Forceful Big Vs Delicate Small
That’s the title of a PhD dissertation by Elaine Aaron. Here’s what she says:
Archetypes, as Jung said, have dual aspects. The archetype of forceful big is the counterpart, or opposite, of the archetype of delicate small. Once forceful big enters the scene, there is no more space for delicate small. It gets crushed.
This observation alone is worth the dissertation. Think about it. Absorb its implications. What does it tell you about intractible situations in this world? What does it tell you about your own life? How can you re-open a space for delicate small?
The paradigm symbol for delicate small is the little girl. Is the world safe for little girls? How do you change in the presence of a little girl?
So how did forceful big arise, since it clearly arose after delicate small, if its presence signals the end for delicate small? Aaron theorises that it arose on the steppes of central Asia, with the domestication of the horse. People who rode got used to speed, and to subjugating someone else (the horse) in order to self-gratify with more speed. Then with that knowledge of the gratification you can get from someone else’s pain, and with the practice they had gained at hardening themselves to that, they took to raiding, and did it to other people.
Gradually the habit of subjugating others took over–because it’s in the nature of things that once forceful big arrives, then delicate small cannot resist.
Is that true? Perhaps that is the big Tibetan experiment…can they really maintain that compassion in the face of unyielding force? Can delicate small persist, like a tattered flower respringing after the passage of hooves?
I read this dissertation five years ago, and it is still with me.
What does it tell me about my own life?
How can I open and hold a space for delicate small?
Can it be done at all in the presence of so much that is forceful and big?
Can it be done in a world that taught me to deny the wisdom of the little girl I once was?
This entry is not about me. It’s about you too.
Where is your delicate small?
Tags: culture, misc, politics, spirituality
Nov 05, 2008
Thank you for your thoughts…they are particularly apt as we look at the “long now”.
Is there a copy of Elaine Aaron’s thesis available anywhere?
Your work in Burundi with VHW is inspiring.
Nov 05, 2008
I think of mycelium. Yes, the individual tendrils are delicate and small, but taken together they can form huge, underground organisms that support massive diverse ecosystems above ground.
Paul Stamets is working on ways for fungi to do advanced remediation of complex hydrocarbons and other contaminants.
David Blume says cattails can take apart estrogen-like compounds, hormone disruptors so common now from industrial processes.
Toby Hemenway’s book, Gaia’s Garden, contains a description of a reclamation of desolate desert in the southwest, with a small water allotment. Microclimates were formed, and the ground became intensely diverse and productive, with mushrooms even appearing eventually.
To be sure to give credit where it is due, the garden described above is that of sculptor Roxanne Swentzell in the high desert north of Santa Fe, New Mexico. The name of her garden is Flowering Tree Permaculture Institute. Toby’s description is inspiring.
Permaculture designer Joel Glanzberg helped Roxanne and her two children drag in rocks and logs for shade. They dug swales and created sheltered spots where seeds could germinate and where evaporation was slowed.
By tribal agreement, she was able to have some water once per week.
I have heard of farmed out hard-pan being remediated with drilled holes that form micro-climates, and that rocks placed near the holes accelerate the change because of micro-shade. I encountered this in a story about Africa. I cannot remember the names and exact locations. A Google of permaculture and Africa might bring it up.
The work of Geoff Laughton also shows some of these processes beautifully. I have also enjoyed the videos of Mollison, In Fear of Falling Food–I think that is the title.
David Blume has pointed out that some of the big corporations work to prevent surplus because surpluses mean less profit-per-unit. I also know that diversity and permaculture get criticized for not being productive enough to feed huge populations.
Wangari Maathi and Vandana Shiva do not look forceful and big, but their work has changed the world dramatically. Forceful, big men would likely have been plowed down in confronting power as they have done. They used words and stories in their work, and they have referred back to the plants that nurtured the places where they began: fig trees for Wangari Maathi and neem for Vandana Shiva.
Opportunity is present in our current financial situation. For those who want to see flowering of delicate and small, there is no better time to start and no better place than a back yard or even a windowsill.
Thanks to Elaine Aaron for the thesis and to Rachel Vaughn for this posting.
Nov 05, 2008
A reference copy of her thesis is lodged with the library at Pacifica Graduate Institute, Santa Barbara. I wrote to her and she said I might be able to get a copy at some central repository for psych PHDs, but I can’t remember where it was.
Nov 05, 2008
Hi:
I recommend reading a really good book called “Where the Wild Things Were” by William Stolzenburg. It addresses the issue of large predators being exterminated and the effect that has had on everything, including the small delicate.
There is a strange, compelling and awesome balance between the ‘forceful big’ and the ‘delicate small’.
Nov 06, 2008
A book called Dying Languages by Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine describes how biodiversity and language diversity go together — I highly recommend it; the amount of specific local information encoded in ’small’ languages is (was) invaluable