Archetypes And Individuals—Confuse Them At Your Peril!

The New Yorker Magazine dated September 10, 2012, has an article about the latest thrilling development in “feminism”— a book which mythologizes the vagina. ”Vagina: A New Biography “ by Naomi Wolf. (Page 96) reviewed by Ariel Levy. Levy does not buy Wolf’s theory, for reasons that don’t match mine in the least.(She says if  someone said  “Goddess to her vagina it, would say—and I quote: “Get us out of here, now.” Emphasis in original.)

There are many problems with mythologizing a body part, which I will address from a Jungian perspective—but the first thought I had reading this article is that the actual  biological function of the vagina (and its related structures--such as the uterus) were completely ignored. One would think this alone would be the answer to the question “is this an accurate assessment?"  But this quirk seems to have been unnoticed by the publisher and the reviewer. I can't speak for the readers. If any.

In the same edition of the New Yorker, mere pages away, (page 101 to be precise)  is an irony—a note, a brief review,  which acknowledges the archetypal. This note reviews the book “Orpheus”-- “The captivating "history" of the figure of Orpheus, his enduring legacy as the force and muse of creation itself.” The book and the  review are fully premised on  the persistence of archetypes. Why then, does the Wolf book review seem oblivious? You may well wonder… I know I do.

The problem with the book (based on the review—I have not read the book) and it’s rather exaggerated adulation of the vagina as “part of the female soul… and.. gate way to knowledge…”  is that the book (and the review) overlook utterly the critical distinction between the individual and literal and the archetypal and collective. The essence of the feminine can be embodied in the “vagina”—many of the earth-based religions left representations of the vulva (a gateway to the vagina) which remain to this day. But the vagina is only part of the female (soul or body) and it has a very real, very specific biological function.  (This function  is, you might say, intimately related to the uterus. Without the uterus, the vagina is quite literally deformed. And not useful except as a receptacle for sexual actions. Which is--again--but a truncated part of its purpose, and a creepy thought to boot.) “Wolf refers to a ‘profound brain-vagina connection’ but sometimes suggests that the vagina is, or ought to be, the rightful site of mission control.” (Sic.) If your brain goes "tilt" at this point, you are not alone.

The difference between the vagina and the "female soul"  is similar to the distinction between the “uterus” (a biological structure) and the “womb”—a word almost always used to allude to  or incorporate a symbol—a trope. (“The place in which anything is formed or produced: the womb of time. 3. The interior of anything.”) No one says “the uterus of time.”

Symbols are very like archetypes. They say more than can be expressed with a single word—they contain universes-and universality. A single body part is...a body part.(Give me a hand” can be a trope, meaning “help me”,  but it will usually require a literal hand.) . Again-- the uterus is not so referred to. EVER. Nor is the vagina. “She is such a vagina.” No. “Uterus to grave”? No. 

Sorry folks—the vagina does not represent a whole woman, let alone an archetype.

The blindness to existence of archetypes, and the confusion of  the literal and the symbolic  seem central to the issues discussed under the heading of “feminism.” For instance,  the distinction between pornography and erotica—discussed in the book, and the review..

Pornography” is almost always  about male wishes—the wish to have orgasms, to be precise. (The orgasm is always shown—it is called the “money shot.” I have always wondered why. I guess someday I shall have to ask a man!)

“Eros” is the life force, and erotica is about the life force as well. That same life force  which Wolf (oddly) ascribes to the vagina “Eros appears in ancient Greek sources under several different guises. In the earliest sources (the cosmogonies, the earliest philosophers, and the mysteries), he is one of the primordial gods involved in the coming into being of the cosmos.” The origin of the cosmos-could there be anything more fundamental—or engrossing? No “money shot”  here. No “finale either. This is process, circular and ongoing. (Maybe this pisses men off?)

Note there is no god “pornos”—rather,  the word derives from the Greek to “to sell: “Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornē prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey”.

Selling vs. life. Money shot vs. cosmic origination. A quantum of difference, wouldn’t you say?

And yet… none of these is necessarily in need of a “vagina.” (If you don’t believe me watch gay porn, anal sex or even fellatio and cunnilingus. )

What gives here? Why is “vagina” suddenly, in  isolation, an object of obsession?

I truly don't have a clue. But it clearly is.

Comments welcome!