"King me."
An essay on the socio-psychological misunderstanding behind our cultural malaise.
“King me.”
This one is going to smell a bit political, but it’s not. It’s cultivated in principles of Democracy, thus the scent. It’s about the concept of Democracy as it was initially identified, grown as a response to governing power structures that permitted tyrannical control to reduce humans to unworthy subjects.
The concept of Democracy is an ancient one. Ancient Greek scholars considered how the polis, the city state, might be realized as the ideal form of government. It seems the Greek philosophers spent a lot of time thinking about how people might receive fair and equal treatment through a system designed to honor human rights. Women were not permitted roles in government – and this established order overstayed its expiration date— but ancient women were critical players in maintaining balance in well organized lives of family’s and men working to build a functioning model for society. The women of Ancient Greece used their sense of rhythm to manage all of the aspects of the household’s needs. Without their stable practice in domestic management, the blueprint for Democracy might never have been drafted. It is because the men were liberated from the basic chores of good living (cooking, cleaning, clothing) to think up these ideals. The women relieved the men of certain economical tasks. Someone needs to sing the song of these unsung heroes someday. Democracy actually exists because women provided the support ancient men could not have managed without in order to come up with the design.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In colonial America, people were getting taxed by a greedy king who was not offering his subjects any real support. He simply wanted to lay claim on the land that was the home of others— people he neither valued, nor respected. And his church ordered his subjects to fear them. When his wars for land-theft suddenly felt costly, he realized that he needed to fill his coffers again. So, he determined that his subjects should be grateful for the wars he waged against the native peoples he told them to mistrust, and that their gratitude should be paid back to him— post haste. The king issued the Stamp Act. The subjects objected. This is how the governors of colonial America realized that they no longer wanted to be the subjects of an objectively abject king. And because they did not live within his immediate reach, plotting to declare independence from him was a reasonable proposition.
I presume anyone reading this is already apprised of these historical points. I’m not teaching a lesson here, but the history of the revolutionary mindset feels important to recall. The reason the declaration happened was because people woke up to the fact that living under a greedy king was not at all necessary and that they had the power to claim their sovereignty and design their own state. This belief was relatively new thinking in the 1700’s, anchored in the philosophical perspective of the time which honored the rights of man. It was believed that the development and establishment of a Social Contract would deliver the common man from the evils of tyrannical governing structures.
So, we all know this history well. And yet, there remains some significant misunderstanding about how the philosophical vision of a democratic ideal in governing should manifest. To throw off the cloak of monarchy, the revolutionaries wove a royal cloth to cloak the common man. It was a glorious flipping of the script. In a true democracy, the subject is ‘king,’ and the governor is subject to them.
Yet, centuries of monastic rule live on in our collective unconsciousness. There is something in humans that longs for regalia, royal ceremony, coronation and undeniable authority. Archetypes live on in fairy tales and story arcs; they are played out in films, on stages and in songs. They are somewhat inescapable because history lives inside us. We are the result of it; we are its living proof. We perpetuate our histories simply through existing. And for many, we sustain an inexplicable longing for a virtual kingdom. We seek the fulfillment of promised lands. It is our own stories that supply the demand.
This is why we go looking for would-be kings in our real lives— even in America— where our democratic design tells us that our modern king is really our fellow common man. Perhaps it feels grammatically incorrect to say “the subject is the king.” Yeah. It’s confusing. We are all baffled medievalists, still in the dark ages of our own enlightenment.
It’s time for American ‘subjects’ to review that old revolutionary script.
It’s also time to revise it.
As constituents in a Democracy, such action is not only permissible, it is encouraged. There should be a common legal understanding that to be a ‘constitutional originalist’ is to be an oxymoron. Perhaps our education system has failed in delivering the lesson that the US Constitution is a living document. It is designed to remain dedicated to Democratic principles of the common man’s right to equal treatment under the law. The original draftsmen were philosophical statesmen who fully comprehended that the world would go through changes and that their initial law of the land would need amending. Deep down they knew that they were permitting evil to exist in their slave-labor dependent economy, the one that forced the land’s original inhabitants from their long-established ways and homes. I guess they just hoped we’d get around to the redesign of their flawed blueprint someday. Is it someday yet?
If I’m not being clear enough, forgive me. I’m only human.
What I’m trying to do is NOT add another layer of paint to the portrait of American democracy, I’m trying to remove the shit that has stained it, which is very complicated work. You see, the de facto flaws that emerged with the inegalitarian manner of governing a land that relied on intense, unaffordable labor effectively smeared the Democratic portrait of America with some really sticky, stinking shit. And what we need now is for the descendants of Democracy’s early misdeeds to own their undemocratic past actions. This requires education of actual history. It requires lessons in compassion. It requires reparations payments and land-rights replacing reservations acts. And it requires a clear understanding of who— in America— is eligible to be king.
Only the subject of the government— the constituent— is king — in a Democracy.
Which is why we need to keep it.
Allow me to start a fresh portrait of the kings of Democracy. Please also allow for modern comprehension of human development as it has been declared by the wise practitioners of medicine, pediatric physicians and neurologists. Our scientific approach to understanding human development has evolved since the time it was determined that an eighteen-year-old should be classified as an adult. This determination has only to do with witnessing the body’s physique and capacity to fight. At eighteen, our boys can become soldiers, as they have been deemed by legislation that feels it must prepare for defense . . . and offense. Strong boys, observed in sport, clearly have what it takes to fight a governing body’s war, so eighteen is the legal age to do things considered ‘adult’ because . . . war happens. Just like shit.
The legal determination of eighteen might have made sense a while ago, but neurologists have since discovered that the male brain only reaches maturity at twenty-four. It takes a long time for those critically important frontal lobes to hook up. Therefore, Sons of Democracy, you princes, please accept my sincere apologies for the way this might land… you can’t be kinged until you turn twenty-five. You need that last year of mental growth to become the wise, benevolent royal you were born to be. Sorry. Y’Gotta wait for it.
Alright, so now that we understand that all boys living in America are– de jure– princes, we can start to see how their lives resemble a game of checkers. Boys are well known for liking to check each other, so the analogy fits. They go through their childhood and adolescent years leaping over each other and collecting booty. This is as it should be. It’s in their nature. If you ever raised any other species than human, you might witness the same rough-housing going on. Lion cubs are notorious for it, because– of course– they are born to grow into kings. Some readers might start to critique this point and warn me that ‘if young boys all believed they were princes that would certainly lead to arrogance and should not be the way our children grow up thinking of themselves.’ Well, that’s a point, yes– however that perspective comes from the archaic understanding of royals in which only one of them is to become king. When all the boys are known princes, it’s different. With such an understanding, they would need to develop honest respect for one another. They can still have their games and contests, but no single one of them can be demoted from their royal status. As residing members of a Democracy, it is their duty to have an esteem worthy of both their own royal status and that of their peers.
So, all these princes have to do is make it to the other side of the checkerboard, which happens naturally at the age of twenty-five. Going forward, every young man’s twenty-fifth birthday must become a significant event, for it is their coronation ceremony. After their crowning, they can stand a little taller, walk with an earned and inherited human grace that acknowledges their newly assumed power to play in the bigger game of life. It might be something like chess.
However . . . and this is my main point—
In a Democracy, any man who decides to run for political office must give up their status as king, because in a Democracy: only the subjects are kings.
So when any male person established in an official post shows that they do not understand who is king, they must be determined ineligible and removed from their position of power. It’s clear that this needs to happen. All the kings’ men are all the kings— our men— of Democracy; they are some of the constituents the President is required to serve. He is required to serve the female and female-identifying constituents as well, but that is definitely not happening.
Respecting and serving women in Democracy has a very long taproot. Remember how the women kept the oikos, the economy, together so the men could think up grand governing structures? The men were probably too busy with their work to fully appreciate what the women were doing for them. Men who value women are the men who do some household chores, because humans must share the work. For, as the transgender, non-conforming community comprehends, every human being has both male and female essences. We are composite beings with divine male and divine feminine energy; we are physical systems with both testosterone and estrogen. We share it all. Some women use their male energy more than others. You could accuse me of doing that right now with the composition of this aggressive essay. That’s kind of what it takes to stand up and speak your truth… a little infusion of kingship energy, if you will (or even if you won’t) . . . because we really all have what it takes to make this ship sail on its even keel. We all have unique skills and supple minds capable of coming together in times of crisis to help each other out. That is humanity’s job.
And if the men and male-identifying members of society who are not in government could all just realize that they are our kings, they might just throw their shoulders back and stop complaining because suddenly they realize their own worth. They might rise up to be strong leaders who share in the work of household preservation. They might bring an end to reductionist measures and foolish talk painting women and women-identifying members of society as sluts, whores and bitches. Such misrepresentation is a grave mistake when these people might actually be queens, Goddesses and witches.
So, if you are someone residing on Democratic soil, Do not forget the ideals for which we toil– Equality, Justice, and Sovereignty Such is our right as the True Democratic Royalty— I’ve made it to the other side of the board now… And I’m NOT running for political office, so King me, Even if you can’t determine my gender. I’m not conforming to inaccurate social models— and now-- you'll have to excuse me-- its time for me to go clean house. I have to confess, this place is a mess.
And the tiger is beautiful!
Thoughtful piece. I do hope we come to our senses and wake up to changing the living document that is our constitution. We have work to do, men and women, to right the wrongs of a wanna be king toppling democracy as we speak. I enjoyed this. Thank you.