interview

Elizabeth Debold: The first question I have, Andrew, is about how our identification with being men or women is so primary; it's so central. Freud observed that this basic identification was the core of personality development and of civilization the way it is now—that it is the basis of who we think we are. You have a teaching that you call "liberation without a face," in which you state that one of the fundamental obstacles to liberation is this gender identification. Could you explain what "liberation without a face" is all about?

Andrew Cohen: In the liberated condition, what one is ultimately identifying with transcends any and all notions of self, including gender. And for most of us, one of the most fundamental components of the experience of a separate sense of self stems from overidentification with gender. We have been very conditioned by the cultures that we come from and are usually very identified with the particular gender that we happen to be a member of.

Now in the context of liberation, identification with any notion of self is recognized to be an obstacle to true freedom. So the goal would be to get to that point where we ultimately have no notion of who we are, yet where we discover who we are in every moment through being free from any prior notion of who we are, including that of being a man or a woman.

In relationship to these notions of gender, most men who we meet are very attached to the idea of being male, and usually experience a lot of fear and insecurity around the idea of being a man. In the same way, most women who we meet are very identified with their gender, with their sex, and also experience a tremendous amount of fear and insecurity in relationship to the fact that they're women. Most men and most women give a great deal of energy and attention to being a man or being a woman. And many men and women give a tremendous amount of energy and attention not only to being a man or being a woman, but also to becoming a better man or a better woman, or to living up to some idea or ideal of the kind of man or woman that they want to be. But in relationship to the possibility of being a liberated person, all of this energy and attention, which stems from a fundamental sense of insecurity, is seen as a big distraction and as a fundamental impediment to a liberated condition.

The teaching of liberation without a face tells us that ultimately, our true nature is free of any and all notions of gender, of any notions of difference whatsoever. And it tells us that in order to discover the natural state, the natural and unself-conscious state or condition of man or woman, all the ideas and all the attachment we have about being a man or being a woman, as well as all the fear and insecurity that go along with that, have to be abandoned. We have to literally allow ourselves to forget who we are while at the same time not in any way deny the fact of our gender—that we are male, that we are female—and then discover after the fact who or what is the natural expression of our gender.

What I'm pointing to here is very subtle and very delicate. What I'm speaking about is: What would the expression of male or female gender look like and be like if it was free from any and all traces of self-consciousness? Obviously there are inherent differences between being a man and being a woman; along with the physical differences there are particular expressions of maleness and femaleness. But in order to discover what the natural manifestation of these gender differences actually is, we'd have to become so interested in our own liberation that we'd be willing to give up any and all attachment to being whatever gender we happen to be, and in doing so discover innocently what it's actually like to be a man who's not attached in any way to being a man, or what it's like to be a woman who's not in any way attached to being a woman. But at the same time, that man and that woman are not in any way hiding from or denying the fact of their gender and any differences or particular qualities there may be inherent in that. I'm speaking about an unselfconscious, utterly natural state of being that in no way avoids or denies the fact of gender, but that simply allows the natural expression of gender to reveal itself.

What I'm pointing to is something that has to be discovered through surrender, really. It's through surrender and taking the enormous risk of not knowing. It's a very big question. I'm speaking about giving up any and all notions about who we are in relationship to our gender, and then being willing to find out: What does it mean—what does it really mean—to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? What does it mean to be a man who's not attached to being a man, but at the same time is not in any way denying or avoiding the fact that he's a man? What does it mean to be a woman who's not in any way attached to being a woman, but at the same time is not avoiding or denying in any way the fact that she is a woman? This is something that is very unknown; it's uncharted territory.

ED: Yes—I think we don't really know what "man" or "woman" is. Can you say more about this fundamental insecurity that you were speaking about, which comes from all the ideas that we have about being a man or a woman?

AC: Well, from the perspective of liberation or enlightenment, any notions we have about being a particular person that we may feel that we are not living up to, or that we feel that we must, that we should or that we want to live up to, create a tremendous sense of insecurity and self-consciousness. And in that state, our relationship to reality and our relationship to our experience is all based upon the ideas in our mind that we're always trying to live up to.

The attachment we have to ideas about who we feel we should be, or who we want to be, or who we might not be, creates a constant distraction for the mind and for our attention. And in a sense, we're always trying to play a role; we're always trying to live up to some idea about who we think we should be in relationship to notions of gender, notions of maleness and femaleness. So many of the ideas that we have about being men and women have nothing to do with our own natural condition. I think that's something that most of us really don't even have a sense of; it's not something we've ever experienced. Again, what I'm pointing to is very subtle: It would be a condition where the man or the woman would be rooted in identification of Self that was free of gender, and yet at the same time they would be aware constantly, in retrospect, of their own reflection in time and space as being male or being female, and would see, after the fact, "Oh, this is who I am; this is what I look like." They would see the reflection, or they would see the action, of a male or a female who was not attached in any way to being a male or a female. They personally would be free from any idea of being male or female in their innermost self. And then the expression of what it means to be a man or a woman would be a manifestation of liberation itself, literally.

ED: Only in this reflection would we find out what that is.

AC: Yes, one would be in a state where one was constantly finding out what that is, and there would be an inner revelation of what gender really is and what it means. It would be a sense of innocence for men and women alike. A man would constantly be discovering what it is, what it really means, to be a man. And a woman, in the same way, would also be in a state where she was constantly discovering what it means to be a woman. She wouldn't be doing what most people do, which is trying to live up to preconceived ideas based on cultural imperatives. It would be something that, in a sense, would be constantly discovered and rediscovered, and defined and redefined, literally in every moment. There would be a sense of innocence, you see, in relationship to the notion of gender. And that's what is missing, almost always, for men and women alike. For most individuals this whole notion of being a man or being a woman is so pregnant with ideas that are painfully fixed and rigid that there is literally no sense of innocence whatsoever, and that's one of the many reasons why it's so difficult for men and women to be able to get along together. It's why it's so difficult to really make any kind of rational sense out of this whole notion of gender anyway.

ED: Or what we're doing here together.

AC: Yes. Yet the goal of liberation without a face is a natural state or a natural condition. And what that is, one doesn't know, but it's something that one would want to find out. Who am I as a man? Who would you be as a woman? Who would we be as man and woman if we were not in any way attached to the fact of our biological difference, and yet at the same time were in no way denying or avoiding that difference or whatever that may imply? That's something we'd be interested to discover. But the only way we'd be able to do that is if we were willing to step beyond any and all notions of gender and of self altogether first, and be willing, once we did that, to actually stay there. So it's a big price to pay to find out what a natural condition of man or woman would be.

ED: Especially since our whole culture is based on gender arrangements, it's a big thing to realize that we don't even know what being naturally male or female really is. Our ideas about gender are so present, yet still they have nothing to do, necessarily, with something that's natural or spontaneous.

AC: Well, no. I think not only does it have nothing to do with anything that is natural or spontaneous, but almost all the ideas we have about being a man or being a woman are so burdened with pain, anxiety, fear and self-doubt. For many of us, the confusion around this question is excruciating because it is usually unending.


Women's Liberation
and Liberation without a Face

ED: Andrew, I'd like to bring in and speak about some other perspectives from feminist theory and gender theory. There generally seem to be two goals that are offered as the goal of women's or men's liberation: One is the liberal perspective, which basically says that the goal is for men and women to be equal and, in other words, that there should be no difference in what they can do and what they can express.

AC: So the goal would be some form of androgyny?

ED: I think actually it's more that everyone looks a lot more like men. I think that ends up being what it really means, because basically, in this view, the structure of society doesn't change. You put women into the structure that's already there. So what you get, mostly, are people who look more like men, the way we understand men right now. And the other perspective is the radical perspective, which says that men and women are different, and that we hold very different values as a result of those differences. In this perspective, what needs to happen is that those differences need to be acknowledged and made room for so that a bigger range of humanity, of human being, can be manifest, and that would require a radical transformation of the structures that we live in. There's something very fundamental about how we think about ourselves that seems to be bottled in these two different perspectives. Are we equal? Or are we different? And what does that difference mean? I'm wondering, how do these two views relate to your teaching of liberation without a face?

AC: I don't know if I understand the second one clearly.

ED: The second one is where we look at and acknowledge the differences that exist here now, but we also acknowledge that in the system that we're in, since it values men and the way men think and function more than women, both maleness and femaleness are twisted in a certain way.

AC: So the second one respects fundamental differences that apparently exist—

ED: That apparently exist in order to make room for something larger in a human being. But it also argues that fundamental changes need to happen in society in order—

AC: To make room for those differences and to respect those differences.

ED: Exactly. So maybe we could look at these views one at a time.

AC: Well, the first view obviously forces women to conform to questionable patriarchal ideas and conventions. So that would seem to be very skewed. And a skewed approach to a bigger view would, I think, just help to perpetuate more gender confusion. The second view makes a lot of sense. But the question I would have is, from the point of view of liberation without a face: What are those differences really all about—based on a primary interest in liberation first and in gender second? Because when liberation is primary and the significance of gender differences is a secondary matter, then the context changes—and it changes the picture completely.

ED: I think that's where feminism has often gotten stuck. And I think what's happened as a result of that, actually, is that then the differences become paramount; they become the most important thing. And then there's a celebration of, "I'm completely different than you are." I have these qualities. This is what female is or feminine is, and this is what we should be celebrating. But you're celebrating something that's been skewed in the system already, so it becomes very confusing.

AC: Exactly. But what I'm speaking about takes more. I mean we really have to be willing to find out who we are instead of rebelling for the equal rights, in a sense, that we've been denied, that we do deserve. I'm speaking about something that transcends that completely. And so in liberation without a face, we have to be willing to give up the past. And we have to be willing to give up all the injustices of the past that did exist—that did exist, and that do exist right now. But you see, when we become interested in liberation, we then become interested in that which transcends time. And that points to a very different approach to discovering what equality really is.

ED: In the radical feminist view, you ultimately get to some kind of equality.

AC: Yes, but what that equality is based on is a presumption of fundamental difference, and the inherent difference is about as deep as it gets. The depth that transcends any and all difference isn't there as a foundation, and that's why it would be very different from what I'm speaking about.

ED: Actually, what you're speaking about seems to be the only way out of the whole conundrum of how do you find out what's true about being a man or a woman given the mess that we're in right now.

AC: Right, in liberation without a face, we're speaking about something very particular, because we're speaking about liberation itself as the primary foundation for the inquiry into any and all notions of difference, including gender difference—that's the foundation. From a place of no difference, from a perspective of no difference, from an interest and passion in no difference, then we look into the world of differences and really see what they're all about.

ED: And from a point of no difference you're not talking about androgyny—are you?

AC: No. I'm not talking about androgyny because there will be differences, because men and women are not the same. But what those differences actually are going to look like when they're utterly free from self-consciousness is something that I think we have to find out. And even when we discover what they are, what an unselfconscious expression of manhood or womanhood is, we still have to be willing to leave those differences alone and remain firmly established in the perspective and place of no difference. Because the minute any sense of difference becomes too important to us, even if it's subtle, we lose that seat of liberation and we fall back again into the world of differences. So it's a very delicate business.

ED: Absolutely. I can feel my own desire to know: "What are those differences, what would they be?"—and in that you pin something down and immediately lose touch with the delicate perspective that has just opened up.

AC: Right, but I'm speaking about a place where, from the point of no difference, differences are recognized. They're recognized because they're being expressed, but still there's no attachment to them, and that's the tricky part of it. Because whenever there is this investment in being different, in being a man or being a woman versus being that fullness of Self that's free from any notion of difference and that lacks nothing, then we've fallen out of heaven and we're in the world of becoming once again. And then liberation suddenly has a face again, and the unselfconscious, natural expression of gender isn't possible anymore because then we're attached to our difference rather than to that part of our self that could never have a face, that could never be different, that's free from gender.

ED: One other question that I've thought a lot about and wanted to ask you is: What is the relationship between movements like the women's movement or the men's movement and the pursuit of enlightenment? Do they relate to each other at all?

AC: No, not at all.

ED: Could you say more about that? Don't these movements open up some sense of possibility?

AC: They open up a tremendous sense of possibility, but one's attention in the men's movement or in the women's movement is on inherent difference. It's on the fundamental, inherent difference.

ED: It's also on a set of problems.

AC: Yes, it's on a set of problems, and those problems do exist. Those problems are real. And so, for example, in the women's movement, women are coming together and courageously responding to oppression and subjugation. And in the men's movement, a lot of men are recognizing that they have been forced to conform to a very narrow and rather two-dimensional picture of maleness and manhood that they have never had the freedom to question. But the point is that in both the men's movement and the women's movement, the focus is on becoming; one is still identified with being a woman or being a man, and one is trying to improve, for many of the right reasons, one's personhood as a woman or as a man. But what I'm speaking about here is something very different—although there are many similarities and points where they meet. What I'm speaking about, as I've been saying all along, is putting our attention on that place where any and all notions of gender disappear, and then being in a condition where we're discovering really who and what we are. We're not rebelling—we're not rebelling and we're not identifying with being wounded. Many women identify with being wounded and being oppressed, and now men are identifying with being wounded because they feel they've been forced to conform to a certain mold that suffocates their humanity. This is all true. But in liberation without a face, one is endeavoring, ideally—and it's not necessarily an easy thing to do—to leave the past behind.