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.
Monday, November 21, 2011
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"]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)