The following is excerpted from a must read essay by Bernard Lietaer:
* Article: The Monetary Blindspot. Bernard Lietaer
The essay is extracted from chapter 2 of a book forthcoming with McMillan, edited by Simon Mouatt and Carl Adams with working title “Societal Change and Monetary Innovations”
The scribd download has an nice graphic contrasting male yang currency organisation and value coherence with yin matrifocal ones.
Bernard Lietaer:
“All patriarchal societies in history have had the tendency to impose a monopoly of a single currency, hierarchically issued, naturally scarce or artificially kept scarce, and with positive interest rates. This was for instance the case in Sumer and Babylon, in Greece and Rome, and from the Renaissance onwards in Western societies all the way to today. The form of these currencies has varied widely, ranging from standardized commodities, precious metals, paper or electronic bits. But what they all have in common is that governments accepted only that specific currency for payment of taxes, that this currency could be stored and accumulated, and that borrowing such currencies implied payment of interest.
In contrast, matrifocal societies have tended to use a dual currency system: one currency (typically identical to the surrounding patriarchal societies) for trading long distance with people one doesn’t know; and a second type of currency for exchanges within one’s own local community. This second type of currency, with Yin characteristics, was usually created locally (often by the users themselves); was issued in sufficiency; and didn’t have interest. In the most sophisticated cases, this currency even had a demurrage fee – a negative interest equivalent to a parking fee on money -, which would discourage its accumulation. In short, it would be used as a pure medium of exchange, not as a store of value. This was the case, for instance, with the corn-backed currencies that lasted for well over a millennium in Dynastic Egypt that was one of the secrets of the wealth of that ancient society (Preisigke, 1910) (Lietaer, 2000) .
Notice that we are talking about “matrifocal” societies, not matriarchal ones, because there is no evidence that genuine matriarchal societies have actually existed in reality. In a purely matriarchal society, the only role for a male would be procreation. The Amazons are an example of such a society, but they have only existed in the imagination of the Greeks, as no historical or archeological evidence for such an Amazon society has ever shown up. In contrast, matrifocal societies, defined as those where feminine values are honored, while less frequent than patriarchal ones, have existed in various parts of the world. The easiest way to detect them is to look at their vision of the divine.
In a matrifocal society, it is a goddess or goddesses that play the most important roles, such as being a “Co-Creator” or a “Savior”. In comparison, in patriarchal societies it is invariably a male god that plays this role; and in monotheistic religions a single male God plays even all the divine roles. Examples of matrifocal societies include Dynastic Egypt (where Isis was the Savior), or the Central Middle Ages in Western Europe (roughly from the 10th to the 13th century, the period of Courtly Love, also called the Age of Cathedrals which were most frequently dedicated to a Lady). In both these historical societies, a dual currency system prevailed. Detailed evidence for these claims is provided elsewhere (Lietaer, 2000).”
Another little bit of cultural marxist bullshit: anti-male, anti-white, anti-western. Male, white and western equals to WRONG and ERROR. What I love the most is the way these people just create out of thin air their narratives and then, in a very “deconstructionist”, “Critical Theory” way, push them forward as self-evident truths and historic facts which don’t need any external checking. It’s grotesque.
“All patriarchal societies in history have had the tendency to impose a monopoly of a single currency”: false. There have been thousands and thousands of very patriarchal societies with a lot of parallel currencies. And you just have to go to the Europe of XIXth, XVIIIth and XVIIth centuries to find a good bunch of them. Here we got the first obvious lie. The first paragraph is a complete lie, very much in the red style.
“This was the case, for instance, with the corn-backed currencies that lasted for well over a millennium in Dynastic Egypt that was one of the secrets of the wealth of that ancient society (Preisigke, 1910) (Lietaer, 2000)”: unadultered bullshit. You can’t “trade long distance” with peoples located far away with a currency backed by your own perishable and variable production of corn. It’s absurd. To create some sort of “new agish yin-yan-yon femimaniac” nonsense to explain that fact is too clownish even for a post-modern leftard.
“In a purely matriarchal society, the only role for a male would be procreation.”
So, I guess that when they use to talk (and condemn) each and every historic society considered “patriarchal”, they are acting so because in those societies “the only role for women was procreation”. It’s something troublesome to accept: even the taliban let the women take care of children and home.
“In a matrifocal society, it is a goddess or goddesses that play the most important roles, such as being a “Co-Creator” or a “Savior”. In comparison, in patriarchal societies it is invariably a male god that plays this role; and in monotheistic religions a single male God plays even all the divine roles. Examples of matrifocal societies include Dynastic Egypt (where Isis was the Savior)”
Isis was the archetypal wife and mother, very much in the same line as the Holy Lady in Catholicism and Orthodox Churches, but not alone in the “Age of the Cathedrals”. It is her role even today. There isn’t the slightest relationship between the number and importance of goddesses and a “dual” system of currencies. In fact, the roman pantheon was filled with goddesses and in the XVIIth century Europe the currency system was not “dual”, but actually “plural”, in that there were a lot of legal currencies in each territory. Isis was important, that’s for sure. But she was far less important than Ra or Osiris.
I’m simply tired of these freudo-marxist toxic poisonous crap sold as “scholarship”. Its only objective is to debunk and destroy each and every european or euro-derived society in the world. They wont stop till the last of us has gone the way of the dodo.
I welcome challenges to Lietaer’s scholarship when they are grounded, and yours may be, or not. I’m presuming that Lietaer has studied it carefully though. However, Lietaer is absolutely not a marxist, not in any sense of the word, and none of the epithets you use to attack him make any sense in this particular context … and it is a shame that you mix dialogue with the kind of bile that your text is interspersed with. Normally, we filter personal attacks out, so please refrain from this style if you want to be published in the comments here.
Michel