The trouble with critics, Part 3
Today I conclude my response to Laura Kipnis's article, The Trouble With Marriage. See Part 1 and Part 2 if you haven't read them yet.
And then there's the American mantra of the failing relationship: 'Good marriages take work!' When exactly did the rhetoric of the factory become the default language of coupledom? Is there really anyone to whom this is an attractive proposition, who, after spending all day on the job, wants to come home and work some more? Here's an interesting question: what's the gain to a society in promoting more work to an overworked population as a supposed solution to the travails of marital discontent?
At this point I begin to wonder what sort of lifestyle Ms. Kipnis would promote over marriage. Is there any ongoing situation in life that does not require work? Any meaningful relationship that functions with no effort from the people involved? Is the single life one of blissful relaxation? Does a hippie commune's existence automatically guarantee the mutual respect and cooperation of every one of its members? No. Life requires effort, sometimes difficult effort. To complain of this, or to expect anything else, betrays a misguided and egotistically entitled attitude.
Sometimes, marriages break. Sometimes, they require fixing. Every day, they require cultivation. You can call that "work" if you like and compare it to a factory shift, but take if from an ex factory worker: it's not the same. The work you put in at a factory (10- and 12-hour shifts in my experience) earns you a paycheck at the end of the week. The work you put into a marriage earns you a devoted partner and a lifetime of joy and contentment. Yes, it's work. But it's worth it.
What if luring people into conditions of emotional stagnation and deadened desires were actually functional for society? Consider the norms of modern marriage: here is a social institution devoted to maximising submission and minimising freedom, habituating a populace to endless compliance with an infinite number of petty rules and interdictions, in exchange for love and companionship.
Perhaps a citizenry schooled in renouncing desire - and whatever quantities of imagination and independence it comes partnered with - would be, in many respects, socially advantageous. Note that the conditions of marital stasis are remarkably convergent with those of a cowed workforce and a docile electorate. And wouldn't the most elegant forms of social control be those that come packaged in the guise of individual needs and satisfactions, so wedded to the individual psyche that any contrary impulse registers as the anxiety of unlovability? Who needs a policeman on every corner when we're all so willing to police ourselves and those we love, and call it upholding our vows?
I guess this argument hinges on definitions. What is freedom? If it means doing whatever you want whenever you want in any way you want, then marriage does not offer freedom. In fact, no private or public institution, no personal relationship, no government, and no religion in the world offers freedom by that definition. It occurs to me that I may be setting up my own straw man here, that perhaps this is not actually Lipnis's definition of freedom. But I don't know how else to interpret her statement that marriage is an "institution devoted to maximising submission and minimizing freedom." Living with, or even near, another person requires compromise. It requires investments of time and effort. Our government recognizes this, so it has given us reams of "petty rules" to maintain peace in society. Every married couple recognizes this, and decides where to leave the toothpaste, how to load the dishwasher, etc. That's not just marriage—that's life.
Marriage succeeds when a wife lives in submission to her husband and a husband devotes every ounce of his energy to his wife's well-being. My wife and I strive for that ideal. We are each other's slaves, so to speak, and we are benevolent masters who want the absolute best for each other no matter what the cost. That means I don't live for myself. That means I sacrifice my desires, up to and including my own life if necessary. That, to me, is the definition of love, and the essence of freedom. Without marriage, I would not be free to love my wife and experience the true joy of real intimacy.
In this respect, perhaps rising divorce rates are not such bad news after all. The Office for National Statistics blames couples' high expectations for the upswing in divorce. But are high expectations really such a bad thing? What if we all worked less and expected more - not only from our marriages or in private life, but in all senses - from our jobs, our politicians, our governments? What if wanting happiness and satisfaction - and changing the things that needed changing to attain it - wasn't regarded as 'selfish' or 'unrealistic' (and do we expect so much from our mates these days because we get so little back everywhere else?). What if the real political questions were what should we be able to expect from society and its institutions? And, if other social contracts and vows beside marriage were also up for re-examination, what other ossified social institutions might be next on the hit list?
I'm not sure what to say about this, because I'm not exactly sure what Lipnis is trying to say or how the body of the essay has anything to do with this conclusion(?). A few thoughts:
- High expectations do not cause disillusionment. Wrong expectations do. As I said before, older generations must educate younger generations more effectively in the ways of life, love, and relationships.
- Work Less, Expect More. It sounds like a great campaign slogan. But it will not work in a society that needs participation from its members.
- Wanting happiness and satisfaction is currently regarded as selfish and unrealistic? This is another straw man. Our country was founded on our fundamental right to pursue happiness. The problems occur when we fail to find happiness where we imagined it would be. Most of the things that we pursue don't actually bring about happiness—they just keep us busy.
- What if the real political questions were how can citizens improve society and raise the quality of life for everyone around them? JFK was on to something when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you..."
- Not every social institution is necessary or beneficial forever. If an institution or a law or a tradition becomes ossified, by all means let's examine it and see if it needs dismantling. I don't think the institution of marriage is ready for a museum, though, and in my opinion its existence is essential to the survival of society.
Kipnis's objections to marriage seem to stem from her view that marriage doesn't make people happy. She is correct in her premise, but wrong in her conclusion. Marriage doesn't, and can't, make anyone happy. Neither a husband nor a wife has the ability to bring about a condition of happiness in a spouse. Happier is the best we can hope for. A person experiences true happiness or, as I prefer to call it, joy when he or she understands the purpose of life and then works to fulfill it. The full implication of that is a topic for another post, and perhaps another blog. I will say, though, that I have explored/read/discussed/experimented all sorts of things in an effort to find that purpose. Here's what I've come up with, in a nutshell: Love God and keep His commandments, love your neighbor, and don't waste life by living it for yourself.
Laura Kipnis is the author of Against Love: A Polemic (Pantheon) and a professor at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Curt Hendley is a happily married man (5 yrs., 6 mos. as of this post) who has written several technical manuals for Dell OpenManage server management software that no one will ever read.
