Beyond
Gaia?
An Exploration of Earth Consciousness and Gender
by
Andrew Rothery
Introduction
At this time we live in a world where the dominant global
philosophy of life is crumbling and no new philosophy has
yet fully appeared. It is therefore a time of flux, a time
of creative crisis, a time of living between worlds. The
fragmenting philosophy of which I speak is characterised
by a mechanistic world view where nature (including humanity)
is seen as a resource to be used and abused as people see
fit. With the growing destruction and de-stabilisation of
the Earth’s complex ecosystems and the increasingly
unhappy and volatile nature of human societies, it is clear
that we need to find new ways of living or risk complete
extinction! Life on Earth could go on without us, and the
countless other species that we would take with us, but
what a tragic loss this would be both for us and for Life
as a whole.
In the midst of such a time of great change it is no coincidence
that a "new" idea has appeared in Western culture
which could hold the key not only to our survival as a species,
but to the creation of a philosophy of life which so far
exceeds our current notions of quality and purpose that
it is still largely beyond the scope of our imagination.
The new idea I'm talking about is the Gaia Theory
(seeing the Earth functioning as a living organism), intuited
by James Lovelock in the late 1960's and developed since
then by himself and many other scientists and philosophers.
However, while I believe that Gaia Theory has the potential
to create a global paradigm shift as significant as those
catalysed by Copernicus and Galileo, currently it is still
only understood by a small minority of people and accepted
by even less.
A major reason for the marginalisation of such a significant
breakthrough in human understanding is the “ecopathic”
(ecologically damaging) state of mind which perfuses todays
technocentric societies. However, what I will focus on in
this essay is the suggestion that an equally significant,
and perhaps related, cause of this marginalisation is Gaia
Theory’s strong association with the female gender.
Since any philosophy with a strong gender polarisation tends
to create opposition from the other gender, Gaia Theory
will encourage marginalisation and rejection from those
who have strong beliefs in the primacy of the male gender,
be they religious or scientific. This issue is particularly
significant in todays world where male dominance is still
the key driving force behind most human development. I therefore
suggest that we need to be very clear about the relevance
of femininity to the concept of the living Earth, if Gaia
Theory is to become more widely understood and accepted.
If we explore this issue and agree that gender is an essential
element, all well and good, but if we discover that it is
not, we will need to begin developing a new language and
symbolism which goes beyond gender. To begin such a journey
it is therefore important to understand why the Earth has
traditionally been seen as a female entity.
Earth as a Mother
Perceiving the Earth as a mother figure is one of the oldest
mythological perspectives in human history. We know that
our ancient ancestors carved talismans in the shape of hugely
pregnant women and some of the earliest places of worship,
initiation and sacrament were cave systems running deep
into the dark safety of the Earth. It is easy to see why
this was and, for many indigenous peoples across the world
today, still is the case. As ancient people gathered plants
for food, they would have noticed how they grew up out of
the soil and likened this to the seemingly miraculous feat
of human pregnancy and birth. The soil was therefore seen
as the fertile womb and the seed/plant as the child being
born. Our ancestors would have also noticed how all animals
depend on plants for sustenance, hence all biological life
became seen to be “born” from the Earth Mother.
If we also look at the landscape as a whole, it undulates
with feminine curves, gives “birth” to life-giving
streams and rivers and offers safety in the form of its
many cave systems. This fact was honoured by ancient peoples
through the construction of temples and shrines in the form
of mounds, chambers, fougous and sacred wells or springs.
The Earth was therefore attributed with the same fertile
and generative power as the female womb, and all plants
and animals, including ourselves, were seen as “her”
children.
As culture and language developed, the Earth Mother became
known by many different names. To the Ancient Greeks she
was Gaia or Gaea, mother of all the other gods goddesses
and an extension of the word Ge meaning earth. The Celts
had numerous names for her such as Erce or Ertha in the
Germanic tribes, and Danu, Dana or Anu in ancient Ireland.
In Africa she has many names including Ala in Nigeria and
Asase Yaa in the Ashanti tribe of West Africa. Indians know
her as Devi, the Chinese called her Hu Tu and Native Americans
have many names for her, including Ambika and Maka. The
perception of the Earth as a mother was therefore a globally
recognised way of seeing the planet as a living organism
which encouraged the principles of respecting nature and
living within the carrying capacity of local ecosystems
to become woven into cultural mythologies creating societies
which were ecologically literate and ecologically loving.
In addition to seeing the Earth as mother of many “children”,
it is also possible to see the biosphere as the sole offspring
of the planet, since Gaia Theory suggests that it functions
as a single integrated system. This perspective ties in
with some observable facts about the development of the
Earth’s biosphere. While cellular life is of a completely
different order of organisation and complexity to the surrounding
geochemical Earth system, it is still infused by and dependant
upon its salts, water and gases. Similar to a child in the
human womb, this “bio-web” of cellular life
seems to have greatly influenced the physiology of its surrounding
environment, the crustal surface of the Earth, to form the
biosphere. The evolution of cellular life over the last
3.5 billion years can therefore be seen as the development
of a complex planetary super-organism in utero. Particularly
significant is the similarity of our emerging global human
infrastructure, which has been likened to a global neural
system or brain, usually the last organ to develop fully
in highly complex organisms (1). This idea of the Earth
being “pregnant” with a “biosphere child”
creates a more gender-balanced scenario, since it portrays
the “feminine” Earth and the “masculine”
Sun working together in a way which is similar to sexual
coupling. It also ties in with the archetypal relationship
of Gaia with the Green Man, who represents the plant kingdom
and the gift of photosynthesis, which is the driving force
behind virtually all life in the biosphere. The Green Man
is archetypally perceived as the child and then lover of
the parent Earth Goddess whose everlasting relationship
with her maintains the seasonal cycle of life, death and
rebirth which pulses year after year around the planet.
Viewing the Earth as a mother, of either many children or
of a single “biosphere child” therefore provides
an easy link for us between the everyday life of which we
are a part and the inherent fertility of the Earth. It is
therefore understandable why Gaia was the name chosen to
describe James Lovelock’s theory of the Earth functioning
as a single living organism. It does however, encourage
us to see the Earth as two separate systems - the lithosphere
(mother) and the biosphere (children or child). It also
encourages us to see the Earth as an “other”,
out of which we have emerged, rather than an extension of
the “self” that we all fundamentally are. If
we look at the direction which contemporary science is taking
in its attempt to describe the patterns of a living universe
it is possible to see that a different principle is emerging,
that of the holon. This could provide us with new
language and symbolism to describe the aliveness of the
planet Earth.
Earth as a Holon
Over 25 years ago the Hungarian author and philosopher Arthur
Koestler developed the term holon to describe the organisation
of biological and social systems (2). Holon comes from the
Greek words holos, meaning whole and on, meaning
part or particle. It implies a kind of organisation where
a system has a level of self autonomy and an embededness
within a larger system e.g. the organs in our body are relatively
well defined in themselves and yet they are embedded within
the wholeness of our body. This relationship between holons
of different levels is known as a holarchy and can be seen
to exist across the whole universe from the level of the
universe itself, down through galaxies, solar systems and
planets, to organisms, cells, molecules and atoms. The Earth
is therefore embedded within the holon of the Solar System,
whilst containing its own holarchy of organisms, cells,
molecules and atoms. If we then define living organisms
simply as self-organising systems, a theory called autopoiesis
first put forward by Maturana and Verala in 1972, holons
at every level in the Universe may be seen as being alive
by virtue of maintaining their overall structure whilst
undergoing continous and profound internal transformations
(3). Hence, the holon is a way of describing living systems
in their own right, and therefore appears to transcend the
need for genderisation. We thus have a situation where many
of the living systems throughout the universe, including
the Earth, can be described without referring to gender.
If, however, we explore the internal structure of holons
in greater detail, an interesting pattern emerges. Each
contains a clearly defined centre which is usually hot and
radiant, and a cooler periphery where more complex and stable
structures form. This basic pattern of organisation exists
at every level we choose to examine. Our galaxy, the Milky
Way has a relatively hot solar “bulge” at its
centre and cooler gaseous “arms” at its periphery,
where nebulae, the pre-cursors to solar systems, are formed
(4). At the heart of our Solar System lies the Sun, a massive
sphere of blazing gas, surrounded by circulating planets,
asteroids and comets, all of which formed from an earlier
accretion ring which contained all the elements that were
too heavy to be dragged into the growing Sun (5). Earth
itself has a molten central core and mantle, with a cooler
crust at its periphery. The structure of cells and atoms
also follow this pattern with a central nucleus that is
relatively dense and the peripheral cytoplasm or electron
cloud which is more expanded. Even the structure of the
Universe itself shows a similar pattern, with the hot centre
out of which energy first exploded and the peripheral cooling
process where the first particles formed the nascent clouds
of proto-galaxies. Thus, the apparent genderless nature
of holons contains a duality of internal form which reflects
gender, a universal observation that is also depicted in
the ancient Taoist system of yin and yang.
Looking at this gendered structure of holons in the context
of the evolution of the universe, it is possible to see
a third pattern emerging. Each new level of the holarchy
seems to form within the feminine or yin region
of the holon i.e. the cooling particles of the Big Bang
form galaxies, the peripheral arms of galaxies produce nebulae,
the accretion rings of Solar Systems create planets and
the surface of fertile planets produce cells. By contrast
the masculine, hot-centres and their radiant energy appear
to be the power house of the holon which catalyses the creation
of its peripheral, feminine, zone and the consequent emergence
of greater complexity there which forms the next level of
the holarchy. Thus the development of our Sun initiated
the formation of the surrounding accretion ring from which
the planets appeared and the dense compaction of the Earth’s
core caused the lighter crustal environment to coaggulate
around it, which provided the more stable environment for
cellular life to evolve. It appears then, that the feminine
aspect of a holon contains the form and location
for a new level of the holarchy to emerge, while the masculine
aspect provides the energy which catalyses this
process. We can therefore say that the Earth exists as a
holon containing the male/female duality of its parent Solar
System, rather than seeing the Earth only as a feminine
counterpart to the masculine Sun.
If we look at this perspective in the context of the wider
universal holarchy, it appears that at almost every level,
from the whole universe down to simple cells, the duality
of gender exists simply as a dual tendency within
the single overall holon which ultimately produces a new
level of holarchy. Only on the Earth, when simple cells
become more complex and begin to form multicellular organisms,
do these two tendencies appear as two separate forms, i.e.
the male and female. It therefore seems that the norm for
the evolving universe is to form holons like galaxies, solar
systems, planets and simple cells, which include, but also
transcend, gender. Perhaps then, it is because we have viewed
the internal structure of these holons from our own human
perspective of having genders in two separate forms, that
we have projected either a feminine or masculine onto them.
We therefore appear to have assumed that the Earth must
be either male or female and ascribed it with the
gender which fits most closely with our societal needs,
rather than seeing the planet as a complete holon in its
own right emerging from its parent Solar System. With this
in mind, it seems reasonably clear that we cannot portray
the living Earth as both a holon and purely female at the
same time. If this is the case, how could we begin to characterise
the Earth as a living organism in a way reflects its true
nature as a holon combining both genders?
Earth as a Child
If we go back to the beginnings of our Solar System we simply
see the massive cloud of gas and dust that we call a nebula.
Then, through either the seeding of the cloud by the remains
of an exploding supernova, or the simple attraction of two
hydrogen atoms within the cloud, a snowballing effect is
created where the lightest atoms of hydrogen and helium
are drawn together (6). Eventually the density of the tightly
packing atoms causes them to ignite and form the nascent
star which is now our Sun. As more and more hydrogen and
helium atoms are pulled into the growing “proto Sun”,
the accretion ring of the remaining heavier elements is
formed around it. Attractive processes between atoms within
the accretion ring then enable a similar snowballing effect
to occur which produces all of the planets in the Solar
System, including the Earth. The consequent evolution of
the Earth to ever greater complexity can therefore be seen
as the development of a “child” of the Solar
System. This process is dependant upon the energising warmth
of the Sun, much in the same way as we might view the sprouting
of a young plant from its seed, the development of a chick
inside its incubated egg, or the formation of a human embryo
from a single cell. The important philosophical shift here
is to begin seeing the accretion ring of the early Solar
System as the feminine counterpoint to the masculine Sun,
out of which the next level of complexity (the planets)
emerges, rather than the individual Earth. Earth can then
be seen as a holon containing both genders which makes it
inherently fertile.
A key element to this ideology is being able to understand
the Earth as a single system rather than the traditional
separation of the biosphere from the lithosphere. As long
ago as the 1920’s the Russian geochemist Vladimir
Vernadsky began to use the term “biosphere”
to describe the relationship between the lithosphere and
biological life as a single continuum - “a disperse
of rock” . The evolutionary biologist Elizabet Sahtouris
eloquently develops this idea further by talking about biological
life as “ rock rearranging itself - like music come
alive - packaging itself as cells, speeding its chemical
changes with enzymes…..transforming itself into ever-evolving
creatures and back into rock”. She also compares the
living Earth with a Giant Redwood, which is mostly inert
cellulose surrounded by a thin surface layer of biochemically
active cells. Thus we begin to see that the thin surface
layer of biological “life” which surrounds the
Earth is simply an emergent complexity from within the larger
“living” mineral body of the planet.
Seeing the Earth as a growing child rather than a pregnant
mother enables us to view the biosphere as a developing
organ within a larger body. If we look at the infrastructure
of the biosphere, with its high levels of complexity and
interconnectedness between individual species, it looks
increasingly like a massive information sharing network.
The information, in many forms, including molecular structures,
images and sounds, has gradually been assimilated over billions
of years with an increasing level of awareness and clarity
that is perhaps peaking with the emergence of humanity.
It is commonly proposed that humanity alone represents the
“brain” of the Earth, but I feel that this is
far too anthropocentric and misses the immense complexity
and information sharing which goes on between all other
forms of biological life from blue whales to bacteria. This
perspective is supported by the revolutionary work of the
microbiologist Lynne Margulis who has shown that bacteria,
the earliest form of biological life, are able to exchange
their DNA at will thus creating the first incarnation of
the World Wide Web. I therefore suggest that the whole global
ecosystem is functioning as kind of planetary brain, a brain
which has been developing over the last 3.5 billion years.
Indeed it is even possible to see the Earth in toto as a
developing sensory organ of the larger living Solar System.
This concurs with the views of French philosopher, Pierre
Tielhard de Chadin, who proposed that humanity was a part
of the generation of a new sphere of the Earth system connected
with thought and consciousness which he termed the noosphere
(7). While he maintained that humanity was integral to the
noosphere’s development, he suggested that it was
ultimately a planetary phenomenon which would be
able to “think” in ways which transcended our
current level of understanding. Tielhard de Chadin’s
ideas have been explored and popularised by ecophilosophers
such as Peter Russell, who suggests that, within the larger
planetary “brain”, humanity can be seen to represent
the area which is involved with the development of self-consciousness
i.e. the equivalent to the frontal lobe of the human brain.
This possibility provides us with a clear role for humanity
within the larger living system of the Earth and shows us
that our desire to continuously develop our ability to communicate
information and ideas through telephone, television and
computer is just as much a part of the Earth’s natural
systems as oceans, trees and blue-green algae. Seeing ourselves
as being a part of a developing planetary child allows the
possibility of transcending the gender conflicts which have
occurred so often throughout human history over the ways
in which we view the world around and within us. It also
provides an explanation for our apparently continuous drive
towards development and learning, and could potentially
offer a suitable focus for us to begin synergistically linking
our intricate and powerful technologies back into the deeper
rhythms of the Earth as a whole.
Beyond Gaia?
Our ancient ancestors intuitively knew that the Earth was
alive and that every human life was a part of the larger
life of the Earth. This awareness has waxed and waned over
the millennia of technological development, but it is never
more significant and poignant than today where there is
increasing evidence that our way of life is akin to a form
of self-harming on a global scale. Whilst our collective
addiction to technology and the apparent comforts which
it provides is clearly a key factor in the ecopathic state
of the so-called “developed” world, the conflict
between the genders is also hugely significant, perhaps
even more so. The fact that the Earth has consistently been
seen to be a feminine organism by most of those who have
felt the planetary pulse in their hearts, has no doubt encouraged
the ecological vandalism of cultures who have planted their
flag on the other great pole of existence - the masculine.
In this essay I have explored the reasons why the Earth
has traditionally been seen as a Mother and how this perspective
can be seen to contradict the contemporary scientific view
of the Earth as a holon which contains both genders. An
alternative is to see the Earth as a developing child, which
is becoming increasingly self-aware and intelligent. One
conclusion which may be drawn from these ideas is that much
depends on the perspective from which you define the living
Earth. If you view the Earth from the place of an individual
human it does indeed look as though you’ve emerged
from the fertile womb of a great Mother. This even holds
if you take on the perspective of the biosphere as a single
integrated offspring of the Earth.
However, if you shift your perspective to that of the planet
as a whole, the situation changes. The biosphere suddenly
seems more like an immensely complex organ of sensitivity
which you are developing to explore your local environment
(the surrounding universe) and gain a greater awareness
of oneself as a planetary organism. You begin to notice
the holonic pattern of the universe and realise that you
are an emergent offspring of the Solar System, together
with other planets. Does this “Earth Child”
perspective provide a strong enough case for moving on from
the name Gaia in order to describe the science and philosophy
of the Earth as a living being? My answer is “yes”
and “no”! Genderised perspectives of our surrounding
world are essential because they are often objectively true,
but perhaps more importantly they also provide a clear link
to our subjective life and being. I therefore think that
there will always be relevance in using gender to describe
the living Earth as “other” i.e. “she”
or “her”, however, when we think of the living
Earth as a greater aspect of our own “self”,
we may need to go beyond gender.
In his seminal work on the evolution of masculinity, Iron
John – A Book About Men, the poet and scholar
Robert Bly develops the notion of a “deep masculinity”
which lies close to the Earth and embodies a wetness and
a groundedness which goes beyond the usual link between
maleness, fire and intensity (8). This notion of an earthy
masculinity therefore invites a stronger connection and
relationship with the dark and oceanic nature of the feminine.
We may therefore need to look in a similar way for a “deep
femininity” which goes beyond our conventional notions
of mother and out into the complex web of life that is our
living planet. Such a possibility is hinted at by Joanna
Macy in her excellent study of Buddhist psychology and ecology,
World as Lover, World as Self (9). She describes
a “Mother of All Buddhas" who transcends
ordinary definitions of self and other to embody the source
of the Buddha’s doctrine of dependant co-arising
(the universal inter-relationship of all things). Macy states
that - “Freed from the dichotomies which oppose earth
to sky, flesh to spirit, the feminine appears here clothed
in light and space…”. The Mother of All Buddhas
is therefore a metaphor for the original living wisdom within
all beings, regardless of gender. “She” is also
acknowledged in some translations of a particular section
of the ancient Taoist text the Tao Te Ching (10):
“The Valley Spirit never dies
It is called Mysterious Female.
The entrance to the Mysterious Female
Is called the root of Heaven and Earth.
Endless flow
Of inexhaustible energy.”
If we allow such images of the deep feminine to perfuse
our description of the living Earth, together with those
of the deep masculine, we can begin to open to words and
images which transcend our ordinary notions of gender.
Paul Shepard, in his radical work on ecology and human psychological
development, Nature and Madness, proposes that
our ecopathology begins with the Goddess-worshipping agricultural
societies of the pre-classical world, rather than their
later destruction by the male-dominated pastoral peoples
(11). The point he makes is that in pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer
societies, as children developed, their original identification
with their biological mother as the prime source of nourishment
and wellbeing gradually shifted outwards to their surrounding
environment. Shepard suggests that in agricultural societies
this shift was inhibited by the anthropomorphic portrayal
of the surrounding environment as the mother image of the
Great Goddess, causing people to maintain a relatively infantile
relationship with the Earth. He therefore makes the distinction
between seeing the living Earth as “mother”
and “matrix”, the latter perspective enabling
children to develop a more pluralistic relationship with
the living world around them and mature fully.
The word matrix comes from the same ancient root
as mother, “ma”, but while implying a similar
inherent fertility, it also embodies a pluralistic meaning
which serves to transcend simple genderised terms of identification.
An “Earth Matrix” therefore suggests
a planetary web or net, as well as a womb, which offers
more possibilities of identification with both genders simultaneously.
It also ties in with recent experiential discoveries such
as the “web-string” theory and practice of ecotherapist
Michael Cohen, who suggests that we can view our relationship
with all aspects of the natural world as energetic threads
along which communication can occur both ways e.g. our connection
with a flower or an animal (12). This perspective, similar
to the ancient Saxon worldview known as “wyrd”,
meaning web (13), has very recently been further confirmed
by the discoveries of the Virgo Consortium, who have spent
the last 10 years simulating the development of our universe
(14). Their images of how billions of galaxies relate to
each other show that what we have previously seen as discrete
collections of stars and nebulae, are in fact linked in
one giant network of light. Thus, if the base structure
of the universe is being viewed as a matrix, then seeing
the living Earth as a matrix becomes more acceptable. Perhaps
then the core issue here is not whether it’s appropriate
or not to use a feminine name to describe the living Earth,
but what we actually mean when we use the word “Gaia”
in this context. Are we attempting to re-create the primacy
of the human mother, as our early agrarian ancestors did,
or are we looking for a more pluralistic definition which
includes the possibilities for the expression of Earth’s
female, male and beyond-gender aspects, as a developing
planetary organism?
I would agree with the latter sentiment and suggest that
it is time for us to move on from the conventional meaning
of Gaia which we have inherited from the Ancient Greeks,
and see our planetary self in a new light as a matrix rather
than simply a mother, and as a developing child rather than
a mature adult. This would enable both women and men to
see themselves more easily as part of the larger planetary
organism that is the Earth. It would also offer more opportunities
to include people of different cultures and backgrounds
around the world in the exploration of their relationship
with the living Earth, particularly those who adhere to
a masculine deist or purely scientific perspective such
as our own. The word “Gaia” itself does seem
to have a definite resonance and soulfulness which almost
feels like a gift from the Earth itself to us awakening
humans, so I feel fully supportive of continuing to use
it when referring to the living Earth. However, I believe
that for Gaia to become properly recognised and respected
as a living organism, it will be up to the growing community
of ecopsychologists to clarify what we collectively mean
when we use this name and then communicate this understanding
more effectively and proactively in wider society. Hopefully
this essay will stimulate a useful discussion which enables
us to move closer to achieving this goal!
Here’s then to Gaia, the Earth Matrix! May this incredible,
unique and deeply beautiful life system continue journeying
towards greater self awareness and ever deeper understanding
of our place in the cosmos.
Andrew Rothery
June 2005
References
1. Russell, Peter - The Awakening Earth, (1988),
pubs. Fontana.
2. Sahtouris, Elizabet - Earth Dance, (1999), Internet
Publication
3. Capra, Fritjof - The Web of Life, (1996), pubs.
Harper Collins
4. Love, Jamie - The Formation of Our Solar System and
Long Period Comets, (2001 -2004), Internet
5. Origins Education Forum - The Birth and Formation
of Galaxies, (2004), Internet
6. Roberge, Aki - Planetary Formation and Our Solar
System, (1997), Seminar Paper, Internet
7. Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre - The Phenomenon of Man,
(1980), pubs. Fontana.
8. Bly, Robert - Iron John - A Book About Men,
(1990), pubs. Element Books.
9. Macy, Joanna – World as Lover, World as Self,
(1991), pubs. Parallax Press.
10. Lao-tzu – The Tao Te Ching, Trans. Stephen
Aldiss and Stanley Lombardo, (1993),
11. Shepard, Paul - Nature and Madness, (1982),
pubs. University of Georgia Press.
12. Cohen, Michael – Natural Systems Thinking
Process, (2002), Internet
13. Bates, Brian – The Way of Wyrd (2005),
pubs. Hay House.
14. Virgo Consortium - Millennium Simulation, (2005),
Press Release from Institute for Computational Cosmology,
University of Durham
Pubs. – Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
|
