Hope For Marriage?
The first of two focus articles (Is There Hope For Marriage? ) answers “yes” so long as we reject the connection between marriage and the prevailing cultural notion of "Big Romance." That does not mean entering into passionless commitments but rather "accepting that romance and affection are great but not the chief objective of a thriving marriage."
What a curiosity that whole idea of Big Romance has been, having arisen as a byproduct of industrialization with its transition from productive agrarian households to bourgeois industrial ones, marked by a sole nine-to-five, “honey-I'm-home” (usually) man breadwinner and the loss of (usually) women's economic agency in family life. Thus was born the "companionship marriage" premised not on economic necessity or transactional exchange but on mutual interpersonal romantic affection.
That may have worked for many (for others, good riddance) but times then changed -- fewer gender-specific jobs, loss of employment guarantees, remote working, e-commerce -- such that the largely historical economic dependency that had fostered the "companionship" marriages then shifted to "self-expressive" marriages in which Big Romance became less a factor.
But now with the social liquefaction (soil behaving like a liquid during an earthquake) marked by escalating chaos and diminishing prospects, the need for reimagined family stability may now have become more acute than ever.
Enter then an asserted new model to address those post-industrial households -- actually a derivation of the old agrarian model but fashioned to fit within today’s economic landscape, featuring the dual-earner household, again embracing a kind of post-romantic solidarity by valorizing duty (over self-actualization). “Honey, we’re (still) both home.” Details have yet to emerge.
That vision of Big Romance’s (changing) role in marriage is but a gentle massage compared to the second piece (Ten Tips For A Great Marriage According to Friedrich Nietzsche), a veritable Rolfing of the subject – the glimpse of the skull beneath the skin of the Hallmark greeting card – as it relates to the role of romance as the foundation of a solid long-term marriage.
Per Nietzsche, "love is a feeling; feelings are involuntary; and a promise cannot be made based on something that one has no control over. Instead of expecting such ephemeral feelings to form the basis of a long-term partnership, we should commit to actions that 'are usually the consequences of love.'"
Be forewarned that his counsel for a great marriage – marry your best friend, never promise everlasting love, try serial monogamy, give her a baby (super-babies), make it work, let him suffer, get a little action on the side – will come across to many (most?) as so over-the-top and at times self-contradictory that it might be best to start by reminding readers that he – Nietzsche being Nietzsche – likely approved of marriage in terms of driving civilization forward and upward by welcoming the necessary challenges and obstacles in life. Or, per Jack Nicholson’s character in As Good As It Gets, to “Make me want to be a better man.”
Thus framed, those married, having been married, planning to be married, and never going to be married might share their respective Securus Locus life experiences.
Happy V-Day next week.
(Special note: the MM 2/13 subject will be dream interpretation so would-be participants are encouraged to sample and freshly document some samples over the preceding two weeks)