Intimacy and Contrariness

Aristotle famously defined human beings as "rational animals." With this, humanity was easily distinguished from the rest of the animal world. Within the history of western thought, it also helped forge certain allegiences. When Christian writers wanted to illustrate the uniqueness of humanity, the rational facility became associated with the concept of soul. (St. Thomas is largely credited with reintroducing Aristole as a respectable presence within the western academy.) Indeed, the German word 'Geist' means both Mind and Spirit!

There is however an arbitariness with such a defination. We can understand human beings in many different ways. One can, for instance, see the capacity of intimacy that human beings display as something distinguishable by degree. True, we can see the capacity for intimacy with Elephants and Dolphens. Yet, such intimacy is expressed physically. In human beings, it can be displayed in a manifold manner.

Before getting ahead of ourselves it is worth reflecting upon what we mean by this word. First, intimacy is generally understood to imply closeness. This is easy enough understood when discribing the kind of physical proximity between lovers. We can also be intimate with friends in a non-sexual way. We may share our concerns with a friend, confiding desires, hopes, diasappointments etc. We still may be considered close to such a friend but this 'closeness' is understood by way of analogy. Second, there comes with this intimacy, whether physical or intellectual, a measure of trust. We choose those people who we wish to be intimate with. As individuals, we do not always allow the public complete excess to our body and soul. Sometimes, we have learnt not to trust certain thoughts and feelings through bitter experience. The friend who laughs when a desire is expressed can quickly become a stranger. Such pain can also help build a wall around that which we consider most sacred.

Already we can see how different this is to the notion that human beings are 'rational animals'. Rationality is something non-personal, objective and open to public view. Intimacy, on the otherhand, is something different from the public persona, something beyond dialogues of Truth and Falsehood. It is for this reason that intimacy can have such an subversive effect.

When one thinks of Romeo and Juliette, we see the lovers rebelling against the wishes of two waring families. In George Orwell's 1984, Winston Smith tries to get beyond the eyes of Big Brother, seeking privacy in order to become intimate with a secret lover. Such intimacy is an act of contrariness, a subversive action beyond the control of the offical dialogues of history, state, meaning and purpose. The desire to become intimate is something entirely human but not in the Aristotlian sense.

Promiscuity

When we think of promiscuity, we most often think of sexual promiscuity. This word, however, can have a wider significance and can also be applied to musical tastes or intellectual endeavour. It is possible for instance, to think of someone as intellectually promiscous. The very existence of the word tells us something very significant about our place in the world and our mode of being. It can also demonstrate what Martin Heidegger means by the often quoted line: "Language is the house of Being."

Within this word there are several related associations. One of the most important is that of faithfulness. When one is faithful to a wife, one is generally not thought of as being promiscous. Within the academy, an academic will tend to stick to the topic matter that she is deemed to have expertise. And likewise, all but the most brave musicians will stick within a specific genre of music once they have established themselves and have a fan base.

I have a real issue with this. To start with, it is generally not accepted that a man can love more than one woman at a time. How many times has the following line been said in the heat of martial battle: "If you loved me..., you wouldn't have slept with her!" Human society has also developped various schools of thought with named subjects, to deliniate lines of influence and control. What can a geographer know about the sociology of post industrial society? And within the history of modern music, several genres have sprung up and cliques established. Is there not something fundamentally dishonest about this way viewing things?

The harsh truth is that it is possible for a man to love more than one woman at a time. This may be a taboo thing to admit but it does make sense. Love does not of necessity imply exclusivity. It is also possible that a geographer can know a great deal about sociology- and for individuals to make more than one type of music. We only need to refer back to the great polymaths of the past as evidence of this. In my mind at the moment is Aristotle.

Now, this does not imply that people should not choose to make a commitment of exclusivity, say in a long term relationship. That is up to the individuals involved. Nor is there anything wrong with someone pursuing painting for the rest of their life without feeling the need to pick up a guitar. It is impossible to experience everything in life and one does have to make choices.

But that is not the issue. Rather, when we tend to see people as types: (The married man, the heavy metal singer, the geographer)- we divest them of their complexity and the latent possibilities therein. There is an attraction to this way of thinking because it is easier. It is also more dangerous for we understand the world less. The people we associate with can also let us down in ways we find hard even to imagine.