Romantic and marital love - part 5

If we should not underwrite our marriage contract with eros (as it seems the contract is largely designed to protect the marriage from eros), then what should we underwrite it with? What can be truly considered marital love?

If we were to underwrite our marriages with agape, say, which by the classical definition is disinterested, then our bonds of marriage bond us to serve the other without seeking reciprocation. And yet, we found that while this is easy to apply to neighbourly love, friendship love begins seeking reciprocation from an equal, and romantic love tentatively places responsibilities on our complimentary other. Thus marriage is a mutual bond that places responsibilities on the other (as well as ourselves) which are far greater than any other of the loves we have discussed so far. Yet, is the responsibility placed on the other none other than the same agape which we obligate ourselves to? And is the mutual agape to be undertaken as true agape: i.e. a love that does not seek to protect the rights of the one loving even if the one loved is obligated to love back?

If both spouses loved in a way which only thought of the other, than there would be no need to claim our own rights. But in the world in which we live this is rarely the case. In cases where one spouse, for whatever reason, fails to receprocate the love, the love of other spouse comes under strain as the rights of that spouse are threatened or even violated. Will agape hold up, or is there a point where the unconditionality of agape intersects with the failure of the marriage contract on the part of the other?

In such cases it may be fair to say that the spouse who was doing their part actually continues to love the other, but they do not know if they can continue in the relationship, because the marriage relationship should be two ways. The love remains, but the relationship is broken.

Only a century ago such a spouse would have soldiered on to the grave, faithfully remaining by their spouse no matter what. But these days we are more likely to uphold our own rights (and sometimes this may be necessary in the midst of a violent relationship or an adulterous spouse).

If this is the case, and it seems to be, with so many divorces, then the marriage contract and the pledge of love "to death do us part" is not truly unconditional, but rather remains conditional on the reciprocation of the other. Should either party fail their part of the contract, the contract may be annulled. This may or may not be how things should be, but certainly it is how they are, at least in the Western world.

This, it would seem, places the marriage contract above the love that underwrites it. Perhaps the bigger issue is why the love that underwrites fails in the first place. Could it be that it was the wrong love to begin with, an erotic desire for the other, rather than an unconditional affirmation of the other, the recognition of infinite value (dignity) and the unconditional and eternal response of seeking the thriving of this dignified other, and sharing in the joy of his or her being; walking the path of life together, whereever it leads walking together as one, no matter the cost; forsaking all other desires, potential partners, and ambitions that may pull us apart; fully giving ourselves over to the other, and renewing that gift of our whole selves each day, which is our undying expression of our love; respecting always; trusting; hoping always; never giving up...

If we do not know what love is, then what we think we have may not be enough to underwrite the sacred contract of marriage.

So far I have assumed that the disinterested agape is the preferred love here, but how does this bode with the romantic aspects of marriage, and how does it allow us to receive the reciprocated love of the other? Is there more to it than just agape? And how does our previous exploration of love as seeing fit into this relationship?

Marriage is an exclusive, complimentary relationship underwritten by mutual unconditional love, but I dont think we have gone far enough in understanding the specific nature of marital love yet, save to exclude eros, and to raise some questions about agape.

I will need to continue on this one.

Read more...

Romantic and marital love - part 4

We have established that marriage vows are underwritten by a tangible 'something'. We have noted that the vows are necessary to protect that something, and yet at the same time the something seems to be required to fulfill the vows, which is kind of circular.

I wonder if the issue here is that when people marry, they often marry for eros, which is a desire for the other for myself. If this is true then the I remains supreme and, from the perspective of the I, and the other simply becomes a possession belonging to the I. As long as the other fulfills the desires of the I and does not frustrate the ambitions of the I then everything is fine (from their perspective).

But strain and tension can result if the other does begin to frustrate the intentions, ambitions, decisions, and desires (including but restricted to libido) of the I. Within this framework the I will fight for its will, whether by assertion, aggression, conflict, deception, manipulation, withdrawal, separation... any means to remove the obstacle of the other from the plans of the I. In such cases the two 'I's cease to function as a we (not that they were were one).

Over a prolonged period of this tension, the bonds that draw the two together are replaced by the forces which drive the two apart and, couples may find themselves living together as two individuals, or living together in conflict as fighters, or with one person in submission to the other at all times as a conquered and somewhat dehumanised slave, or various other combinations... until one of the 'I's can no longer take it.

Similarly, if the 'I's marry for eros, which is a desire for the other, then what happens when that desire is fulfilled? I now have the other, but the promises eros made to me about ecstasy and fulfillment from this person are never fully realised (because of the very nature of eros), or perhaps the initial fulfillment and excitement fades into familiarity, since eros desires what we have not yet tasted (or biblically: 'known'). After we taste it, the thing is now 'known' and the desire is satisfied. Yet the feeling of desire which tells us that "if we only had such and such we would be happy" still yearns for "something", since desire always seeks self transcendence. Thus, naturally we will always desire new things, and never be content with what we have.

I do not think that marriage should be based on eros, or at least on eros alone. The more I consider this the more I believe that we should not let eros direct our activity as far as it is in our power not to. I only see it resulting in evil. Even if it is the force that initially brought us together, the same force will at a whim tear us apart.

Read more...

Romantic and marital love - part 3

As our exploration of love leads us closer to understanding it as a kind of union, let us now turn to marital love. We have seen that romantic love appears to be the tentative formation of a strong bond in which there is seen complimentary aspects in the other, and in which each person seeks to transcend their own selves to share life together with the other as a 'we'.

If allowed to run its course, and if the gravitational forces that draw the two together are not counteracted by repulsive forces such as lives that differ too much, clashes of personality, clashes of interests (in essence if the two selves are not able or willing to self-forsake in order to merge into the other and to mutually indwell each other) then a point will come where the two become one.

In just what sense do the two become one? Is this a mystical union? Is it a ontological bond of love that really does unite the two into a we? Is the bond more a volitional bond, a vow and contract of love (i.e. a marriage)? Does it include all of the above? And finally, does it include things we have not listed above also?

I have been wondering about the nature of this union in light of the high rate of failed marriages in the west today, in light of the high rate of adultery, and in light of recent studies in the UK which indicate that a growing number of people see marriage and exclusive binding union (i.e. monogamy) as unnatural.

If adultery is a real and present threat, and if the bonds of marriage can so commonly fall apart, then what is to be said of the bond that holds together? And what is to be said about the nature and reality of the union of the two into a we?

Is it that when people marry these days they do not truly unite? They do not truly give themselves over to the we, and instead they remain two I's? It seems from simple observation that there are many cases of conflicts of interests, clashes of wills, personal ambitions that the 'we' cannot share, and which pull one 'I' away from the other. Even the insatiable eros can pull one I away from the we in search of another I with which to form another we, but the we is often never a true we that the I is pulled away from, and often neither is it a true we that the I is drawn towards. The issue from what I can see, is that the I always remains an I, and any other I tends to be subjected to the desires of this I, as a means to my ends rather than the end of my means.

If this is true, is the problem that the tangible we never truly or never fully forms? Or is the problem that the we is not a bond that is formed once and remains on its own from then on, but rather consists of a constant renewal of the vow to remain a we, and constant reaffirmation and realisation of that vow? If it is then the we is always tentative, always fragile, and the two Is always remain. In such cases the presence of the binding contract of marriage is essential to the stability of the we, and this seems to be the case, or else we would not require the contract of marriage.

It is interesting and comforting that one of the classic clauses in the marriage contract (though it is used less and less in today's DIY marriage vows) is "I take you, forsaking all others". I find the wording of this phrase interesting. It is a volitional commitment to exclusivity. It is not saying "I will not desire others or be attracted to others, but I forsake all other interests, and will be with you alone."

Thus, it is not an automatic thing that when people get married their desires and impulses are turned off, neither is it true that they 'lock on' to the spouse, but love and full union require that each party promises to volitionally forsake all such desires. I think the threat of adultery is only one expression of desire that can draw an I away from a we.

Yet the other desires are not always stated so clearly. "For rich or for poor" is essentially the vow to forsake the pursuit of wealth if it leads you away from the we, just as "in sickness and in health" binds the I's to each other even if the other becomes a burden or deathblow to whatever my ambitions are. In all these cases there is a conscious decision made and vowed that I choose the we over and against any such forces which would work to separate the we for the sake of an I.

It seems that people are only too ready to break this contract and forsake the we for the sake of the I. And obviously there is a lot of serious reasons for this. For one, if the contract is a contract alone, why would we ever desire to enter into it in the first place? And why would we ever desire to forsake the big work break we had been working towards for two decades in order to care for a terminally sick spouse.

This suggests that whatever marriage contract we enter into is actually underwritten by something of substance and value. There is a real bond, however fragile, that is being protected by these contractual vows because without this protection and security, something of great value can and will be destroyed by what is in the end selfish forces (the desires of the I).

Looks like I need to break this into several posts to keep it readable. Stay tuned.

Read more...