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.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)