Want to discuss marriage here? I stole these from Karen on another thread and I liked them as discussion fodder:
And here's a piece from Don S. Browning.
I just hate PDF. Sorry the snippet is so ugly looking.
<<What Kind of Love?
What is the model of love that fits a
critical marriage culture? Cert a i n l y, a
g o od marriage re q u i res love, but there
are different kinds of love. There are at
least three models that are competing
in our society to provide our dominant
ideals for marital love.
One model is
associated with the Greek word e ro s . I t
sees love as a striving for individual fulfillment,
and it views marriage as a
means to that fulfillment. This perspective
is associated with the philosophies
of self-actualization found in many—
although not all—of the mod e rn psychotherapies
and personality theories.
Another view of love is conveyed by
the Greek word a g a p e—or at least many
i n t e r p retations of this word. It sees marital
love as a process of self-giving and
self-sacrifice for the good of one’s
spouse, with little thought for oneself.
This view is associated with mod e rn
Protestant perspectives such as those of
Luther and Calvin and is often attacked
by the advocates of love as eros.
Then there is love associated with
the Latin word c a r i t a s ; it sees love more
as a matter of equal re g a rd and mutuality
between husband and wife. It
entails giving both equal respect and
equal helpfulness to one’s spouse, but it
also expects equal respect and help in
re t u rn. Self-sacrifice and self-giving are
still found in this view of love, but they
a re seen less as ends in themselves than
as actions and attitudes needed to
renew love as equal re g a rd when it
becomes fractured and strained. Sacrifice
here is a commitment to go the
extra mile in order to do what is needed
to re s t o re the relationship once
again to love as mutuality. This view of
love can be found in certain classic
Roman Catholic sources, especially the
writings of Thomas Aquinas. It also has
been advanced by a number of contemp
o r a ry theological ethicists in both
P rotestantism and Roman Catholicism.
It is this third model of love that
my colleagues and I advocated in F ro m
C u l t u re Wars to Common Gro u n d . It is
this kind of love that we think fits best
with a critical familism and a critical
m a rriage culture. It is the best love for
spouses and provides the best context
for childre n .>>
and:
Here's a snippet from the James Q. Wilson essay.
<<Renewing a Marr i a g e
C u l t u re
This essay ought to end with some
ideas about how to re i n f o rce marr i a g e
and make it a more compelling altern ative
than cohabitation; it would if I
knew how, but I do not. The decline in
m a rriage, as evident throughout most
of the industrial West with the rising
levels of cohabitation, divorce, and
s i n g l e - p a rent families, can best be
explained by broad, profound, and
enduring cultural changes. This is an
a rgument I shall make in a fort h c o ming
book, and it, like this essay, ends
with no policy recommendations that
a re likely to have more than a trivial
e ffect on marriage. Individuals have
been emancipated from external cont
rols, whether those of the state or the
c h u rch or the village, and have accordingly
created lives designed to satisfy
their immediate needs whatever the
l o n g - t e rm cost to their off s p r i n g .
Reversing that culture means re v e r s i n g
the greatest accomplishment of the
West: human emancipation.
If a marriage culture is to replace an
individualistic culture, it will have to
be done not by government pro g r a m s
or foundation grants, but by human
beings, one by one, putting in place a
renewed commitment to a larger social
g o od — n a m e l y, the well-being of their
c h i l d ren. Almost all parents, of course,
love their children, but that love often
does not extend, as it ought, to a tru e
grasp of what human happiness means
when it is viewed in the long run. One
fact may help tell the story. People who
a re religious are much less likely to
cohabit and much more likely to marry
than those who are secular.1 6 You who
a re reading this essay might ask yourself
what to do with that fact.
>>
and:
For those of you who can remember back to the discussion on the relevance
of marriage in today's society, here's today's Raspberry column. The
American Experiment Quarterly he references is here:
amexp.org
<<Marriage-Minded
By William Raspberry
Monday, August 27, 2001; Page A15
"We begin our marriages with loads of social support. That's what wedding
rituals are for . . . the historical way in which the stakeholders in a marriage
come together in support of it."
That's William J. Doherty, a University of Minnesota professor, explaining our
changing attitudes about marriage. We used to understand that the
community had a stake in the solidity of the family structure. At big religious
weddings, we still call on members of the couple's community -- as
represented by the wedding guests -- to do all in their power to make the
marriage work. But the fact is that the couples are pretty much left to their own
devices as soon as the "I wills" get said. Or as Doherty puts it:
"The only other marital event that is universally acknowledged by a community
is the death of one of the spouses. A wedding to launch a marriage, a funeral
to end it -- the rest of the time you are on your own as far as your community is
concerned."
Doherty's is one of more than a dozen thoughtful essays in the summer issue
of American Experiment quarterly, published by the Minneapolis-based
Center of the American Experiment, which features a symposium on making
marriage more child-centered.
Some of the essays focus on government policy (welfare, taxes, parental
subsidies) as a way to strengthen marriage; some are oddly nostalgic (one
author thinks marriage for the sake of the on-the-way baby is not a bad idea);
some make the economic and child-welfare case for marriage. All are
unabashedly pro-marriage.
David Blankenhorn, president of the Manhattan-based Institute for American
Values, ponders how to talk about marriage in other than economic terms.
"In rich modern societies," he says, "marriage is no longer a matter of
survival. . . . We have become rich enough to transform marriage from a
broad necessity to a personal option."
So what is left? Religion, of course. Most people of faith hardly need to be
reminded of the sacredness of marriage, and of the marriage vows. And then
there is what Blankenhorn calls "sexual complementarity" -- the "profound
yearning for human completion, specifically for lasting sexual reunion, or the
bringing together of the male and female dimensions of the human person
into 'one flesh.' "
It's one of those lessons that is likely to make instant sense to those who
already believe it -- and to prove unpersuasive to those who don't.
The authors are mostly members of what might be called the "marriage
movement," and most (but by no means all) are probably right of center. What
commends them, though, is that they are uniformly thoughtful -- not surprising
given their public reputations. They include, besides Blankenhorn, Doherty
and editor Mitch Pearlstein (president of the Center for the American
Experiment): Jean Bethke Elshtain, Don S. Browning, Allan Carlson, Martha
Farrell Erickson, Chester E. Finn Jr., Maggie Gallagher, William Galston,
Wade Horn, Katherine Kersten, Ron Mincy, Robert Rector, Isabel Sawhill,
James Q. Wilson and Claudia Winkler.
Most are at pains to make clear that their point isn't to condemn either single
or divorced parents. Pearlstein, who brought the authors together, is himself
in his second marriage. They are talking about the survival of the idea of
marriage as perhaps the key social institution for bringing up healthy, happy
and competent children.
Their essays are their responses to this interesting question:
We assume that marriage will continue to exist in some form as an intimate
relationship for adults. . . . But given the societal retreat from child
centeredness, what can we do -- or should we do -- to vitalize marriage as the
principal social institution in the United States for childbearing and child
rearing?
It's a good question for all of us.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company>> |
