ANOTHER VOICE
The psycho-political structure of patriarchy controls public attitudes to handedness
CHARLES MOORE
Political correctness has made great strides in challenging hegemonic attitudes. The structures of oppression — economic and political, sexual and linguistic — which have marginalised women, lesbians and gay men, the 'disabled', blacks, native Ameri- cans etc., and presented their life experi- ences as invalid or even, by the colonisation of language, almost literally unthinkable, have been exposed.
True, most of the control mechanisms remain in the grasp of the traditional white, male, straight power elites, but at least the anger of the excluded is now making itself heard. In the work-place and on campus, in South Africa and in the churches, in par- enting and other life-style choices, people are empowering themselves.
Why is it, then, that one of the most sys- tematic cultural and practical oppressions is still almost totally ignored, except by a few brave spirits in the United States? I refer to left-handedness, a condition from which I 'suffer'. I put that 'suffer' in quotes because, of course, I do not regard it as anything to be other than proud of, but in another sense the word needs no quotes at all, because we, the differently-handed, are made to suffer every day of our lives merely because of our manual orientation.
Take religion, the super-ego of the ruling male id. Those who are damned are on the left-hand side. The legend is that Judas was left-handed, marking himself out, perhaps, at the Last Supper by dipping that hand into the dish, condemned throughout west- ern history as a result. The thief crucified on Jesus's right hand goes to Heaven, the one on his left to Hell. Origen, who helped produce the refinements of Christian ideol- ogy necessary to advance Church power, was so meticulously rightist as to refer to Satan and his devils as `ambi-sinistrous': all wickedness was left, all leftness was wicked. And where, needless to say, does Jesus end up? At the right hand of the Father. Some Christians are now challenging the male- ness of their churches' liturgical stereotyp- ing. But none, so far as I know, has yet been bold enough to insist that She sits at the left hand of the Mother.
The right hand of the Father is, in fact and precisely, the crucial instrument of male domination. It is the right hand which holds the sword or pulls the trigger, the right hand of the Emperor whose thumb turns down in the Colosseum, of the Presi- dent of the United States whose finger presses the button which will destroy all of us, blessed, no doubt, by a cruciform move- ment made by the right hand of the Pope. It was the right hand that rose to salute at the Nuremburg rallies and it was the same hand that fell, grasping a whip, upon the black slave. What's your right arm for? Ask the abused child who has suffered under it, the outraged woman sexually harassed by it. Dieu et mon droit — God and my right says the coat of arms on every symbol of official power in this country. The two go together, and don't you forget it.
I have described the psycho-political structure of patriarchy as it controls public attitudes to handedness. Let me explain in more detail how the procedures of daily life and the pressures of social assumptions operate to isolate and/or force concealment upon the differently-handed. 'Gauche' means socially inept. When you meet some- one for the first time you shake her/him by the hand, by the right hand of course. So, from the beginning, the defining context of social acceptance and therefore of the pos- sibility of socially valid relationships is right-handed. Try holding out your left hand to shake and you will see what I mean. Society cannot cope with such a sub- version. And from there on in the humilia- tion of the left repeats itself at every stage. The right hand holds the knife at table and if you swap it to your left, you disturb the harmony imposed and find yourself, literal- ly, elbowed out. Men pass the port to the left, yes, but when they do so they have removed women from the room and are engaging in one of those semi-secret inver- sions of the habits of the tribe which, para- doxically, reinforce those habits. When they marry women they bind a finger of the woman's left hand with a band of gold, a mark of ownership and control, like the brand on a cow's flank.
It goes without saying, or rather, the lin- guistic structure makes it very difficult to say, that language is the continuing instru- ment which stigmatises left-handedness. The word 'sinister' is only the most obvious example, though it is the defining one because it makes left-handedness and con- spirational evil synonymous. Even more threatening, because more insidious, is the way in which the word 'right' reinforces its own virtue. We all have to be in favour of what is 'right', something which has been duly noted and exploited by the Right in politics. Subliminally, language tells people to think that anything left-wing is danger- ous, and anything on the Right can be trusted. Our rulers, temporal or spiritual, are Right Honourable or Right Reverend, the epithets inextricably associated in our minds and discourse. It is no coincidence that left-handed children, forced to use their right hand instead, often develop a stammer: they are robbed of their freedom of speech. What is something if it isn't right? It's wrong. Or it's left.
None of this should surprise the student of Western 'culture', but what is alarming is the passive acceptance and sometimes the total lack of recognition of the situation by otherwise aware women and men. We have let ourselves be trapped into talking about `women's rights', 'gay rights' and so on, with no consciousness of how we are thus play- ing our opponents' game. The lesson of the war about language is that it has to be total. Anything else is self-defeating and some- times, one suspects, tokenist. I can never look at the title page of Ronald Dworkin's book, Taking Rights Seriously, without feel- ing anger at that expression of subjugation masquerading as the opposite. How about taking wrongs seriously, Professor Dworkin? How about trying to meet the differently-handed where they are, in all their pain and confusion, or, if you are left- handed yourself, how about coming out of the closet and standing shoulder-to-shoul- der with us?
So let's have an International Court of Human Lefts and let's hear about the pub- lic's left to know and let us left-on people claim the left of reply against the structures that are holding us back. Pas d'ennemis a gauche!
Previous page
