Generally when queried about intimacy most people tend to think first about sexual contact and secondly about emotional and personal closeness. They also tend to imagine intimacy as a private affair, relegating intimate contact to private locations and circumstances such as the bedroom.

Furthermore, judging by discussions in my workshops, many people consider intimacy to be a function of personal relationships. Seeking to expand beyond this common focus and context regarding intimacy, I have been considering a much broader view – the political/economic system in which we live, and which I believe impacts everyone’s level of intimacy.

Nearly all Western countries are governed as democracies and have a capitalist economic system; certainly, this would describe the USA. Yet in the case of the US, what exactly does this mean, and what influence does this have on the intimacy habits of Americans.

Historically, it seems to me, since the inception of this country there has existed a dynamic tension between the democratic political system and capitalism. For much of America’s history, the relationship between democracy and capitalism has been very stable, and they have been somewhat of a check and balance dynamic for each other.

However in the last two decades, that has shifted, and capitalism has increasingly dominated democracy. I think that I can safely go a step further and say that capitalism now virtually owns democracy in the US. It’s now no secret that the business and industrial sector of our society pulls the strings of the federal and most state governments so that the voice of just a few counts much more than the votes of the general public – hardly a democracy.

This imbalance parallels, and is perhaps symptomatic of, the well-known domination of the patriarchy over the feminine, so obvious in Western culture and modern history.

When in balance, democracy allows the public to hold corporations accountable, thus restraining their potential greed. What has happened in the last decade is that corporate advocating politicians and lobbyists have passed legislation de-regulating major industries such as utilities, telecoms, etc., e.g. Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, etc. This has opened the door for unrestrained greed and unethical (yet now legal!) practices.

In the past, when democracy and capitalism were balancing each other, the news media maintained its autonomy and dedicated itself primarily to providing news to the public. Now that nearly all the news media (newspapers, television, radio, magazines, etc.) has been consolidated and is now owned by just a few large corporations (including major military arms producers such as Lockheed Martin), the “news” media is no longer dedicated to providing news.

As the media has become an arm of the business sector the underlying intent of the media has become that of promotion and sales. The priority is now to sell products, and that agenda flavors all the news. Thus the news is no longer about describing reality, but about presenting a pervasive “spin” on reality, a pervasive fantasy that supports and encourages consumerism.

I’ve also realized that concurrent with this orientation is a subtle, nearly subliminal discouragement of public participation in government. Historically, an important function of independent news media within a democracy has been to keep the public informed so that it can participate in government in an intelligent way. Without this information, the public’s involvement in a democratic government is based on misinformation.

In this current cultural situation, the misinformation spans many aspects of society, not the least of which is the protection of the very corporations that own the media by hiding their unethical, unregulated greed. It constitutes a mass buying or manipulation of votes. Thus the effect of corporate ownership of the media has been to erode democracy and the democratic process.

One might consider that democracy and capitalism are analogous to yin and yang, feminine and masculine. Democracy is yin and feminine, inclusive, receptive, nurturing, and integrative. Its basic premise is “win / win”, while capitalism is based on “win / lose”. Capitalism is yang and masculine, assertive, competitive, and divisive.

The blessing of capitalism and competition is that it spawns spontaneous creativity. Without aggressive yang energy and creativity much less gets accomplished and society tends to stagnate. Yet without the win/win directive of democracy, capitalism favors just a few most aggressive winners who learn to work the system, to the detriment of the many. When balanced by a democratic government and the informed voting public, creativity favors all.

Ironically, two of the industries that have profited most from deregulation and the recent domination of democracy are the oil and military weapons industries. From a metaphysical point of view, the oil industry takes a resource from Mother Earth (the feminine) and leaves pollution.

The US is the number one producer of military arms, exporting more than the next 12 arms exporting countries combined. I can’t think of more yang, aggressive industry than one whose sole intent is to supply worldwide those who would make war. And what is the karma of a militarized economy and a heavily polluting economy? Both industries have been unrestrained by public vote.

What, you might ask, does all this have to do with intimacy? Quite simply, competition and aggressiveness do not encourage deep intimacy. Nor does capitalism without the guidance of democracy. Without this guidance and democratic intention, there is a lack of safety and trust, for within capitalism and competition there is an inherent fear of losing, being defeated or dominated, and not having as much as the winner. Such is actually the opposite of what is necessary to have and sustain real intimacy. It parallels the personal will without the guidance of the heart and spiritual awareness.

Intimacy is by its very nature more feminine and mutually nurturing, requiring safety, trust, receptivity, and sensitivity. Deep intimacy is supportive and would seek to empower all involved; it would seek to prevent anyone from having less or feeling dominated or defeated. From the intimacy of two lovers to family intimacy to local community (village style) intimacy, what is natural to a healthy society and to healthy individuals is a context of mutual support, trust, and caring.

I believe that the current way in which capitalism is dominating democracy is contributing to the widespread absence of intimacy and the presence of a sense of separation, loneliness, and anxiety in America.

Furthermore, the substitution of material possessions for intimacy is profoundly insufficient. Despite what the continual onslaught of advertising would have the public believe, consumerism and owning the latest-greatest gadgets will never satisfy a deep, natural need for contact and bonding that only real intimacy provides.

Without the experience of intimacy there will likely be a restless need to fill an empty space – hence the treadmill of “type A personalities”. The ancient Tantra and Buddhist teachings understood this well, encouraging a releasing of attachments to external possessions and a regular returning to a quiet, inner, receptive state. Tantra yogis and teachers have long understood that deep intimacy arises in a feminine, inclusive, safe, and sacred space.

Ultimately, it comes down to a choice of where we place our loyalty and energies. Do we choose the endless treadmill of competition and capitalism, or do we seek to rebuild democracy and the sense of community that will promote real intimacy? For those on a spiritual path, the answer is becoming more clear and obvious. Cast your vote!