Thanks to Dr. Peter A. Lawler for helping me through this process and guiding my research with additional sources.
Thanks to Sarah Thomas for her editing and discussions that helped to develop this paper.
At last, it is done.
Senior Thesis: Marriage and Society in Modern Political Philosophy
Monday, December 5, 2011
Eve and Adam's need for a "fit" helper
[Continued from "The Garden of Eden: The Original Society of Adam and Eve"]
Now, I do not mean to overly emphasize the point of Eve’s punishment. For Eve is a very important part of this Genesis story. Was she tempted by Satan? Yes. Did she convince Adam to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Well, yes, but this all leaves out a very important part of Eve’s role in the Creation. In Genesis 2:18, the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” From here, God brings all the creatures of the Earth to Adam so that he may name them and that one may be his helper, but none would suffice. Genesis 2:20 states that “for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” Enter Eve. God put Adam to sleep, and “while he slept took one of his ribs” (Genesis 2:21) and “the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into women” (Genesis 2:22). From man’s rib God make woman. But why did God not make woman from the earth as God had made man? Man was made from the dust of the ground and filled with life from the breath of God, and then man was good. But woman is derived from what was already said to be good. What does it mean that no creature made from the ground was a helper fit for man (Genesis 2:19-20)? Even Adam, made from the ground was not good enough and needed a helper. But woman is not made from the ground, but from a rib of Adam, God’s hand on earth. Surely there must be something good here.
Amy and Leon Kass, in their book Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar, raise another interesting question of woman’s creation. Not only was she not made from the ground, but she was made from a rib of Adam specifically. They write, “What does it mean that she comes from a rib, from a place close to the heart?” This seems to be a very important question. Yes Eve was made from Adam and he says that “this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23), but not just any bone. The purpose of the ribs are to protect the heart and the lungs, as they are vital organs directly related to life. God made Adam and “put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it,” (Genesis 2:15), but what about Eve? Of the creation of Eve, we know that she was made of the bone of Adam, specifically a rib, and that she was a fit helper for him where none else were. Here, Amy and Leon Kass ask another good question, “Why might God have seen fit to remedy the problem of Man’s aloneness by sending him a counter-part, an “other”?” Though here, the Kasses use the term “Counter-Part,” as opposed to helper. It seems important that woman was created to complete man. That no other creature made from the ground was fit, but that another must be created from the “good” that was man and the world, before sin.
Now, I do not mean to overly emphasize the point of Eve’s punishment. For Eve is a very important part of this Genesis story. Was she tempted by Satan? Yes. Did she convince Adam to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Well, yes, but this all leaves out a very important part of Eve’s role in the Creation. In Genesis 2:18, the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” From here, God brings all the creatures of the Earth to Adam so that he may name them and that one may be his helper, but none would suffice. Genesis 2:20 states that “for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” Enter Eve. God put Adam to sleep, and “while he slept took one of his ribs” (Genesis 2:21) and “the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into women” (Genesis 2:22). From man’s rib God make woman. But why did God not make woman from the earth as God had made man? Man was made from the dust of the ground and filled with life from the breath of God, and then man was good. But woman is derived from what was already said to be good. What does it mean that no creature made from the ground was a helper fit for man (Genesis 2:19-20)? Even Adam, made from the ground was not good enough and needed a helper. But woman is not made from the ground, but from a rib of Adam, God’s hand on earth. Surely there must be something good here.
Amy and Leon Kass, in their book Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar, raise another interesting question of woman’s creation. Not only was she not made from the ground, but she was made from a rib of Adam specifically. They write, “What does it mean that she comes from a rib, from a place close to the heart?” This seems to be a very important question. Yes Eve was made from Adam and he says that “this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23), but not just any bone. The purpose of the ribs are to protect the heart and the lungs, as they are vital organs directly related to life. God made Adam and “put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it,” (Genesis 2:15), but what about Eve? Of the creation of Eve, we know that she was made of the bone of Adam, specifically a rib, and that she was a fit helper for him where none else were. Here, Amy and Leon Kass ask another good question, “Why might God have seen fit to remedy the problem of Man’s aloneness by sending him a counter-part, an “other”?” Though here, the Kasses use the term “Counter-Part,” as opposed to helper. It seems important that woman was created to complete man. That no other creature made from the ground was fit, but that another must be created from the “good” that was man and the world, before sin.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Ronald Reagan and No-Fault Divorce
In an attempt to reduce the pain of divorce, Ronald Reagan (as governor) passed legislation in the State of California that was the nation’s first No-Fault Divorce. Because he was recently divorced, his hope was to “the divorce process less acrimonious, less contentious, and less expensive.” Regardless of his hopes, he later told his son Michael that the No-Fault Legislation was “one of the worst mistakes he ever made in public office.” The idea behind No-Fault divorce was that a married couple would be able to get a divorce without blaming fault on one of the individuals. Ideally this would lead to easier divorce. Yes and No. Passed in 1969, this legislation was passed in a decade where divorce rates hiked 80 in the United States. And this legislature, if anything, assisted in hiking the divorce rate. In the eleven years after Reagan’s No-Fault Divorce legislature, the divorce rate hiked another 86 percent. Micheal McManus of the Family in America Journal notes that “for every two marriages established since 1975, about one existing marriage was dissolved.” The divorce rate is not that about 50% of marriages end in divorce, but rather that one couple divorces for every two couples get married each year. This figure is still not settling. Divorce is still devastating to both individuals and the rates are still rising. McManus also comments that the suicide among divorced women is “triple that of married women” and “five times higher [among divorced men] than among married men.”
The effect of divorce on children is also devastating. Going back to Ronald Reagan and the example of his divorce, his son Michael, in his book Twice Adopted, writes about his experience as a child in the middle of a divorce. Michael Reagan writes that “divorce is where two adults take everything that matters to a child—the child’s home, family, security, and sense of being loved and protected—and they smash it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and leave the child to clean up the mess.” This image he creates here is devastating. Divorce may be “action or an instance of legally dissolving a marriage,” but what it is really dissolving is the family. In the cases where divorced individuals are parents, the children are also a part of what is being dissolved, and the No-Fault Divorce laws do not consider this. To show, statistically, the effects of divorce on children, McManus references a study by the Heritage Foundation. He writes that “children of divorced parents are three times more likely than their peers from intact homes to be expelled from school or to have a baby out of wedlock as a teenager, six times as apt to live in poverty, and are twelve times more likely to be incarcerated.” Surely governer Reagan did not expect this when he passed the No-Fault Divorce legislation in the United State and I can see why it was “one of the worst mistakes he ever made in public office”.
The effect of divorce on children is also devastating. Going back to Ronald Reagan and the example of his divorce, his son Michael, in his book Twice Adopted, writes about his experience as a child in the middle of a divorce. Michael Reagan writes that “divorce is where two adults take everything that matters to a child—the child’s home, family, security, and sense of being loved and protected—and they smash it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and leave the child to clean up the mess.” This image he creates here is devastating. Divorce may be “action or an instance of legally dissolving a marriage,” but what it is really dissolving is the family. In the cases where divorced individuals are parents, the children are also a part of what is being dissolved, and the No-Fault Divorce laws do not consider this. To show, statistically, the effects of divorce on children, McManus references a study by the Heritage Foundation. He writes that “children of divorced parents are three times more likely than their peers from intact homes to be expelled from school or to have a baby out of wedlock as a teenager, six times as apt to live in poverty, and are twelve times more likely to be incarcerated.” Surely governer Reagan did not expect this when he passed the No-Fault Divorce legislation in the United State and I can see why it was “one of the worst mistakes he ever made in public office”.
Monday, November 21, 2011
American Individualism and the Prestige of Marriage
In his book, The Marriage-Go-Round, Andrew Cherlin discusses the state of marriage and the family in America today. Part of his examination revolves around the contradictory nature of America’s prestigious views of marriage and the strong cultural emphasis on individualism. These two strong views are contradictory in nature. While marriage is a value for the family, the individualism of American Culture makes it difficult to place sufficient focus on the family. Americans’ attempts at balancing those two cultural poles are what Cherlin finds so interesting. The values of family and individualism are two distinct and string values, but in America, they find themselves being entwined.
One way in which Andrew Cherlin sees this is marriage as a capstone. He notes that 90 percent of people in America do get married, despite its differences from the traditional. He comments that “at a time of great public concern about the supposed decline of marriage, it’s remarkably high.” This is a very interesting point. There does seem to be a societal idea that marriage is on a decline, but then why are so many people still getting married? I will say that the nearly 50 percent divorce rate is alarming and detrimental to marriage as an institution, but why are the marriage rates still so high? Cherlin believes that it is due to a mixture of American individualism and the prestige of marriage. He writes that “the rewards of marriage are more individualized now. Being married is less of a social role and more of an individual achievement – a symbol of successful self-development.”
More and more often people want to get ready for marriage, as if it is an end (or goal) of living and not a means of living. One indicator of this for Cherlin is economic stability. At one point in time, American marriage was structured as a provider-caregiver model, in which one would financially support the family, thus leaving the other free to perform duties necessary for a household. However now, Cherline writes, “couples are deferring until they have a firm economic base,” before they get married. Cherlin cites some research to back this up, namely a 2002 Toledo study of in-depth interviews. The research found that “many of them [the interviewees] did not want to marry until they had an economic package in place that often included homeownership, being out of debt, and having a stable, adequate family income.” This is strange, again because of the traditional provider-caregiver model, which was a means for financial stability. One person secured the finances while the other secured the household. But now it seems that individuals want to secure themselves on their own, or feel as if they must do so as a pre-requisite before getting married. I would think that more people would see marriage as means for achieving this financial stability, especially with the dual incomes that many modern American families now have. But rather, many people see marriage as an end of financial stability, a marker of success for their individual lives.
Another way in which Cherlin identifies the prestige of marriage in American culture is in the wedding ceremony. Traditionally, the respective parents of the Bride and the Groom would pay for the ceremony costs and the reception costs respectively. But now, more and more individuals opt to provide for their own wedding ceremony. This many because as people get married older and older and delay the age at which they get married, their parents are less and less involved in their personal lives. At that point in time, the individuals are also able to better support themselves, especially financially. But as a manner of prestige, Cherlin writes that “Through wedding ceremonies, individuals hoped to display their attainment of prestigious, comfortable, stable style of life.” This seems more like a retirement plan, as people fear to die alone, but it is interesting to note the way in which the view point of marriage has changed, from a means to an end.
One way in which Andrew Cherlin sees this is marriage as a capstone. He notes that 90 percent of people in America do get married, despite its differences from the traditional. He comments that “at a time of great public concern about the supposed decline of marriage, it’s remarkably high.” This is a very interesting point. There does seem to be a societal idea that marriage is on a decline, but then why are so many people still getting married? I will say that the nearly 50 percent divorce rate is alarming and detrimental to marriage as an institution, but why are the marriage rates still so high? Cherlin believes that it is due to a mixture of American individualism and the prestige of marriage. He writes that “the rewards of marriage are more individualized now. Being married is less of a social role and more of an individual achievement – a symbol of successful self-development.”
More and more often people want to get ready for marriage, as if it is an end (or goal) of living and not a means of living. One indicator of this for Cherlin is economic stability. At one point in time, American marriage was structured as a provider-caregiver model, in which one would financially support the family, thus leaving the other free to perform duties necessary for a household. However now, Cherline writes, “couples are deferring until they have a firm economic base,” before they get married. Cherlin cites some research to back this up, namely a 2002 Toledo study of in-depth interviews. The research found that “many of them [the interviewees] did not want to marry until they had an economic package in place that often included homeownership, being out of debt, and having a stable, adequate family income.” This is strange, again because of the traditional provider-caregiver model, which was a means for financial stability. One person secured the finances while the other secured the household. But now it seems that individuals want to secure themselves on their own, or feel as if they must do so as a pre-requisite before getting married. I would think that more people would see marriage as means for achieving this financial stability, especially with the dual incomes that many modern American families now have. But rather, many people see marriage as an end of financial stability, a marker of success for their individual lives.
Another way in which Cherlin identifies the prestige of marriage in American culture is in the wedding ceremony. Traditionally, the respective parents of the Bride and the Groom would pay for the ceremony costs and the reception costs respectively. But now, more and more individuals opt to provide for their own wedding ceremony. This many because as people get married older and older and delay the age at which they get married, their parents are less and less involved in their personal lives. At that point in time, the individuals are also able to better support themselves, especially financially. But as a manner of prestige, Cherlin writes that “Through wedding ceremonies, individuals hoped to display their attainment of prestigious, comfortable, stable style of life.” This seems more like a retirement plan, as people fear to die alone, but it is interesting to note the way in which the view point of marriage has changed, from a means to an end.
The Garden of Eden: The Original Society of Adam and Eve
Locke describes original humanity as savage, broken and scavenging in the state of nature where we are left alone. However, the Christian origin story describes a much different beginning. Instead of being created alone, God created Eve to be with Adam, a partner, another half to make Adam whole. (Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.") And instead of being left to scavenge for what they need to survive, they are provided with everything they need in Paradise. Paradise is originally defined as a plentiful garden, and the Garden of Eden was just that. (Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.)
However, Adam and Eve give up this Paradise; they defy their God and creator, and thus become broken and alone in this world left to scavenge for their own needs (Genesis 3:23 therefor the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken). This savage state of nature is a result of our own sin and not what we were created for. Man was created as a complete whole for the purpose of reflecting that of God's image (Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him), on earth as it is in Heaven. Man was to multiple, creating new life, and fill the earth so as to live abundantly. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were of one flesh (Genesis 2:23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh) and a reflection of God designed to birth new life in God's image.
One interesting point to mention about the union of Adam and Eve, a point that is often omitted from many wedding ceremonies, is the responsibilities that God gives to each of them (man and woman). In Genesis 3:16 reads: “To the women he [God] said, ‘I will surly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for you husband, and he shall rule over you.” It is very interesting that this is omitted from many Christian weddings. It is very plainly stated in the book of Genesis that a women’s husband shall rule over her. One of two things has happened here: either people have forgotten this passage, or people are purposefully ignoring this passage. The passage is very plain, but it is being ignored. In the Western world it seems obvious that it is ignored because people do want to submit to another, as it insinuates a type of bondage and control over them. It is interesting to note that this charge by God is given to Eve after the deception of the serpent. It does not seem that this charge was to be given to Eve otherwise. Based on the events listed in Genesis, it seems that this charge is given in response to Eve being deceived by the serpent. Genesis 3:13 writes: “‘Then the LORD God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’“ Taken in context of events, it seems that this charge of rule is a punishment for Eve, but does it apply to all women, that they shall be ruled by men? First, let me say that it is written that in this passage God gave rule to the Husband figure, not the man, but rather the husband.
Being that this charge is a punishment to Eve for being deceived, and that a punishment without a purpose of correction is useless, I believe that it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that this charge is for placing the husband in a protection role for the woman. This is not to say that the woman becomes a slave to the man, but rather that he is charged with her care. An example of an instance in which one is put in charge of another’s care without being over them is the example of a body guard. The bodyguard’s authority is paramount for the purpose of protection. The bodyguard is not in a place of complete power, but is rather charged with a responsibility. With that responsibility, authority is needed.
It is also important to note the manner in which God lays out the punishment to Eve. Preceding the punishment of desiring her husband and being ruled by him, God says that he will “surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring fourth children” (Genesis 3:16). If this charge is to be taken in order, in which the structure of the charge is important for the individual parts of the charge, then it seems that the pain of childbearing would be important to the charge of desire and being ruled. Let us consider what Jean-Jacques Rousseau says on the reason for which men rule. In his Discourse on Political Economy he writes, “however lightly we may regard the disadvantages peculiar to women, yet, as they necessarily occasion intervals of inaction, this is a sufficient reason for excluding them from this supreme authority: for when the balance is perfectly even, a straw is enough to turn the scale.” If women are to be pregnant for nine months a time, they cannot at that time rule. It is not that women are incapable of ruling, or that they are to be slaves of men or their husbands. But it is rather that man is not subject to a natural (and temporary) incapacitation of pregnancy.
Going back to the original charge to Eve, it seems reasonable to say that the second part of the charge, to desire and to be ruled, is directly related to and stemming from the first part, painful childbearing. If childbearing were not to be painful, then it would not produce any inaction. This is not to say that man is a superior creature because of women’s temporary inaction, but rather it is important to understand the basis for which man has been placed in this position. Husband as head of the household is not a position of power, but a position of responsibility. And with such responsibility is required sufficient authority to carry out such responsibilities.
[Continue to "Eve and Adam's need for a "fit" helper"]
However, Adam and Eve give up this Paradise; they defy their God and creator, and thus become broken and alone in this world left to scavenge for their own needs (Genesis 3:23 therefor the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken). This savage state of nature is a result of our own sin and not what we were created for. Man was created as a complete whole for the purpose of reflecting that of God's image (Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him), on earth as it is in Heaven. Man was to multiple, creating new life, and fill the earth so as to live abundantly. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were of one flesh (Genesis 2:23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh) and a reflection of God designed to birth new life in God's image.
One interesting point to mention about the union of Adam and Eve, a point that is often omitted from many wedding ceremonies, is the responsibilities that God gives to each of them (man and woman). In Genesis 3:16 reads: “To the women he [God] said, ‘I will surly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for you husband, and he shall rule over you.” It is very interesting that this is omitted from many Christian weddings. It is very plainly stated in the book of Genesis that a women’s husband shall rule over her. One of two things has happened here: either people have forgotten this passage, or people are purposefully ignoring this passage. The passage is very plain, but it is being ignored. In the Western world it seems obvious that it is ignored because people do want to submit to another, as it insinuates a type of bondage and control over them. It is interesting to note that this charge by God is given to Eve after the deception of the serpent. It does not seem that this charge was to be given to Eve otherwise. Based on the events listed in Genesis, it seems that this charge is given in response to Eve being deceived by the serpent. Genesis 3:13 writes: “‘Then the LORD God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’“ Taken in context of events, it seems that this charge of rule is a punishment for Eve, but does it apply to all women, that they shall be ruled by men? First, let me say that it is written that in this passage God gave rule to the Husband figure, not the man, but rather the husband.
Being that this charge is a punishment to Eve for being deceived, and that a punishment without a purpose of correction is useless, I believe that it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that this charge is for placing the husband in a protection role for the woman. This is not to say that the woman becomes a slave to the man, but rather that he is charged with her care. An example of an instance in which one is put in charge of another’s care without being over them is the example of a body guard. The bodyguard’s authority is paramount for the purpose of protection. The bodyguard is not in a place of complete power, but is rather charged with a responsibility. With that responsibility, authority is needed.
It is also important to note the manner in which God lays out the punishment to Eve. Preceding the punishment of desiring her husband and being ruled by him, God says that he will “surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring fourth children” (Genesis 3:16). If this charge is to be taken in order, in which the structure of the charge is important for the individual parts of the charge, then it seems that the pain of childbearing would be important to the charge of desire and being ruled. Let us consider what Jean-Jacques Rousseau says on the reason for which men rule. In his Discourse on Political Economy he writes, “however lightly we may regard the disadvantages peculiar to women, yet, as they necessarily occasion intervals of inaction, this is a sufficient reason for excluding them from this supreme authority: for when the balance is perfectly even, a straw is enough to turn the scale.” If women are to be pregnant for nine months a time, they cannot at that time rule. It is not that women are incapable of ruling, or that they are to be slaves of men or their husbands. But it is rather that man is not subject to a natural (and temporary) incapacitation of pregnancy.
Going back to the original charge to Eve, it seems reasonable to say that the second part of the charge, to desire and to be ruled, is directly related to and stemming from the first part, painful childbearing. If childbearing were not to be painful, then it would not produce any inaction. This is not to say that man is a superior creature because of women’s temporary inaction, but rather it is important to understand the basis for which man has been placed in this position. Husband as head of the household is not a position of power, but a position of responsibility. And with such responsibility is required sufficient authority to carry out such responsibilities.
[Continue to "Eve and Adam's need for a "fit" helper"]
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Divorce in "The Closing of the American Mind", by Allan Bloom
In his section on Divorce, Allan Bloom states that "in the past, such breaking away [Divorce] was sometimes necessary but always morally problematic" (119), and he continues with saying that "today [divorce] is normal" (119). Noting the normalcy of Divorce, or rather I would say frequency, Bloom questions what it means for the children, as they are the effected third party of Divorce. Bloom writes that “children may be told over and over again that their parents have a right to their own lives, that they will enjoy quality time instead of quantity time, that they are really loved by their parents even after the divorce, but children do not believe any of this” (119). In such a situation, children are having a reality altering experience; divorce will surely change the way they view family. Bloom writes that “the important lesson that the family taught was the existence of the only unbreakable bond, for better or for worse, between human beings” (119). With this view no longer valid, what will the children believe? What was once the inly unbreakable bond is now broken. Bloom comments that “the decomposition of this bond is surely America's most urgent social problem” (119). With a fifty percent divorce rate, this must surely be true. Especially if the children are to be the future, how is this present time affecting them? In the case that divorce is a subject of freeing one's will from the others, Bloom comments that “children learn a fear of enslavement to the wills of others” (119). This surely cannot be good for society; the irrational fear of enslavement if will puts us back into a fear like that of the state of nature, no longer part of society, but lost and fending for ourselves.
"The Marriage-Go-Round", by Andrew J. Cherlin
In his book, The Marriage-Go-Round, Andrew Cherlin discusses the state of Marriage and the Family in America today. His focus lays primarily on the instability of American relationships in contrast to other similar countries. With the instability of American families, based on Cherlin's observations, he comments on the place of children within the situation. Even if parents are to separate, Cherlin is of the opinion that the addition of a step-parent, even though it is an addition of a second parent, would actually create instability for the children. His explanations of his reasoning includes the tension that a step-parent would involuntarily create with the separated parent. This tension would create instability for the children. The basis for Cherlin's examination of the American Family revolves around the contradictory nature of America's prestiges views of Marriage and the strong cultural emphasis on Individualism. These two strong views are contradictory in nature. While Marriage is a value for the family, the individualism makes it difficult to place sufficient focus on the family. American's attempt at balancing these two cultural poles is what Cherlin finds so interesting.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Why Knot?: Why Society Needs Marriage
Reading through some blog posts today, I came upon the statement "two individuals to partake of a contract between them that’s really no one else’s business." But is marriage really of no concern to anyone else? Is marriage simply only between the two individuals that sign the contract? Or is marriage for something more than that?
In his book A Political Philosophy, Roger Scruton addresses Marriage in its social function. Beyond the basics of reproduction and capital, he discusses "social reproduction" and "social capital" (95). As a society, we need more than just children, but rather socialized children for the purpose of continuing our society. Childbearing is necessary for a growing population, but childrearing is important for a growing society. A unique aspect of marriage as an institution is that it is a place for both childbearing and childrearing.
Marriage is in society's best interest because it is an uninterrupted continuation of childrearing from the point of childbearing, as opposed to being two separated stages. When two people conceive a child, that child will need to be cared for. If not by the couple, then by someone else who has to pickup where they left off. The married couple also provides (or should provide) a warm loving environment into which the child is born and to which it should feel a sense of belonging. The difficulty of another person or couple raising the child is that the child loses its inherent sense of belonging. This is not to say that the child does not belong or cannot feel a sense of belonging, but rather that the feeling of inherent belonging is lost. Children do not initially cope well with the news of being someone else's child, because they do not understand the situation and are situationally separated from those who are raising them.
Let us consider this: There are two sides into which a child can be born. A child can either be born in a marriage or out of a marriage. Similarly, children can be raised either in a marriage or out of a marriage. There are three ways in which a child can be raised outside of the relationship into which they were conceived (they must be conceived between a heterosexual couple. I am temporarily ignoring the topic of In vitro fertilization, as it is outside the scope of nature). A child can either be raised by a single parent or legal guardian, by way of adoption, or through care of the state being foster care. More on these three soon.
In his book A Political Philosophy, Roger Scruton addresses Marriage in its social function. Beyond the basics of reproduction and capital, he discusses "social reproduction" and "social capital" (95). As a society, we need more than just children, but rather socialized children for the purpose of continuing our society. Childbearing is necessary for a growing population, but childrearing is important for a growing society. A unique aspect of marriage as an institution is that it is a place for both childbearing and childrearing.
Marriage is in society's best interest because it is an uninterrupted continuation of childrearing from the point of childbearing, as opposed to being two separated stages. When two people conceive a child, that child will need to be cared for. If not by the couple, then by someone else who has to pickup where they left off. The married couple also provides (or should provide) a warm loving environment into which the child is born and to which it should feel a sense of belonging. The difficulty of another person or couple raising the child is that the child loses its inherent sense of belonging. This is not to say that the child does not belong or cannot feel a sense of belonging, but rather that the feeling of inherent belonging is lost. Children do not initially cope well with the news of being someone else's child, because they do not understand the situation and are situationally separated from those who are raising them.
Let us consider this: There are two sides into which a child can be born. A child can either be born in a marriage or out of a marriage. Similarly, children can be raised either in a marriage or out of a marriage. There are three ways in which a child can be raised outside of the relationship into which they were conceived (they must be conceived between a heterosexual couple. I am temporarily ignoring the topic of In vitro fertilization, as it is outside the scope of nature). A child can either be raised by a single parent or legal guardian, by way of adoption, or through care of the state being foster care. More on these three soon.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Somewhere between Geneva and Paris
For John Locke, marriage is contractual and practical; Two individuals come together in order to fill their own needs by means of another. Rousseau picks up where Locke leaves off and moves on with a focus on a more desirable kind of marriage. Progressing past simply conjugal love, Rousseau speaks of a Romantic Love. Scott Yenor writes that "from the intense perspective of romantic love, conjugal love may appear to be nothing at all" (43). Rousseau's Romantic Love is "intense;" it moves past the basic needs of Locke's nature and has a deeper need. Rousseau writes that "I do not conceive how someone who needs nothing can love anything. I do not conceive how someone who loves nothing can be happy" (Rousseau, Emile, 221). For Rousseau, in order to be happy and truly so, not just Locke's contractual needs being met, people must need something. Perfect self sufficiency, without love, is boring and un-erotic. Rousseau wants more than tax evasion as a benefit of marriage; Rousseau wants Romance in marriage.
In Scott Yenor's chapter on Rousseau, he puts a big focus on the romance of Rousseau. However, this does not mean that joys of romance should should be excessive erotic joy, but rather a happiness in marriage, based on love, resulting in romance. On this balance of contractual marriage and romantic love, Rousseau looks at two examples. One is a excess and the other is an absence; "Paris is the locus of this cosmopolitan vice; Calvinist Geneva the locus of an opposite, restrictive vice" (Yenor 49).
Geneva paints a picture of indifference. Rousseau writes that "so much has been done to prevent women from being lovable that husbands have become indifferent" (Rousseau, Emile, 347). The characteristics of marriage that are attractive to people is gone. The Romantic connection between the married couple is non existent. Instead of spending time with each other, within the married couple, "Men gather to 'gamble, chat, read, drink and smoke'; women chat and engage in 'inexhaustible gossip'" (Yenor 49). These marriages are surely not happy, as that they look outside of their marriage to fill that gap. Geneva is not ridden with excessive vice, but rather that of restrictiveness that kills the joy of Romantic Love.
Paris paints a picture of excess. Where as Geneva restricts pleasure, Paris goes overboard. In an attempt at equality, Parisians seek a more gender-neutral society, a kind of sameness. In this sameness, they attempt to kill modesty as an" unnecessary refinement that inhibits sexual pleasure" (Yenor 52). For Rousseau, Modesty is what keeps men interested in women, physically speaking. By removing this modesty, "men will no longer esteem [women]" (Yenor 53). Rousseau argues that this will degrade the commitment of men and make love only "skin deep". Similarly to Locke, Rousseau roots the need for men's commitment in providing for the women as the more able. However, Rousseau limits this need by women only to the time of childbearing, however notes that "'this straw is enough to tip' rule to the man" (Yenor 48).
In his critique of these two cities, Rousseau notes some hits and misses. While Geneva separates men and women, they go to far and 'sap' love from marriage, which Rousseau argues is a necessary a happy marriage. And while Paris understands the need and presence of Love, they get carried away in the risqué and do not have the babies necessary for continuity. Here is where Rousseau discusses England as a well balanced mix of Geneva and Paris. Scott Yenor writes that "English couples as Rousseau depicts enjoy separate lives that heighten the differences between the sexes, and yet have similar tastes" (55).
In Scott Yenor's chapter on Rousseau, he puts a big focus on the romance of Rousseau. However, this does not mean that joys of romance should should be excessive erotic joy, but rather a happiness in marriage, based on love, resulting in romance. On this balance of contractual marriage and romantic love, Rousseau looks at two examples. One is a excess and the other is an absence; "Paris is the locus of this cosmopolitan vice; Calvinist Geneva the locus of an opposite, restrictive vice" (Yenor 49).
Geneva paints a picture of indifference. Rousseau writes that "so much has been done to prevent women from being lovable that husbands have become indifferent" (Rousseau, Emile, 347). The characteristics of marriage that are attractive to people is gone. The Romantic connection between the married couple is non existent. Instead of spending time with each other, within the married couple, "Men gather to 'gamble, chat, read, drink and smoke'; women chat and engage in 'inexhaustible gossip'" (Yenor 49). These marriages are surely not happy, as that they look outside of their marriage to fill that gap. Geneva is not ridden with excessive vice, but rather that of restrictiveness that kills the joy of Romantic Love.
Paris paints a picture of excess. Where as Geneva restricts pleasure, Paris goes overboard. In an attempt at equality, Parisians seek a more gender-neutral society, a kind of sameness. In this sameness, they attempt to kill modesty as an" unnecessary refinement that inhibits sexual pleasure" (Yenor 52). For Rousseau, Modesty is what keeps men interested in women, physically speaking. By removing this modesty, "men will no longer esteem [women]" (Yenor 53). Rousseau argues that this will degrade the commitment of men and make love only "skin deep". Similarly to Locke, Rousseau roots the need for men's commitment in providing for the women as the more able. However, Rousseau limits this need by women only to the time of childbearing, however notes that "'this straw is enough to tip' rule to the man" (Yenor 48).
In his critique of these two cities, Rousseau notes some hits and misses. While Geneva separates men and women, they go to far and 'sap' love from marriage, which Rousseau argues is a necessary a happy marriage. And while Paris understands the need and presence of Love, they get carried away in the risqué and do not have the babies necessary for continuity. Here is where Rousseau discusses England as a well balanced mix of Geneva and Paris. Scott Yenor writes that "English couples as Rousseau depicts enjoy separate lives that heighten the differences between the sexes, and yet have similar tastes" (55).
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Garden of Eden and the State of Nature
Locke describes original humanity as savage, broken and scavenging in the state of nature where we are left alone. However, the Christian origin story describes a much different beginning. Instead of being created alone, God created Eve to be with Adam, a partner, another half to make Adam whole. And instead of being left to scavenge for what they need to survive, they are provided with every thing they need in Paradise. Paradise is originally defined as a plentiful garden, and the Garden of Eden was just that.
However, Adam and Eve give up this Paradise, they defy their God and creator, and thus become broken and alone in this world left to scavenge for their own needs. This savage state of nature is a result of our own sin and not what we were created for. Man was created as a complete whole for the purpose of reflecting that of God's image, on earth as it is in Heaven. In God's image, man was to multiple, creating new life, and fill the earth so as to live abundantly.
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were of one whole and a reflection of God designed to birth new life in God's image. Reflecting upon this origin story, where there did exist this unity, wholeness, and perfection, what then does it mean for the modern family and marriage?
However, Adam and Eve give up this Paradise, they defy their God and creator, and thus become broken and alone in this world left to scavenge for their own needs. This savage state of nature is a result of our own sin and not what we were created for. Man was created as a complete whole for the purpose of reflecting that of God's image, on earth as it is in Heaven. In God's image, man was to multiple, creating new life, and fill the earth so as to live abundantly.
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were of one whole and a reflection of God designed to birth new life in God's image. Reflecting upon this origin story, where there did exist this unity, wholeness, and perfection, what then does it mean for the modern family and marriage?
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Freedom = Liberty + Reason
In my last post, I mentioned the education of children. I quoted Scott Yenor saying that "Human beings do not initially posses the rationality of freedom to make themselves consistent with reason" (29). From here, Yenor talks about the education of children for the purpose of teaching them the rationality and reasoning skills that they will need to become free individuals. Part of this is so that the children may develop into successful members of the political society in which they live. The Family is where these children learn this. Yenor writes "The educative goals of the family precede the goals of the political society, for the family cultivates the rationality , civility, character, and perhaps, technical skills that allow children to become members of a civil government" (29). This character cultivated by the family is important to society because once the children have grown, government won't (or shouldn't need to be) there to hold their hand. As I mentioned in the other post, Yenor writes that "political society aims to secure men in the possessions and use of property" (29); not to provide for men, but to secure them in their possessions that they already have. It is the family that "seek[s] to teach children how to acquire and manage property" (29). In order for these children to be able to one day manage their own property they will need reason. Reason cultivate by the family, in combination with the liberty protected by the government, is what makes a man truly free. And it is reason that will moderate the otherwise unrestrained liberty. A person with unrestrained liberty is not truly free until they have reason to allow them to choose for themselves within that liberty.
Yenor uses the following quote from Locke to illustrate this point:
Yenor uses the following quote from Locke to illustrate this point:
To turn [a child] loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free; but to thrust him out amongst brutes, and abandon him to a state as wretched, and as much beneath that of a man, as their's. This is that which puts the authority into the parents hands to govern the minority of their children.
Patriarchy: the Family Un-Locke'd
Locke's main goal is to disestablish the patriarchy that has been confining the family, but he wants to keep the family intact. A restructuring of the family. At first glance, patriarchy seems natural. It is "an accomplishment that meets natural needs and purports to solve the problem of the wandering, uncivilized man" (22). Locke talks about the "abler" as the ruler of the family, but Scott Yenor points out that this does not specifically mean men. Yenor writes that "First, men rule as abler and stronger persons, not as men. Locke's family is open to claims from superior women since he justifies rule on the basis of merit" (26). But with the rule of patriarchy being on the basis of the man, not on the basis of merit, it is very easy for the system to become corrupt. The temptations for the patriarch are strong and lend to "their progeny by enslaving or mis-educating [children] to an intense partisanship" (Yenor 24). Furthermore, this patriarchy seeps into politics creating an absolutism style of control, furthering the patriarchal rule.
In order to avoid this patriarchal abuse, Locke suggests a separation of the family structure from that of government by setting them up with separate ends. Yenor states that "Political society aims to secure men in the possessions and use of property, while families seek to teach children how to acquire and manage property" (29). Locke explains the goals, or ends, of the family as education of the child. Scott Yenor points out that education is necessary because "human beings do not initially possess the rationality or freedom to make themselves consistent with reason" (29). As part of this, the father is a necessary part of education. Yenor writes that "Nature seems to demand that a male and a female are needed for procreation and, perhaps, that both are needed for education youth to rationality" (25). On the father's part of this education, Yenor writes that "the central goal of [patriarchy] is for children to learn obedience to something greater than, and outside, themselves" (22). For Locke, the man is important to the overall structure, but him being male does not presume his dominance.
In order to avoid this patriarchal abuse, Locke suggests a separation of the family structure from that of government by setting them up with separate ends. Yenor states that "Political society aims to secure men in the possessions and use of property, while families seek to teach children how to acquire and manage property" (29). Locke explains the goals, or ends, of the family as education of the child. Scott Yenor points out that education is necessary because "human beings do not initially possess the rationality or freedom to make themselves consistent with reason" (29). As part of this, the father is a necessary part of education. Yenor writes that "Nature seems to demand that a male and a female are needed for procreation and, perhaps, that both are needed for education youth to rationality" (25). On the father's part of this education, Yenor writes that "the central goal of [patriarchy] is for children to learn obedience to something greater than, and outside, themselves" (22). For Locke, the man is important to the overall structure, but him being male does not presume his dominance.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
What is Love? (How does Love relate to Marriage?)
I'm not talking about Haddaway's hit song "What is love", but he does ask a good question. In 1993, "What is Love" hit the #2 spot in the UK (and #11 in the US), the same year the song was released. Other songs with the same title have been recorded by Jennifer Lopez and Nevershoutnever!.
Even though Haddaway never attempts at an answer, but rather just repeats the question over and over to a constant Eurodance beat, the question that he is asking is a very thought provoking one. What is Love? Or rather for me, how does Love relate to Marriage?
Starting with the first part of the question: What is Love (academically speaking)?
Psychology identifies many ways in which we love people. Likewise, there are many people that we love. I love my family. I love my friends. I love my God. But, I do not intend on marrying them. It is my best guess (I have not conducted research on this, but studies probably show...) that people get married because they love each other. For this discussion, I would like to separate Love and Marriage, not permanently because I do believe Love to be an Important part of marriage, but rather for the purpose of examining their relationship. In order to fully examine the relationship between these two topics they must be looked at individually before they can be examined together.
To me, marriage and love can be explained in a way similarly to a square and a rectangle. A square can be described as a rectangle because it has two sets of equal parallel sides, but a rectangle can not be described as a square because it does not have four equal length parallel sides. Likewise, I believe that Love is a part of marriage, but love does not specifically mean marriage. Having separated love from marriage as a cause to the effect, I now pose the question, if marriage is not about love, then "what is marriage?"
I doubt that Haddaway, nor anybody else, will ever release a hit song (much less record a song) entitled "What is Marriage?" But at a time where marriage is under attack as an institution, perhaps now is a good time to ask.
Even though Haddaway never attempts at an answer, but rather just repeats the question over and over to a constant Eurodance beat, the question that he is asking is a very thought provoking one. What is Love? Or rather for me, how does Love relate to Marriage?
Starting with the first part of the question: What is Love (academically speaking)?
Robert Sternberg, an American psychologist, has a triangular theory of love, in which he describes different types of love in the context of specific combinations of three main attributes of love: Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment. Different combinations of these three attributes identify different types of love. For example, if only Intimacy is present, Sternberg calls this 'liking' someone. If you add Commitment to the Intimacy, then you have Compassionate Love. However, if you were to combine Passion and Intimacy (without commitment), you have an Infatuation. The full Triangle can be seen here.
John Lee, another psychologist, identifies 'styles' of love in his book Colours of Love (1973). 'Ludus' lovers see love as a game. 'Pragma', pragmatic love, focuses on the logical and practical side of love. 'Eros', the love of Beauty (Literal), is a love style of Passion and Romance. 'Mania' is a love style that is full of passion and sexual desire, but is out of control and often times leads to stalking. 'Storge' love is calm but lacks passion. Finally, 'Agape' love, the love of the Bible, is unconditional love that is selfless and giving.
Psychology identifies many ways in which we love people. Likewise, there are many people that we love. I love my family. I love my friends. I love my God. But, I do not intend on marrying them. It is my best guess (I have not conducted research on this, but studies probably show...) that people get married because they love each other. For this discussion, I would like to separate Love and Marriage, not permanently because I do believe Love to be an Important part of marriage, but rather for the purpose of examining their relationship. In order to fully examine the relationship between these two topics they must be looked at individually before they can be examined together.
To me, marriage and love can be explained in a way similarly to a square and a rectangle. A square can be described as a rectangle because it has two sets of equal parallel sides, but a rectangle can not be described as a square because it does not have four equal length parallel sides. Likewise, I believe that Love is a part of marriage, but love does not specifically mean marriage. Having separated love from marriage as a cause to the effect, I now pose the question, if marriage is not about love, then "what is marriage?"
I doubt that Haddaway, nor anybody else, will ever release a hit song (much less record a song) entitled "What is Marriage?" But at a time where marriage is under attack as an institution, perhaps now is a good time to ask.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Family Politics by Scott Yenor
My Thesis topic has been accepted and tomorrow I will be getting my first book in the mail for research. Scott Yenor is a Professor at Boise State and released this book in February of this year. If I understood correctly Dr. Lawler, my thesis advisor, actually did a review on this book. He put the book and the author in high regards. Dr. Yenor is very strongly in favor of the family and his new book should provide strong evidence for my paper.
When I first found this book, I felt like it addressed my topic perfectly. Here is the book's product description from Amazon.
When I first found this book, I felt like it addressed my topic perfectly. Here is the book's product description from Amazon.
With crisp prose and intellectual fairness, Family Politics traces the treatment of the family in the philosophies of leading political thinkers of the modern world. What is family? What is marriage? In an effort to address contemporary society's disputes over the meanings of these human social institutions, Scott Yenor carefully examines a roster of major and unexpected modern political philosophers from Locke and Rousseau to Hegel and Marx to Freud and Beauvoir. He lucidly presents how these individuals developed an understanding of family in order to advance their goals of political and social reform. Through this exploration, Yenor unveils the effect of modern liberty on this foundational institution and argues that the quest to pursue individual autonomy has undermined the nature of marriage and jeopardizes its future.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Conservative [definition]
My upcoming capstone thesis will be from the point of view of a conservative. Not to say that I am a Republican (well, I am), but rather to say that I hold preservation in high regards. I consider myself a classy/old school person (my vehicle has no computer, I shave with a handmade straight razor, I love reading great books), yet at the same time I consider my self a tech-savy individual (I program computers, I am chained to my blackberry, I love my kindle). I believe in progress as well as conservation.
In Roger Scruton's book Arguments for Conservatism, he states that "the purpose of politics... is to maintain a vigilant resistance to the entropic forces that erode our social and ecological inheritance" (35). For me, being conservative means to acknowledge that which has been given to us inherently, to improve upon its achievements, and to learn from its mistakes. I do not mean conservatism to be a ball and chain for "progress" (although I feel that the term 'progress' often times improperly characterizes what should simply be considered 'change,' a different way of doing things that is not inherently better), but rather an educated observation followed by action. Taking the time to consider what has been done, we have the opportunity to become the best of what ever was; then we build upon it. We do not try to reinvent the wheel, but we definitely do not make them out of stone.
With that, I hope to provide a definitional basis for my conservative argument for marriage.
In Roger Scruton's book Arguments for Conservatism, he states that "the purpose of politics... is to maintain a vigilant resistance to the entropic forces that erode our social and ecological inheritance" (35). For me, being conservative means to acknowledge that which has been given to us inherently, to improve upon its achievements, and to learn from its mistakes. I do not mean conservatism to be a ball and chain for "progress" (although I feel that the term 'progress' often times improperly characterizes what should simply be considered 'change,' a different way of doing things that is not inherently better), but rather an educated observation followed by action. Taking the time to consider what has been done, we have the opportunity to become the best of what ever was; then we build upon it. We do not try to reinvent the wheel, but we definitely do not make them out of stone.
With that, I hope to provide a definitional basis for my conservative argument for marriage.
First Blog Entry...
So, to be honest, I have never understood why most blogs exist. I have seen many people with them, but never understood why so many people have them. However, I hope to use this in order to better prepare my senior thesis for my capstone course. I am hoping that working out my thoughts will help me to produce a better product. Maybe publishing some smaller works, that are open or criticism, will be constructive. Also, perhaps any commentary would help me work out the kinks in my writing, logic, and flow from one idea to the next.
With that, here I go.
With that, here I go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)