| Chess One 2005-01-18, 9:46 am |
|
"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1106029088.679916.313700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> I have heard the argument that all women must be 'naturally' far less
> interested and able in chess than men because the game's an abstract
> representation of warfare. But that reductionist 'one size fits all'
> hypothesis seems unconvincing.
Chess is less an abstracted warfare as a ritualised aggression. The role
that particular forms of aggression plays in the life of a culture is a
potentially very interesting and healthy one, according to Konrad Lorenz,
who in fact rebukes school-of-Freud on this issue.
In an age where we have few healthy and socially approved forms of
aggressive interaction, and where the results of failing to utilise this
energy is usually fatal, this subject might be worth a moments thought.
Freud thought aggression was a distructive force in the individual, and
Lorenz suggested that Freud resist his compulsive and neurotic [and
metaphysical] intellection on this subject, and face his fear of the dark,
by instead, actually observe nature.
The difficulty in determining what is 'natural' for women is twofold:
principally and the (a) first is [lol] we have not studied their chess play
in any sincere way, [albeit there have been so few of them to study until
recently], and (b) what comments exist have a naive methodology, which
usually take as their measure the equally understudied 'way' that men play
chess, with which it is immediately contrasted, and as if the male 'norm'
was a term synonymous with 'nature'.
Phil Innes
quote:
> --Nick
>
|