• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Charles Eisenstein

  • About
  • Essays
  • Videos
  • Podcasts
    • Charles Eisenstein Random
    • A New and Ancient Story Podcast
    • Outside Interviews
  • Courses
    • The Sanity Project
    • Climate — Inside and Out
    • Conversations with Orland Bishop, Course One
    • Conversations with Orland Bishop, Course Two
    • Conversations with Orland Bishop, Course Three
    • Dietary Transformation from the Inside Out
    • Living in the Gift
    • Masculinity: A New Story
    • Metaphysics & Mystery
    • Space Between Stories
    • Unlearning: For Change Agents
  • NAAS
  • Books
    • The Coronation
    • Climate — A New Story
    • The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible
    • The Ascent of Humanity
    • Sacred Economics
    • The Yoga of Eating
  • Events
  • Donate

The Banquet of Whiteness

August 15, 2020 by Charles Eisenstein

August 2020
This essay is also available in French.


Italian

You may remember the affair of Dr. Stella Immanuel, now long buried under the detritus of the news cycle. I’d like to exhume it for a moment, as its remains reveal a hidden cultural racism that afflicts the supposedly anti-racist left nearly as much as it does the traditional right.

Dr. Immanuel, who hails from Cameroon and received her medical training in Nigeria, participated in a right wing-associated press conference in which a succession of medical doctors expressed dissenting views on Covid public policy. She described her clinical success treating Covid with a combination of zinc, Zithromax, and HCQ (hydroxychloroquine) – the latter of which, of course, has been tainted by its association with Donald Trump and virtually eliminated from the Covid pharmacopeia of the US and many other Western countries. Dr. Immanuel also spoke of its wide use in Africa, where doctors are well familiar with it as a malarial drug, and admonished American doctors to trust that their colleagues in Africa are real doctors who wouldn’t be using it if it didn’t work.

I hold no strong opinion about HQC, a chemical which clinical studies in the United States have shown to work quite well on Republicans. Joking aside, it is impossible to discern much about the drug through the haze of political pettifoggery that surrounds it, a haze that also obscures deeper issues than whether or not it is effective: issues around Big Pharma, the funding of medical research, and cultural imperialism.

Within hours the press conference was scrubbed from Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter, and the media descended upon the doctors with a furious vengeance, especially Dr. Immanuel. Here is a typical takedown from the Daily Beast:

Immanuel, a pediatrician and a religious minister, has a history of making bizarre claims about medical topics and other issues. She has often claimed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches.

She alleges alien DNA is currently used in medical treatments, and that scientists are cooking up a vaccine to prevent people from being religious. And, despite appearing in Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress on Monday, she has said that the government is run in part not by humans but by “reptilians” and other aliens.

Other commentators dug up videos of Dr. Immanuel performing exorcisms to drive out evil spirits. Surely, the reasoning goes, we shouldn’t listen to a person like this on matters of medical policy.

The racism of this criticism has little to do with the fact that its target happens to be black. Rather, it embodies a cultural superiority complex so entrenched that its precepts seem, to those immersed in it, like reality itself.

Let’s look first at the “bizarre” idea that gynecological problems are caused by dream sex with demons and witches. In fact, such ideas are commonplace in indigenous and traditional cultures, the more general idea being that improper or unlucky interactions with the spirit world, ancestors, sorcerers, etc. can result in disease, injury, or financial misfortune. Accordingly, healers treat disease by exorcising bad spirits, lifting curses, negotiating with the ancestors, driving away ghosts, and so on.

People in those cultures widely consider such methods to be effective. Why do they believe in them? Here are two possibilities:

(1) Mired in ignorance and superstition, they have yet to emerge into the light of modern science, which would lay bare the absurdity of their primitive beliefs and usher them into the enlightened world of evidence, reason, and truth. They are less advanced than we are, and their progress is a matter of adopting our, superior, way of engaging the world.

(2) They believe in them because they work. Which means, these people are no less intelligent, no less empirical, no less rational, and no less astute than we are.

Would you ridicule a Hindu villager for saying that the earth rests on the back of a turtle? Would you ridicule a Hopi or Diné for saying that Spider Grandmother weaves the world? Most of us know better, yet a shade of that ridicule colors the ready dismissal of other culture’s ideas of health and disease.

The Bizarre Other

A bit of personal history here. When I arrived in Taiwan in 1987, still a teenager, I found a culture in which beliefs and phenomena I considered bizarre were commonplace. People would hire dangji (Taiwanese for the Mandarin jitong, or shaman) and Taoist priests for all kinds of situations: illness, business problems, family problems, misfortune on a construction site, ghosts, etc. People were generally satisfied with these services, and even highly educated people and large business enterprises would engage them (along with fengshui experts, astrologers, and so forth) when breaking ground, planning a wedding, or launching a business. Having already at that age been influenced by post-colonial thinking, I was loath to dismiss these practices out of hand, which would have required a patronizing certainty that my ways (of living and of knowing) are superior to theirs. I recognized such a dismissal to be part of a familiar colonial pattern of subjugation. Are we really so sure that our ways are the best ways?

The kind of exorcism that Dr. Immanuel performs, representing a syncretic overlay of Christianity on prior pantheistic worldviews, is only “bizarre” to the insular, culture-bound Western mind. The media have called Dr. Immanuel a “witch doctor,” a “crazy,” and in the words of Live Leak, a “religious lunatic voodoo priestess,” who went to medical school in “Yes…. THAT Nigeria” (presumably the one of internet scammers? One of Trump’s “shithole countries”?) The very use of the word “voodoo” as a term of disparagement illustrates my point, since voodoo exemplifies the rich syncretic traditions through which native peoples met the onslaught of colonialism and Christianity, appearing to have been converted but actually performing a reversal by incorporating the religion of the conqueror into their own culture. Anyone who uses the word “voodoo” to connote someone else’s ignorance only demonstrates their own.

A similar disparaging tone infuses the mainstream media’s treatment of other, non-Western treatments for Covid-19 (and non-Western medicines in general). Let’s take for example Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), which has been used on over 90% of patients in China with Covid-19. While the Chinese people and government are quite confident in the therapeutic effectiveness of the six main herbal formulas (some thousands of years old) used to treat Covid, the Western popular and scientific press know better. Here are some representative quotes:

From Nature:

“China is promoting coronavirus treatments based on unproven traditional medicines.”

“For TCM there is no good evidence and therefore its use is not just unjustified, but dangerous,”

From NBC News (subheadline: “Scientists warn against it”):

“[TCM] can also give patients a false sense of security, leading them to neglect proven medications or therapies.”

“Herbal remedies — which China is exporting as part of its efforts to combat the coronavirus around the world — pose both direct and indirect risks to patients.”

From the BBC:

“A lack of standards and almost no clinical trials have hampered the widespread adoption of TCM.”

“Critics say China is now using the pandemic as a way to promote it [TCM] abroad.”

An attitude of cultural respect wouldn’t be so quick to write off a medical tradition with thousands of years of clinical experience and refinement practiced by literally hundreds of thousands of doctors. Chinese people alone make more than 2.5 billion visits to TCM doctors annually. To imagine that they have somehow been in the grips of a collective mass delusion for thousands of years is a kind of lazy cultural arrogance. It is the mentality of, “They must not be as smart, as rational, as evidence-based as we are. Their advancement means to adopt our medicine. We can improve them by bringing our ways to them, because we know better than they do.”

It would be an error to attribute the dismissal of TCM to overt racism. The Western medical establishment rejects it in large part because it is unwilling to seriously look at it in the first place. After all, how could anything match science? Furthermore, a cultural misapprehension of the basic philosophy of TCM reduces a sophisticated, coherent, and self-sufficient set of paradigms to a crude, haphazard corpus of placebo, superstition, and guesswork. This cultural superiority complex assumes that we know better, that our standards of proof are higher, that we can see obvious flaws in reason and evidence that they cannot. Thus, the experts quoted in Nature and NBC belittle TCM for “Using vague terms and nonpharmacological concepts or testing too many combinations of herbs to parse out their specific effects.” What are “nonpharmacological concepts”? Things like “wind heat,” “spleen qi,” or “liver fire.” To the culturally bound Western scientific mind, these are nonsense. They are sensible only if one admits the possibility that another culture might apprehend the world as astutely and fruitfully as ourselves using an entirely different conceptual vocabulary. As for “too many combinations of herbs,” this bespeaks an even more fundamental blindness. TCM is holistic and its formulas are irreducible. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, because its herbal formulas are synergistic. The normal experimental method of isolating variables and identifying active ingredients (that can then become the basis of pharmaceutical drugs) is antithetical to TCM’s basic diagnostics and therapies. As for a “lack of standards,” that is because prescriptions and doses are tailored to the individual. The demand that TCM research abide by standardized and reductionistic practices is an act of cultural imperialism, justifiable if and only if our own culture’s framework of knowledge is superior to theirs.

I could make similar points about African medicine(s). Although these may not have thousands of years of written history, they too arise from intelligent worldviews and systems of knowledge. Even scientifically trained African medical doctors like Dr. Immanuel might usefully draw on them in their medical thinking. Maybe that explains the popularity in much of Africa of Artemisia annua, or sweet wormwood, for treating Covid-19. Like HCQ, Artemisia annua is a malaria remedy, and it has been savagely suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry. (Watch this compelling film produced by French public television.) Also used in China for febrile diseases for thousands of years, it is banned in many countries on the pretext that it contains toxic components. Well, yes, if you go through its scores of active chemicals you will find some that, in large, concentrated doses, will cause illness. (That is what was done to justify its prohibition.) In any event, the herb is on the radar today after the president of Madagascar (yes, THAT Madagascar) touted its efficacy in treating Covid-19. The Western media responded predictably with headlines like “Amid WHO warnings and with no proof, some African nations turn to herbal tonic to try to treat Covid-19.” Oh, those backwards Africans. The favorite term in these headlines was “unproven.” Also, “miracle cure” (a rabid mischaracterization – I’ve not read any actual African claiming that.) I thought, of course it is “unproven,” when herbal therapies lack the billions of dollars of research funding that go toward pharmaceuticals, and when the medical establishment is ignorant of how to use them or outright hostile to them. My point here is that this ignorance, this systemic and rhetorical belittling of herbal medicine, is also part of a cultural hegemony that spreads its scientistic gospel to the benighted with missionary zeal.

Ontological Imperialism

None of this is to say that modern medicine has nothing to offer traditional cultures. Indeed, Dr. Immanuel herself went to medical school, practices medicine in Texas, and advocates a combination of three modern pharmaceutical substances. This ability to operate in multiple realities or multiple mythologies is a central characteristic of non-modern psychology. It stands in contrast to the ontological domination of ‘white” culture, that tells everyone else what is so and either excludes other systems of knowledge, writes them off as superstition, tolerates them as anthropological subjects, assigns them a second-class metaphoric truth, or fetishizes them in the subtly patronizing category of “indigenous wisdom.”

I put “white” in quotes here, because it has only an incidental relation to skin color, as any light-skinned Sami or other indigenous person would affirm. Yet there is also a sense of whitewashing here, a painting of the entire world in the pale tones of a single homogenizing paradigm. Furthermore, it happens to be light-skinned cultures that developed to its fullest degree the mythology of modernity and spread it around the world. Christian missionaries set the example that economic and scientific missionaries have followed.

So there are two levels of ontological imperialism running here. First is simply “We’re right and you’re wrong.” The second, more subtle level is, “Only one of us could possibly be right, as our views are in contradiction. It’s either-or.” But a Hindu might have no problem saying that the world rests on a turtle’s back, and that it also originated by accretion of meteorites. Further, he might say this without relegating one to a realer status than the other – i.e. that the accretion disk is real and the turtle is metaphorical. Neither need dominate the other.

Can you see the kinship between ontological domination and other forms of domination (economic, political)? The habit of ontological domination is what might lead you to ask me, “But surely Charles, you don’t believe that demon sex can actually cause gynecological problems? Surely you don’t believe that there is actually alien DNA in medical treatments or that reptilian ETs have actually infiltrated the government?” We as a culture are not well practiced in engaging multiple mythologies, of shifting from one to another as useful. The above questions eoncode ontological primacy in the word “actually.” To model another way, I would answer them like this: I do not normally operate in the world-story of witches, demons, aliens, and reptilians. I do not normally think in those terms. More often, though still not normally, do I think in terms of spleen qi or wind heat. Neither, though, do I disparage or dismiss any of these world-stories out of hand. I adopt an attitude of curiosity and respect. What is their power and what are their limitations? What does one become inhabiting them? What is gained and what is lost? What is it like to see the world in their terms? What thoughts and perceptions are available when speaking that language? I ask these same questions in engaging modern science and medicine.

This non-attachment to a standard, homogenizing world-story offers several advantages. First, one is able to avail oneself of the benefits of TCM or a competent neighborhood voodoo exorcist when modern medicine fails (because of its own configuration of “power and limitation”). I have in my life certainly benefited from all three (TCM most of all, but also an exorcism helped me once, and I am grateful to modern emergency dentistry, without which I’d probably be dead right now). Secondly, unattached to any One True Reality, one becomes less fearful of uncertainty and change, more adaptable, flexible, and resourceful. Third, one is able to engage people of other cultures and other world-stories respectfully, without the unavoidable patronizing racism of thinking you know better than they do. This is true respect. Respect is a willingness to be hosted in another’s world, to honor their customs and learn their language. Today’s contentious debates around cultural appropriation might dissolve if we understood the spirit of guest and host as we take a seat at each other’s cultural banquets. If you have ever traveled abroad, you may have experienced how people appreciate even a feeble attempt to learn their local language. Respect opens the portal of welcome. The same is true for the language of beliefs.

Do not mistake this as an argument for the post-modern idea that truth is but a power-fraught human cultural construct. There is a mysterious way in which it is true that the world rests on the back of a turtle, and in which it is not true that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world. Truth is discovered or revealed, not made.

Perhaps it is because it rings with truth that the World Turtle appears in numerous unrelated mythologies from India, China, and North America. As for primordial planetary accretion, there is significant disagreement among astronomers about how planets form. Just sayin’.

Now somebody can go edit my (already wildly inaccurate) Wikipedia page to say, “Eisenstein claims that the world really does rest on the back of a turtle.”

Inclusion or Erasure?

A lot of ostensibly anti-racist activism carries with it the baggage of the cultural racism I am describing. Fully believing in one’s own cultural superiority, the resolution of racial injustice lies in granting the oppressed races equal access to its fruits. The Victorian doctrine of the White Man’s Burden lurks within the zealous campaign to “develop,” to “modernize,” to bring the benefits of technology to all the world, to remake their medical, educational, agricultural, economic, and political systems in the image of the West. We must remember that some of the most heinous acts of racial oppression were done in the name of uplifting the savages, Christianizing the heathens. For example, the abduction of two or three generations of Native Americans into boarding schools that purposely expunged their language and culture was infused with high-minded ideals. The idea was to bring them into the “melting pot’ of America, to make them like us, to supersede a backward, superstitious, inferior culture with a modern, superior one.

We sound an echo of that attitude today when we make anti-racism too much about how people of color are under-represented in (fill in the blank: the one percent CEOs, doctors, professors…) or over-represented among the ranks of the poor or incarcerated. While these disparities come from real racism, current and especially historical, focusing on them alone risks overlooking deeper systemic injustice. It would not be very disruptive to the status quo to merely insert people of different skin color into its existing roles and relations. Those roles and relations themselves draw from the hegemonic cultural matrix we call white. So yes, if we take that matrix for granted as unchangeable then racial justice is indeed a matter of representation. But is that breaking the monopoly of whiteness, or is that to become white themselves? This is what the Nigerian (yes, again, THAT Nigeria) intellectual, poet, and author Bayo Akomolafe rejects when he writes, “Needless to say, a steady undercurrent of self-loathing flowed through our lives – urging us to civilizational heights of whiteness. Urging us to wear three piece suits under a quizzical sun. Urging us to demonize our own traditions so that we could catch up with you.”

It is quite understandable that in a situation where one culture has vanquished another, that the vanquished should wish to join the victors. Traditionally, conservatives have said, “Too bad, we won and you lost,” while liberals have said, “Oh, we must be nice and make a place for the less fortunate.” Neither questions the desirability of the victory itself that spreads modern medicine and education, politics and science, money and markets, to all the world.

It may also look like here is a white person telling everyone else that they shouldn’t want what I have, when all the world actually does want modern medicine, modern schooling, and economic development. They themselves say they want it – case closed. One must question, though, the context of this wanting. If I may quote myself, here is a passage from The Ascent of Humanity about how to destroy a culture and make it want to be like ours:

“Disrupt its networks of reciprocity by introducing consumer items from the outside. Erode its self-esteem with glamorous images of the West. Demean its mythologies through missionary work and scientific education. Dismantle its traditional ways of transmitting local knowledge by introducing schooling with outside curricula. Destroy its language by providing that schooling in English or another national or world language. Truncate its ties to the land by importing cheap food to make local agriculture uneconomic. Then you will have created a people hungry for the right sneaker.”

As you can see, to argue, “They want their Nikes (i.e., modern lifestyles) and it is racist of you to tell them they can’t have it,” leaves the whole process of colonization unexamined.

Please don’t take this as an argument to do nothing about racially unequal access to medicine, food, power, and money. To the contrary, it is about meeting those needs outside the hegemonic white model. And do not take it as a criticism of those in oppressed groups who have striven to succeed in the white world. Theirs is a natural response to circumstances. What I am saying is that racial healing (and reparation) is much bigger than inclusion in the white-constructed and whitewashed world.

“Inclusivity” is a byword of the anti-racism movement, but it would be no victory for humanity if black people alongside white occupied the helm of the world-destroying humanity-exploiting machine. Too often, “inclusion” has meant erasure; it has meant acquiescence to the final, global victory of white culture. A true undoing of racism would not be to magnanimously “include” the formerly marginalized in the dominating culture, but rather to end the patterns of domination altogether. Many white people intuit this, which is why they yearn for inclusion themselves in cultures outside their own. While sometimes diverted onto cultural appropriation, the yearning also comes from a growing humility that recognizes maybe our culture isn’t the best after all.

A similar point applies to another byword of race discourse, “privilege.” The privilege discourse says, “White people, you have a seat at the banquet table, and others do not. Furthermore, you are directly benefiting from the deprivation of others.” True as far as it goes, this narrative leaves out whether the banquet is really worth having. Blindly holding it to be a consummate feast, we assume that justice, equity, and advancement means to make room for everyone at our table, with its menu of modern medicine, free markets, mass schooling, and neoliberal democracy.

Hot Dogs and Cheese Fries

I think the situation is more as follows: in fact, the banquet is an orgy of gluttony, and the main dishes are hot dogs, cheese fries, and soda pop. The oppressed races and classes, in this system, receive but scraps from the banquet table – the same menu, but less of it. They receive an inferior version of liberal education, modern medicine, political freedom, and the rest of modern life. With due apologies to fans of hot dogs and cheese fries, it is no real solution to extend the orgy of gluttony to one and all. That would only make sense if hot dogs and cheese fries are all that there were. In truth, the situation is that all the best dishes have been purged from the menu. Justice is not to include everyone else in the banquet of whiteness. It is to stop imposing its menu on everyone else, and respectfully sample and share each other’s dishes to create a diversity of co-evolving banquets.

If hot dogs and cheese fries are all that is available, it is better to have them than to starve. Absent wealth equality, it is better to be rich than to be poor. Absent a system of communal land ownership and vernacular architecture, it is better to afford to buy a house than to be homeless. Absent community-based ways to regulate social behavior, it is better to have the police on your side. Absent strong traditions of folk medicine, it is better to have health insurance than to be locked out of the only healthcare available. Absent robust local food systems, it is better to be able to shop at Whole Foods than at the convenience store. Absent a robust gift culture, it is better to have money than to have none. In current circumstances, one is better off privileged than not; however, the privilege discourse implicitly elevates its own values. It posits the life of the wealthy suburbanite with full medical insurance, well-funded school, secure investment portfolio, friendly police force, well-equipped modern hospital, and easily accessible Whole Foods as the good life, if only it could be available to all, if only room could be made for others to sit at the banquet of whiteness.

Such a life, if expanded to all, is ecologically unsustainable, but the problem is deeper than that. It is also socially impossible to expand it to all, since the wealth of some rests necessarily on the poverty of others. Actually the problem is deeper than that too. The banquet of whiteness is actually destitute of any real nourishment, as demonstrated by relentlessly rising rates of depression, suicide, mental illness, addiction, and divorce among those with the very best seats at the feast as well as those scrambling under the table for discarded bits of hot dog roll. Is this really the vision of the good life we would bring to one and all?

If you want to find the world’s happiest people, don’t look in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons. Look instead among the Hadza or the Q’ero, or go to a village in Ghana or Bhutan. It is not the West that has most highly developed the art of being human.

As for happiness, so also for health. What we might call “white medicine” has recorded miraculous successes, especially in emergency medicine. Overall though, it is debatable whether our society is healthier than traditional societies. It is not only mental and social illnesses that are on the rise; chronic physical ailments are as well, for which modern medicine can sometimes palliate symptoms, but offers little in the way of cure. Autoimmune diseases, allergies, metabolic disorders, and especially childhood chronic conditions run at unprecedented levels, increasing in each society in tandem with its modernization. In 1960, incidence of childhood chronic disease in the US was 1.8%; today it is over 50%.

The association of modernity with declining health was observed in the early 20th century by Weston A. Price, a dentist who traveled to remote parts of the world to document the health of people untouched by modern diets. From the outer Hebrides to Polynesia, from Inuit villages to Masai encampments, he compiled 15,000 photographs and innumerable descriptions of the magnificent health normal to those places: spacious palates with all 32 teeth, little tooth decay, no heart disease, easy childbirth, no chronic disease, and so forth. It was only with the introduction of modern foods and lifestyles that the maladies of modernity – which we take to be normal – became common. Once white diets and living patterns took hold, white medicine was also needed to handle the consequences. (Again, “white” – the cultures under assault were of every skin color.)

With the food and habits of the colonizers came the diseases of the colonizer. With the religion and worldview of the colonizer came its medical practices. If our own “modernity” is the inevitable destiny of the world, then so are the diseases of modernity, social or physical. Progress for the “underdeveloped” then means to bring them the medicine, education, and political systems developed to cope with those diseases.

That also means that to embrace TCM or African traditional medicine must go along with broader changes in thinking and living. Neither works very well as an add-on to an otherwise fully conventional life. That is why they are often a point of departure from a conventional life.

Given the menu most people have in their hand, given the realities of modern life, palliative care to manage a disease is a lot better than what the poor and uninsured often receive, which is no care at all. Within its horizons, the privilege discourse is irrefutable. It takes for granted, however, many of the values and assumptions of the very world it is trying to overthrow.

What is Real?

One way that well-meaning anti-racism activists try to grapple with the aforementioned ontological imperialism is to celebrate non-rational, experiential “other ways of knowing,” contradistinguishing them from linear, rational, evidentiary white science. This attempt unfortunately smuggles in the same cultural superiority complex I’ve described. It is not that TCM or the belief systems underlying exorcism are illogical or ignorant of evidence. They merely issue from a different set of postulates, a different theory of change, and a different metaphysics. And, they emphasize pattern logic over linear logic, synthetic thinking over analytic thinking, and teleology over reductionism.

Immersed in non-Western, non-scientific, non-white mythologies, one soon encounters evidence that makes them real. Modern thinking holds that there is reality, and then there are beliefs about reality. In so thinking, it stands at odds with other cultures in which the relationship between belief and reality, between subject and object, between name and thing was mysterious. Enter a worldview, utter its names, perform its rituals, and its denizens will come to greet you. Enter deeply the world of an actual voodoo priestess or Andean shaman or Taoist priest, and you will experience things that are impossible in the standard scientific worldview.

I once heard a story about the great anthropologist of religious Taoism, Kristofer Schipper, who served long apprenticeship under Taoist priests in Taiwan. In the dead of night a knock at his door roused him from bed. Opening the door, he saw three animated corpses staring at him. “You have the wrong house!” he barked, slammed the door, and went back to bed. Relating the story to my friend, he said, “When you enter the world of folk Taoism, sometimes the undead pay you a visit.” In that mythology, they are real.

What is real in our own (mainstream) mythology? Viruses, for one thing. (Note that our religion – science – bears its own heretics who don’t believe that SARS-CoV-2 causes Covid-19, and they are treated, indeed, as exactly that: heretics.) Accordingly, we enact a set of rituals to ward off the evil spirit we call a virus. We don that most primal of ritual gear, a mask. We keep our distance from the unclean for fear the spirit will jump from them to us. We go through sanctification procedures like hand washing and disinfectant booths. Those seriously afflicted go to special temples (hospitals) where highly trained acolytes in ceremonial garb apply various magical potions, tablets, and ritual devices. However real and sensible these procedures are to us, that is how real and sensible the beliefs and practices of another culture are to them. We are tempted to privilege our own by saying they aren’t rituals, they are based on real cause and effect, verifiable through the Scientific Method, not realizing that we may be inhabiting an self-reifying mythology.

Our present historical moment is one of transition in our mythology, in the basic narratives by which we know self and world. Having corroded the other cultures of the world, it now dissolves itself. The ingredients of the innumerable feasts of world cultures are strewn about the kitchen. To assemble them into something more sumptuous than ever before, we must first give up the idea that our dishes were the best. A new mythology is beckoning. For it to become real, we must develop the courage to release the old one, even though it once seemed like absolute reality itself. Fortunately, courage has an ally – reality has been falling apart for a while now. There is no doubt that economic reality and political reality have shifted. But the process of dissolution won’t stop there.

Science itself is changing as long-held truisms collapse. For instance, for my entire life the scientific-political establishment derided the notion of extraterrestrial visitors to earth, explaining away, with full weight of scientific authority, UFOs as just so many weather balloons, swamp gases, illusions, and hoaxes. Now even the New York Times and the US Navy admit to numerous accounts from trained observers of aerial phenomena far beyond the capabilities of current technology. Even science’s basic metaphysical assumptions are wavering. Foremost among them are observer-independence and the isolability of variables. Meditate on quantum non-locality and the measurement paradox, or on non-linear emergence and order out of chaos, or dig down into topics like the placebo effect, water memory, psi phenomena, the Bengston method, etc., and science, including medical science, looks more and more like the knowledge systems it has long demeaned. Rather than bringing other traditions to our banquet table, the future might have us leave the table to be hosted at others.

What applies to science and medicine extends into the rest of life. As our political systems putrify, will we continue to try to impose them on the rest of the world? As our chemical- and machine-intensive agricultural system founders, do we continue to push it on Africa? Instead, we might acknowledge the crying need for all those things I listed a few paragraphs ago as absent, let go of the superiority complex, and adopt the humility necessary to relearn about folk medicine, local food systems, gift economics, experiential education, ways of ceremony and prayer, and the mindset and perceptions necessary to live in harmony with each other and the earth.

To be sure, this knowledge is not held exclusively by communities of color, but the dominant culture we are calling “white” has long suppressed or ignored it. Thankfully, it still remains in what Orland Bishop calls “cultures of memory”: indigenous, traditional, and marginalized cultures, as well as hidden lineages within the dominant culture. Maybe Western civilization did not conquer the world after all. The appearance of conquest is temporary. The apparently vanquished cultures are still here, awaiting the exhaustion of our own. Some survive in remote places, relatively intact. Others persist in cultures like India and China that were too massive to be fully Westernized, and among minorities who have resisted full assimilation (expressed in practices like voodoo). Some are wrapped up within the main culture itself, imprinted onto its wisdom lineages, customs, superstitions, underclasses, and countercultures . Even peoples that seem to have been totally extinguished bestowed seeds upon the future, suffusing the land with wisdom that may yet be recovered, ancient seeds awaiting the thousand-year flood. These cultures of memory provide the ingredients and the cookbooks from which humanity, collectively, might prepare a true feast.



Previous: The Cure of the Earth
Next: Le banquet de la blanchité

Filed Under: Political & Social, Science & Philosophy Tagged With: cultural narrative, Essay, science

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Peggy says

    August 17, 2020 at 3:59 pm

    My appreciation, as always, for your insight and willingness to look deeper. I know these essays are a challenge/risk; I know that they are appreciated. Thank you.

  2. Todd Lejnieks says

    August 18, 2020 at 1:16 am

    I do so love being challenged to think about these things, Charles. Thank you for these perspectives and loving invitations to go deeper. Calling our rituals and beliefs “modern” (medicine, science, commerce, etc.) seems to be our way of making our mythologies true. Which isn’t to say they are not true but negates any other possible truths.

  3. Savanah says

    August 18, 2020 at 8:26 am

    People like Charles have a self-confidence combined with humility that allows for openness and curiosity. The insecurities (fears) and self-loathing of so many give rise to imperialism arrogance and self-righteous poses. Until we have a widespread acceptance of looking within and dispelling the programs of our own worthlessness we continue to need to use (and/or create) external evidence of our worth by comparison (to those much less than us). The shift to the more beautiful world our hearts desire can only occur from more beautiful hearts. All else will then be easy and organic as humanity engages in healing the wounds of the past.

  4. Vanessa says

    August 18, 2020 at 9:10 am

    Thank you for bringing so much openness, insights and wide perspective to the world. This is what we need right now.

  5. Mary Beth says

    August 18, 2020 at 10:02 am

    Thanks for sharing so eloquently and clearly all that you do. Personally I may not be able to talk the talk but I am doing my best to walk the walk and when I trip, I rebalance and move forward. Your words help me rebalance and validate that which I cannot always express and sometimes re-act to in dis-accordance. I see you, not as a teacher or guru as you were recently referred to in not so kind way, but rather one who helps us remember our essence and true purpose and brings to light circumstances we’ve have become distracted into that have contributed to paths we find ourselves in and are now ready to change direction.
    Bright Light!

  6. Kimberly Dorsey Bronow says

    August 18, 2020 at 10:06 am

    Thank you Charles. One of the things I appreciate the most about your essays are how you help bring to light assumptions, frames, perspectives and unconscious or unchallenged conclusions I hold.

  7. Merrilee Baker says

    August 18, 2020 at 10:21 am

    How my heart hums with joy, and I hear myself saying yes, yes, yes. Thank you Charles for expressing so eloquently what I want to sing or maybe even shout out to the world. I love your menu analogy. What I want to talk about, write about and change towards is rarely, if ever on the menu in my ‘white’ culture.

  8. valerie ariel van haltern says

    August 18, 2020 at 10:39 am

    When the conquerors came and murdered or tortured healers/medicine people/shamans because they would not cease practices and accept the conqueror’s “religion” – many shamans were able to escape and go underground. Though thousands of their ritual / ceremonial objects/sacred drums were confiscated or destroyed in bonfires some of these sacred object were successfully hidden away and secretly passed on to the next generation. Knowledge of herbs and nature, sacred drawings etc, as well as healing treatments were passed on. When it seemed that certain wisdom might have been lost – therefore not passed on to others then the ancestors appeared in Dream or in ceremony to once again reveal these gifts of seeing and understanding to those of pure heart. Can wisdom then be erased or destroyed – things of the heart and soul – this power that aligns and keeps the channel clear between all levels of “beingness” and source? Over the centuries many would have died without TCM, herbs, ritual/ceremony and so on. Chinese herbs have saved my life – as well as ceremony – We are fortunate, I hope, that we have a choice – to choose what works for us as individuals – Choice to me implies some understanding of what exists, the context, an awareness of all cultures, honoring of belief systems and so on. In Nepal w/shamans we’d see the walking dead one night, and be following traditional ceremonies and shamanic methods of healing the next- Some cases would need what we called medical doctors of western medicine- and, what they could administer quickly. The shamans knew when to get them involved and had no qualms about including their western ideas in the circle of healing. It was their belief that one way of doing things should not discount the other or suppress it. They would say, “all medicine has its good use when applied with pure heart.” Appreciate your work on this Charles and for sharing bridges and doorways that invite us to the circle where we may embrace deeper understanding of these issues, as well as our diversity and our oneness.

  9. Dr. Dean Raffelock says

    August 18, 2020 at 11:17 am

    As someone who was an Integrative doctor for 37 years and earned 5 board certifications (including one in TCM), I want to communicate how profoundly helpful it was when deciding which treatment modalities to utilize, to be able to have my thinking and observations toggle back and forth between profoundly different Western and Eastern concepts of health and disease. Given that Western allopathic medicine as practiced in the U.S. is ranked 37th in the world, it’s hard to fathom where all the falsely superior, exclusionary hubris comes from. There is just as much cult mentality and magical thinking in allopathic medicine as anywhere, it just has a massive Big Pharma financial clout to continually try to program us with thousands of drug commercials offering symptomatic relief (turning off the fire alarm but failing to look for the actual cause of the alarm go off) so we don’t question its smoke and mirrors and “demonic greed” that hopefully one day will be exorcised from our culture. Yes emergency medicine can be miraculous but the average medical doctor’s skill set usually ends there. The art of being a doctor is largely missing from medical training.

    Although exorcisms seem bizarre to many off us, why not apply the whole concept of psychoneuroimmunology to them? This term means that a change in our beliefs can influence our nervous systems and immune systems. The term really should be psychoneuroimmunogastrointestinalcardiovascularendocrinmusculoskeletal…you get the point. Our thinking and beliefs can affect every system in our bodies.

    There is so much more I could comment on but Charles said it all so well.

    DR

  10. James R. Martin says

    August 18, 2020 at 11:21 am

    I found the conflation of ethnocentrism and racism present in this essay both confusing and unhelpful. Ethnocentrism does share some commonality with racism, but the distinction between these two remains very important.

  11. Pat Wolf says

    August 18, 2020 at 12:03 pm

    WOW! Thank you for opening up my mind & culture. Much to think about and digest!

  12. Anita Evans says

    August 18, 2020 at 12:05 pm

    Thank you Charles! I shared this far and wide including nuggets I found delicious in their truth

  13. Doreen M Tanenbaum says

    August 18, 2020 at 12:13 pm

    You have done it again Charles…allowed me to question my reality that I thought was open. Beautifully crafted a true spiral of undoing.

  14. Nicole Mitchell says

    August 18, 2020 at 12:23 pm

    Hi Charles. I have much respect for your work because you are one of few people who offer new visions for moving us forward towards building a new world rather than just tearing down/critiquing our failing one. In my response to this article, I wanted to ask if you’ve read Ibram X Kendi’s book? ( https://www.ibramxkendi.com/how-to-be-an-antiracist-1 ) I don’t think Kendi would disagree with your points regarding anti-racist work. I agree with you that increasing representation of people of color is not the FULL solution. I agree that increasing representation of people of color in leadership too often ends up perpetuating the “world-destroying humanity-exploiting machine” in most cases and that the “machine” needs to be redesigned, overall (not just redecorated with new colors). However, that doesn’t mean that inclusivity as a principle should be dismissed. It is still important, and it’s a wholistic principle found in nature. I’m sure you agree that it’s crucial for someone in your position, of helping develop a new narrative for the new era, to be working constantly to decolonize your mind from western programming that the entire globe has been immersed in. I’m concerned that you are dismissing this important work of anti-racism, which is a useful tool for us to discern aspects of the “humanity-exploiting machine” that you speak of, and help people to make less assumptions about each other and learn to treat each other more equitably. When you speak of “privilege” have you read Kimberlé Crenshaw’s work on intersectionality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality)? Crenshaw helps us to understand how our identity (gender, sex, race, religion) and economic status impacts our lives (because of the western system). And yes, the appearance of our physical bodies, along with our religion and economic class often results in tangible privileges and discrimination that we face in westernized life. Understanding white privilege, economic privilege and/or male privilege is not meant to be disabling or to be a guilt trip. The purpose of understanding privilege is to understand ones position of power so that you can use it for good. For example, I know you have used your privilege for good to open doors and mentor women and/or people of color in the things you have learned to create an independent career for yourself. Do you also consistently seek to expand the diversity of people around you that challenge your ideas so you can continually expand your worldview and cultural understanding? How much do you connect with others outside of your regular circle who also want to help re-design the world and minimize human and planetary suffering? How many Black friends do you have? For example, have you read adrienne maree brown’s Emergent Strategy (https://www.akpress.org/emergentstrategy.html)? The intentions and the great work that brown and you are doing would be amplified globally by the two of you connecting with each other. Does your worldview persist in its westernism and Eurocentrism, or do you seek to see and build beyond the creation of a new world where white people continue to be at the center? How do you create a truly egalitarian world without having full awareness of how to dismantle the pitfalls of our dystopic system while including a balanced, diverse representation of voices from around the planet? Should the concept of white male privilege become a regular part of your discourse as a way to disarm it? If the concept of Euro-centrism is not what you intend for our future, than being anti-racist is a consciousness to help us all to be continually critical and not perpetuate white supremacy in the new precious world, the More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know is Possible. We need a multitude of voices seeking to stretch our consciousness towards a new paradigm for true equity of all beings on the planet. To do that, our voices need to be positioned to collide, cooperate and improvise towards that co-creation of a positive future. Much respect, Nicole Mitchell.

  15. Judy says

    August 18, 2020 at 12:35 pm

    Well said, all of it. There are more and more of us who will attest to the truths you express so clearly, Charles. Thanks for being willing to do the work.

  16. Larry Waite says

    August 18, 2020 at 12:36 pm

    Savanah when you stated “the shift to the more beautiful world our hearts desire can only occur from more beautiful hearts ” it just ressonated with me very deeply. Part of my spiritual journey is too continue to open to the more beautiful heart within myself and every being. Thanks

  17. Dee Romesburg says

    August 18, 2020 at 12:53 pm

    Thank you for calling out the underlying assumptions (again). It’s constant work!

  18. Yannis Grigoriou says

    August 18, 2020 at 1:22 pm

    This is a beautiful essay! Is it a war we witnessing right now or the accelerating collapse of the narcissistic paradigm so prevalent in the West? It seems to me that the catalyst for this collapse will be the utter greed of big farma and the 1% plutocracy forcing societies unintentionally to rethink values, stereotypes, life itself with humility.

  19. NANCY says

    August 18, 2020 at 1:28 pm

    Love this one. Have long loved TCm and herbalism and I also love the terms “ontological imperialism.” “Teaching” a complex undergrad class at a private college, it involved an “overview” of liberal arts and science and as I basically see it much as Charles does, I was very pleased when a very smart Kurdish student said “you know science is not a religion.” I was so happy he said that. A good friend currently is absolutely a rationalist and cannot imagine other realities except in rare moments of lapse especially when we laugh and I point it out to him. Makes for very narrow friendship, sadly.

    This is a new economy writer I have been exploring, not love based and much wanting to rid the world of money. Here he is interviewing Isabel Wilkerson who just released her new book: “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” that we might appreciate or not as in a quick review may have some relavance here.

    https://the.ink/p/jim-crow-america-inspired-the-nazis?r=opav&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=copy

    Thanks for this rich piece, Charles, especially the hot dogs and fries (a definite ontological imperialsim to me) which was sort of what made me upset over your piece Numb, as I do see this as a “root cause”.

    And do forgive me if I am off base in some way.

  20. LindaJ says

    August 18, 2020 at 1:40 pm

    The reverse colonization taken up by part of the movement toward change forcefully flips leadership to indigenous or people of color in order to dominate and punish whiteness. Maybe this shattering of old thinking is useful, but it does not bode well for the new culture.

    Generosity seems like a trait that should be emphasized. Nonviolent communication does rhetorically do this, but I have seen its adherents operate with a lack of it.

    Thank you, Charles, for showing a way to open ourselves to real humanity.

  21. Suzanne Grenager says

    August 18, 2020 at 1:44 pm

    This may be your most brilliant and important piece yet. Thank you for your insight, your courage (coeur) and your shining humility. I am so glad that you ARE!

  22. Cat says

    August 18, 2020 at 1:46 pm

    On days when things seem hopeless, an essay like this pops into my mailbox and satisfies my hunger for language that can help the blind see. Respectful and humble, this article gives everybody a way to become a better human being, and to question the very bedrock of our beliefs to see if they ware even worth having, much less building an entire life upon. Thank you once again for your brilliance.

  23. Frances Harris says

    August 18, 2020 at 1:53 pm

    Bravo!

  24. tracy says

    August 18, 2020 at 2:25 pm

    Exquisitely expressed Charles. Thank you so much for this much needed perspective.

  25. Lene Santora says

    August 18, 2020 at 3:07 pm

    A Giant Wake Up call to white humility, if they can hear the Call at all, being so immersed in the image of their own splendor.

    Thank you Charles, for writing this so astutely and comprehensively accurate.

    This should be required reading for everybody, for the whites, to learn about humility, and non whites, to restore their true hetitage and their authentic pride in that.

  26. Barb Jarmoska says

    August 18, 2020 at 3:10 pm

    Indeed, “truth is discovered or revealed, not made” and you, dear Charles, continue to be the most extraordinary of discoverers and revealers. I am deeply grateful to you. Your words are a banquet for the heart and soul.

  27. Robin says

    August 18, 2020 at 3:40 pm

    Bravo, well said. With empowering words of compassion, thanks for greatly changing the tides of misinformation that have kept us unknowingly living small “just under the radar” of bondage.

  28. Sharon says

    August 18, 2020 at 3:56 pm

    Thank you for this. I’m a natural/alternative health advocate and I’ve been getting berated left and right for my beliefs. Called anti-science, Trump supporter, superstitious….all because I question a fast tracked Covid-19 vaccine that may be made mandatory. I have no problem with those who want it using it–but I travel a different path and vaccines are not on the menu.

  29. Cathy Lee Brandstetter says

    August 18, 2020 at 4:13 pm

    Bravo, Charles! And thank you again and again!

    P. S. Small typo in “Hot Dogs and Cheese Fries” section: If hot dogs are cheese fries are all that is available

    • Laurie Young says

      August 18, 2020 at 7:05 pm

      Thanks, Cathy! I fixed it. 🙂

  30. Christine says

    August 18, 2020 at 5:00 pm

    This is heaven-sent – literally all the ideas and topics I have been mulling over for years, and struggle to express to exactly those linear-thinking western science minded people (friends even). As a (white) student of Ayurveda I can so relate to this. Incredibly grateful.

  31. Seán says

    August 18, 2020 at 5:31 pm

    Generalisations abound here, ‘ white culture’, ‘ western hegemony’. It’s ironic that the author above would defend Chinese medicine yet say nothing about Chinese inroads into Africa economically, while at the same time decry white western ontological and political/ economic hegemony. Does he believe that China was forced, convinced or manipulated by the west into spreading its economic wings through consumption and growth, and to try and exploit untapped markets in Africa to maintain there own power and financial prowess? He grants them no agency whatsoever? That’s sounds a bit of a stretch to me.

  32. Patricia Aguirre says

    August 18, 2020 at 5:39 pm

    I appreciate immensely your reflections out of the box!!!!I just finnished being interpreter to portuguese of Mantak Chia, my Taoist teacher, of an international online course…and science would laugh at many of the amazing things he brought. Pure synchronicity. Thanks Charles. Super thanks ! Never give up!!!

  33. Martyn Robinson says

    August 18, 2020 at 7:10 pm

    There is something about travelling early in our lives that causes a questioning of the culture from which we have been formed.
    Charles reports he was a teenager when he went to Taiwan.
    My journey to India as an 18 year old caused such a questioning.
    The mind is still open to ‘otherness’ which it approaches with a sense of curiosity, if not awe!
    Fortunately this openness to other ways has continued to inform Charles and remains the inspiration for his ongoing exploration into realms where ‘Angels fear to tread ‘

  34. Sarah says

    August 18, 2020 at 7:16 pm

    What a gorgeous essay. thank you thank you……..

  35. Jeff says

    August 18, 2020 at 8:06 pm

    As Shakespeare said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” What a fun, wise, whack job of an essay, and that’s a compliment! Keep having fun riding the wave!

  36. Mark Tripzville says

    August 18, 2020 at 8:32 pm

    Absolutely stunning piece Mr Eisenstein. Humanity must accept that we have wandered far from the path the cosmological constant has repeatedly asked humanity to follow. The future is Unity in Diversity. You may enjoy our little offering of light in these dark times thru our music and messages [from many sources] . Simply go to Youtube and type in Tripzville. TOGETHER WE ARE STRONGER.

  37. Kerry Snyder says

    August 18, 2020 at 8:33 pm

    Thank you for clarifying what I have been experiencing as an unarticulated distrust for western medicine. It is now apparent that my suspicion is founded upon the closed-mindedness of the ‘white’ medical institution. Having only a hammer and nailing away is decidedly cretinous, but refusing to accept a proffered wrench when faced with a bolt is beyond the pale.

    ‘White’ hasn’t seemed ‘right’ to me for as long as I can remember. I appreciate your courage in shining light upon the specter of oppression that is still hiding in the shadows of white culture. We have much self-enquiry ahead.

    Would we rather hold onto our dogmatic assumptions and continue to suffer predictably and exponentially, or shed so many *unproven* premises and make a play for liberation and (gasp) bliss?

  38. Margaret Jones says

    August 18, 2020 at 8:34 pm

    This essay moves me to tears with its truth. I have lately decided to turn the dark occult references of mask-wearing and hand-washing into my own private form of observing retreat, to turn the dark agenda around, as a form of preparing for our world to transition into a new story.

  39. Juda Bacon says

    August 18, 2020 at 8:59 pm

    Maybe evolution is the process of being able to sit with different ideas, health modalities, practices, faiths or absence of, societal structures, myths and legends, and being able to respect and be curious about all of them? I only think like this after reading one of your articles, Charles. I only think we are capable of it after reading said article. A close friend of mine died a week or so ago. He was a practicing Catholic. And he was also a champion of social justice who did not shy away from the evil his church commits, and has committed, whether it was child sex abuse or the subversion of cultures by its missionaries. He could hold two opposing ideas and find a way to the good in each of them. He would have loved reading your article, Charles, and would probably have wanted to talk all night about the ins and outs of it, with a Jamieson’s in hand, and maybe a song or two to add to the craic.

    When I first saw the title, my eyes played a trick on me (they do that these days) and I read it as The Blanket of Whiteness. All I can say now, after finishing this article, is it is time for me to take the blanket off more often, and enjoy the banquet in all its many splendoured colours. Thank you.

  40. Elizabeth says

    August 18, 2020 at 10:39 pm

    Thank you for writing this; it expresses many of my own thoughts so very articulately. As a ‘white’ person I can say that I’ve never felt welcome at the ‘banquet of whiteness,’ however much I have indisputably benefited from being born white. At the risk of being seen as ‘appropriating’ other cultures, I’ve been a lifelong, and grateful, student of Yoga/Ayurveda, Chinese medicine, and Amazonian plant medicine. I’ve also submerged myself in the less ‘evidence-based’ psycho-therapeutic models like Jungian and IFS. These latter two may be what you refer to as “hidden lineages within the dominant culture” since they use stories/meaning to initiate healing, much as shamanic work does.
    I want to quote something that Jeremy Narby wrote in The Cosmic Serpent, as it so beautifully echoes the points you’ve made: in the midst of his first plant medicine ceremony, Narby sees that “I am just a human being. I feel my mind crack, and in the fissures, I see the bottomless arrogance of my presuppositions. It is profoundly true that I am just a human being, and most of the time, I have the impression of understanding everything, whereas here I find myself in a more powerful reality that I do not understand at all and that, in my arrogance, I did not even suspect existed. I feel like crying in view of the enormity of these revelations” (p. 7).

    May the white dominant culture be blessed to cry in view of the enormity of its collective revelations.

  41. Jesse says

    August 19, 2020 at 1:00 am

    It’s been too long.
    I fell off the Charles train for a while. I’m happy to be back on.
    Just when I think I know what’s going on… I read something written by this man.
    This is dope Charles.

    -Jesse

  42. Mark says

    August 19, 2020 at 2:21 am

    I have read much of your work. This essay is my personal favorite. Thank You for your continued devotion to opening eyes and hearts with your writing.

  43. Colin says

    August 19, 2020 at 11:18 am

    I was lifted up and taken places by engaging with the essay. It cast a light on some important things – contaminating (in the best meaning .
    of the word).

    Thought comes to ivory: elephants and rhino tusks – that command a high price and costs the earth; used in medicine, so I understand.

    What to make of it?

    Colin Harper

  44. Isabel says

    August 19, 2020 at 3:33 pm

    I love this essay. It rings true. I am one of those white weidos that has yearned for inclusion in a culture outside my own, which started by reading a shortened Reader’s Digest version of Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee back in the Old Country. Then I emigrated, looking for ways to get closer to it.

    I have made a living in research labs in academia, but never went to graduate school, so luckily didn’t have the rest of me, the side that could never get developed due to the culture we live in, completely knocked out. I have watched it knocked out of graduate students, though, that have been put through the grinder and come out as changed people in the end, more mature, yes, but not for the better in terms of innovative thinkers. Due to this essay, I just had this conversation with our Chinese grad student, who also confirmed about the use of TCM to treat COVID in his homeland.

  45. Alain says

    August 20, 2020 at 11:44 am

    Again, Charles ability to show us the depth and broadness available when openness is present is faultless. My only critique lies in important omissions in presenting Dr. Immanuel’s character. Although I understand the author’s focus for this essay, omitting Dr. Immanuel’s fervent homophobia, who has called our community vile and accused us of “ homosexual terrorism” is wrong. The respect you speak about in the essay must come from all cultures, not just the failing, dominant one, if it is to work. Also, Charles omitted to discuss Dr. Immanuel’s religious view which is apparently more aligned with modern (intolerant and hateful) Christianity than with a traditional African one of spirits and demons. To me, these facts indicate that maybe Dr. Immanuel was not the ideal candidate as a springboard to the ideas of openness suggested in the essay. I support and admire Charles work as it is essential in these shifting times, but had to make this point…

  46. Signe says

    August 20, 2020 at 3:13 pm

    I would love to vision toward and experiment in anti-racism that holds these perspectives close.

  47. Tracey says

    August 20, 2020 at 4:01 pm

    Oh I’d love an audio version of this essay. 🙂 I find reading a long essay in the computer tiring these days. Any plans for someone to read this aloud?

    And what I have read, I’m very grateful for. Thank you, Charles.

    I am sure your Mother saw that she had an exceptional son. And what better gift of love than to know that she was held in deep reverence throughout her whole life, by you. May she continue to stand by your side, with her hand gently guiding you towards your ever evolving & expanding radical greatness. XX much love, Tracey

  48. Tee says

    August 21, 2020 at 3:53 am

    U help me 2 keep myself sane.
    Thank u x

  49. Jordan says

    August 21, 2020 at 6:24 pm

    Hey Charles, is there any way to get this (and all of your articles) in audio version like when you read aloud Coronation? I would really appreciate it.

    Thank you!

  50. E.B. says

    August 22, 2020 at 12:54 am

    Making the abstract simple…what a well timed workout in mental calisthenics–tackling the deeper questions…thank you for working the edges.

  51. Ingo Erik says

    August 23, 2020 at 2:14 pm

    Thanks for the interesting essay, as usual a very different and more open view onto our world. I think that a part of what you described has a reason in how we see science today. Decades ago when religion answered everything we need to know about how reality works science was just a small part of it and every scientist said that science offers just a model of how the world works.
    Today science not only explains all of our reality and claims that there is only one view of the world, but also no one says anymore that this science is just a model. That there may be other sciences that describe the reality in other cultures like you explained does not exist for them.

  52. Jonathan says

    August 23, 2020 at 3:08 pm

    It felt like the essay was done just before the section on Inclusion or Erasure. Part way through that section I thought to myself, Is the horse dead yet?

    But then came the stark equalization of mask-donning medical practitioners with sanctification rituals and cleansing, all rituals of old. I wonder if that point could have been made earlier, but the essay leads up to that segment and I’m sure that Charles wrote it that way because of the context-setting explique brought that juxtaposition very much home.

    Not knowing Eisentein’s oeuvre, a deeper dive into belief and the power it holds might be something Charles goes after, next. I imagine a keen intellect such as his could untangle the twist of using words to talk about language, not unlike the phenomenological exercise of stepping back, stepping back, stepping back to the point of perception itself.

  53. Hippocrates says

    August 24, 2020 at 8:49 am

    Hi Charles, if you were diagnosed with Covid, or another life threatening disease, would you seek out empirically proven treatments or would you embrace ‘other ways of knowing’

  54. Shelly says

    August 24, 2020 at 1:00 pm

    Your overall premise is very thoughtful and interesting. I know this is a bit narrow of a comment but, in thinking of the video of Dr. Immanuel, I remember her saying she had treated 200-300 patients with no deaths? Isn’t that statistically insignificant if the death rate is around 1%?

  55. sandy says

    August 25, 2020 at 4:59 pm

    Charles dont ever give up on the work you put out there. the world needs you!!!!!!

  56. Raúl Quiñones-Rosado says

    August 26, 2020 at 3:25 pm

    Nice piece.

    More than a social movement, anti-racism is a developmental process that is long and deep, simultaneously personal and collective, inextricably structural and cultural. Anti-racism is central to the ongoing work of everyone committed to the sustainable development of humanity —of people and of human culture— as racism is implicated in every challenge we face.

    Far beyond changing personal attitudes, beliefs and behaviors, antiracism is concerned with cultural transformation, or more specifically, transcending white culture. Now, white supremacist culture is only one of modernity’s off-spring born of European patriarchy and religious imperialism and must be examined along with its siblings: capitalism and colonialism. Therefore, antiracism demands that we understand and dismantle systems designed for the purpose of creating a legacy of advantage for white people (especially if they are male, Christian, wealthy, heteronormative, etc.).

    As a veteran antiracism educator, community organizer and scholar-practitioner in liberation psychology, I am increasingly encouraged by people’s willingness to embrace the discomfort of the brutal facts of racism’s history and present and their place in confronting it today. It remains to be seen how many will remain committed and engaged, particularly as the way of life we have all inherited and which is rooted in the matrix of white cultural supremacy, global racial capitalism, imperialism and patriarchy is collapsing under our feet and before our eyes. To be clear, Covid-19, the rise (and fall) of Trump, the Movement for Black Lives, and the emergent Uprising of the 2020s are merely symptoms of the collapse … and, hopefully, signs of our entrance into humanity’s next developmental stage.

    BTW, Charles, you might be interested in the works of philosopher Enrique Dussel, sociologist Aníbal Quijano and other Latin American thinkers on the coloniality of power, knowledge and being. Dussel’s work not only serves as a critique of a Eurocentric worldview of modernity, but also lays groundwork for the development of ethics of liberation that may lead to a transmodern era of human development.

    Peace! And Justice!

  57. About Creativity says

    August 27, 2020 at 12:53 am

    Charles, I would like to see/experience a summary at the end of your writings. I s this possible?

  58. Beki says

    August 27, 2020 at 5:30 pm

    Simply magnificent! A masterpiece in thought, insight, creativity,
    literary Beauty. I am so grateful to be a recipient of your wisdom . I have been spreading the seeds of your offerings with all that I know have ears to hear. But perhaps more potent is the consumption of this nourishing and refreshingly new perspective, that once assimilated and digested in my own consciousness, are born anew through me and shared with my own creative unique expression. Thank you for sharing so prolifically. I am deeply grateful.

  59. Neil Harrison says

    August 28, 2020 at 9:24 am

    Thank you for revealing the presuppositions that are creating the ‘conflict compliance’ all around us and for doing so in a way that gives me ways to disarm them. Your contribution is powerful and urgent: our ability to generate productive dissatisfaction is determining how much benefit we are converting out of this moment of crisis.

    There is one line that jarred a bit for me: “Absent strong traditions of folk medicine, it is better to have health insurance than to be locked out of the only healthcare available”. The first phrase here seems to suggest that the way forward lies in a return to the ways of the past, or at least in following its projected patterns more assiduously. As I understand it, the idea of a ‘New and Ancient Story’ is a kind of forward looking reintegration of truths, if that’s accurate how does this sentence align with that?

    Particularly on health – where there is increasing agreement that we only have a partial grasp of the dynamics of the whole – it is tempting to subscribe to a monolithic philosophy instead of resting in the bigger truth of the mixed story space. My personal experience has shown me that better outcomes lie in the intersection and interaction of the stories we have about health and healing, so I am passionate about making many pathways to well-being.

    I offer this with the aim that it may be a helpful ‘there be dragons’ warning for fellow readers, to dodge unhelpful polarised thinking, and humbly for your consideration. Another wonderful piece of work, thank you.

  60. Dr Elizabeth S Allen says

    August 28, 2020 at 8:47 pm

    I live in accordance with almost every word of this essay. I only want to say that this line of thinking is consistent with helping good folks do the work of repairing cleft palates. It is not necessary to impose the whole medical industrial complex to repair prolapsed pelvic organs on the 10% of women who live in developing countries who live with it.

  61. Morgine Jurdan says

    August 30, 2020 at 2:58 am

    Beloved Charles, While you posts are most often very long, they are so Potent one can rarely stop reading! I literally almost cried reading this post and wish it could appear in publications around the world! We all need to look in the mirror more often and “own our blind spots” for sure. I so honor other cultures and what they have to teach us. I read too many books of what conquering and colonization had done around the world and cried every time. Our history books in the U.S. were written only to inspire patriotism! They could not and would not tell the “real stories” because it would be way too gruesome and horrific for children of all ages to read and study and be proud about! I still find it difficult to understand why we celebrate the birthday of a man (who did not really “discover this country”), who expressed in his own journals, the pleasure he experienced cutting off the extremities of the natives who refused to become Christians!

    We have So Much Healing to do here and around the world as we finally learn to Celebrate Diversity, respect and honor our differences, and understand the Oneness we all share. Thank you for making that so clear. Coming from the same Source growing us from microscopic cells to adulthood (beating our hearts, breathing us, digesting our food, eliminating waste, healing our cuts and millions of other things), all without needing our conscious attention our entire life. Every human being, regardless of color or culture or beliefs! The same Energy inside all things from ants and birds to whales, every tree and mountain, oceans and deserts and all of life!

    Having gone to a naturopath the past 40 years, I also highly value their different perspective on health, which once in a while includes something from the allopathic side. I am grateful regular doctors exist to patch broken bones, fix hearts, sew on a cut finger and all the rest. There is room for all different kinds of medicine. I too was surprised to be offered an exorcism once and it was an unusual experience.

    Thank you again for this inspiring article which I sincerely hope is read by billions of people around the world some day!

  62. Johannes says

    August 31, 2020 at 11:48 am

    Thank you for this essay. As with so many of your other essays it makes me to ponder my worldview. As appealing as I find many ideas, I am still not completly sure what to make out of some of them.
    Let me give you an example: Our dishes were certainly not the best. From my (western?) point of view some other (non-western) dishes don’t taste so well or are even poisonous. I don’t want to operate in a reality, where I have to fear illness because I’m masturbating. At least this is what I get from my superficial googleing of Dr. Immanuel. Dreamsex can cause cysts. That might be harmful to some juvenile psyches, right? Or is this still my western worldview that hinders me from respectful understanding? Let’s take it one step further: What about Female Genital Mutilation? Hopefully no one would agree that this should be part of a sumptuous feast.
    My point is: how do we establish moral guidelines for a new mythology? They are surely hard to find among the strewn ingredients. Can we pick eclectically? Which postulates do we apply? Rational ones from post-enlightenment Europe? They couldn’t prevent the horrible atrocities of the World Wars. Emotional ones from our hearts? My heart might know something different than your heart. Should we include metaphysical guidlines? Too much appaling stuff has happened under the name of god, allah, Jehova, Brahma, Buddha, or pagan gods.
    So, to give up the idea, that western mythology is the best is only the first step. Soon after this step I sense a vertical wall that we need to climb… Do you have some more climbing gear?

  63. kamir bouchareb st says

    August 31, 2020 at 5:53 pm

    good article

  64. kamir bouchareb st says

    September 1, 2020 at 5:27 pm

    good

  65. stephen harrod buhner says

    September 2, 2020 at 5:45 pm

    great article Charles, thanks for writing it and for the depth.

  66. Phyll Perry says

    September 8, 2020 at 6:15 pm

    Wonderful article. Gets us all thinking. Excellent.

  67. Lauren Ayers says

    September 15, 2020 at 1:17 am

    Once again, Charles’ image-filled prose playfully jars us out of our habitual ways of thinking and we see reality with fresh eyes.

    Lord Action’s classic phrase, “All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” could just as well be revised as “Hierarchy corrupts, and stubborn hierarchy is the water we swim in. “What water?” says the goldfish. “What hierarchy? say any who benefit from it, thereby locking out justice. (Admittedly, Acton’s 10-word sentence elegantly covers all the bases, I just want to show how power inevitably leads to an uneven playing field.)

    It’s worth pondering if this corollary is also true: “Powerlessness tends to corrupt… and absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely.”

  68. kamir bouchareb st says

    September 16, 2020 at 9:36 am

    nice topic

  69. Oona Chaplin says

    September 17, 2020 at 3:06 pm

    Hi Charles, and thank you for your thoughtfulness.
    I work in cultural exchange between indigenous and non-indigenous communities (Aniwa.co) and this reflects a lot of what we dance with in our gatherings. I read an essay some time ago by a woman whose name now escapes me called “these Long and Burning Times”, where she elaborates on the 3 papal bulls that tore a large portion of the globe from their connection with their land and therefore their understanding of the world and their place in it. I’ll explain here as I don’t know if the essay is widely available, but if you can get it read it, it’s good.
    1455- Romania Pontifex, in which the Vatican gave permission to King Alfonso of Portugal to take over the land and people of Africa. This was arguably the first time people’s identity was based on the colour of their skin rather than the place they were born.
    1484: the Witch bull, which legalised the burning of witches and demonised earth honouring pleactices and herbal remedies. This 300 year genocide coincided with the rise of allopathic medicine (white men in white coats), and the decriminalisation of rape and prostitution. Francis Bacon, the “father of science”, encouraged the torture of witches, and was an advisor to the trials.
    1493: Inter Cetera, in which the Vatican granted Spanish royalty permission to take the Americas, land and people, “civilise” the savage and make a buck.
    These 3 bulls centralised culture, agriculture, worship, medicine and values, whilst doing a pretty good job at exterminating, demonising and ridiculing any other understanding of life.
    I still wonder how it was made possible that the Vatican took hold in the world so successfully -not in isolated cases, but covering such vast expanse of land. On a good day it leads me to prophecy, and the purpose of darkness in the great cycles of time, giving us an ever more palpable opportunity to see the trick and remember who we are to greater depths. On a bad day it makes me want to find a tunnel to the center of the earth and wait there for it all to pass.
    Despite what the blind man says holding and elephant’s tail, and elephant is not like a large paintbrush.
    Thanks for always celebrating creation.
    Bless.
    Oona

  70. Malcolm Clark says

    September 19, 2020 at 8:24 pm

    Engaging ideas and wonderfully articulate as always. I would find expressions like this more complete if you included the social engineering aspect beneath much of the cultural phenomena alluded to herein. Social engineering is foundational to more of it than most of us know, and than even more of us are willing to believe.

  71. Sacha Horowitz says

    October 27, 2020 at 5:24 pm

    I was at once delighted and perplex reading Charles’ “Banquet of Whiteness”. The thoughts that follow will seem contrarian in many ways. They might shock readers who have unwittingly internalized values that they regard as vital when they’re really derived from a self-destructive trap the modern West has set for itself.

    Charles’ text helps to clarify how worldviews alien to the modern, rationalist mindset are in fact vital to our civilization if we are to move beyond the dead-end it finds itself in.

    However, framing the rejection of such worldviews as a form of “racism” might be yet another way of perpetuating the mindset that rejected traditional worldviews.

    For one thing, the unholy alliance of Churchmen and Renaissance rationalists that led to the burning of witches was obviously not motivated by “racism”. The witches – herbal medicine experts really – not only had the same ethnic origins as their unenlightened persecutors, but they were representing their very spiritual roots going back all the way to pre-Christian traditions.

    Modernity has continued the onslaught on the roots of the West and postmodernity has seen an even more frenzied attempt to erase, reject and condemn whatever was inherited from the recent or distant past.

    On the other hand, there has been an increasing trend favoring non-European cultures over one’s own. When looking for ethnographic sources for his “Lord of the Rings” saga, J.R.R. Tolkien lamented that, in his time already, British research on pre-modern cultures had done much less work on European traditions than on non-European ones. After World War II, the discovery of the extent of the horror perpetrated on European Jews led many to question the roots of Western political and religious traditions. In our days, this has culminated in a situation where, to atone for past sins of the elites ruling their ancestors, perfectly innocent, well-intentioned “white” people should scrutinize their hearts for traces of racism, whereas those people of non-European origins who commit crimes are often seen as being the unfortunate victims of racism or colonialism.

    Racism is a capital sin of the postmodern West. Moral flaws that were seen as much worse in the past come second after it. Fighting racism also seems to have a priority over many other sound imperatives. At times the rule of law or, even more absurdly, economic opportunities for the disenfranchised have to come second.

    This is not so in the very cultures that Charles correctly identifies as having features that could regenerate our civilization. Although a measure of cosmopolitan spirit, courtesy and intellectual curiosity about alien cultures can be found in major non-European civilizations, cherishing their own traditional values, their ancestors and historical triumphs above everything else is seen as being of sacred value. Careful criticism of these is permissible, but only to a very limited extent. The modern West has reversed this universal guarantee of a civilization’s basic functioning. It has gradually developed an ethos that most highly valued the rejection of traditional religions, of the misdeeds of one’s previously celebrated ancestors and of collective sins of the past.

    The discovery of the greatness of other civilizations’ traditions that were less disfigured than ours should prompt us to recover what was lost in this deplorable historical process. Drawing the opposite conclusion by insisting on the false priorities set by modernity would be tragic.

Primary Sidebar

Audio Essays

All Essays

Monarchs and Lightning Bugs

Pandemania, Part 4

Political Hope

Pandemania, Part 3

Pandemania, Part 2

Pandemania, Part 1

The Heart of the Fawn

Transhumanism and the Metaverse

Why I Won’t Write on You-Know-What

Compartmentalization: UFOs and Social Paralysis

The Good World

Central Bank Digital Currencies

The Economy Series

Reinventing Progress

Parallel Timelines

The Field of Peace

Love-gift to the Future

The Paradox of Busy

On the Great Green Wall, And Being Useful

Reunion

Division, Reunion, and some other stuff

Volatility

Into the Space Between

Wanna Join Me in a News Fast?

And the Music Played the Band

Comet of Deliverance

Divide, Conquer; Unite, Heal

A Path Will Rise to Meet Us

A Gathering of the Tribe

The True Story of the Sith

The Human Family

Elements of Refusal

The America that Almost Was and Yet May Be

Sanity

Time to Push

Some Stuff I’m Reading

The Rehearsal is Over

Beyond Industrial Medicine

A Temple of this Earth

The Sacrificial King

How It Is Going to Be

Charles Eisenstein, Antisemite

Mob Morality and the Unvaxxed

Fascism and the Antifestival

The Death of the Festival

Source Temple and the Great Reset

To Reason with a Madman

From QAnon’s Dark Mirror, Hope

World on Fire

We Can Do Better Than This

The Cure of the Earth

Numb

The Conspiracy Myth

The Coronation

Extinction and the Revolution of Love

The Amazon: How do we heal a burning heart?

Building a Peace Narrative

Xylella: Supervillain or Symptom

Making the Universe Great Again

Every Act a Ceremony

The Polarization Trap

I, Orc

Living in the Gift

A Little Heartbreak

Initiation into a Living Planet

Why I am Afraid of Global Cooling

Olive Trees and the Cry of the Land

Our New, Happy Life? The Ideology of Development

Opposition to GMOs is Neither Unscientific nor Immoral

The Age of We Need Each Other

Institutes for Technologies of Reunion

Brushes with the Mainstream

Standing Rock: A Change of Heart

Transcription: Fertile Ground of Bewilderment Podcast

The Election: Of Hate, Grief, and a New Story

This Is How War Begins

The Lid is Off

Of Horseshoe Crabs and Empathy

Scaling Down

The Fertile Ground of Bewilderment

By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them

Psychedelics and Systems Change

Mutiny of the Soul Revisited

Why I Don’t Do Internet Marketing

Zika and the Mentality of Control

In a Rhino, Everything

Grief and Carbon Reductionism

The Revolution is Love

Kind is the New Cool

What We Do to Nature, We Do to Ourselves

From Nonviolence to Service

An Experiment in Gift Economics

Misogyny and the Healing of the Masculine

Sustainable Development: Something New or More of the Same?

The Need for Venture Science

The EcoSexual Awakening

“Don’t Owe. Won’t Pay.”

Harder to Hide

Reflections on Damanhur

On Immigration

The Humbler Realms, Part 2

The Humbler Realms

A Shift in Values Everywhere

Letter to my Younger Self

Aluna: A Message to Little Brother

Raising My Children in Trust

Qualitative Dimensions of Collective Intelligence: Subjectivity, Consciousness, and Soul

The Woman Who Chose to Plant Corn

The Oceans are Not Worth $24 trillion

The Baby in the Playpen

What Are We Greedy For?

We Need Regenerative Farming, Not Geoengineering

The Cynic and the Boatbuilder, Revisited

Activism in the New Story

What is Action?

Wasting Time

The Space Between Stories

Breakdown, Chaos, and Emergence

At This Moment, I Feel Held

A Roundabout Endorsement

Imagine a 3-D World

Presentation to Uplift Festival, 12.14.2014

Shadow, Ritual, and Relationship in the Gift

A Neat Inversion

The Waters of Heterodoxy

Employment in Gift Culture

Localization Beyond Economics

Discipline on the Bus

We Don’t Know: Reflections on the New Story Summit

A Miracle in Scientific American

More Talk?

Why Another Conference?

A Truncated Interview on Racism

A Beautiful World of Abundance

How to Bore the Children

Post-Capitalism

The Malware

The End of War

The Birds are Sad

A Slice of Humble Pie

Bending Reality: But who is the Bender?

The Mysterious Paths by Which Intentions Bear Fruit

The Little Things that Get Under My Skin

A Restorative Response to MH17

Climate Change: The Bigger Picture

Development in the Ecological Age

The campaign against Drax aims to reveal the perverse effects of biofuels

Gateway drug, to what?

Concern about Overpopulation is a Red Herring; Consumption’s the Problem

Imperialism and Ceremony in Bali

Let’s be Honest: Real Sustainability may not make Business Sense

Vivienne Westwood is Right: We Need a Law against Ecocide

2013: Hope or Despair?

2013: A Year that Pierced Me

Synchronicity, Myth, and the New World Order

Fear of a Living Planet

Pyramid Schemes and the Monetization of Everything

The Next Step for Digital Currency

The Cycle of Terror

TED: A Choice Point

The Cynic and the Boatbuilder

Latent Healing

2013: The Space between Stories

We Are Unlimited Potential: A Talk with Joseph Chilton Pearce

Why Occupy’s plan to cancel consumer debts is money well spent

Genetically Modifying and Patenting Seeds isn’t the Answer

The Lovely Lady from Nestle

An Alien at the Tech Conference

We Can’t Grow Ourselves out of Debt

Money and the Divine Masculine

Naivete, and the Light in their Eyes

The Healing of Congo

Why Rio +20 Failed

Permaculture and the Myth of Scarcity

For Facebook, A Modest Proposal

A Coal Pile in the Ballroom

A Review of Graeber’s Debt: The First 5000 Years

Gift Economics Resurgent

The Way up is Down

Sacred Economics: Money, the Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition

Design and Strategy Principles for Local Currency

The Lost Marble

To Bear Witness and to Speak the Truth

Thrive: The Story is Wrong but the Spirit is Right

Occupy Wall Street: No Demand is Big Enough

Elephants: Please Don’t Go

Why the Age of the Guru is Over

Gift Economics and Reunion in the Digital Age

A Circle of Gifts

The Three Seeds

Truth and Magic in the Third Dimension

Rituals for Lover Earth

Money and the Turning of the Age

A Gathering of the Tribe

The Sojourn of Science

Wood, Metal, and the Story of the World

A World-Creating Matrix of Truth

Waiting on the Big One

In the Miracle

Money and the Crisis of Civilization

Reuniting the Self: Autoimmunity, Obesity, and the Ecology of Health

Invisible Paths

Reuniting the Self: Autoimmunity, Obesity, and the Ecology of Health (Part 2)

Mutiny of the Soul

The Age of Water

Money: A New Beginning (Part 2)

Money: A New Beginning (Part 1)

The Original Religion

Pain: A Call for Attention

The Miracle of Self-Creation, Part 2

The Miracle of Self-Creation

The Deschooling Convivium

The Testicular Age

Who Will Collect the Garbage?

The Ubiquitous Matrix of Lies

You’re Bad!

A 28-year Lie: The Wrong Lesson

The Ascent of Humanity

The Stars are Shining for Her

All Hallows’ Eve

Confessions of a Hypocrite

The New Epidemics

From Opinion to Belief to Knowing

Soul Families

For Whom was that Bird Singing?

The Multicellular Metahuman

Grades: A Gun to Your Head

Human Nature Denied

The Great Robbery

Humanity Grows Up

Don’t Should on US

A State of Belief is a State of Being

Ascension

Security and Fate

Old-Fashioned, Healthy, Lacto-Fermented Soft Drinks: The Real “Real Thing”

The Ethics of Eating Meat

Privacy Policy | Contact | Update Subscription

Charles Eisenstein

All content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Feel free to copy and share.

The Coronation

For years, normality has been stretched nearly to its breaking point, a rope pulled tighter and tighter, waiting for a nip of the black swan’s beak to snap it in two. Now that the rope has snapped, do we tie its ends back together, or shall we undo its dangling braids still further, to see what we might weave from them?

Covid-19 is showing us that when humanity is united in common cause, phenomenally rapid change is possible. None of the world’s problems are technically difficult to solve; they originate in human disagreement. In coherency, humanity’s creative powers are boundless. A few months ago, a proposal to halt commercial air travel would have seemed preposterous. Likewise for the radical changes we are making in our social behavior, economy, and the role of government in our lives. Covid demonstrates the power of our collective will when we agree on what is important. What else might we achieve, in coherency? What do we want to achieve, and what world shall we create? That is always the next question when anyone awakens to their power.

Covid-19 is like a rehab intervention that breaks the addictive hold of normality. To interrupt a habit is to make it visible; it is to turn it from a compulsion to a choice. When the crisis subsides, we might have occasion to ask whether we want to return to normal, or whether there might be something we’ve seen during this break in the routines that we want to bring into the future. We might ask, after so many have lost their jobs, whether all of them are the jobs the world most needs, and whether our labor and creativity would be better applied elsewhere. We might ask, having done without it for a while, whether we really need so much air travel, Disneyworld vacations, or trade shows. What parts of the economy will we want to restore, and what parts might we choose to let go of? And on a darker note, what among the things that are being taken away right now – civil liberties, freedom of assembly, sovereignty over our bodies, in-person gatherings, hugs, handshakes, and public life – might we need to exert intentional political and personal will to restore?

For most of my life, I have had the feeling that humanity was nearing a crossroads. Always, the crisis, the collapse, the break was imminent, just around the bend, but it didn’t come and it didn’t come. Imagine walking a road, and up ahead you see it, you see the crossroads. It’s just over the hill, around the bend, past the woods. Cresting the hill, you see you were mistaken, it was a mirage, it was farther away than you thought. You keep walking. Sometimes it comes into view, sometimes it disappears from sight and it seems like this road goes on forever. Maybe there isn’t a crossroads. No, there it is again! Always it is almost here. Never is it here.

Now, all of a sudden, we go around a bend and here it is. We stop, hardly able to believe that now it is happening, hardly able to believe, after years of confinement to the road of our predecessors, that now we finally have a choice. We are right to stop, stunned at the newness of our situation. Because of the hundred paths that radiate out in front of us, some lead in the same direction we’ve already been headed. Some lead to hell on earth. And some lead to a world more healed and more beautiful than we ever dared believe to be possible.

I write these words with the aim of standing here with you – bewildered, scared maybe, yet also with a sense of new possibility – at this point of diverging paths. Let us gaze down some of them and see where they lead.

* * *

I heard this story last week from a friend. She was in a grocery store and saw a woman sobbing in the aisle. Flouting social distancing rules, she went to the woman and gave her a hug. “Thank you,” the woman said, “that is the first time anyone has hugged me for ten days.”

Going without hugs for a few weeks seems a small price to pay if it will stem an epidemic that could take millions of lives. There is a strong argument for social distancing in the near term: to prevent a sudden surge of Covid cases from overwhelming the medical system. I would like to put that argument in a larger context, especially as we look to the long term. Lest we institutionalize distancing and reengineer society around it, let us be aware of what choice we are making and why.

The same goes for the other changes happening around the coronavirus epidemic. Some commentators have observed how it plays neatly into an agenda of totalitarian control. A frightened public accepts abridgments of civil liberties that are otherwise hard to justify, such as the tracking of everyone’s movements at all times, forcible medical treatment, involuntary quarantine, restrictions on travel and the freedom of assembly, censorship of what the authorities deem to be disinformation, suspension of habeas corpus, and military policing of civilians. Many of these were underway before Covid-19; since its advent, they have been irresistible. The same goes for the automation of commerce; the transition from participation in sports and entertainment to remote viewing; the migration of life from public to private spaces; the transition away from place-based schools toward online education, the decline of brick-and-mortar stores, and the movement of human work and leisure onto screens. Covid-19 is accelerating preexisting trends, political, economic, and social.

While all the above are, in the short term, justified on the grounds of flattening the curve (the epidemiological growth curve), we are also hearing a lot about a “new normal”; that is to say, the changes may not be temporary at all. Since the threat of infectious disease, like the threat of terrorism, never goes away, control measures can easily become permanent. If we were going in this direction anyway, the current justification must be part of a deeper impulse. I will analyze this impulse in two parts: the reflex of control, and the war on death. Thus understood, an initiatory opportunity emerges, one that we are seeing already in the form of the solidarity, compassion, and care that Covid-19 has inspired.

The Reflex of Control

At the current writing, official statistics say that about 25,000 people have died from Covid-19. By the time it runs its course, the death toll could be ten times or a hundred times bigger, or even, if the most alarming guesses are right, a thousand times bigger. Each one of these people has loved ones, family and friends. Compassion and conscience call us to do what we can to avert unnecessary tragedy. This is personal for me: my own infinitely dear but frail mother is among the most vulnerable to a disease that kills mostly the aged and the infirm.

What will the final numbers be? That question is impossible to answer at the time of this writing. Early reports were alarming; for weeks the official number from Wuhan, circulated endlessly in the media, was a shocking 3.4%. That, coupled with its highly contagious nature, pointed to tens of millions of deaths worldwide, or even as many as 100 million. More recently, estimates have plunged as it has become apparent that most cases are mild or asymptomatic. Since testing has been skewed towards the seriously ill, the death rate has looked artificially high. In South Korea, where hundreds of thousands of people with mild symptoms have been tested, the reported case fatality rate is around 1%. In Germany, whose testing also extends to many with mild symptoms, the fatality rate is 0.4%. A recent paper in the journal Science argues that 86% of infections have been undocumented, which points to a much lower mortality rate than the current case fatality rate would indicate.

The story of the Diamond Princess cruise ship bolsters this view. Of the 3,711 people on board, about 20% have tested positive for the virus; less than half of those had symptoms, and eight have died. A cruise ship is a perfect setting for contagion, and there was plenty of time for the virus to spread on board before anyone did anything about it, yet only a fifth were infected. Furthermore, the cruise ship’s population was heavily skewed (as are most cruise ships) toward the elderly: nearly a third of the passengers were over age 70, and more than half were over age 60. A research team concluded from the large number of asymptomatic cases that the true fatality rate in China is around 0.5%. That is still five times higher than flu. Based on the above (and adjusting for much younger demographics in Africa and South and Southeast Asia) my guess is about 200,000-300,000 deaths in the US – more if the medical system is overwhelmed, less if infections are spread out over time – and 3 million globally. Those are serious numbers. Not since the Hong Kong Flu pandemic of 1968/9 has the world experienced anything like it.

My guesses could easily be off by an order of magnitude. Every day the media reports the total number of Covid-19 cases, but no one has any idea what the true number is, because only a tiny proportion of the population has been tested. If tens of millions have the virus, asymptomatically, we would not know it. Further complicating the matter is the high rate of false positives for existing testing, possibly as high as 80%. (And see here for even more alarming uncertainties about test accuracy.) Let me repeat: no one knows what is really happening, including me. Let us be aware of two contradictory tendencies in human affairs. The first is the tendency for hysteria to feed on itself, to exclude data points that don’t play into the fear, and to create the world in its image. The second is denial, the irrational rejection of information that might disrupt normalcy and comfort. As Daniel Schmactenberger asks, How do you know what you believe is true?

In the face of the uncertainty, I’d like to make a prediction: The crisis will play out so that we never will know. If the final death tally, which will itself be the subject of dispute, is lower than feared, some will say that is because the controls worked. Others will say it is because the disease wasn’t as dangerous as we were told.

To me, the most baffling puzzle is why at the present writing there seem to be no new cases in China. The government didn’t initiate its lockdown until well after the virus was established. It should have spread widely during Chinese New Year, when every plane, train, and bus is packed with people traveling all over the country. What is going on here? Again, I don’t know, and neither do you.

Whether the final global death toll is 50,000 or 500,000 or 5 million, let’s look at some other numbers to get some perspective. My point is NOT that Covid isn’t so bad and we shouldn’t do anything. Bear with me. Last year, according to the FAO, five million children worldwide died of hunger (among 162 million who are stunted and 51 million who are wasted). That is 200 times more people than have died so far from Covid-19, yet no government has declared a state of emergency or asked that we radically alter our way of life to save them. Nor do we see a comparable level of alarm and action around suicide – the mere tip of an iceberg of despair and depression – which kills over a million people a year globally and 50,000 in the USA. Or drug overdoses, which kill 70,000 in the USA, the autoimmunity epidemic, which affects 23.5 million (NIH figure) to 50 million (AARDA), or obesity, which afflicts well over 100 million. Why, for that matter, are we not in a frenzy about averting nuclear armageddon or ecological collapse, but, to the contrary, pursue choices that magnify those very dangers?

Please, the point here is not that we haven’t changed our ways to stop children from starving, so we shouldn’t change them for Covid either. It is the contrary: If we can change so radically for Covid-19, we can do it for these other conditions too. Let us ask why are we able to unify our collective will to stem this virus, but not to address other grave threats to humanity. Why, until now, has society been so frozen in its existing trajectory?

The answer is revealing. Simply, in the face of world hunger, addiction, autoimmunity, suicide, or ecological collapse, we as a society do not know what to do. Our go-to crisis responses, all of which are some version of control, aren’t very effective in addressing these conditions. Now along comes a contagious epidemic, and finally we can spring into action. It is a crisis for which control works: quarantines, lockdowns, isolation, hand-washing; control of movement, control of information, control of our bodies. That makes Covid a convenient receptacle for our inchoate fears, a place to channel our growing sense of helplessness in the face of the changes overtaking the world. Covid-19 is a threat that we know how to meet. Unlike so many of our other fears, Covid-19 offers a plan.

Our civilization’s established institutions are increasingly helpless to meet the challenges of our time. How they welcome a challenge that they finally can meet. How eager they are to embrace it as a paramount crisis. How naturally their systems of information management select for the most alarming portrayals of it. How easily the public joins the panic, embracing a threat that the authorities can handle as a proxy for the various unspeakable threats that they cannot.

Today, most of our challenges no longer succumb to force. Our antibiotics and surgery fail to meet the surging health crises of autoimmunity, addiction, and obesity. Our guns and bombs, built to conquer armies, are useless to erase hatred abroad or keep domestic violence out of our homes. Our police and prisons cannot heal the breeding conditions of crime. Our pesticides cannot restore ruined soil. Covid-19 recalls the good old days when the challenges of infectious diseases succumbed to modern medicine and hygiene, at the same time as the Nazis succumbed to the war machine, and nature itself succumbed, or so it seemed, to technological conquest and improvement. It recalls the days when our weapons worked and the world seemed indeed to be improving with each technology of control.

What kind of problem succumbs to domination and control? The kind caused by something from the outside, something Other. When the cause of the problem is something intimate to ourselves, like homelessness or inequality, addiction or obesity, there is nothing to war against. We may try to install an enemy, blaming, for example, the billionaires, Vladimir Putin, or the Devil, but then we miss key information, such as the ground conditions that allow billionaires (or viruses) to replicate in the first place.

If there is one thing our civilization is good at, it is fighting an enemy. We welcome opportunities to do what we are good at, which prove the validity of our technologies, systems, and worldview. And so, we manufacture enemies, cast problems like crime, terrorism, and disease into us-versus-them terms, and mobilize our collective energies toward those endeavors that can be seen that way. Thus, we single out Covid-19 as a call to arms, reorganizing society as if for a war effort, while treating as normal the possibility of nuclear armageddon, ecological collapse, and five million children starving.

The Conspiracy Narrative

Because Covid-19 seems to justify so many items on the totalitarian wish list, there are those who believe it to be a deliberate power play. It is not my purpose to advance that theory nor to debunk it, although I will offer some meta-level comments. First a brief overview.

The theories (there are many variants) talk about Event 201 (sponsored by the Gates Foundation, CIA, etc. last September), and a 2010 Rockefeller Foundation white paper detailing a scenario called “Lockstep,” both of which lay out the authoritarian response to a hypothetical pandemic. They observe that the infrastructure, technology, and legislative framework for martial law has been in preparation for many years. All that was needed, they say, was a way to make the public embrace it, and now that has come. Whether or not current controls are permanent, a precedent is being set for:

  • • The tracking of people’s movements at all times (because coronavirus)
  • • The suspension of freedom of assembly (because coronavirus)
  • • The military policing of civilians (because coronavirus)
  • • Extrajudicial, indefinite detention (quarantine, because coronavirus)
  • • The banning of cash (because coronavirus)
  • • Censorship of the Internet (to combat disinformation, because coronavirus)
  • • Compulsory vaccination and other medical treatment, establishing the state’s sovereignty over our bodies (because coronavirus)
  • • The classification of all activities and destinations into the expressly permitted and the expressly forbidden (you can leave your house for this, but not that), eliminating the un-policed, non-juridical gray zone. That totality is the very essence of totalitarianism. Necessary now though, because, well, coronavirus.

This is juicy material for conspiracy theories. For all I know, one of those theories could be true; however, the same progression of events could unfold from an unconscious systemic tilt toward ever-increasing control. Where does this tilt come from? It is woven into civilization’s DNA. For millennia, civilization (as opposed to small-scale traditional cultures) has understood progress as a matter of extending control onto the world: domesticating the wild, conquering the barbarians, mastering the forces of nature, and ordering society according to law and reason. The ascent of control accelerated with the Scientific Revolution, which launched “progress” to new heights: the ordering of reality into objective categories and quantities, and the mastering of materiality with technology. Finally, the social sciences promised to use the same means and methods to fulfill the ambition (which goes back to Plato and Confucius) to engineer a perfect society.

Those who administer civilization will therefore welcome any opportunity to strengthen their control, for after all, it is in service to a grand vision of human destiny: the perfectly ordered world, in which disease, crime, poverty, and perhaps suffering itself can be engineered out of existence. No nefarious motives are necessary. Of course they would like to keep track of everyone – all the better to ensure the common good. For them, Covid-19 shows how necessary that is. “Can we afford democratic freedoms in light of the coronavirus?” they ask. “Must we now, out of necessity, sacrifice those for our own safety?” It is a familiar refrain, for it has accompanied other crises in the past, like 9/11.

To rework a common metaphor, imagine a man with a hammer, stalking around looking for a reason to use it. Suddenly he sees a nail sticking out. He’s been looking for a nail for a long time, pounding on screws and bolts and not accomplishing much. He inhabits a worldview in which hammers are the best tools, and the world can be made better by pounding in the nails. And here is a nail! We might suspect that in his eagerness he has placed the nail there himself, but it hardly matters. Maybe it isn’t even a nail that’s sticking out, but it resembles one enough to start pounding. When the tool is at the ready, an opportunity will arise to use it.

And I will add, for those inclined to doubt the authorities, maybe this time it really is a nail. In that case, the hammer is the right tool – and the principle of the hammer will emerge the stronger, ready for the screw, the button, the clip, and the tear.

Either way, the problem we deal with here is much deeper than that of overthrowing an evil coterie of Illuminati. Even if they do exist, given the tilt of civilization, the same trend would persist without them, or a new Illuminati would arise to assume the functions of the old.

True or false, the idea that the epidemic is some monstrous plot perpetrated by evildoers upon the public is not so far from the mindset of find-the-pathogen. It is a crusading mentality, a war mentality. It locates the source of a sociopolitical illness in a pathogen against which we may then fight, a victimizer separate from ourselves. It risks ignoring the conditions that make society fertile ground for the plot to take hold. Whether that ground was sown deliberately or by the wind is, for me, a secondary question.

What I will say next is relevant whether or not SARS-CoV2 is a genetically engineered bioweapon, is related to 5G rollout, is being used to prevent “disclosure,” is a Trojan horse for totalitarian world government, is more deadly than we’ve been told, is less deadly than we’ve been told, originated in a Wuhan biolab, originated at Fort Detrick, or is exactly as the CDC and WHO have been telling us. It applies even if everyone is totally wrong about the role of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the current epidemic. I have my opinions, but if there is one thing I have learned through the course of this emergency is that I don’t really know what is happening. I don’t see how anyone can, amidst the seething farrago of news, fake news, rumors, suppressed information, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and politicized narratives that fill the Internet. I wish a lot more people would embrace not knowing. I say that both to those who embrace the dominant narrative, as well as to those who hew to dissenting ones. What information might we be blocking out, in order to maintain the integrity of our viewpoints? Let’s be humble in our beliefs: it is a matter of life and death.

The War on Death

My 7-year-old son hasn’t seen or played with another child for two weeks. Millions of others are in the same boat. Most would agree that a month without social interaction for all those children a reasonable sacrifice to save a million lives. But how about to save 100,000 lives? And what if the sacrifice is not for a month but for a year? Five years? Different people will have different opinions on that, according to their underlying values.

Let’s replace the foregoing questions with something more personal, that pierces the inhuman utilitarian thinking that turns people into statistics and sacrifices some of them for something else. The relevant question for me is, Would I ask all the nation’s children to forego play for a season, if it would reduce my mother’s risk of dying, or for that matter, my own risk? Or I might ask, Would I decree the end of human hugging and handshakes, if it would save my own life? This is not to devalue Mom’s life or my own, both of which are precious. I am grateful for every day she is still with us. But these questions bring up deep issues. What is the right way to live? What is the right way to die?

The answer to such questions, whether asked on behalf of oneself or on behalf of society at large, depends on how we hold death and how much we value play, touch, and togetherness, along with civil liberties and personal freedom. There is no easy formula to balance these values.

Over my lifetime I’ve seen society place more and more emphasis on safety, security, and risk reduction. It has especially impacted childhood: as a young boy it was normal for us to roam a mile from home unsupervised – behavior that would earn parents a visit from Child Protective Services today. It also manifests in the form of latex gloves for more and more professions; hand sanitizer everywhere; locked, guarded, and surveilled school buildings; intensified airport and border security; heightened awareness of legal liability and liability insurance; metal detectors and searches before entering many sports arenas and public buildings, and so on. Writ large, it takes the form of the security state.

The mantra “safety first” comes from a value system that makes survival top priority, and that depreciates other values like fun, adventure, play, and the challenging of limits. Other cultures had different priorities. For instance, many traditional and indigenous cultures are much less protective of children, as documented in Jean Liedloff’s classic, The Continuum Concept. They allow them risks and responsibilities that would seem insane to most modern people, believing that this is necessary for children to develop self-reliance and good judgement. I think most modern people, especially younger people, retain some of this inherent willingness to sacrifice safety in order to live life fully. The surrounding culture, however, lobbies us relentlessly to live in fear, and has constructed systems that embody fear. In them, staying safe is over-ridingly important. Thus we have a medical system in which most decisions are based on calculations of risk, and in which the worst possible outcome, marking the physician’s ultimate failure, is death. Yet all the while, we know that death awaits us regardless. A life saved actually means a death postponed.

The ultimate fulfillment of civilization’s program of control would be to triumph over death itself. Failing that, modern society settles for a facsimile of that triumph: denial rather than conquest. Ours is a society of death denial, from its hiding away of corpses, to its fetish for youthfulness, to its warehousing of old people in nursing homes. Even its obsession with money and property – extensions of the self, as the word “mine” indicates – expresses the delusion that the impermanent self can be made permanent through its attachments. All this is inevitable given the story-of-self that modernity offers: the separate individual in a world of Other. Surrounded by genetic, social, and economic competitors, that self must protect and dominate in order to thrive. It must do everything it can to forestall death, which (in the story of separation) is total annihilation. Biological science has even taught us that our very nature is to maximize our chances of surviving and reproducing.

I asked a friend, a medical doctor who has spent time with the Q’ero on Peru, whether the Q’ero would (if they could) intubate someone to prolong their life. “Of course not,” she said. “They would summon the shaman to help him die well.” Dying well (which isn’t necessarily the same as dying painlessly) is not much in today’s medical vocabulary. No hospital records are kept on whether patients die well. That would not be counted as a positive outcome. In the world of the separate self, death is the ultimate catastrophe.

But is it? Consider this perspective from Dr. Lissa Rankin: “Not all of us would want to be in an ICU, isolated from loved ones with a machine breathing for us, at risk of dying alone- even if it means they might increase their chance of survival. Some of us might rather be held in the arms of loved ones at home, even if that means our time has come…. Remember, death is no ending. Death is going home.”

When the self is understood as relational, interdependent, even inter-existent, then it bleeds over into the other, and the other bleeds over into the self. Understanding the self as a locus of consciousness in a matrix of relationship, one no longer searches for an enemy as the key to understanding every problem, but looks instead for imbalances in relationships. The War on Death gives way to the quest to live well and fully, and we see that fear of death is actually fear of life. How much of life will we forego to stay safe?

Totalitarianism – the perfection of control – is the inevitable end product of the mythology of the separate self. What else but a threat to life, like a war, would merit total control? Thus Orwell identified perpetual war as a crucial component of the Party’s rule.

Against the backdrop of the program of control, death denial, and the separate self, the assumption that public policy should seek to minimize the number of deaths is nearly beyond question, a goal to which other values like play, freedom, etc. are subordinate. Covid-19 offers occasion to broaden that view. Yes, let us hold life sacred, more sacred than ever. Death teaches us that. Let us hold each person, young or old, sick or well, as the sacred, precious, beloved being that they are. And in the circle of our hearts, let us make room for other sacred values too. To hold life sacred is not just to live long, it is to live well and right and fully.

Like all fear, the fear around the coronavirus hints at what might lie beyond it. Anyone who has experienced the passing of someone close knows that death is a portal to love. Covid-19 has elevated death to prominence in the consciousness of a society that denies it. On the other side of the fear, we can see the love that death liberates. Let it pour forth. Let it saturate the soil of our culture and fill its aquifers so that it seeps up through the cracks of our crusted institutions, our systems, and our habits. Some of these may die too.

What world shall we live in?

How much of life do we want to sacrifice at the altar of security? If it keeps us safer, do we want to live in a world where human beings never congregate? Do we want to wear masks in public all the time? Do we want to be medically examined every time we travel, if that will save some number of lives a year? Are we willing to accept the medicalization of life in general, handing over final sovereignty over our bodies to medical authorities (as selected by political ones)? Do we want every event to be a virtual event? How much are we willing to live in fear?

Covid-19 will eventually subside, but the threat of infectious disease is permanent. Our response to it sets a course for the future. Public life, communal life, the life of shared physicality has been dwindling over several generations. Instead of shopping at stores, we get things delivered to our homes. Instead of packs of kids playing outside, we have play dates and digital adventures. Instead of the public square, we have the online forum. Do we want to continue to insulate ourselves still further from each other and the world?

It is not hard to imagine, especially if social distancing is successful, that Covid-19 persists beyond the 18 months we are being told to expect for it to run its course. It is not hard to imagine that new viruses will emerge during that time. It is not hard to imagine that emergency measures will become normal (so as to forestall the possibility of another outbreak), just as the state of emergency declared after 9/11 is still in effect today. It is not hard to imagine that (as we are being told), reinfection is possible, so that the disease will never run its course. That means that the temporary changes in our way of life may become permanent.

To reduce the risk of another pandemic, shall we choose to live in a society without hugs, handshakes, and high-fives, forever more? Shall we choose to live in a society where we no longer gather en masse? Shall the concert, the sports competition, and the festival be a thing of the past? Shall children no longer play with other children? Shall all human contact be mediated by computers and masks? No more dance classes, no more karate classes, no more conferences, no more churches? Is death reduction to be the standard by which to measure progress? Does human advancement mean separation? Is this the future?

The same question applies to the administrative tools required to control the movement of people and the flow of information. At the present writing, the entire country is moving toward lockdown. In some countries, one must print out a form from a government website in order to leave the house. It reminds me of school, where one’s location must be authorized at all times. Or of prison. Do we envision a future of electronic hall passes, a system where freedom of movement is governed by state administrators and their software at all times, permanently? Where every movement is tracked, either permitted or prohibited? And, for our protection, where information that threatens our health (as decided, again, by various authorities) is censored for our own good? In the face of an emergency, like unto a state of war, we accept such restrictions and temporarily surrender our freedoms. Similar to 9/11, Covid-19 trumps all objections.

For the first time in history, the technological means exist to realize such a vision, at least in the developed world (for example, using cellphone location data to enforce social distancing; see also here). After a bumpy transition, we could live in a society where nearly all of life happens online: shopping, meeting, entertainment, socializing, working, even dating. Is that what we want? How many lives saved is that worth?

I am sure that many of the controls in effect today will be partially relaxed in a few months. Partially relaxed, but at the ready. As long as infectious disease remains with us, they are likely to be reimposed, again and again, in the future, or be self-imposed in the form of habits. As Deborah Tannen says, contributing to a Politico article on how coronavirus will change the world permanently, ‘We know now that touching things, being with other people and breathing the air in an enclosed space can be risky…. It could become second nature to recoil from shaking hands or touching our faces—and we may all fall heir to society-wide OCD, as none of us can stop washing our hands.” After thousands of years, millions of years, of touch, contact, and togetherness, is the pinnacle of human progress to be that we cease such activities because they are too risky?

Life is Community

The paradox of the program of control is that its progress rarely advances us any closer to its goal. Despite security systems in almost every upper middle-class home, people are no less anxious or insecure than they were a generation ago. Despite elaborate security measures, the schools are not seeing fewer mass shootings. Despite phenomenal progress in medical technology, people have if anything become less healthy over the past thirty years, as chronic disease has proliferated and life expectancy stagnated and, in the USA and Britain, started to decline.

The measures being instituted to control Covid-19, likewise, may end up causing more suffering and death than they prevent. Minimizing deaths means minimizing the deaths that we know how to predict and measure. It is impossible to measure the added deaths that might come from isolation-induced depression, for instance, or the despair caused by unemployment, or the lowered immunity and deterioration in health that chronic fear can cause. Loneliness and lack of social contact has been shown to increase inflammation, depression, and dementia. According to Lissa Rankin, M.D., air pollution increases risk of dying by 6%, obesity by 23%, alcohol abuse by 37%, and loneliness by 45%.

Another danger that is off the ledger is the deterioration in immunity caused by excessive hygiene and distancing. It is not only social contact that is necessary for health, it is also contact with the microbial world. Generally speaking, microbes are not our enemies, they are our allies in health. A diverse gut biome, comprising bacteria, viruses, yeasts, and other organisms, is essential for a well-functioning immune system, and its diversity is maintained through contact with other people and with the world of life. Excessive hand-washing, overuse of antibiotics, aseptic cleanliness, and lack of human contact might do more harm than good. The resulting allergies and autoimmune disorders might be worse than the infectious disease they replace. Socially and biologically, health comes from community. Life does not thrive in isolation.

Seeing the world in us-versus-them terms blinds us to the reality that life and health happen in community. To take the example of infectious diseases, we fail to look beyond the evil pathogen and ask, What is the role of viruses in the microbiome? (See also here.) What are the body conditions under which harmful viruses proliferate? Why do some people have mild symptoms and others severe ones (besides the catch-all non-explanation of “low resistance”)? What positive role might flus, colds, and other non-lethal diseases play in the maintenance of health?

War-on-germs thinking brings results akin to those of the War on Terror, War on Crime, War on Weeds, and the endless wars we fight politically and interpersonally. First, it generates endless war; second, it diverts attention from the ground conditions that breed illness, terrorism, crime, weeds, and the rest.

Despite politicians’ perennial claim that they pursue war for the sake of peace, war inevitably breeds more war. Bombing countries to kill terrorists not only ignores the ground conditions of terrorism, it exacerbates those conditions. Locking up criminals not only ignores the conditions that breed crime, it creates those conditions when it breaks up families and communities and acculturates the incarcerated to criminality. And regimes of antibiotics, vaccines, antivirals, and other medicines wreak havoc on body ecology, which is the foundation of strong immunity. Outside the body, the massive spraying campaigns sparked by Zika, Dengue Fever, and now Covid-19 will visit untold damage upon nature’s ecology. Has anyone considered what the effects on the ecosystem will be when we douse it with antiviral compounds? Such a policy (which has been implemented in various places in China and India) is only thinkable from the mindset of separation, which does not understand that viruses are integral to the web of life.

To understand the point about ground conditions, consider some mortality statistics from Italy (from its National Health Institute), based on an analysis of hundreds of Covid-19 fatalities. Of those analyzed, less than 1% were free of serious chronic health conditions. Some 75% suffered from hypertension, 35% from diabetes, 33% from cardiac ischemia, 24% from atrial fibrillation, 18% from low renal function, along with other conditions that I couldn’t decipher from the Italian report. Nearly half the deceased had three or more of these serious pathologies. Americans, beset by obesity, diabetes, and other chronic ailments, are at least as vulnerable as Italians. Should we blame the virus then (which killed few otherwise healthy people), or shall we blame underlying poor health? Here again the analogy of the taut rope applies. Millions of people in the modern world are in a precarious state of health, just waiting for something that would normally be trivial to send them over the edge. Of course, in the short term we want to save their lives; the danger is that we lose ourselves in an endless succession of short terms, fighting one infectious disease after another, and never engage the ground conditions that make people so vulnerable. That is a much harder problem, because these ground conditions will not change via fighting. There is no pathogen that causes diabetes or obesity, addiction, depression, or PTSD. Their causes are not an Other, not some virus separate from ourselves, and we its victims.

Even in diseases like Covid-19, in which we can name a pathogenic virus, matters are not so simple as a war between virus and victim. There is an alternative to the germ theory of disease that holds germs to be part of a larger process. When conditions are right, they multiply in the body, sometimes killing the host, but also, potentially, improving the conditions that accommodated them to begin with, for example by cleaning out accumulated toxic debris via mucus discharge, or (metaphorically speaking) burning them up with fever. Sometimes called “terrain theory,” it says that germs are more symptom than cause of disease. As one meme explains it: “Your fish is sick. Germ theory: isolate the fish. Terrain theory: clean the tank.”

A certain schizophrenia afflicts the modern culture of health. On the one hand, there is a burgeoning wellness movement that embraces alternative and holistic medicine. It advocates herbs, meditation, and yoga to boost immunity. It validates the emotional and spiritual dimensions of health, such as the power of attitudes and beliefs to sicken or to heal. All of this seems to have disappeared under the Covid tsunami, as society defaults to the old orthodoxy.

Case in point: California acupuncturists have been forced to shut down, having been deemed “non-essential.” This is perfectly understandable from the perspective of conventional virology. But as one acupuncturist on Facebook observed, “What about my patient who I’m working with to get off opioids for his back pain? He’s going to have to start using them again.” From the worldview of medical authority, alternative modalities, social interaction, yoga classes, supplements, and so on are frivolous when it comes to real diseases caused by real viruses. They are relegated to an etheric realm of “wellness” in the face of a crisis. The resurgence of orthodoxy under Covid-19 is so intense that anything remotely unconventional, such as intravenous vitamin C, was completely off the table in the United States until two days ago (articles still abound “debunking” the “myth” that vitamin C can help fight Covid-19). Nor have I heard the CDC evangelize the benefits of elderberry extract, medicinal mushrooms, cutting sugar intake, NAC (N-acetyl L-cysteine), astragalus, or vitamin D. These are not just mushy speculation about “wellness,” but are supported by extensive research and physiological explanations. For example, NAC (general info, double-blind placebo-controlled study) has been shown to radically reduce incidence and severity of symptoms in flu-like illnesses.

As the statistics I offered earlier on autoimmunity, obesity, etc. indicate, America and the modern world in general are facing a health crisis. Is the answer to do what we’ve been doing, only more thoroughly? The response so far to Covid has been to double down on the orthodoxy and sweep unconventional practices and dissenting viewpoints aside. Another response would be to widen our lens and examine the entire system, including who pays for it, how access is granted, and how research is funded, but also expanding out to include marginal fields like herbal medicine, functional medicine, and energy medicine. Perhaps we can take this opportunity to reevaluate prevailing theories of illness, health, and the body. Yes, let’s protect the sickened fish as best we can right now, but maybe next time we won’t have to isolate and drug so many fish, if we can clean the tank.

I’m not telling you to run out right now and buy NAC or any other supplement, nor that we as a society should abruptly shift our response, cease social distancing immediately, and start taking supplements instead. But we can use the break in normal, this pause at a crossroads, to consciously choose what path we shall follow moving forward: what kind of healthcare system, what paradigm of health, what kind of society. This reevaluation is already happening, as ideas like universal free healthcare in the USA gain new momentum. And that path leads to forks as well. What kind of healthcare will be universalized? Will it be merely available to all, or mandatory for all – each citizen a patient, perhaps with an invisible ink barcode tattoo certifying one is up to date on all compulsory vaccines and check-ups. Then you can go to school, board a plane, or enter a restaurant. This is one path to the future that is available to us.

Another option is available now too. Instead of doubling down on control, we could finally embrace the holistic paradigms and practices that have been waiting on the margins, waiting for the center to dissolve so that, in our humbled state, we can bring them into the center and build a new system around them.

The Coronation

There is an alternative to the paradise of perfect control that our civilization has so long pursued, and that recedes as fast as our progress, like a mirage on the horizon. Yes, we can proceed as before down the path toward greater insulation, isolation, domination, and separation. We can normalize heightened levels of separation and control, believe that they are necessary to keep us safe, and accept a world in which we are afraid to be near each other. Or we can take advantage of this pause, this break in normal, to turn onto a path of reunion, of holism, of the restoring of lost connections, of the repair of community and the rejoining of the web of life.

Do we double down on protecting the separate self, or do we accept the invitation into a world where all of us are in this together? It isn’t just in medicine we encounter this question: it visits us politically, economically, and in our personal lives as well. Take for example the issue of hoarding, which embodies the idea, “There won’t be enough for everyone, so I am going to make sure there is enough for me.” Another response might be, “Some don’t have enough, so I will share what I have with them.” Are we to be survivalists or helpers? What is life for?

On a larger scale, people are asking questions that have until now lurked on activist margins. What should we do about the homeless? What should we do about the people in prisons? In Third World slums? What should we do about the unemployed? What about all the hotel maids, the Uber drivers, the plumbers and janitors and bus drivers and cashiers who cannot work from home? And so now, finally, ideas like student debt relief and universal basic income are blossoming. “How do we protect those susceptible to Covid?” invites us into “How do we care for vulnerable people in general?”

That is the impulse that stirs in us, regardless of the superficialities of our opinions about Covid’s severity, origin, or best policy to address it. It is saying, let’s get serious about taking care of each other. Let’s remember how precious we all are and how precious life is. Let’s take inventory of our civilization, strip it down to its studs, and see if we can build one more beautiful.

As Covid stirs our compassion, more and more of us realize that we don’t want to go back to a normal so sorely lacking it. We have the opportunity now to forge a new, more compassionate normal.

Hopeful signs abound that this is happening. The United States government, which has long seemed the captive of heartless corporate interests, has unleashed hundreds of billions of dollars in direct payments to families. Donald Trump, not known as a paragon of compassion, has put a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions. Certainly one can take a cynical view of both these developments; nonetheless, they embody the principle of caring for the vulnerable.

From all over the world we hear stories of solidarity and healing. One friend described sending $100 each to ten strangers who were in dire need. My son, who until a few days ago worked at Dunkin’ Donuts, said people were tipping at five times the normal rate – and these are working class people, many of them Hispanic truck drivers, who are economically insecure themselves. Doctors, nurses, and “essential workers” in other professions risk their lives to serve the public. Here are some more examples of the love and kindness eruption, courtesy of ServiceSpace:

Perhaps we’re in the middle of living into that new story. Imagine Italian airforce using Pavoratti, Spanish military doing acts of service, and street police playing guitars — to *inspire*. Corporations giving unexpected wage hikes. Canadians starting “Kindness Mongering.” Six year old in Australia adorably gifting her tooth fairy money, an 8th grader in Japan making 612 masks, and college kids everywhere buying groceries for elders. Cuba sending an army in “white robes” (doctors) to help Italy. A landlord allowing tenants to stay without rent, an Irish priest’s poem going viral, disabled activitists producing hand sanitizer. Imagine. Sometimes a crisis mirrors our deepest impulse — that we can always respond with compassion.

As Rebecca Solnit describes in her marvelous book, A Paradise Built in Hell, disaster often liberates solidarity. A more beautiful world shimmers just beneath the surface, bobbing up whenever the systems that hold it underwater loosen their grip.

For a long time we, as a collective, have stood helpless in the face of an ever-sickening society. Whether it is declining health, decaying infrastructure, depression, suicide, addiction, ecological degradation, or concentration of wealth, the symptoms of civilizational malaise in the developed world are plain to see, but we have been stuck in the systems and patterns that cause them. Now, Covid has gifted us a reset.

A million forking paths lie before us. Universal basic income could mean an end to economic insecurity and the flowering of creativity as millions are freed from the work that Covid has shown us is less necessary than we thought. Or it could mean, with the decimation of small businesses, dependency on the state for a stipend that comes with strict conditions. The crisis could usher in totalitarianism or solidarity; medical martial law or a holistic renaissance; greater fear of the microbial world, or greater resiliency in participation in it; permanent norms of social distancing, or a renewed desire to come together.

What can guide us, as individuals and as a society, as we walk the garden of forking paths? At each junction, we can be aware of what we follow: fear or love, self-preservation or generosity. Shall we live in fear and build a society based on it? Shall we live to preserve our separate selves? Shall we use the crisis as a weapon against our political enemies? These are not all-or-nothing questions, all fear or all love. It is that a next step into love lies before us. It feels daring, but not reckless. It treasures life, while accepting death. And it trusts that with each step, the next will become visible.

Please don’t think that choosing love over fear can be accomplished solely through an act of will, and that fear too can be conquered like a virus. The virus we face here is fear, whether it is fear of Covid-19, or fear of the totalitarian response to it, and this virus too has its terrain. Fear, along with addiction, depression, and a host of physical ills, flourishes in a terrain of separation and trauma: inherited trauma, childhood trauma, violence, war, abuse, neglect, shame, punishment, poverty, and the muted, normalized trauma that affects nearly everyone who lives in a monetized economy, undergoes modern schooling, or lives without community or connection to place. This terrain can be changed, by trauma healing on a personal level, by systemic change toward a more compassionate society, and by transforming the basic narrative of separation: the separate self in a world of other, me separate from you, humanity separate from nature. To be alone is a primal fear, and modern society has rendered us more and more alone. But the time of Reunion is here. Every act of compassion, kindness, courage, or generosity heals us from the story of separation, because it assures both actor and witness that we are in this together.

I will conclude by invoking one more dimension of the relationship between humans and viruses. Viruses are integral to evolution, not just of humans but of all eukaryotes. Viruses can transfer DNA from organism to organism, sometimes inserting it into the germline (where it becomes heritable). Known as horizontal gene transfer, this is a primary mechanism of evolution, allowing life to evolve together much faster than is possible through random mutation. As Lynn Margulis once put it, we are our viruses.

And now let me venture into speculative territory. Perhaps the great diseases of civilization have quickened our biological and cultural evolution, bestowing key genetic information and offering both individual and collective initiation. Could the current pandemic be just that? Novel RNA codes are spreading from human to human, imbuing us with new genetic information; at the same time, we are receiving other, esoteric, “codes” that ride the back of the biological ones, disrupting our narratives and systems in the same way that an illness disrupts bodily physiology. The phenomenon follows the template of initiation: separation from normality, followed by a dilemma, breakdown, or ordeal, followed (if it is to be complete) by reintegration and celebration.

Now the question arises: Initiation into what? What is the specific nature and purpose of this initiation?The popular name for the pandemic offers a clue: coronavirus. A corona is a crown. “Novel coronavirus pandemic” means “a new coronation for all.”

Already we can feel the power of who we might become. A true sovereign does not run in fear from life or from death. A true sovereign does not dominate and conquer (that is a shadow archetype, the Tyrant). The true sovereign serves the people, serves life, and respects the sovereignty of all people. The coronation marks the emergence of the unconscious into consciousness, the crystallization of chaos into order, the transcendence of compulsion into choice. We become the rulers of that which had ruled us. The New World Order that the conspiracy theorists fear is a shadow of the glorious possibility available to sovereign beings. No longer the vassals of fear, we can bring order to the kingdom and build an intentional society on the love already shining through the cracks of the world of separation.

Celo: 0x755582C923dB215d9eF7C4Ad3E03D29B2569ABb6

Litecoin: ltc1qqtvtkl3h7mchy7m5jwpvqvt5uzka0yj3nffavu

Bitcoin: bc1q2a2czwhf4sgyx9f9ttf3c4ndt03eyh3uymjgzl

Dogecoin: DT9ECVrg9mPFADhN375WL9ULzcUZo8YEpN

Polkadot: 15s6NSM75Kw6eMLoxm2u8qqbgQFYMnoYhvV1w1SaF9hwVpM4

Polygon: 0xEBF0120A88Ec0058578e2D37C9fFdDc28f3673A6

Zcash: t1PUmhaoYTHJAk1yxmgpfEp27Uk4GHKqRig

Donate & Support

As much as possible I offer my work as a gift. I put it online without a pay wall of any kind. Online course contributions are self-determined at the time you register for each. I also keep the site clean of advertising.

This means I rely on voluntary financial support for my livelihood. You may make a recurring gift or one-time donation using the form below, in whatever amount feels good to you. If your finances are tight at all, please do not give money. Visit our contact page instead for other ways to support this work.

Recurring Donations

Note from the team: Your recurring donation is a resource that allows us to keep Charles doing the work we all want him doing: thinking, speaking, writing, rather than worrying about the business details. Charles and all of us greatly appreciate them!

Donate Below

One-Time Donation

Your gift helps us maintain the site, offer tech support, and run programs and events by donation, with no ads, sales pitches, or pay walls. Just as important, it communicates to us that this work is gratefully received. Thank you!

Donate Below

Cryptocurrency Donation

Hi, here we are in the alternate universe of cryptocurrency. Click the link below for a list of public keys. If your preferred coin isn't listed, write to us through the contact form.

View Keys



What kind of donation are you making?(Required)


Recurring Donation

We are currently accepting monthly recurring donations through PayPal; we use PayPal because it allows you to cancel or modify your recurring donation at any time without needing to contact us.


Choose what feels good, clear, and right.

One-Time Donation

We are currently accepting one-time donations with any major credit card or through PayPal.


Choose what feels good, clear, and right.
Donation Method(Required)

Name(Required)
Email(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.