Having lived my life so far with a complete misunderstanding, I am hurrying to catch up. This is not easy. All along I have accepted the unwritten law that right is superior to left. It was a recent visit to the optometrist that opened my eyes. Nothing, I had thought all along, had been clearer than the fact that our two eyes work in harmony; they just get along together as best they can and give us a clear perception of the world in 3D. But apparently the question of dominance arises. One eye is better than the other – at looking through the sights on a rifle, for example.
And this contest between right and left is much more evident in relation to hands. Handedness, with the right favoured over the left, is non-negotiable. A guest will be offered the honoured place – at the right hand of the host. We turn over the pages of a book, or use tools, designed for right-handed people. We drive on the left and have the right hand free to gesture to our friends – and maybe to indicate our intention. Left-handed people are at a disadvantage. Again, being married to a woman who was ambidextrous was an eye-opening experience.
It is of course quite easy to redress the balance. One day a week or one day a fortnight we drive on the right. This might cause some slight inconvenience but it is no more unfair than present practice backed by centuries of complacency. Newspapers with the fold on the right rather then left are similarly needed as at least a step in the right direction. Guidance or perhaps legislation may be required to get people shaking left hands rather than right or saluting left-handedly.
I touch my mouse – with my left hand. It happens that my computer is set up that way. I do my best. But I should be seriously inconvenienced if I were required to make notes with my left hand. Nelson managed it but I am no Nelson.
Another misapprehension I have harboured all my days is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This marks me out as a backwoodsman, a Neanderthal. (I looked very much like one during lockdown.) This shortcoming is at present being addressed. I must say I have some shade of disappointment that we are not going far enough. Is there any good reason why we do not accept and approve polygyny and its counterpart polyandry? If the traditional coupling of male and female is to be questioned, should we not also be questioning the assumption that two is better than three or four or more?
I have an idea that there is a proverb somewhere in the Scriptures about not removing the ancient landmark. In fact, I think it comes twice in the book of Proverbs. I suppose I just have to come to terms with the fact that I am an encrusted ancient landmark apt for removal.
If you have a comment on this post please send an email to Revd John King at johnc.king@talktalk.net Edited extracts may be published. To forward this to a friend click on the chain icon below.
Commentaires