Subject-subject relationship

5.0.09

more than deprecating subject-object interactions

The observation of subject-object relationships and the ideal of subject-subject relating to each other was one of the most challenging ideas presented by Harry Hay. Strangely, one does not hear of it in faerie sanctuaries that often, as many other topics and essentials of faerieness. It looks like it is almost implicitly expected that doing certain things (consensus circle, heart-circles, non-judgmental listening, gently-fied faerie-speech full of "dear", "love", "honey") it will be there automatically. Subject-subject interaction is not a dogma, more of a useful, thought-provoking and mind-blowing perspective. It is a hard to achieve ideal – but even a difficult concept to grasp – particularly because from the early childhood we are raised in subject-object environment that eventually feels very natural or normal.

Parents usually conceive their offsprings to continue their own genes and ideas about the world. Not seldom even the achievements (inheriting the profession or wealth). Sometimes it’s because parents want to give their life a universally-acclaimed meaning or because their religion or ideology tells them so (prevent the extinction of species). Quite often the children are expected to fulfill the expectations (grades), become excellent in something and bring the medals (make daddy proud), not seldom race horses trained beyond measure (denying kid’s multi-layered development, his private time, satisfying friendly and loving interactions) to allow the parents to brag in front of their own peers. Kids are parent’s flesh-and-blood patches to their parents insufficiency and unfulfilled dreams.

The similar dynamics often happens with students and their teachers. Trainers and trainees. The work environment detached from all romantic sauce is a breeding factory for subject-object relating. The bosses use the employees to get bonuses. The colleagues treat each-other with regard to mutual use and loyalty. Enterprise values the customers because they pay. It’s just business, but from the product it creeps into daily interactions and not rarely penetrates into the private life. The straight friendly relationship – putting aside the most obvious cases of peer-pressure, hierarchy of wolfpack, abusing each other to prove ones dominance (as in bullying) – are often based on mutual advantage. He is my friend because… he stand by me all the time, is loyal to me (even if I do something wrong), entertains me (so I am not bored), he is rich and often invites me, there are always nice girls around him, I want his sister, now and then he offers me a job, is my buddy in sport. It is hard to say how much human – biologically – can escape the optimalizing calculator.

The delusion of romantic relationships often stands on subject-object intentions. Often hidden even to us, in the subconscious space. The language reflects and perhaps even partially form the inherent dynamics: We "have relationships" and "have partners" - the possessive case is ominous - "because", "in order to". In the past in order to comply with the traditions, not to bring shame on the family and most commonly to improve its social standings. Children were objects married strategically, handled as non-sovereign objects. Social status, wealth – is quite usual motivation in modern relationships. Whether a criteria for searching, a decisive factor or a reason to stay. We seek partners that will make us feel safe, secure, protect us, help us in economic hardship. In order to build our home, share the daily work tasks, in order to help paying the mortgage, participate in raising children. In order to satisfy the prying neighbors. In order to put grandmas at peace. The desires and objectifications are even immaterial: Someone who will always be there. Someone to stand by me. Someone to listen to me. Someone to help me in sickness. Slowly getting further into "benign", "soft" expectations. Someone to make me happy. Someone to make me feel not so lonely. Someone to make me smile. Someone to make me feel that I am attractive and worthy of attention or love. In order that I don’t feel inadequate among all my coupled friends and colleagues. In order to give my life a meaning. Last but not least – we call the beloved ones as "objects of affection".

How deep can we go in subject-object scrutiny? How far is too far? What expectations are reasonable or acceptable. Can we avoid any expectation or function placed on our significant others, whatsoever? As such, the idea of subject-subject relationships is very demanding, triggering and painful. Perhaps, it can serve as an ideal to keep in mind? A practice of questioning, that ceases at the hazy borderline of being self-serving and unhealthy? A notion to live with, even if not living up to? The dark side of the relationship concept, not correct one, no wrong one, just the legitimate one?

Personally, one of the challenging features I find in gay community life is the sex space interactions. Particularly those crowded ones. People coming to me and – in the fervor of the game – just grabbing the body without consent, without even attempting to send and receive signals of interest from my side. Total abandonment of verbal and non-verbal communication. Perhaps in fear of rejection (that will come anyways, but here we speak of the ask-and-answer sort of, more challenging apparently), or just trying their luck. This may manifest in physical assaults, in using the live person as a "porn" to masturbate or even in looks that stick and cause discomfort. To some extent, this all may feel as a rape – non-voluntary interaction. Perhaps even on a social scale, when men pretend to offer a company or service as a pretext to touch unreachable "objects of interest". Tactfully and tactically occupying his personal space, claiming his time and disallowing him to interact with the other people.

The gay space – as a a regular mating space – works by the rules of attraction. Some people catch our interest, some not. We choose. For some this is unacceptable idea, perhaps evoking picking of the products from the shelves. Some are irritated by the presence of the artificial fashion imperatives of how body or dress should look like. Some habits in the selection process may be acquired (cultural), but many are just just there (biological). Choosing – stating the preference – is an expression of self, our uniqueness, our individuality. Though choosing as such is not evil, it is natural. Without accepting others’ right to rejection, we disown this right for us too … and at the end no one can receive a genuine "yes".

I often see people projecting the idealized ideologies to faerie space. Everyone loves everyone – not just approaching and treating each-other with love, but loving romantically and physically. Sometimes it feels like a dreamed-out paradise for those less successful in the cruel sexual playground of the outside world ("ugly", "old", "effeminate", "too sensitive", "unlucky", "demanding more", "focused on fair-play"). A place to grab young meat, because people "behave nicer". But there’s a line between being less inhibited by norms or practicing fierce competition and forcing oneself to "like everyone" because it is "good" (as in ideology). On my first gathering I have experienced a very memorable tantric work-shop, where in the middle we were asked to cruise around the room and choose a person to interact with in further exercises. The traumatic personal histories from the cruising spots (or gay world as such) have surface painfully. The looks, side-glances, closed-lids, walls, the self-doubt – the play of desire and rejection. Many were devastated, faeries gossiped and complained about the workshop and the lecturers for years. I rarely experienced anything more genuine. Even if it did not resolve personal dramas, the practice just allowed things to be seen. That invisible fabric of frustration and disappointments and grudge, that is there all the time, just covered by pink duvet of niceness.

No one is supposed to like you. No one is underdeveloped, superficial, stupid – because he does not acknowledge your inner beauty. We are attracted to characters and bodies. That’s what makes are homo-sexual. We have intrinsic and manufactured notions of beauty. The way your body looks is result of merciless but fair natural processes, unfair randomness of genetics, accidents, but also your contribution. Reading books because you prefer it – will not give you healthy figure of an athlete. If you consider physical aspect to be of lesser importance, please do ignore those whom you fancy visually, but they do not respond to you in the reciprocal way. Sanctuary or gathering is not a utopia/dystopia for spiritual beings without bodies – and complex web of attractions. Faerie space is not a place where beauty/ugliness selection/rejection do not exist. It’s an opportunity to grasp it and live it differently. To feel it, to see it, to find a way to work with it.

Another challenge I encountered was the reputation. I sort of assumed that faerie space will be devoid of the high school environment with labels sticking to people for good. Once one gets designated as hard-working, involved, power-faerie – not only the legend but also the expectations persists. I see it as a flattery, but also annoyance. Expectations oppress. In terms of subject-object thinking, besides all the self-doubt that one is fighting with throughout their life, being seen as useful leaves a weird aftertaste. Popular? Demanded? Dependent on? Being wanted because of having a purpose cries for subject-subject perspective. Being welcome in faerie circles as just oneself, unique and adequate and complete as one is. Being loved unconditionally.

Within the frame of human search for bigger picture – captured in the moment of mass celebration - the great political dramatists often abuse their citizens as the actors. Referencing a great novel by Azar Nafisi and example of ayatollah Khomeini, who "used" whole nation to model a perfect society, to his own personal taste. His own approach to decency, norms, relationships, dressing, relation to the divine. Executions and brutality under any regime manifest the same pattern omnipresent around the culture – the objectification. This happens on national level, within companies, peer groups, family and also may seep into the faerie interactions as well. The I becomes we, the preference becomes culture, the dislike turns into taboo.

Aside the cultural imprint, there might be a parallel, perhaps a bit more dangerous phenomena. It is no proved, but there might be a few more human species than homo sapiens. This to be taken with a perspective, as a metaphor. In a symbolic speech, there are people who look at the tree and see a beauty of complexity impossible to take in with all the details, the play of colors, the smells, the symbiotic life, the resilience, the change happening on different timescale, the interconnections with the surrounding organisms and the environment, the ecological, the social, the artistic concept. There are people who look at the tree as an object – the size, a shape in the space, with attributes, the material, the resource with use, the obstacle on their way, the word "tree". A scheme of objects surrounded by the objects. Of course, both perspective are relevant simultaneously – though there are humans who tend to incline predominantly to one side. The "technical types" move through life on the trajectory of their needs and interests, flow through the space of objects with labels (think of any machine-perceptions scene from the science-fiction movie). Impermeable to the radiant intrinsic beauty in "things", inanimate or animate.