Indulge me, allow me take a swing at a needed word that has been all but excommunicated from the English language among those called civilized company, enlightened company, politically correct company... the various forms of the word-symbol perversion. I'm going to be trying for a functional definition, as all such definitions must be to avoid the perils and pitfalls of circular social reasoning, an empirical definition that may be applied to the full spectrum of the human condition.
I'm going to begin by saying perversion is any empowered* structure of thought that in objective fact does more to compromise the lives of those within a common sphere of empathy than it compromises the life hosting the structure. Perversion is that which ultimately reduces all who come in contact with it in their ability to meet any of the three foundation requirements of all life (sustenance, security, procreation). When examined exclusively at the individual level perversion commonly seems fairly benign to the life hosting the thought, perhaps even beneficial in some ways, and yet when the field of view is expanded to consider the lives in immediate contact in the same frame of reference it is easily seen as bane and detriment to the lives around that life.
*(empowered: translated from the inner first reality by way of word or deed into the public second reality)
By the definition offered above perversion resolves as an erosive force rather than an explosive one, no sharp impact but rather a slow grinding whose effect is easily overlooked or mistakenly assigned to some other cause. Entertaining such a definition for even a few moments of thought makes it quite obvious there are more than a few things that are considered perversions in greater or lesser degree that really do not satisfy such a definition, and equally there are an even greater number things that meet such a definition that are not commonly called perverted. Such a definition actually does a pretty decent job of shuffling the deck of society, very little remains where it was.
There is however one facet of this definition that makes it possible to begin sorting the confusion with even more precision than before, that being the implications involved with the concept of empowerment. If it is accepted that perversion primarily works its' ill through the lives around the one hosting the perverted form of thought it then follows that the mechanisms transmitting perversion are available for inspection by those willing to risk exposing themselves to the toxin. So, for a grab and go guestimate on the amount of perversion actually active in our world set the number of perversions equal to the number of pornographies* in our world: sex porn, pain porn, pistol porn, power porn, political porn... and on and on and on etcetera ad nauseam. The list is long and heartbreaking. Just how much perversion is actually impacting on our world?
*(pornography: any offering on any media selling the fantasy some single focus can create the life desired rather than the solid fact that any all consuming single focus simply reflects the limits of the life already in existence)
The simple fact of the matter is that perversion of one sort or another permeates the full spectrum of the human condition. These days there is a movement defending those who host perversion as being necessary components, some psychological mutagen driving social evolution, a foundation element of the human condition. Perhaps. But I'm not prepared to subscribe to such a belief. I'm more of a mind to believe society has degraded to the point of saying to itself since no one has been able to fix the problems they must indeed be part of the foundations of humanity.
could the various social perversions be, [at least in part], a backlash against the delusional foisting being accomplished by the loosely associated, [but heavily manipulated], religious-right-tea-party-dominionism groupings? the more that they try to force their versions of 'social purity' upon the rest of us, the more we want to insult their sensibilities. also, it seems that a measurable portion of them are heavily into the behaviors they make a show of abhorring. so there's that... human hypocrisy thrives.
ReplyDeletepip
Pip, the current state of affairs a backlash against hypocrisy? Not at all impossible.
DeleteWhat I've noticed as a defining break-line between the uber-conservative and the ultra-liberal is which forms of perversion they try to justify: the right attempts to justify as normal perversions of money and power (sustenance and security) while the left attempts to justify perversions involving sensuality and sex (sustenance and procreation). Both sides indulge in the others' perversion of preference, but they call the other sides' thing perversion and imbibe shame for taking part in that while allowing no shame for the perversions native to the collective entities defining them. For both it is very much a game of focusing on someone else rather than risk that most damning of mirrors... the one over their own bathroom sink.
that would be the extremes in needs, preferences and behaviors of the more normal ones as described in Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" - http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380729679&sr=1-1&keywords=Jonathan+Haidt%27s+book+%22The+Righteous+Mind%22 and his TED video - http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Deleteyes 'nos, i've mentioned him before, but i think his research applies to what you and i both have been studying.
pip
I'll have to think about that definition a little. At first blush :) , it sounds good. But it means that many things that people *call* perversions are not perverted at all, while, as you say, many activities that get defended as normal and unavoidable are in fact perversions.
ReplyDeleteAs a practicing nudist, I know very well how true this is. You are finding that all kinds of quasi-sexual activity are getting defended as "harmless, normal, just a lifestyle that harms no one;" but simple nudity is not accepted: "We don't want to see that!" "Most people are ugly in the nude!" That last is not often stated in so many words, but the sentiment pervades all of society and many of its collective entities--and it is extremely harmful. It has evoked terrible self-hatred in far too many women, and even men. It strikes at the heart of intimacy and thus evokes rot and conflict in the family, preventing healthy growth in young people's psyches. Yet they call *us* nudists "perverts"! (You may have read that studies have shown children of naturists grow up generally better-adjusted in many ways than their clothed peers.)
Jochanaan, thank you! I am so damn blind sometimes... I might as well be a fish trying to explain water.
DeleteThe scenario of simple nudity is one of the best test examples possible. There is conflict associated to nudity, but is the driving source of that conflict the one living without clothes, or the one who demands clothing to live? Is either group actually hosting a perversion, or are both victims of a perversion hosted by some third entity? Of course, the arguments for or against clothing (environmental motives excluded, of course) are all from the domain of the collective entities, not the individuals. I'm repeating myself here, but good lord there's a lot of problems society likes to keep hidden behind the clothing someone else is wearing!
For myself I'm not adverse to stretching the "air dry" phase of a shower into several hours, circumstances permitting, nor am I uncomfortable if the custom of the house is to undress in the foyer before entering the living room (unless I'm armed, but that's a different matter altogether). My friend Omega and her Alpha practice nudism at home, no big deal to me. If I'm in the house she'll often put on a little sari wrap claiming it's for my sake (that's actually more provocative than nude, a fact I've pointed out to her, but all she does is grin… go figure). It was a bit of a delicate thing though trying to explain to the child that nudism isn't really a workable option until he can make it to the potty on time not first time but every time. My only counsel to them concerning the child was to make sure that the problems of the day have been resolved or retired for the evening before the clothes go away, no sense having the little one conclude that nudity is related to tensions and arguments. To my thought better if he should conclude that clothing is a protective barrier against the problems living on the other side of the door.
And again, thanks! You've set me to quite a thought, trying to integrate this definition of perversion against the concept of the collective entities... I've got a serious hunch the Marquis de Sade would have trouble running in the same pack with quite a few of them!
"...is the driving source of that conflict the one living without clothes, or the one who demands clothing to live? Is either group actually hosting a perversion, or are both victims of a perversion hosted by some third entity?"
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, nudists are some of the least perverted people around. We understand the difference between simple nudity and erotic exercise; we don't automatically associate nudity with arousal; and we consider all human bodies beautiful, not just the manufactured ideals that ceFashion throws constantly in our faces. Yes, there are some of us who practice polyamory and probably BDSM, but they keep their practices out of the nudist venues and the public eye, making no effort to "convert" any of us who disagree with them. And nudists talk about anything and everything openly. We seem to take off many psychological masks with our clothes
In fact, I see nudism as a great way to counter many of the perversions (not just sexual, as you point out) rampant in our society.