Here's an idea I have been kicking around for a while:
marriage is revolutionary and rebellious. OK sounds ridiculous no? Especially when you have groups like Focus on the Family and other religious wingnuts emphasizing an exclusive and hateful version of marriage and family. My idea is that in a capitalist society such as ours marriage goes against the genius of the economy. In short, our extractive economy is creating havoc in our world and anthing that promises to reign that in is worth investigating.
Economics 101 the rev style:Our affiliations used to be based on the tribe. Every woman who was your mother's age was called "auntie" and every old man was "grandpa." The word "affiliation" itself comes from the latin for "adopt like a son" so it has familial overtones. Our affiliations are becoming more and more fragmented.
After the tribe we separated into what used to be the extended family; father, mother, children grandchildren, perhaps a stray aunt or two. These folks all lived in the same household which was the basic unit of our economy. They shared space, and practically everything else; spoons, towels, toothbrushes. Not much was purchased on the market. With the rise of the market economy, everything changed. The "nuclear family" became the basic unit of our economy. Everyone was expected to strike out on their own and parents were to fend for themselves after the kids were gone. "Empty nest syndrome" is a recent phenomenon.
Now there is much gnashing of teeth and crying about the breakdown of the nuclear family but given our economic system we can't have it any other way. Our economy is premised on everyone buying as much stuff as they can. If I and my wife live together with two children do we really need two dishwashing machines? No. That reminds me, recently I saw ads trying to sell the idea that we all need two clothes dryers because drying takes much longer than washing clothes and it would be much more efficient if you could dry two loads at once. Perhaps we do need to clothes dryers. Does everyone really need their own lawnmower? Think about it. You only use it two hours a week, surely you could find a time to mow when your neighbor isn't and then share a mower.
I would expect that anything shared is not going to do well in our economy. Think of it. What is there that we share or use together freely that is doing well in our society? Monogamy? No! Polygamy? Not!, Mass transportation? Nope! Dormitories at colleges? Nadda! Even watching tv used to be a communal event but now everyone has their own television in their own room (see!).
Don't be surprised as this trend continues. Activities which used to be communal will become increasingly segregated and personal. Look at the death of the metanarratives. Let's take religion. The current trend in the christian religion is for everyone to find and meet their own "personal Jesus." It's no coincidence that the Reformation with it's corresponding individual interpretations of the Bible occured at the same time as the rise of market capitalism. So much for the Catholic (Universal) church. But what about the rise of fundamentalist religions? This is simply an understandable reaction against the disorienting effects of everyday realities. Look at this whole blog entry. It's a fundamentalist reaction too. Just not a religious one. (Oh for the days of the grand marxist metanarrative).
Sharing is the antithesis of capitalism- if you are to do to do your part for the economy you would: marry, have kids, divorce, and purchase separately outfitted (new) houses. Two of everything for the kids as well. Heck it would be even better if you did that two or three times.
- this is part of the reason why kids who live at home after adolescence are cause for much concern these days. They don't buy stuff. But on second thought, perhaps they are there because that enables them to buy more than they would otherwise. If housing is taken care of then the obstinate son has that much more money to spend on non-durable items such as video games and pizza.
N.B. When I mean marriage I don't mean that hateful constitutional definition "one man, one woman." For this hypothesis, it is unimportant who or for that matter what you marry. As long as the two individuals (of adult status) care for each other or are willing to care for each other I think it's great.
Interestingly, interspecies marriage was legal for a bit here in Missouri where a man married his horse (pun intended).
The longer I write the more I realize that none of this is particularly original but I wanted to say it anyway.
