Goddess Mythology

Ecological Politics

Janet Biehl

mP0LtTl0$a journal o l social ist thought

EDITORIAL BOARDJulius Jocobson,

EditorPhyllis Jocobson,

EditorArthur Lipow, Thomos Horrison

Europeon Editor A W. JocksonStonley Aronowih Joonne LondySom Bottone Morvin MondellGertrude Ezorsky

NEW POLITICS is puolrshei b, i'rea Folilics Asscarcles. P.O. Box 98,Brcckrvn. tJ.\ . 1'1231

NEW POLITICS is indexed in lne Latt InCex ond in Allernole PressInciex. os well os Polihccl Scier.ae 4Dslrccfs.

Subscriplions: S20.00 lor four issues. Foreign subscriplions (includingConodo): 524.00. lnsfiMion role: 530.00. U.K. subscriplions ore e15(for lour issues) ond 95 for o single isue. S€nd to NEW POLffiCS c/oA'thur lipow. Dept. of Poliiics & Sociologv, Bkkb€ck College,Universily of London, Molet St., loncton WCIE 7HX Al poym€nfstiom olher tor€lgn counlries musl b€ mode by U.S. money ord€rsor checks poyoble in US. curency. Single copf 56.00.

Unsolicited mon$cdplr m|5l b€ occomponied by sromped.self-oddressod €rw6lop€s. Eulk rofe podog€ poid ol Abony, N.Y,

@ 1989 New Pollllcs Asociotes, Brooklyn. NY.

New Seiles:VOLUME ll e NUMBER 2 o Whole No. 6\Mnter 1989

Goddess Mythology inEcological Politics

by Janet Biehl

As rHe EARTH's ozoNE LAYER DlssolvEs, as polluted air srvantps our cit ies. as

the greenhouse eflect warms the atmosphere, attd as lhe oceatts becotlte

festering garbage dumps, it is clear that left polit ics can n() krlrgcr igttorc tltc'

destruction of the biosphere. The ongoing crisis demnrrds that left polit icirl

theorists and activists take a hard look at what is happening. Yet shen

American leftists turn for solutions to the major U.S. ecological nlovemeltts.

such as the Green, bioregional, and ecofentinist ntovements. they do not alrral 's

find a coherent, rational analysis of what ntusl be dotte. Ratlter, they olien

encounter a dreanry nrysticisnr that worshipfully enrbraces the clrth in a plclhtrrrt

of rituals. To be sure, good work is being done by these ntoventenls on toxic

wastes and recycling: and in theoretical terms, a healthy debate betweert l\\ 'o

distinct views, social ecology and deep ecology, has enrerged.

Nonetheless. a number of Greens seettr to be taking a despnirirlg rL'cotlrse

to theism in its various forms. Rituals and nleditations dot t lte agendas of lttnnv

Green, ecofeminist. and bioregional conferences. There. activists rr 'ho rvish lo

develop a movement to halt the destruction of the biosphere tl lav encounter t lte

worship of a goddess; in contrast to a death-dealing, ecocidil l culture. thef irre

asked to see "l ife and the world" as "irnnranent divinity." For "the Coddcss is

not sepafate f rom the world-She is the wor ld, and al l th ings in i t " - incl t r t l i l rg

ourselves, as a popular text. Starhawk's l/re Spiral l)ante. advises tts. Intlct 't l .

these rituals not only celebrate the passage of t lte seasotts. cvcles of deallt rrrrd

rebirth, and the waxing and waning of lhe moon. but also seek lo derelop the

intuit ive side of hunran nature. The emphasis is on developirrg tlre notlratiottal.

for " the myster ies of the absolule cnn never be explaincd. () l t ly i l l t t l i led."

To sensil ize us to ecological concerns. develop att ecolrrgical cottscitrttstte ss

that "uni l ' ies al l opposi tes." goddess-pr iestesses nl i l ! 'use cattdles. p l lnts.

incense, and stones, as well as pentagrams. crvstals' and other Ne$ ,Age

paraphernalia as tools, and a mish-mash of assttrled ellr lh-rtir-[ ire-$ i ltcr

symbols. With hand-clapping, drum-beat ing. chant ing. at td t l r tnce t t lo\el l lc l l ls ,

drawing on trances and dreants. goddess congregants cast spells. r ' isualize. lrrrt l

"take group breaths" lo release "group energ)'."The goddess is also " intrnatrent" in people. espccial l l \ \ ( ) t l lc l l , r rc art ' t r t l t l .

mN

<6t

For more copies of this pamphlet and a list of otherlilerature from a Left Green perspective, please wrile lo:

Jenrf Btr_Hf- is a nremlter of the Grctn Progrdrn l ' r t t j t t l t tn l t l t ( IJut l t t t t t t ,n

Greens in Bur l ingnn, Vernntnt .Green Program Proiect

P. O. Bor 111Burllngton, Vermont 05402

84

lor women "embody the Goddess." But by worshipping the goddess, we allnray "beconre the Goddess, sharing in the primal. throbbing joy of union. " Theemphasis is on personal transformation, for "unless we find the Goddess withinoursclves, we wil l never find her without."

Goddess worship did not originate at Green conferences. lt broke upon lheAnrerican scene in lhe 1970s and was taken up by some in the cultural feministand ecofentinisl nxrvernents as a source of personal transformalion. Someecofenrinists, altributing the causes of the ecological crisis lo the "technologicalsociety" that arose from the Cartesian mechanization of the planet lhat is said todominate both women and nature, came to see the goddess as a metaphor for the"interconnecledness" of everything and everyone in nature, and goddess-worship as a force for the "respiritization" or "reenchantment" of the world.

Since then, grddess theism has been seen as connecled with other areas ofinquiry: with geoscience, in Janres Lovelock's Caia Hypothesis; with systertsfheory, in Riane Eisler's The Clnlice and the Blucle: with Jungian psychologyand archetype-nlyslicism, in Willianr lrwin Thompson's populat The TitneFalling Bodies Take to Ligftt; with Taoism; and even with quantum physics.Only in the past few years has goddess lheism come to enjoy a vogue in sonreGreen tendencics. There it is seen as a way to cultivate a pcaceful.mrnhierarchical consciousness appropriale for an ecological society.

Coddess theism is often referred lo as "spirituality." This has been asource of confusion, however, for the word "spirituality" has a wide variety ofmeanings, including secular ones. lt may nlean simply a naturalistic ecologicalsensibility, or a qualitalive embrace of the formerly devalued nonhuman"natural," as well as of the human body and emolions. It may simply refer to asecular yearning for colnmunily in human society.

But "spirituality" also has a profoundly theistic meaning when it is used toposit a goddess-by definition a supernalure. lndeed. lhe meanings of the wordare often manipulated according lo various contexts. For example, whenspeaking to genernl, secular audiences in their book Green Politics, CharleneSpretnak and Fritjof Capra define spirituality as merely "a sense ofinterconnectedness": but in Spretnak's books on the subject ofgoddess religion,the theistic senses of the word are used.

It is not my purpose to criticize religious belief pe r se, for religious faith isabove all a matter of personal concern. Nor do I question that political activislsare sonletimes inspired by religious faith; again, that is a matter of their privateconcern. Indeed. religious belief has historically been a supporl even in leftpolitical movenrents. such as in Dorothy Day's Catholic Worker nrovement.

Bul when religious belief beconres as integral to a political nrovement as ithas for many in lhe Green rnovenrent. problems arise. In lhe inlluential GreenPolit ics,lhe authors cite "spirituality"-with its bundle of both theistic andnontheistic nreanings-as one of seven principles of Green polit ics. Seeing"spirituality" as the "key to a bctter l i fe," Spretnak has asked lhe Greennlovement to seek a "sustainable religion," avowing lhat "the deepesl sourcesof Green principles are spiritual in nature." Starhawk regards even feminism as

"a magicospiritual movement as well as a polit ical rnovenrenl."r ' lhcisln tcrrrlsto become more than just a personal support for irrdividual polit ic:rl aetiritywhen "respiritization" becomes a goal of ecological and fenrinist politics.

Once "spirituality"-with its theistic aspecls-is narned a principle of apolitical movement, il must be examined and scrutinized like any other principlein a program, such as decentralization or grassroots democracy, and its politicalimplications must be drawn out fully. Believers in lhe goddess may resent this.but religions have always attempted to appeal lo the faith of believers, not krjustify themselves lo critical thinkers. Once religion is submitted as a politicalprinciple, there is no reason why it should be exempt from analysis-or fromrigorous criticism.

A hard look is particularly necessary since lhe historical rec<lrd itself is rrorvbeing mystified in the namc of this particular theistic outlcxrk. Some writersinfluential in the ecology movement are painting a picture of a unifiedgoddess-worshipping Neolithic era as wholly benign, and Weslcrn history sirrceabout 3000 B.C.E. as monolithically malign. A nryth of an ecological Neolithiccuhurc is thus being generated, even as something to which we nright rvish tor€tum. Such atavism would be cause enough for alarnrt but nrany o[ the prescntgoddess mythntakers also view what lhey see ns the vcry cottsciottsnt'ss ttfNeolithic society as desirable. Since Neolitltic peoples used nryth ralhcr lhlnreason or science to explain for themselves lhe origins o[ lhe universe. 11c :treurged that mythopoesis and intuition are ecological fornts of menlalionappropriate for solving our problems.

A critical analysis of goddess-worshipping spirituality as a principle inGreen politics must thus address not only lhe content of the specific nryth beinggeneraled but also the function of myth as such in an advanced industrialcapitalist society. Only then may the prospects of the g<xldess-nlyth firr brirrgingabout social change be understood.

Rcligions have historically been profoundly involved in nroventenls lirrsocial change in lhe Wesl, most nolably anlong the llehrews of tlte lirstmillennium B.C.E. and among the Calvinists of the sevettlccttth century. l lulthat religion has often served as a support for existing political syslenls. nol onlvin thc West but also cross-culturally, is largely and nailely ignored. Asarchaeologist James Mellaart (upon whom many goddess-rn1'thnrakers lookfondly) has incisively observed, "Religion . . . tends to resisl political changes.Peoplc idcntify themselves with . . . religion and they tend lo preserve lthisloutward sign of their identity through lhick and thin."r' l 'he fact that sucialchangc, since the rise of nation-states and the secularization of Weslem thought.has been accomplished far more often by secular grlitical itleologies :rrrtlmovements than by religious ones Sives us importanl reason lo think agairr onthe presenl trend toward mythmaking and goddess-worship.

lhc Inslrumcnlrl Usc ol iltlh

Tue popuLrntry oF the goddess-myth is a result of profound social dislocatiorrsin our society. Goddess-mylhmakers cite very real social conditions lhal seerrt to

86

cry out for a "respirit izalion." In our anonymous mass culture, they rightly say,people are isolated froln one another; society is fragmented, and communitiesare increasingly destroyed. lndividuals. treated as machines by a bureaucraticstate and feeling increasingly disconnected, alienated, and dehumanized, find itincreasingly difficult lo attain fulfilling personal and inner lives and are left witha profound inner enrptiness. ln such an era, inanimale machines and money arevalucd nrore than living. breathing people-or other organisms, for lhat matter.

To many, godcless-worship seems lo offer a way to revalue the qualitativedimensions of life in all its forms above the quantitative and inanimate. ltpromises an emporvering vision of the self, especially for women. It promises anew sense of full ' i l lnrent. of community and intimacy. lt promises a way tooverconle isolation in the bonding of rituals and thereby to regenerateconrnrunily, to reslore a feeling of connectedness. lt promises oneness. supporl,caring-enormously altractive promises. "Change us! Touch us! Touch us!Charrge us!" runs one invocation to the goddess, evocatively expressing thisneed. Rituals derived fronr and based on goddess-worship, it is argued, are aneffective technique for bringing people together. "Spirituality enables us to feela deep connection between one anolher." wriles Spretnak; "Our bonding isprofirund." And pcrhirps l irr sonre i l is.r

Now. there is no guestion that ri lual plays an inrportant role in l i fe'splssages. both in celebrations and in mournings; it also plays a role in thecohesion of a corurrrunity. Today. however, we are faced with a somewhatdifl 'erent proposil iorr: the conscious use of myth and ritual as a force for polit icalchange. And as the early twentieth-century political theorist Georges Sorelrealized, the important point about the use of a myth in politics is not itsconlenl. or i is lruth or falsity, but rather its effectiveness or ineffectiveness-that is. its instrurnerrtality. We are witnessing, in effect, the rise of aninstrutnenlal use o[ nrylh to sil l isfy personal needs as an integral part of apol i t ical n lovenrcnt.

To the extent thal goddess-worship seeks to satisfy emotional needs, theainr o[ its instrurrrentl l isrn is therapeutic rather than polit ical. Goddess-ri lualsare guided nxrre by the techniques of group therapy than by the goals of polit icaleducation, lo the point thal an appeal lo emotional needs become a substitute forpolit ical awareness. consciousness, and activism. Congregants l isten to apriesless: they do what she says, walk when she beats her drum, clap theirhands. and stop when she ceases. As individuals, they are essentiallyinterchangeable: their polit ics are largely inelevant. Liberals, conservatives,reaclionaries. anarchists, socialists, even sexists. perhaps-all step to thebealing of lhe sanre drunr. They perfornr only lhe simplest mechanical practicestogether: they hold halrds. breathe togelher, chant together, look at each other,"beconre one," or "raise a cone of healing energy." They tend not to engageeach other individually. either in specific emotional relationships or indiscussions of idcas suhjccl to crit ical analysis.

Of course polit ical nrovernents should be concerned with their menrbers'enrolional needs. But as a base for a polit ical movement, appealing to personal

emolional needs (however genuine they are alrd lxrwevcr rvcll- irrtcntiorrcd thcappeal) and providing therapeutic solutions (however effectire) can pror,idesimply that at mosl: personal emotional fulf i l lrrrent.

The social needs for fulf i l lment and conrrrrurrity lrc vcry rerrl. but theproblems that have produced these nceds have profound social causc's.' lheyinvolve the invasion of the market into all aspects of l i l i ' . l irr erunrp['. arrd thesubordination of most people to various hierlrchics culrrrirrlrt irrc irr u stutc.Under these circumstances, can nryth cvcrr hc irs cll i 'ctirc :r tceltrrir;rrc-therapeutic or otherwise-as is so often clairned lirr it l ( 'nrr u corrtl i t ion ol'emptiness and alienation that ult imately has social causcs trulv be rt 'rrrr 'dicd b1'means of mere symbols and rituals? Can congreglnts corning l irrrrr u lasl-l ixrtlculture truly find a serious allernlt ive in ln1,th'l

The social conditions under which we live prrduce ltol q;1ll1 lc.elings ol'emptiness and isolation; they also produce enornlous stress in our l ives. T'hisstress is so profound that it tends lo prevent people fr()nl harirrg the tiruc.. theenergy, or even the wil l lo study the complexities of Our societv. o[ theecological crisis, and of the polit ical solutions being offered. Undc.r rheseconditions, it is highly tempting to allow a symbol thar osrensibly prorides apall iative to ecological problems to serve as a substitute for a full underslarrdinsof their very complex social nature. "Basically, people unde.r slress . . lackenergy for dealing with issues apart from thenrselves," notes psychologist DavidElkind. "Symbols, oversinrplif ications renlly, are energy-c()rrserving. "r A sludy'of the history of radical polit ical theory, of the history o[ social lnoverrrcnts. iuttlof Anrerican society, nol to speak of rJcbates nbout thc relatire irnporluncr. ot'theory and practice, seenr either too denrantlirrg or inconscquentirl or bolh tomany people under these conditions. Syrnbols seenr lo fi l l t lre vrcuunr in lheindividual l i fe and are a less demanding way of undcrstlrrding a crisis to htxrl.They provide a fast-food solulion to the prohlelrr ol ' lhcory. Itnssirely acccplirrgthem conveniently frees us from having to study irnd think.

This is not the same thing as building dr. 't l icaliorr lo i l citusc.Coddess-worship appeals nlorc lo desircs frrr l lrr ' instlrrt gllt i l icutiorr ol lrccdsthan to principles; more lo anguish lhan t0 conscierrce: and rrrore lo a \iuueyearning for community per se than to an authentic polit ical and social solidarity'based on shared understandings and conlmitnrents. lnslcad. a dreanr o[ thedistant Neolithic becomes an easy substitute for historical. social. and polit icalanalysis.

It is highly doubtful that taking such a fasl-f ixrd shortcut approirch-adopting a myth-wil l ult imately produce an1'thing but a fnst-firod solution. Amythic technique lends to produce a syrnbolic and thcrclirrt ' arr i l lusorlsolution-nalnely, instant intirnacy. instant cornrrrunity. antl inslunt crrrrrrc'cled-ness. Goddess-rituals seem, tnore often than nol. lo fuil elen as thcrlpv.Ecofeminist Susan Griflin remarked recently about \r'hlt slrc calls "Ncrv Agr.'1'spiritual 8et-to8elhers." "People get very higlr ol 't ' lhcnr arrrl thcv ti 'cl this scrrscof connection with each olher. But it isn't rcal. lt thrcsrr' l l lst. lt 's l ikc conorrcandy. lt 's an i l lusory replacement for sorrrething rve rrectl. just l ike a drug

87 88

addictions. "5 lvlay her remarks not also apply to rhe rituals of the goddess-myrh?May they not also be little more than "cotton candy"?

fho M;th

Tur coNrrNr oF I nE Myln on which these rituals are based is fairly simple. InNeolithic prehistory. we are told, society was egalitarian. ln particular, women$'ere nol oppresscrl arrd. accorcling lo sorne, were even socially dominant.Pc.ple are said ro havc l ivcd in harnrony wilh nature and with each other. "Forseveral thousands of years our neolithic anceslors l ived in agriculuralsettlements. The archaeology of such settlements in old Europe has revealed. . . egalitari ltn gra!'es: and no fortif ications or evidence of warfare."6 And thenrany fenrale figurincs found at sonre Neolithic sites are said to represent agoddess or goddesses rvorshipped there.

Indeed. the egalitarianism of Neolithic vil lage societies is assurned to beintimately and even necessarily l inked with rhis goddess-worship. Goddess-worship is he ld to be irrrrinsicalll'antihierarchical. "The Goddess . . . is nol anauthority figure," Spretnak assures us, and Starhawk adds that goddess-worshipis inherently denrocratic, "very much akin to many of the ideats of the

' 'Founding Fathers' [of rhe American Revolutionl." The implications ofgoddess-worship are also said to be inherenrly ecological, teaching oneness withnature: she is "a syrnbol of harmony and oneness among humans, animals, andnarure." The tirne of her alleged worship is said to go back even before theNeolithic to the [Jpper Paleolithic.

These long-lasting. peaceful, and egalitarian cutlures are said to have beendestroyed by invasions by migrating pasloral nomads, ..the barbarianIndo-European tribes front lhe Eurasian steppes." The '.Kurgan invaders," asthey are often called,

'r iginated in the Pontic and Volga steppe area around the

Black Sea and are said r. have slarted invading Neolithic Europe in the fifthnril lenniurrr B.c.E. A warrior culture, riding in fighting carts and on horseback,they supp.sedly corrqucred the peaceful grildess-worshippers antt imp<lsed apatriarchal rcgirrre. ' l 'hcy "hrought a sky god. a warrior cult, and patriarchalsocial order. The forrned a ruling class over the old vil lage goddess-worshippingculture. And that is rvhere we live today-in an Indo-European culture."lvtoreover. in conquering the goddess cultures they essentially "desacralized theearth. "7

The western European culture that has since directly descended from rheseKurgan invaders is scen as unrernitt ingly preoccupied with power anddonrination. "-l 'hc 'r ise' of civil iz.ation was accompanied by an increase indisease, poverty. arrd p.l ir ical drnrinarion lrlratl myth conlinues to identify . . .with progress, srtcial evolution. and a dozen other valorized concepts." we aretold in the radical ecokrgy journal Earth First!.8 In effect, this myth allows lhatl itt le that happened in western history alter lhe desrruction of Neolithiccul l r r rcs- i r r thc l i rur l l r r l r i l lcnrr iurrr IJ.C.E. - is relevant f i r r ecokrgic l lrecoltslrucl ion.

'I 'he coddcss nry'lhrnakers suggest that goddess-worshipping Neolithic

Europe is a prototype of an ecological society. lf we reclaim its values-and its

religion-resacralizing nature, we would feel in harnrony with nalure: rve rvould

treat the earth with respect and stop polluting it. We would also develop the

consciousness to stop dominating each other. Thus, peacefulness and equality

could be recovered if we once again revered the earth as a goddess, or opened

ourselves to the goddess "archetype." Some, like Riane Eisler, foresee the

advent of a "new paradigm" in which many of the values of Neolithic Europe

will be restored. In a fascinating rhetorical flourish, William lrwin Thompson

tells us that "[c]ivi l izations, l ike the penis, rise and fall, and when the tolvers

and battlements crumble into the earth, they retum to the embrace of the Great

Mother. "e

Oocumonlatlon of ths Mfth

LErvtXC ASIDE FOR THE MoMENT the extraordinary na'ivet€ of these nr1'thopoeic

theories. we musl first ask how valid the myth is archaeologically. The

goddess-mythmakers draw on the work of a nuntber of archaeologists to

establish its validity. Tracing goddess worship back to the Upper Paleolithic,

1}1ey rety, forone, on the work of archaeologist E. O. Jantes. Corvrie shells have

been found in Upper Paleolithic burial sites, that, writes Eisler. follos'ing

James. "seem lo have been associated with some kind of early $orship of a

female deity." Why? Because cowries are shaped like vaginas-"female genital

imagery," of course. For Eisler, the red ochre found on statueltes is "the

surrogate of the l ife-giving or menstrual blood of wttl l l i t l l ."r( '

Ahhough mosl archaeologists agree lhat red ocltre i lt prclt istoric htlrial sitcs

symbolized blood, to asserl that il means specifically ntenslrttll bltnd is slreer

fancy. Red ochre, moreover, was used widely in Neolithic Europenn htrrir ls-

including among the much-despised patriarchal Krrrgln cttltttrcs: i lr lhcl ' nrr

early archaeological term for the latter was "red-ochre cttllttrr-'s "

For the Neolithic itself, the mythmakers rely heilvi l l on the $ork ttf

archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, who published extcnsivelv irt thc l970s orr rr

cluster of Neolithic cultures in southeastern Europe thirt lrppcar lo hrtrc hcctt

relatively egalitarian, peaceful, and sex-equal.tr In particular. she studietl the

Vinca culture, an agricultural vil lage that thrived in the sixth and fi l ' th rnil lerrnia

B.C.E. in what is now Yugoslavia. Gimbutas labeled this cluster of ctt ltures..Old Europe" and assened that they worshipped a goddess who "was clearll' an

embodiment of the feminine l ife-giving principle."r?

Yet Gimbutas does not clearly explain her reasons l'or considering "Old

European" artifacts representations of a goddess or goddesses: she ntcrely

asserts it, as if i t were self-evident. Nordoes she give sigrri l ' iclrtt i t l lcttt irtr l lo t l lc

possibte social reasons for the relative egalitarianism. such as lhe etrtergencc of

tribal societies out of Mesotithic hunting-gathering bands, or the nature of social

and polit ical organization based on kinship. Nor does she address lhe significant

question of status and ranking in these cultures.The mythmakers also rely heavily on the work of Janres lrlellaart at

Neolithic Qatal HiiyUk in Anatolia. They point out that lrlellaart found no

89 90

evidence either of warfare or of social stratification there. Moreover. hcauseburials of women at qatal Hilyiik were apparently morc luxurious and prominentlhan those of men. women must have been "socially preeminent" (which by nomeans constitutes gender equality). Mellaart also thought that Qatal Hllytlk wasa center for the worship of a female deity; an unusually large proportion of thehouses were shrines and contained female sculptures and figurines.

Toward the middle of the Neolithic, to be sure. some archaeological sitesin southeastern Europe do clearly reveal evidence of a shifi from an apparentlypeaceful. religious, sex-equal ethos to a more warlike and socially stratifiedone. In Cimbulas's "Old Europe." more weapons, for example, are found in themore recenl layers. Indeed, exceptionally rich burials. with silver and goldornaments, precious slones, baltle-axes, knives, and daggers appear. Thesewere burials of single individuals of high status, such as chiefs, indicating thathierarchies were in place: and these individuals were males, indicatingpatriarchy. Many of the habitations were prolected hill-forts, as opposed to themore open Neolithic villages, indicating warfare. They worshipped maledivinities, says Gimbutas, probably sky gods; women had clearly lost theirpreviously high social prestige.

This shift in artifacls is supposed to have been the result of nothing lessthan an invasion of "lndo-European" pastoral nomads-Kurgans-from theeast. "lt was clear," Gimbutas writes, "that only a new force from bcyond theDnieper could have caused the upheaval and disintegration of the long-lastingand flourishing lNeolithicl cultures of Europe and their contemporaries." Theinvaders fonned a ruling class and dominaled the hybrid cultures that followed."The new lords seem to have successfully eliminated or changed whateverremained of the old social system."ra Hierarchy was thus shatteringly imposedfrom withoul.

Ihc Erldencc Eramlncd

Uneur-srrnxnBr y. sonle Neolithic societies were relatively egalitarian andorganic. They nray also have been matri l ineal, although this has so far bcenimpossible to prove. Neolithic cultures were certainly religious, certainly hadpowerful concepts of the supernalural. And there is certainly an increase in thenumber 4nd sophistication of weapons in middle Neolithic burial sites.

But the problems of interpretation of this evidence are many. Themythmakers of the Neolithic seriously and tendentiously distort it. Moreover,they tend to follow a simplistic philosophical idealism-namely, that culturalsynrbols deternrine social realilies. confusing religious symbols with religiousinstitutions.' l 'hcy fail to grapple with the queslion of whether an all-pervasivereligious authorily is really a desirable ahernative lo a secular scrciety. And theyfail to ask whether tlre rule of custom, tradition bound and fixed, is really moredesirable than a rational communitarian alternatave based on humanindividuality and frcedom.

l. "0ld Europc"

ONe or rHE rrtost egregious faclual distortions occurs in the use of Gimbutas's

term "Old Europe." Gimbutas specifically used this lernr to refer only to theNeolithic cultures of southeastern Europe. But the nrythnrakers rvho drarv on herwork tend to broaden the term geographically to apply to n/l of NeolithicEurope. Spretnak, for one, does this mutinely: by the sanre token. Will iamIrwin Thompson broadens the localized goddess-worship (if i t existed) to a"universal religion" whose "range of influence . . had diffused throughoutAfrica and Eurasia."15

But neither the tenn nor the cultural characteristics it describes reli 'rs to allof Neolithic Europe. "Goddess" figurines are aclually far fronr colnnron to allof Neolithic Europe. Indeed, in central and northern Neolithic Europe. hurnanfigurines of either sex are found only rarely. 'l'hus. clcrr if goddesscs s't-rcworshipped at Vinca. such worship was hardly the "universal religion" thatThompson proclaims.

Nor was egalitarianism by any nreans characteristic of all of NeolithicEurope. Neolithic Malta, for example, was a chiefdonr socicty. rvith a conrplexorganized priesthood and temples, as archaeologist Colin Renfrerv rvrites inBefore Civilization. Hierarchies did develop, and they seenr nl()st likcly to lravedevefoped from internal causes, quite independently of invasions by pastoralnomads. Generally, the ethnography of present-day tribal socielies describes anevolulion from lhe egalitarianism of band hunting-guthering societies. to thestatus differentiations and ranking of tribal societies, to the shantans andpriesthoods of simple and complex chiefdoms and wanior societies. This courseof development is likely to have occurred in Neolithic Europe as rvell.

The fact is that the shift in artifacts does not necessarily prove thnt aninvasion occuned at all. According to anthropologist Antonio Gihnan. "lt is notabsolutely clear that differences in artifacts. even differences in llnruage.indicate differences in culture."16 The shift nray he rttribulirhlc lo an intcrn:rldevelopment of hierarchy, as could the increasing preenrincrrce o[ nraleeconomic and political power over women.

And there is evidence for the internal rise of hierirrchf in soutlrcasternEurope. Thc high degree of religious ceretnonialistn lt Vinca pror idessubstantal reason to believe that culture had a priesthood. Archaeologist RuthTringham and others have suggested that Vinca's social structures becanreincreasingly centralized during the course of its hislor)'. Just to the north ofVinca, burial sites for the so-called "Linear" culture nray give evidcrrce ofgerontocracy: they indicate "slatus differences [thatl u'cre hased prirrrirrilv onage and sex. Spondylus shells and other artifacts are strongly associirtedwith ofd ntales," argues archaeologist Saruttas lrlilisausk:rs tn Euroltr'uttPrehistory. The society of Minoan Crete (rvhich (l i lubuils irrclutlcs in lrcr "Old

Europe" and which the goddess-nlylhnrakers single out as thc clirrrirr o[goddess-worshipping culture) was actually a pllaer' ccnl('r. sith a soci;rlstructure somewhere between a chiefdorn attt l r sl:rlc. irr shieh l i 'od rvitsdistributed by a palace administration-surely classil inhle ls u hicrarchr,

The goddess-mythmakers, it is worth noting. tend to cornplctr' l l igrrore tlrcrise of hierarchy in non-Western cultures. The Chincse nnd the Aztecs. l irr

9 l92

exanrple. developcd patriarchy. centralized stales, warfare, and ntale deitieswith no help rvhatsoever from "lndo-European" invaders. Nor do thenrylhrnakers explain how the Kurgans themselves developed hierarchy-werethey too invaded? And the cuhure of Qatal HUyUk. like that of other Anatoliansites. disappeared long before 45fi) B.C.E.. when the Kurgan invasions are saidto have begun; no explanation is given for their end. Thus it is questionable, tos.ry the leasl. to attribute the disappearance of "goddess-worshipping" culturesand the emergence of hierarchy exclusively or even primarily to migrations ofKurgan invaders.

InrJeed. invnsions are difficult to prove archaeologically. "To demonstratea prehistoric nrigralion or even the presence of a pastoral econotny is not asinrple nratter. . . . 'l'he nrigration hypothesis should be treated with caution,"warns lvtilisauskas. For one thing, despite the shift in artifacts, no shift from anagricultural to a pasloral social order is evident in southeastern Europe in theperiod in queslion. Moreover, it is also unclear whal would have caused theKurgans to lo nrigrlle in the first place; lhere is little evidence for the kind ofpopulation and other pressures that induced the later Scythians. Sarmatians, andCinrnrerians lo rnigrale into and invade easlern Mediterranean cuhures of thef i rs l nr i l lenniunr B.C.E.

The fact is that Cirnbutas's invasion theory is far from universally acceptedamong archaelogists. The most recent work on Neolithic Europe challenges it.Colin Renfrew. frrr one. denies that the archaeological record points to adranratic nrigration lhal transformed European Neolithic culture, and he objectsto theories of "nxrnogenesis" lhat attribute changes in a social order to a singlecause such as nrigration. Argues l inguist Edgar Polome, "We know that we canhnvc cornplele clrarrges in religions wilhout a change in cuhure." With<lut trulyclear evidence firr a nrigration, we have subslanlial reason to assume thal thechanges at Europefln Neolithic siles were brought about by a conlinuousevolution of hierarchy rvithin the cullures themselves.lT

One further point on the question of peacefulness deserves mention here."l'he nrythmakers do not address the guestion of lhe relationship between theagriculturalists of southeastern Europe and their Mesolithic hunting-gatheringneighbors. By the beginning of the Late Neolithic, farmers had displaced thehunter-galherers arrrl other peoples in nruch of Europe. Are we to assume lhatlhis rvas a peacelul expansion'l At the western edges of lhe central EuropeanNeolithic "Linelr" culture. archaeologisls have found a grealer number ofprrr.icctiles tlran irr the rest of that culture. These projectiles-arrowheads-could have bccrr uscd ugainst people as well as against aninrals. Although thengricultural corrrrrrunities nray have been peaceful internally, could lheirt,t l tunsion have hcerr peacelul. any more than the familiar-and bloody-cxJrlnsiorr ol l lrrro-Arrrcricalr l irrnring c()nrruurties in North America intotcrritories ol lntl irrrr hunter-gnthercrs rvas'l As Milisaukas mildly suggesls. thisqueslion is in need of furl lrer investigation hy archaeologists-and, I nray add,rvorthy of contenrplation by mythnlakers and those who believe them.

2. Goddess ol Whal?

ANorxrn rRoBLEM with the accounts of the goddess-nrl thnr:rkcrs is rlrequestion of exactly what the goddess is supposed to have silnctilicd. Sornctirncsshe is said to have been a goddess of nature. At other tinres. she is said to havebeen an earth goddess; and more sweepingly. sonlL'tinles she is said to havebeen the "greal molher" or the "queen of the urtiverse." lhc rrvlhrnlkcrsanswer this contradiction by saying that the goddess u'ls actullly severalgoddesses at the same time-a unity in multiplicity. Nonetheless, specificproblems with each formulation remain.

The goddess is often simply called n goddess o[ n:tlurc. Wc oltcn thitrk of"nature" as meaning nonhuman nature, and this is the sense in rvhich the rvord"nature" seems lo be used when we are told that "[Neolithicl art and artifactsdemonslrate a sophisticated understanding of our inlenelatedness with Natureand her cycles," as Spretnak imaginatively writes, suggesting lhal the goddess'sdevoul worshippers in the Neolithic would have a great deal to teach us.18

That Neolithic peoples could not possibly have had a conccpt of nonhunrannalure that is in any way comparable to ours appears to elude Sprelnak. ln orderlo lreat nonhunran nnlure in a certain rvay. thcrc first ntust bc'a cottccpt ofnonhuman nature distinct front a c()nccpt of hurttatts. ' l ' l t is was nol lhe casc inNeolithic times, if we may judge from contemporary preliternte agriculturalpeoples. There is no reason to believe that the realnt o[ nalure and lhe rcalrrr o[humanity were conceptually distinguished at all unti l Hellenic philosophcrs ofthe first mil lennium B.C.E. introduced lhe concepls of "ph;sis" attd nonros."There seems no reason to think, then, that the goddess could have bcen agoddess of nonhuman nature.

At other times in the goddess-myth l i lcri l turc, the goddcss is slit l lo hitrebeen an "earth goddess." Sprelnak, for example. also says that archlertlogyreveals "sophisticated art and religious syrnbols reflecting teterence for IUotherEarth."le This, alas, is also historically guestionable. f<rr it sholly' ignores thefact thal the goddess or goddesses apparently worshipped at Vincl;in "Old

Europe"-were not eartlt goddesses ot all. lndeed. Girnbutas herself explicitll'rules out earth-goddess worship at Vinca.

Rathcr, she says, air and water goddesses u'ere prortrinentlt ' srrrshippedthere and that worship of these air and water divinities stood "in contrilst to theIndo-Europeans, to whom Earth was the Greal lr{other." Worslrip of a goddesswho specifically represents the earth is thus characteristic not of the allegcdpeaceful, egalitarian Neolithic peoples that lhc lnllhnrlkers eclebrltc hrrt rlthcrof the "lndo-European" peoples who allt 'gcdly dt'stto1'ctl t lrcrrt! Ercrt t lrcir grt 'utgoddess, "as a supreme Creator who creales l 'rtttn ltcr o$n subslance." $ri lesGimbutas, "controsts with the lndo-European Earth-lrlothel":tr 1.tp1t',*1tmine).

Although many African and North Anterican Indiln pcoples sorshippcdand still worship an earth goddess (usually in conjunctiorr * ith a sky god ). in theEuropean conlext earth-goddess-worship appears if anything lo be a distinctly

9l 94

"lndo-European" phenomenon. lt was lhe "lndo-European" Vedic Indians whoworshipped Prthivi, tlre "lndo-European" Greeks who worshipped Gaia, andthe "lndo-European" Romans who worshipped Tclla. Even "lndo-European"pasloral nomads such as the aggressive Scythians of the first millennium B.C.E.worshipped an earth goddess, Apia-Fellus. The "lndo-European" Scythians,who entered Europe much laler than the Neolithic Kurgans. resembled lheKurgans in nrnny striking ways: they were warriors, had chieftains, accumulatedwealth, and had royal burials. and generally delighted in raiding olher ancientculiures. But this did not prevent them from worshipping an earth goddess: nordid this;worship apparently evoke matricentric or non-warrior attributes amongthem.

Worshipping the earth as a goddess, in effect, appears to constitute theworship of a greatly attenuated version of a "great goddess." Ironically, inworshipping the earth as a goddess today, goddess-mythmakers are unwittinglyasking us to worship the goddess in her subordinated. "lndo-European" form, aform totally compatible with patriarchal warrior societies.

Finally, and perhaps most problematically for social lheory, the "goddess"is also sometimes said to have been a goddess of nature in the sense of thecosrnos as a whole. 'l'he cosmos includes. of course, not only the earth and thesky and all of nonhunliln nature but also humans themselves. In this sense thegoddess represents a universal cosmic and moral order immanent in the entireuniverse, a "great goddess." lndeed, goddess-mythmakers often emphasize her"irnmanence" in everything.

The cosrrxrs obviously includes not only humans. however. but also lhehuman social order. Indeed, in the w6rldview of tribal and Neolithic peoplesgenerally, the hunran social order is embedded in and conlinuous with theuniverse. lf the goddess is "immanent" in the cosmos, then, she is also"immanent" in the hunran social order, which is obviously pan of lhe cosmos.But if this is lhe case. then the human social order, l ike anything else in whichthe goddess is "immanent." is sacred. Unfortunately, if the human social orderis seen as sacred, we cannot change it. Indeed, concepls of the divine asirnmanent in the human social order are profoundly conservalive in theirinrplications.

Whatever deities were worshipped in the Neolithic were surely regarded as"immanent" in nature in the sense of the entire cosmos. By the same token, theEgyptian and Mesopotanrian cuhures lhat followed also regarded the divine asimnranent in nature and hence in their social order. The claim is made thalrvorship of the goddess. imrnanenl in nature, is inherently antihierarchical; yetthese culturcs huil l enorrlous slate sociclies. Egyplian s()ciety was a pharaonictheocracy, in which lhe goddess lsis was known as "the Throne." For twomillennia in lVlespotarnia, monarchs altributed the legitimacy of their rule to thefavor of goddesses "immanent" in nature and the human social order.particularly Inarrna and lshtar. Inanna was said to hold "full power of judgement

and decision and the control ofthe law ofheaven and earth." Sargon ofAkkad.for exanrple. attribuled his fifty-five-year rule to lshtar's favor. In later Assyria,

Assurnasirpal claimed his right to the monarchy because lshrar had singted himout-even though he was the son of the previous king! lndeed. the Assyriansbuilt the prototypical "oriental despotisnr" without in any way disclnirning rhedivine as immanenl in nalure.

lronically, even the Kurgans themselves, as Neolithic peoples. surelv sarvthe divine as immanent in nature. The fact that they rvorshippcd skv gods. asGimbulas says, does not alterthis fact in lhe lcast. A sky grxl is:rs irnntnrrcrrt innature as an earlh goddess is: the sky is obviously as rrruch a purt o[ rraturc as isthc earth.

A society with a concept of the immanence of the divine in hature is thusnol necessarily free from donrination at all. Quite the conlritrv-a concept oftheistic immanence may serve to justify anr social order, rvhether egalitarian.despotic, or patriarchally nomadic. It simply serves to make any social order,whatever it may be, immutable and essentially divine-one nright even say"enchanted. "

Changing the human social order becalne conceivable only after a divinitywas posited as outside of nature altogether and hence outside of the humansocial order. lt was the extraordinary contribution of the Hebrervs (a peopleoften criticized in the literalure of the goddess-nrythnrakers) to do precisely tlris.By positing the divine as lranscendenl. the Hebrews radically secularized theworld, advancing a revolutionary tradition that could make for changes anysocial order-including ones with ideologies that speak of "donrinalillg nature."

3. lllclrlchlcr ol Prlstturct

THn, sttxoNess oF THE coDDEss-MyTHMAKERs lo these inrplications of theisticimmanence is echoed in their blindness to lhe exisrence of hierarchy ingoddess-worship itself-that is, to priestesshoods. They tend to ignore thehicrarchical nalure of priestesshoods; priestesses-as opp<lsed to priests-seemto be a strangely acccpkble form of hierarchy.

This may be because of a failure to distinguish between cultural s.rrtDoLrand the social rirritntrbns of worship. Thus, goddess-nrythnrakers ntistake thepurported egalitarianism in goddess symbolism for an absence of religioushierarchy. But a goddess is merely a cultural symbol: a priestesshood is ahierarchy, whatever may be the sex of the priest or priestess and horvevercgalitarian may be the form of the symbol it pronrotes. Indeed. thc very sordhierarchy is etymologically derived fronr the Greek word for "priest"-and frrrthat matter, "priestess."

And the mythmakers' own sources reveal that "gnddess rvorship" rvasmediated by priestesses. Al qatal Hilyiik. for exanrple. rvrires lrtelltlrr, "thecult of the goddess was administered mainly by wonren." Irtntricenlric Vincaitself was apparently a very ceremonial culture, as Renfrew points out: theheavily stylizalion of the figurines, the clothing, the nrask faces-all suggesr ancx[emely religious culture. lt is hard to believe that such a cullure would hin'elacked a religious elite.

Accounls of priestesshoods from later historical periods are widespread

9596

throughout the ancienl Near East. To take jusl one example: in historical Egypt,according lo Flinders Petrie, the goddess Hathor had sixty-one priestesses andeighteen priests; the goddess Neith was attended solely by priestesses.l l ierarchical Egyptian srrciety was apparently gender-blind in the authoritarianpower it assigned lo ntale and female functionaries alike.2l

Finally, the protests of goddess-nrythrnakers to the conlrary. it is nol al allclelr lhnt grildcss worship is inconrpatihle with huntan sacrifice. Thcre is

evidence for it even in the "Old European" cullures themselves. A recenl

excavation at Knossos led by Peter Warren of the British School at Alhens

found concrete evidence pointing to ritual child sacrifice in Minoan Crete-thegrddess-worshipping culture par excellence. '[he bones of two children were

found in a pithos with cerlain cut marks in them in midbone, which, Wanen

says, is

clear evidence that their flesh was carefully cut away. much in lhe manner of lheflesh of sacrificed animals. ln facl, the bones of a slaughtered sheep were foundwith those of the children. . Moreover. as far as the bones are concemed, lhechildren appear lo have been in good health. . . . Startling as it may seem. theavailable evidence so far poinls lo an argument lhal the children were slaughteredand thcir flcsh crxrke<l and possihly ellen in a sncrificial rilual made in the serviccof a nature dicty lo assure the annual tenewal of ferfility.lr

Warren was by no means looking for this evidence about Crete; indeed, he wasastonished by what he found.

'l'here is even archaeologicat evidence lor huntan sacrifice in the Neolithicsocieties of southeastern Europe, according to Gimbutas herself. At Vinca,

"human sacrifice accompanied by animal sacrifice and offerings of other objectswas performed in open-air sanctuaries." And the famous Tartaria lablets,

sotnetimes thought to indicate that Vinca had writing, "were found in

association with scorched human bones, twenty-six schematic Early Vinca clay

figurines . . . in an ash-filled sacrificial pit located in the lowest layer of the

sile. "2l

ldoallsm

ORvlousLv, rnrs ts NOr lo suggest that if American culture were lo adoptgodrless-worship. it would thereby reinstitute human sacrifice. But even in thepr(rcess of enterlaining such a possibility, one is obliged to ask: What are the

determining effects of cultural symbols on the realities of social life? ls thererenson lo suppose that a cultural symbol like the goddess would necessarily havethe benign efl'cct of crenting an ecological srrciety any more than it would

necessarily have the negalive effect of reinstituting human sacrifice? What is therelationship between the contents of myths and social realities? Dcrcs mythreally determine so'cial reality?

Many people in the ecology and ecofeminisl movemenls appear to thinkthal it does, lhat nrerely changing the conlent of myths from "bad" to "good"

would somehow change our social realities. They would agree with Lynn

97 98

white's naive judgment that "since the roots of our lrouhle are so laigelyreligious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, rvhelher rve call it rhntor not." Spretnak, for example, seems to feel that charrgirrg the scx of acuhure's deity yields profound political and smial dil'l'crcrrccs lirr thlr cullurc. Averitable rcligious determinist, in her version of history. culture is shapedprimarily by religion: she identifies "the largest mobilized force rry'ing to defearus" as "patriarchal religion"-not capitalisrn. not the nation-stale.:n

Doubtless cultural symbols do hetp legitinlte and reirrftrrcc sociat ortlt'rs.But many associated with the ecology and ecofeminist movenrents tend toignorc the role that religious hierarchies-including priestesshoods*also playedin the rise of hierarchy (which has a good deal nrore to do wirh rhe ecologicatcrisis than do the symbols the hierarchies manipulate). Eisler. for example, issceking "the 'critical mass' of new images and nryths that is required for theiraclualization by a sufficient numtEr of people. " ldeas do ptay an inrportant rolein social changc, and we may even agree with "rhealogian" Carol P. Christ thlt"symbol systems cannot simply be rejected, they nrust be replaced." But thefact is that we must not confuse the social insritutions of religion with thecontenl of religious teaching.2s

The facts simply do not support the thesis thnl the contcnt of lrrr.lhnecessarily shapes reality, nor does the sex o[ a dcity rvorshippcd.' lheanthropological record reveals no clear pattern o[ correspondcnce .betrvecngoddess worship and a high social and political starus lor wonren. In fact. inmany cases goddess worship may correspond lo a low-stttus position lorwomen. The religion of Burma, Theravada Buddhisnr. lrrr exarrrple. has rlrgoddess at all. Yet Burmese women are somehow antong the urlrld's nrosllibcrated; "tlrey hold a power that is awesonte ro behold," rvith social. tegal.and political freedoms lhat al least equal those of nren," observe both JohnFerguson and Mi Mi Khiang.26 By contrast, Chinese BurJdhisnr does har.e afemale deity: in fact, Kwan Yin is probably the most worshipped and rvidelydepicted deity in Chinese Buddhism. Yet her worship has not inrproved the lorof Chinese women one iota. China is the epitonte of a pntriarchnl srriely. Norhas fervenl worship of the Virgin of Guadalupe-one o[ lhe ntost rer.ered ofmother goddesses and a Mexican national syntbol-dorre lnuch for Nlexicanwomen. That culture, too, is notably patriarchal and notoriously rnacho. InMexican families the father is absolutely suprenre and rhe rrrothcr absolurclyself-sacrificing.27

Feminist anthropologist Peggy Sanday srudied twelve peoples and acruallyfound that a high conelation exists between goddess worship and lorv starus forwomen, not high status: "There is no corrclaliorr br.lrvccn llrc pc.rcetrlagc ol'fcmale deities and fenrale status," she concluded.:s Raihcr. shc l irund. highstatus for women is related much more to lheir political parlicipation and to rheexistence of women's solidarity groups and alliances than to goddess- worship.

In fact, the scx of the deity a culture worships appears to hlve surprisinglvlitt le to do with the gender relations in the cullure itself. A veritable flood ofscholars have warned against seeking one-to-one correspondences betw,een a

culture's myths and its social antt polit ical realit ies. According to Marina

warner. .. ' I 'here is no krgical equivalence in any society between exalted.female

ohiccts of worship anj a niin positi<tn for woman"' Anthropologist Ena

Calrrpbell notes lhirt "nrOlhcr gotlt less worship seenls lo stand .in. inverse

relationship with high secular fcnrale slatus." Eminent fentinist classical scholar

Sarnh Polrreroy co[cludes. "To use llte nrother goddess theory to draw any

cOnclusiorrs rcgilrt l irrg thc higlr stittt ls ()[ lrutnan fetttales of the ti lne Iprehistoryl

rvoultl be foolhilrdy. . . . rhe nlother nray be worshiped in societies where male

dominance and evell lrrisogyny are rampant'"re

Actually, the rclationilr ip of rhe conlent of myth to reality is neve-r sinrple'

teast of all on an issue as enrotionally charged as relations bctween lhe sexes'

Feminist anrhropologists Sherry Orrner and Haniet Whitehead caution that "lhe

field of gender-studies has been plagued with the so-called 'myth and reality'

problenlthe prohlem that cultural gender notions rarely accuralely reflect

male-female relations. rnen's and women's activit ies and men's and women's

conrributions in any given society'" 'to

some defenders of the goddess argue lhat patriarchal societies using

goddess myrhs are innppropriaL examptes:-they are not "ecological" societies

like Neolithic .,rn,n,,,uit i. i . and the social realit ies are differerrt. But that is

prccisely the point. ' l ' lre socinl rcil l i t ies rrre dilferent. and they make a significant

difference as to whether cultural symbols carry weight. Least of all can we say

that i fwebeginworshippingagoddess'women.ssi tuat ionwi l l therebyinrpr.ve.' l ir alscrt t lurt it worrld is the rankest philttsophical idealism, an

idealisrn that il took western societies centuries to overcome.

Quire sinrply. such crude idealism is as reductionist as the crude

nrillerialisnr il inverts. The ecological disaster dtrcs nol arise from strictly

religious causes. any nlore than fronl strictly economic ones; nor wil l replacing

o|dmythswithnewonesendi t .Alrhoughaffectedbythecontentofml, th.social realiries are nol necessarily determined by it' nor is actual human

behavior. The causes are both ideological and materialistic. Capitalism and the

nntion-slate d0 not ohey the honrilies of sunday school teachers any more than

rhey would the words of priestesses of the goddess'

ItltthoPoesls

Rllxrl-r-tr wll l l l l)L^l.stu. lhen, anrJ ineftective even as therapy' there is one

sense in which the use of the goddess-nryth is truly effective instrumentally'

This is in i tsappea|to|henonrat iona|, to intui t ionandemotion- inaword.tortr" ,rryrt,rp.reic scrrsihil iry. "The mysleries- of the absolute can never by

explfl incd-only irrtuitetl." r.xudes Slarhawk. ' l 'he prenrise of the mythmakers is

t | ra|ournrt ls | fundi t t t tenla|prtrcessesofntentat ionaremylholneic,notrat iona|.Indcetl. they argue. *"

' ir. ir lways, inevitably. incscrpilbly nlythic in our

thinking: *e nrigt,r as well adntit i t and thereby circumvent the cumbersome and

tleperstirraliz-ing arrd hierarchical aberrations of rationality. Precisely because

Western cultuie has looked askance at mylhopoesis, at emotion and at the

sensuous. in favor of reason. myrhopoesis wil l help us find "an opening into the

99t00

archetypal world," as Will iam lrwin Thornpson puts ir.rrlo the ecologicallyharmonious goddess-worldview. The nrythmakers thus regard the restoration ofa mythoepoeic form of mentation as a radical project.

So central is mythopoesis to the politics of rrrylll]|lukcrs that tvc nrust heclear about what the mythopoeic sensibiliry acrually is. The heart ofmythopoesis as I mental function (as authors now chastized lor their ignoranceof the esoteric, such as F. M. Cornford and Henri Frankfort. have described it)is its tendency confuse symbols with what rhey syntbolize. lt rends rather toontologically connect symbols with what they synrbolize-not nrerely asrepresentations but causally. Sticking pins in a voodoo doll, for example. isbased on the idea that the resemblance between the doll-a symbol-and riperson-the symbolized-can make harming the doll harm the person.Resemblanccs are crucial; mythopoesis strongly enrphasizes nretaphors overknowable causes. More broadly, it emphasizes similarities over differences andsees conflict as artificial (as Riane Eisler does when she asks us to "transcenit. . . the artificial conflict between spirit and nature").-tr

The better to emphasize resemblances, the nty'lhopoeic approachdownplays the critical faculties (which lend to rrrake distinctiorrs) lrrrd ndrlrcssesthose aspects of ourselves that are less than capable of distitrguishing bctrveensymbol and symbolized, between dream and reality. between appearance andthe authentic world (both natural and social). To the nryrhopoeic sensiblitl,. asFrankfort noted, "whatever is capable of affecting mind, feeling. or rvill hasthereby established its undoubted reality. There is. for instance. no reason uhydreams should be considered less real than inrpressions received while one isawake."33 By the same token, goddess-mythtnakers who pronrote nlythopoesisseem will ing to blur the distinction between il lusion and the existcntial world.between religion and science, and even between supernature and nature.

In the cultivation of the mythopoeic sensibility, facts of history. socier1,.and even science fade to negligiblc importance. Indeed. part of the project of rhemythmakers is to show that rationality and evetr scicrrce itsclf trrc groundcd inmyth. The myths one holds about science. for exanrple. becorne rrrore irnporlanlthan scientific facb. Science itself is seen nlore or less as an aggrandized nr1 th:"Science wrought to its uttermost bcomes myth." Thonrpson claints.u Nor isreason spared in this project. Indeed, reason alrd science are onl1, rarell'distinguished in this l i terature. Science is nrylhic at rool. irrrd so. se are left toconclude, is reason.

The mythmakers seem to lake as dim a view of historical facts as thev rakeof scientific facts. The mythic rewriting of history that centers on rhe Neolitlricis one aspect of this obscurantist process. lt accepts historical facts abour theNeolithic only with great selectivity. Historical accuracy appears to be of lessimportance than resemblances among myths as such. Indced. erposing factualdistortions and logical errors does not disquiet lhern in the least. lt is rhe urrit l . rrfmyths and their cross-cultural rese mblances thal are irrrportnnt, ! lot thedistinctive historical and social coniexts in which specific nyrhs pla' 'ed a role.

h is our belieJ in a particular tnylh about history that is important, not the social

and political explanations that account for its existence and content.Indeed, in the service of mylh, history is virtually inelevant' "History

wrought to its utternxrsl becomes myth." Thompson advises us. "Searching for

facts won'l help, for it is not so much a matler of what we think, but what thinks

us." Hislorical facts app€ar lo carry little more weight lhan archetypal, mythic"facts." This is ntythopoesis al work: "The narratives of evolution and the

nanalives of the Fall are both true." Thus. "science fiction" treatments of

history (as Elizaberh Fox-Genovese has aptly described Eisler's The Cholice and

the Bladel are justified because "scholarship is becoming closer to art"'15 Wilh

authoritarian indifference to historical and scientific fact, the mythmakers' view

of reality is imposed on the reality of facts themselves. The mythmakers,

indeed, appear lo concur with the chillingly quintessential Reagan slatement,"Facts are stupid things."

Anolher disquieting aspect of the mythopoeic approach to history is that the

rnythmakers essentially dismiss most of what happened in Western history since

the end of the Neolithic as irrelevant to present concerns and as antithetical to

ecological reconstrucliolr. In effect. they write off from political concern lhe

long Western revolulionary lradition-not to speak of the left. Thompson, for

one, maintains that "if our culture is going lo know belter, then we . . . wil l

have lo move .from the heroic mylhs of Darwin, Marx, Freud, or [E.O.lWilson to the hieroglyphic language of lhe gods."rc Together with a conscious

and manipulative inattention to historical fact. this dismissal helps destroy the

historical foundations of a genuine ecology movemenl in our culture-namely,

the abiding Weslern traditions of egalitarian social revolt.

Certainly the traditional left has oftcn failed to give sufficient importance to

the sensuous and to sensibility, and certainly this failing has to be drastically

remedied. But the mythmakers distance themselves from the longstanding,

fundamental leftist appeal lo human reason and moralily and appeal instead to

the rnythopoeic serrsibility as a more direct and inslrumentally effective way lo

trring about chlrrtge in people-by reducing thoughl to the lowesl common

denominator. Indeed, il seents to have become accepted practice among

rnystical tendencie s in the ecology movement to consciously Senerategoddess-myths and to consciously stage-manage the "respiritization" that the

goddess-mythnrakers say we need. A plethora of books have appeared that do

so, from Spretnak's Inst Gotldesses of Ancient Greece and Stone's Ancient

Mirrors o! Wonnnhood to the cunent floodtide of mythopoesis. All but

forgotten is Stone's erstwhile and honorable acknowledgmenl in When God Was

u lVonnn that smial factors, such as matriliny. may have had as much lo do

with rvomen's higher status in Neolithic l imes as goddess worship did.

At a tinre rvhen American illiteracy rates are skyrocketing, when the

educational system is repeatedly on the brink of failing, when the intellectual

c()ntpetence of the Arnericnn public is generally acknowledged to be at a nadir,

antt when ignorattce of basic facts of history and geography has reached

appalling proportions-at such a time it is extraordinary that some

self-professed radicals accept a tlreistic version of ecology :rrrt l appcll to thcnonrational, ask us to opcn oursclves to "alchct] 'pcs." 0rrd nrirri lrrizc thcimportance of knowledge and the ability to rhink. lt is no accitlerrr rhat rhe nrl.thsthat are now being generated appear in books that are wrirten at t sixth-gradelevel. The mythopocic sensibil i ty in fact helps us cultivate not our crit icalfaculties but ralher our gullibility. By appealing ro the myrhopoeic. those rvhowould use myth in politics, in effect. assunre that people can no longer thinkcrit ically, either about their own goddess-theatrics or possibly about anythingelse.

Further. the inability of the mythopocic nrentaliry to nlake ttre necessarydistinctions between the mythic nnd the rcal nrakcs it potcnti l l ly drngcrous inpolit ical l i fe. Precisely because nryth is norrdiscursivc arrd rrotrraliotrnl. preciscll 'because its content is basically vaporous. lhe futurc that a specific nrvth holdsout for political life is a wild card. Precisely because it appeals to rhenonralional, its use facil i tates manipulation. In lhe Green nlovenlenl. lo theextent that mythopoesis is accepted, it opens the door to the dark side ofecological polit ics, a polit ics of which the Germans are extremely rvary-andperhaps also to the Dark Age that the United Srates seenrs to be enrering.

Even the most well-intentioned priestess, such as a Starhas'k rvith authenticand commendable desires for radical social change, addresses goddcss-communicants on lhis mythopoeic level. She divests thenr of rheir rarionality("imagine you're a tree" is a common ritual injuncrion) and impticit ly asks rhentto follow her into the inational and arbitrary furure thar nryrh ol'fers. Sheimplicitly asks them to model the new society on an era o[ ignorance andsuperstition, on parochialism and inationality. Goddess-worshippers. in turn,may close their eycs. pray to the goddess, and then leap into a nt)'lhopocicunknown, fraught with social dangers thnl nrythopocsis i lsclf sirrrpll ' ciutn()tfathom.

lhc Goddcsr rs r Consumer llem

THe polxr rHAT MUsr coNcERN us, in sunl. is n<lt rvhich spccil ic nes,rrrlth isheld out to replace which specific old nryth. 'I 'he poirrt is rarher that rrrvrh assuch and the mythopoeic sensibility itself are regarded as lundanrenhl. and rhatan already endangered rationality is in further danger of being losr altogerher inan increasingly inational society.

Indeed, the goddess myth is perhaps nx)re appropriate for supportingconsumer capitalism than it is for challengirrg it. ' l 'he irrelevancc o[ its conlcntmakes this possible. Consulner capitalism irrl irnti l izcs pcople: "lhc consurncr'scomplete dependence on Iitsl intricate, suprerrrcly sophisticatcd l i le-supportsystems," Christopher Lasch incisively observes. ":rnd nrore generall;. orrextemally provided goods and services. recreates srrnre of thc irrfanti le fcclingsof helplessness."rT 'I 'hus, the goddess's brcast curr lrc a s1 lrrbol trf suslcnlrrcc -or i l can be a symbol of dependency on consuli ler culture. ' l he eoddessls rftrturi l lcycles can be a symbol of continuity-or of drxlned lttrrl istic helplessness in a

t0l l1t2

s(,cicly pcrvirdcd hy the nrarket. "lnterconnccledness" and "oneness" tnay besyubols of our interdependence-or excuses for the suppression of t l issent in afuti le search frrr consensus. The egg may be a primal symbol of ferti l i ty anduni ty-or a sylnhol of total i tar ianism.

The enrergence of the goddess-myth is actually less a cause for hope than asynrptom of lnalaise. we live in a society in qhich the manipulation of myths,the producti.n antl consumption of images, is the dominant activiry of the era.In a consumerist society, obsessed with mere appearances, in which all mythsare essentially pseudo-events (in Daniel Boorslin's menrorable phrase). thegoddess is just another image, nrarketed, packaged. and stage-managed for aconsumer s()cicly. coddess-worship threatens to subvert ecological polit ics hyturning it morc and nrore into syrnbolic, easily digestibte pablum for poputarconsumplion. l l threatens to merge alternative polit ics with a consumer society,making altemative polit ics potentially as cheap and manipulalive as mainstreampolit ics.

Particularly in our present sociely-glutted with mylhs and tinsel images-\r'e lnust seriously question the use of myth in altemative potit ical movemenls.N'lyth cannot be used to fight myth. Ruling elites have always used mythopoesisto blur the distinction between il lusion and reality in underclasses. whether agoddess was worshipped in prehisrory or not, the fact is that she was always anil lusion then. and she is sti l l an i l lusion now. "To say lhat nryth affects societyis lo say that igrrorance affects society," observes social ecologist MunayBookchin. "Of course it does-but there is no excuse for mythopoesis exceptignorance. Once you know better. ntylh and mythopoesis become regressive-psychologically and socially."rs In an age of manipulation and lhe lyranny ofnryth generally, it is only by rejecting all myths and dcities that we can retainour all-too-fragile rational dimension and develop the crit ical facutties that d<rhold out a pronrise of charrge.

A nroral and healthy ecology movemenl must retain its realism as well asits idealism. in the best sense of the word. Such a movement surely musrprovide society with a new ecological sensiblity. but not one that is strucluredaround il lusion. lt nrust mainlain a firm sense of the difference between iltusionand reality. lts philosophy and polirics musl be based on a healrhy naruralismthat brings us into real communication with nature and does not cataputt us intoseerningly fenrinist versions of supernaturnlisnr. lt must remain polit ical andecrilogical even as it seeks to become sensuous and caring. ln its search forsensuousness arrd ftrr enlotional allernatives to alienation and emptiness, it mustn()t lose sight of the crucial inrportance of reason or reject it in the name o[fighting scienlisnr and the mechanization of society. lt needs a rational poliricalanatysis-such as thar offered by social ecology-rhat mainlains that both theecological diskrcations and our presenl fragmentation and alienalion have socialciluses as wcll ns cultural ones. ltnportanl as enl()l i()ns and sensuousness clearlyare. we would pay dearly for rhe loss of rarional polit ical activity. A nrysticallendency that indulges our fanlasies and subtly renders us captive to

commodified society may eventually, despite its good intentions. deprive us

both of our freedom as individuals and of our activism as social beings.

NOTES

|.Starhawk'ThcSpirulDanr.a(SanFrnnciscrr : | | r rpcrant lp. '11. | t l79l 'n| tx i ;1 '5" ' ; "n"

sprctnak and Fritjof Capra,Grccn Politics (santa Fe, N.lrl.: Bear and conrpur.1986t' pp. 5-r-56:-fnc

spirituol Diicnsion of Green polirics (sanra Fe, N.M.: Bear and Co, 1986). pp. 25. 72.

2. J"r.. Mcllaart, Thc Ncolithic o! the Near Easl (New York: scribncr's, 1975t. p. 279.

3. Charlcnc sprctnak. "Thc Politics of womcn's Spirituality, " in sprcturk. cd . l lre l'r'l itir r

o!Women's Spirinatirr' (Ncw York: Anchor Press. 1982)' p' 197'

4.DavidElkind.IhcHunicdChi ld(Reart ing.Mass.:Addison-Wes|ey' |981t.p.28.

5. .,Cclcbraring All of Lifc: An Inrcrvicw with Susan Griffin." Ner| Carol.r'sl (Spring '88)' p. 13.

6. SPretnek, Spiritual Dimension, p. 32'

7. Sprcrnak. spiritual Dimcnsion,pp. l2-13tThe Norion, "Letters" section' April 2' 1988, p'

4?6; "fntroduction" to Sprctnak, cd., Womcn's Spirirrolin'. p xiv'

8. Chr isrophMancs,"Acr i t ical Mythologyofciv i l izat ion." F.arthFirst ! Aug. I '1988.p 20.

9. William lrwin Thompson , Thc Timc Falling Bodies Take to Light (Ncw York: st. lrlartin's

Prcss. l9El) . P.63.10. Rianc Eisler. Tla cholice and thc Btade (san Francisco: llarpc'r and Ro\|. 1987)' P 2'

| | .Scecspccial ly.Mari jaGimbutas, . .Proto- |nt |o-EurolranCu|turc:TheKurgrnCu|turcduring rhc Fifth, Founh, ano Third Millennia 8.C." in George cardona. Henry ltl. H<rnigstlald.

and Alfred Senn, Indo-European ond Indo Europeans. (Philadelphia: Univcrsily of Pcnnsylrania

hcss. 1970)l "okl EuroJrc c.?000-15(x) B.C,:'lhc liarlicst Euro;r:rn ci[lir:rtiort hclirrc thc

tnfiltration of |he Indo-Europcan Pcoplcs." lournal of Indo'tutr'1tutn 'SatrJir'r: "'lhc llcginning of

lhc Bronzc Agc in Europc rnd thc Indo-Europcans: 35U)-25(n 8.C." Jrurarrl of lndtt'tstnrnrn

Srudias l (pt3): 163-214; "Thc Kurgan Wavc #2 (c. 34911'1200 B.C.) int. Europ and the

Following Transformation of Culturc" lourna! of lndo'European Srtr/ies 8 (Fall l98O): 27'1-'115: ?)te

Goddcssis and Cods of Old Europe, Tm-35U) 8.C. (Bcrhclcy rnd Lrrs Angclcs: tlnircrsit' .f

California kess, 1982)'

12. Gimbutas, ..Thc Bcginning of thc Bronze A8e,'' p. 20.1: and ..l.he Tcnlp|es of ()|d

Europc," Archocology, Nov./Dcc. 1980' p.45.

13. Jamcs Mcllaart. Qatat Hiiyiik: A Ncotithic Tot'n in Anatolia' (Ncu' York: frlccralr'-lli l l.

1967), p.201.

|4.Gimbuus.. .hoto- |ndo.EuropcanCu|turc, . .p. |55l . .KurganWar'c#2' . 'pp'282.!9| .15. Thompson. Falling Bodics' 9. ll5.

16. Quorcd in Robcrro suro, "Ncw Thcories on Early Europe cite lrligration. n(tl conqucst."

The Ncw York Times, May 10. 1988' p. C4.

l?. colin Rcnfrcw. Problcms in European Prehisrort'(canlbridgc uniYcrsity Press. 1979)'

Polomc and Rcnfrcw arc quoted in Suro, "Ncw Theorics"'

18. Sprctnak, Spiritual Dimension, p. 33' notc'

19. Sprctnak. Spiritual Dimcnsion, p' 32'

20. Gimbutas. Goddesscs and Gods' pp' 142. 196'

21. pctr ie is c i tcd in Merl in Stone, lVhcn God l l 'ds rr l l ' r r rarn 1Nc\ ' loth: l l r rctutr t Btrcc

Jovanovich, 1976). PP. 38'

22. pctcs Warrcn, ..Knossos: New Excavations and Discoverics." ,12<'llrtcrrlogl Jul./r\ttg.

1984. pp. 48-55. Scc also Percr Warrcn. "Minoan crcte and ccst:ltic rcligion Prclintintrv

obscrvafions on thc 1979 crcavations al Knossos." in Robin lllgg nnd Nann() Ntlrill:ll(ts. c(l\'

Sanctuari.s and Cults in thc Aegcon Eronzc Age' (Stor;kholnr l98l)'

23. Gimbutas, Goddcsscs and Gods, pp' ?4, 87'

24. LynnWhirc, Jr., "Thc Hisroric Roors of our Ecologic Crisis" Sr'ience (lrlarch 1967t. p.

t03 t04

1207. Sprctnak. "lntroduction" and "The Politics of 'Women's Spirituality." in Spretnak. Women's

Spirilualiq', pp. xii. 396.25. Eis ler .Chal ice, p. 188.Carol P.Chr ist ."WhyWomenNeedtheGoddcss," inCarol P.

Christ rnd Judith Plaskow, Womanspirit Rising: A Fcminist Rcadcr in Rcligion. (San Francisco:llarpcr and Row. 1979). p. 278.

26. John P. Fcrguson, "Thc Great Goddess Today in Burma and Thailand: An Erploration of

lfer Symbolic Relevance to Monastic and Female Rolcs." ln J.P. Prcston. ed. Mother Worship:Themcs and Variotions. (Chapcl lli l l: Univcrsity of North Carolina Prcss. 1982), p. 295. Sce also MiMi Khiang. lhc llTrld of Burmese Woraaa. (Totosa, N.l.: Zd Prcss. 1986).

. 27. See Ena Campbcll, "The Virgin of Guadalupc and thc Female Sclf-lmage: A Mexican

Case History," in ftcston. cd., Mother Worship.28. Pcggy R. Sanday, "Femalc Status in thc Public Domain." ln M.Z. Rosaldo and L.

Lamphcrc, eds. lfoman, Cuhure and Socda4'. (Slanford Univcrsily hcss, 1974). The tribcs shestudicd. in order from high female status to low. wcrc: Yoruban. lroquois. Srmoan, Crow. Aymara.Tapirape. Rwala. Andamrns. Tikopia. Azande. Somali. and Toda.

29. Merina Wamcr, Alonc of All Her Scx (Ncw York: Knopf. 1976), p. 2E3: Campbcll. p. 2l;Sarah B. Pomcroy, Goddctses, Whorcs, Wivcs ond Slavcs. (New York: Shockcn Books. 1976), p.

t5.30. Shcrry Ortncr and Hanict B. Whitchcad. introduction lo Scrual Meanings: The Cuhural

Construction ol Gcndcr and Scxuality. (Cambridge Univcrsity Press. l98l). p. 10.

31. Starhawl. Spirol Donce, p. 7; Thompson, Falling &odict, g. ll.32. Eisler, Chalice, pp. xir-xr, l9l.33. H. rnd H.A. Frankfort. introduction lo Eelorc Philosophv (Univcrsity of Chicago. 1946;

Pcnguin.1968). p. 20.34. Thompson. Folling Bodies, p. !.35. Thompson, Falling Bodies, pp. 3. 4. 7.36. Thompson. Falling Bodies, p.61.

17. Christophcr Lasch. Ilrc Minimol Sclt: Ps.,*chic Sumivol in Troublcd Timcr (W.W. Norton.

19841, p. 34.3t. Munay Bookchin. Rcmaking Socicn. (Montrcal: Black Rose Books. publication

forrhcominj).

t05