I am and I am not

In Iunism, there is no set expectation of gender performance, but rather a system in which any expression is that of one or multiple Selves. In many colonialist, post-colonial or neo-colonial societies, the “traditional” ideals of gender (in accordance with a perceived set of categories) are limiting of the selves and their expressions. The central identity in these types of cultures, at least those descended from European imperialism, is the notion of the “masculine,” wherein a body born with the predominant “male” designation and traits are those who are the active participants. By centering of this portion of the whole identity, the systems are made to establish a kind of security that if one performs their own masculinity in following the described masculinity among the community, then they will be welcomed and accepted by the community.

Those who do not carry the predominant male designation or traits are thus treated systematically as passive participants; those born into predominant “female” bodies and are assigned that designation are thusly pushed into marginalization. To be an active member of the system, and of the community, expectations are that one engages in politics, academia, economics– one is expected to make the home and to establish it as a personal domain (wherein the system of the community is echoed with the paternal head-of-house). Active participation is a privilege given by the system in which an allowance is made for one to act. To be a passive participant is rather a systematic place in which one is acted upon. Predominant “female” people do not make the home, but rather they are to tend to it in accordance with the wishes of the predominant “male.” They are kept from engaging in politics, academia, and economics, and are either fed conclusions from their predominant “male,” or are excluded from conversations regarding the broader community or system.

By establishing such, there becomes an immediate dynamic in which the single aspect of a broader identity (the performance of masculinity) is conflated, and becomes synonymous with domination. Therefore, in a colonialist society, the masculine cannot exist without subjugation of other parties.

Human beings are social creatures by nature, and are also as much animal in the base need to survive as any other animals that do not have an expressed consciousness. Hunting is not a need for violence, but a need for food; concepts of personal property and landowning are relative to a need for shelter, and so one person may have disputes with their neighbor over where the property lines fall, but if a family across the river has more than both of them combined, there comes an expansion of the micro-community (the individual, the household, two households) to a larger community. As the notion of community expands, and a larger variety of greater variation from the “traditional” masculine becomes evident, the system responds by expanding the definition of the “other” to provide a more complex exclusivity to the active participants.

The “othering” of these groups can mostly be succinctly described: subjugation of the “traditional” feminine is one that is required by the system initially to establish domination within the household and the base purpose of the masculine; of foreigners (xenophobia) to ensure that the culture of domination is expressed as inherent and irrefutable, and that other cultures or performances of masculinity are flawed; of queerness, wherein a masculine identity cannot be domestically partnered with another masculine (as this upsets the previous notion of needing to subjugate the feminine), or to express a dissonance with the idea of “inherent” masculinity which is necessary for the domination of the system.

There is also the prominent subjugation of other races, (whiteness being centered) but this is more complex because it is derived from not only the colonial structure centering masculinity as defined by the system, but the colonial structure centering economic class. Race does not exist— or rather, it is a constructed piece of the whole identity in which wealthy Europeans could justify the colonial acts of dehumanization against many different groups across the globe. [As this particular topic is far more intricate, I will not be discussing in great depth the specific intersectionality of race and colonial masculinity as I feel I am intellectually in-equipped to participate in providing thoughts at this time. I will, however, note that the non-white masculine identities are treated as less mentally developed as the white masculine. This provides a severe context in which non-white masculines are seen as more feminine (thus necessitating domination in accordance with the established colonial system), non- or sub-human (which necessitates domination, but more including a threat of unchecked violence and establishing the dominant role as protector), or childlike (which also necessitates domination echoed similar to ideas of Manifest Destiny and the “White Man’s Burden,” wherein non-white people in general are believed to need the guidance of the white masculine to live fulfilling lives).]

The role of the masculine as “protector” would not exist in a world without anyone to call an enemy. To preserve the set hierarchies, then, the masculine must participate as both defender and offender. The identity of the “traditional” masculine, therefore, is in a perpetual state that requires it to act— and the particular action that yields the highest degree of domination (and subsequently success within the system) is violence, whether to subjugate others or to play the role of “protector” and enact violence against the perceived enemy.

This is certainly a discussion that draws many strong emotions. In colonial and post-colonial societies, the individual is regarded as only a body (to labor) and the ego (the identity). The other Selves (heart, mind, shadow) are joined to the ego, such that to question or critique one’s identity becomes a questioning or a critique of the system. However, given the (white, straight, cisgender) masculine is the centered actor of the system, those who are defined by it are programmed to act in its defense. Fear inflicted by the masculine is, in turn, reflected internally as a dependency on the system– without which, according to the system, the masculine has no definition.

Under Iunism, the Whole Self (Kahn) is defined by the five Selves (Kehnehn) and the interactions between them and the broader world. While there is no inherent “masculine” or “feminine,” such genders can be practiced as defined by the individual, rather than by a community or society. The Kahn is both active and passive; giving action to the ego for self-realization, but the body becomes passive, operating at the whims of the other Selves. Labor (a necessity to maintain a colonial system), then, becomes an action dictated by one of the other selves– an action done by will and/or desire rather than a means to survive. Likewise, intimate relationships become more substantial and stable, the colonial “need” for a family unit to dominate is replaced first by the need for internal care and love, which is sustainable when isolated, but is magnified when joined to the community. The love and support of a community becomes the love and support of the individual, as much as the suffering of the community resonates in the individual. The mind, too, becomes gains active and passive attributes– a heightened sense of curiosity and mental enrichment (the desire for knowledge), as well as the ability to overcome personal stagnancy and gaining analytical prowess. By breaking from the colonial system, the masculine achieves not only liberation for the Whole Self (Kahn) and their individual Selves (Kehnehn), but disrupts the cycle of domination and violence towards the marginalized, creating a more secure foundation for development of the macro-community (society and culture).