated man, whereas Bakofen saw in her the representative of a primal force of nature, reality, and at the same time, love and affirmation of life. Instead of Freud's theory of penis envy, Fromm points to George Groddeck, who was probably the first to note the phenomenon of pregnancy envy—envy of the capacity to give birth. Trump also touches upon the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and God's subsequent curse concerning childbearing. It emphasizes not the joy of giving birth but solely the pain associated with it. Isn't it a consolation for the inability to give birth that it is a painful process and therefore not at all desirable?
From said that the document that most powerfully exemplifies an extremely patriarchal attitude is the Old Testament. "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." From said that in this account, the paradox of the man giving birth is presented. Nature has been turned upside down; it is he who gives birth, his chest serving as the uterus. The woman is dangerous; she is the evil principle, and the man stands in fear of her. "She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." The woman lacks self-restraint, is sensual and reckless; she seduces the man with her desire, which she cannot resist. As a result, he meets with disaster. This expresses clearly and dramatically man's fear of woman and his accusation that she is a seductress who brings ruin. The Babylonian myth, too, is the expression of a male, patriarchal religion and societal order, but one in which far more matriarchal values remain than in the Old Testament and which therefore provides an extremely valuable complement to it.
From said that the Babylonian epic of creation, which was written most probably at the time of the Hammurabi Dynasty, has a specific political motivation. The political capital, Babylon, was also to be made the religious center of the land, with the patron god of Babylon, Marduk, becoming the supreme god of the entire land. The creation myth has the function of validating Marduk's claim to dominance by showing his place in the history of the gods and humankind. But this installation of a supreme male god as ruler of the world is carried out in a far less radical and encompassing way than in the Bible. The Babylonian myth of creation tells us of a victorious rebellion of male gods against Tiamat, the great mother who ruled the universe. They form an alliance against her and choose Marduk to be their leader in this fight. After a bitter war, Tiamat is slain; from her body, Heaven and Earth are formed, and Marduk rules as supreme god. The biblical myth begins where the Babylonian myth has ended. The supremacy of a male god is established, and hardly any trace of a previous matriarchal stage is left. God creates the world by his word. The elimination of every memory of matriarchal supremacy is, however, not entirely complete. In the figure of Eve, she takes initiative in eating the forbidden fruit; she does not consult with Adam; she simply gives him the fruit to eat, and he, when discovered, is rather clumsy and inept in his excuses. It is only after the fall that his domination is established. Quite obviously, this establishment of male domination points to a previous situation in which she did not rule: "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Adam's desire for the woman brought him disaster; now her desire shall bring her subjugation by a man. This myth embodies the male patriarchal worldview, from the fall to the witch trials to Otto Weininger's thesis in 1903 concerning the psychological and moral inferiority of women. It is always the same contempt, hatred, and fear of women that is typical in a certain type of patriarchal society.
In the introduction, we touched upon some of the criticism that Bakofen initially provoked. As well as receiving criticism, Fromm said that some enthusiastic approval of the matriarchy theory came from two camps that were radically opposed to each other, both ideologically and politically. Bakofen was first discovered and extolled by the Socialist camp—by Marx, Engels, Babel, and others. Then, after decades of relative obscurity, he was again discovered and extolled by anti-socialist philosophers such as Clags and Baumler. Over against these two extremes stood the official scholarship of the day, forming practically a solid front of rejection or outright ignorance. In recent years, the problem of matriarchy has played an ever-increasing role in scholarly discussions. Some agree with the matriarchal view; some reject it. Almost all reveal the emotional involvement with the subject. Another philosopher Bakofen was connected to was Nietzsche, who came to Basel in 1869 as a young professor and for the next half decade was a frequent guest in Bakofen's home.
Campbell also notes that Bakofen's date significantly matched those of Charles Darwin, his first important publication, an essay on ancient mortuary symbolism, even appearing in the same year as Darwin's Origin of Species, 1859. Despite some of the potent implications of Das Mutterrecht, Bakofen wouldn't be called a feminist by modern-day standards. Indeed, Fromm observed a sharp contradiction between the Bakofen who admires gynocratic democracy and the aristocratic Bakofen of Basel who opposed the political emancipation of women. Fromm described Bakofen's attitude to matriarchal society as quite ambivalent. In a great part of his writings, his sympathy with the matriarchal principle finds expression; in other parts, he sides with the victorious Olympian gods.
Fromm's own thinking was directly informed by Bakofen's work. Nevertheless, Fromm did not believe that all of Bakofen's theories were correct. The history of ideas is the history of errors, and Bakofen is no exception to this rule. But what matters is the kernel of truth in an idea and the fruitfulness of this very kernel for future thought. In this respect, Bakofen is one of the most fruitful and most advanced thinkers. If it is true, as Aristotle says, that like can be grasped only by like, then the divine cannot be apprehended by the rationalistic self-conceit that sets itself above history. Abundance of information is not everything; it is not even the essential.
Thank you for watching another video on the Eric Fromm Channel. Those astute viewers may notice that this is a re-upload. We have re-recorded and edited this video because uh… wants to make minor changes with the original. The next video will probably be on God, atheism, and logic. And if you enjoyed this video, please uh… like this video and subscribe to see more. And if you could share it with anyone, that would be very kind of you.