Hmm. At the beginning of the century, my own ancestors were partnered off in arranged marriages (in one case, both of them were thirteen years old). I'm sure they'd have had a good chuckle at Kass' vision of courtship, seeing as how they didn't get to engage in any. And...Kass surely doesn't believe that early twentieth-century courtship simply took place in the home? (Whatever happened to picnics, long walks in the park, sleigh rides, trips to the theatre or to hear lectures, dances...?) In any event, Kass' vision of
So here's where I shred my credibility with you guys. But as a public service, I just went through Kass' piece and produced the following paragraph-by-paragraph (almost) summary. The argument meanders, and takes many important points as proven without evidence, but it's not such a crazy view. [talk about faint praise] Basically, Kass believes that marriage has a natural end/telos and that modern norms undermine the proper, teleological understanding of marriage. Also, he's bummed out about it. See if you agree:
A shorter Kass, with 100% less Doestoyevsky:
--We're all concerned with sex/marriage/children, but what about that which precedes sex and marriage: the structure of courtship?
--The very word -- "courtship" -- sounds old-timey. Does this even exist as a concept any more?
--It wasn't always like this, guys
--Indeed, it's rarely been like this in human history!
--I think a the new (lack of ) norms of courtship make kids sad.
--Dating sucks, singles bars suck, serial monogamy sucks
--Now I'm getting depressed: I want to see these swell kids in happy marriages!
--Not feeling too optimistic about it frankly
--The culture doesn't sufficiently support lasting relationships, and in certain ways undermines them
--The sexual revolution looks like the major player here.
--You know what guys are like, "why buy the cow when the milk is free"
--The pill is the technology that enables this attitude
--Sex education? We need marriage education!
--Sex education? We need love education!
--And the boomers – they're no help, selfish divocees the lot of them.
--Divorce – that's gonna shatter a kid, make him/her chary of commitment
--Risk averse people cohabitate as a "rent to own" plan. This isn't the same thing as marriage, and doesn't seem in line with the kind of marriage we want to see. Also, since I'm writing in the Public Interest, I can slip in a fun Passover joke!
--Ok, brief interlude while I knock feminism. Love isn't about power relationships, and Catherine MacKinnon is stupid
--Also feminism makes men sissies! (gentler version: feminism can undermine important gender roles)
--I'm not saying women shouldn't go to college
--But college is all pre-professional now: career, career, career
--And putting career before family will screw up marriage, and this is a greater burden on women
--independence: a double-edged sword
--Back to the main argument. So, what's marriage about anyway? It's not a contract, you can't define it yourself, it has an inherent telos: procreation!
--also, marriage is about growing up
--so you can see why an adolescent pleasure-seeking society will screw up marriage
--summing up now: marriage is in trouble.
--Individualism is to blame!
--And luxury!
--And science!
--Francis Bacon predicted it: the progress of science simultaneously advances hedonism!
--Science also undermines teleology! Thus, it undermines a teleological understanding of marriage!
--Science undermines biblical prohibitions!
--And even without science, men are pigs
--Gender roles, biblical morality made men less swinish
--But now men everywhere are acting like pigs, dumping wives and acquiring harems, from Jack Welch to 50 cent!
--Ok, now summing up: courtship is in trouble, and some say "good riddance"
--But they're wrong, people are miserable because courtship isn't working
--sex isn't like hunger
--sex is transformative, defining! Safe Sex, tell it to Othello!
--again with the teleology: purpose of marriage = procreation, not pleasure
--and marriage is part of a flourishing human life
--older forms of courtship got the teleology right, and prepared/trained people for it
--today, not so much
--are there promising signs? We can desperately grasp at some – like Jane Austen! She's all the rage!
--Ok, I admit it's hopeless. Maybe you should send your kids to Hillsdale
--It's not your fault, parents alone are helpless, they need institutional support (bonus points for reference to "deracinated and cosmopolitan universities." Interestingly enough, this would once have been recognized as a stock anti-semitic phrase, but clearly that's not Kass' intent. Telling rhetorical slip showing the affinities between neoconservatism and older, less tolerable forms of American conservatism? You be the judge!)
--maybe we could pay women to marry early and delay their careers. It'd be like the GI bill, except totally different in purpose and execution.
we are voting with our genitalia
If North Carolina ever adopts touch-voting machines, I will protest by doing just that.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 9-04 8:37 PM
And that is *just* the level of commentary I expect from you.
Make sure there's a print-out, though.
And let me call it: NO jokes about instant runoff voting.
Posted by fl | Link to this comment | 03- 9-04 9:59 PM
Hmm. At the beginning of the century, my own ancestors were partnered off in arranged marriages (in one case, both of them were thirteen years old). I'm sure they'd have had a good chuckle at Kass' vision of courtship, seeing as how they didn't get to engage in any. And...Kass surely doesn't believe that early twentieth-century courtship simply took place in the home? (Whatever happened to picnics, long walks in the park, sleigh rides, trips to the theatre or to hear lectures, dances...?) In any event, Kass' vision of
history seems awfully, um, genteel.
Posted by Miriam | Link to this comment | 03-10-04 11:27 AM
So here's where I shred my credibility with you guys. But as a public service, I just went through Kass' piece and produced the following paragraph-by-paragraph (almost) summary. The argument meanders, and takes many important points as proven without evidence, but it's not such a crazy view. [talk about faint praise] Basically, Kass believes that marriage has a natural end/telos and that modern norms undermine the proper, teleological understanding of marriage. Also, he's bummed out about it. See if you agree:
A shorter Kass, with 100% less Doestoyevsky:
--We're all concerned with sex/marriage/children, but what about that which precedes sex and marriage: the structure of courtship?
--The very word -- "courtship" -- sounds old-timey. Does this even exist as a concept any more?
--It wasn't always like this, guys
--Indeed, it's rarely been like this in human history!
--I think a the new (lack of ) norms of courtship make kids sad.
--Dating sucks, singles bars suck, serial monogamy sucks
--Now I'm getting depressed: I want to see these swell kids in happy marriages!
--Not feeling too optimistic about it frankly
--The culture doesn't sufficiently support lasting relationships, and in certain ways undermines them
--The sexual revolution looks like the major player here.
--You know what guys are like, "why buy the cow when the milk is free"
--The pill is the technology that enables this attitude
--Sex education? We need marriage education!
--Sex education? We need love education!
--And the boomers – they're no help, selfish divocees the lot of them.
--Divorce – that's gonna shatter a kid, make him/her chary of commitment
--Risk averse people cohabitate as a "rent to own" plan. This isn't the same thing as marriage, and doesn't seem in line with the kind of marriage we want to see. Also, since I'm writing in the Public Interest, I can slip in a fun Passover joke!
--Ok, brief interlude while I knock feminism. Love isn't about power relationships, and Catherine MacKinnon is stupid
--Also feminism makes men sissies! (gentler version: feminism can undermine important gender roles)
--I'm not saying women shouldn't go to college
--But college is all pre-professional now: career, career, career
--And putting career before family will screw up marriage, and this is a greater burden on women
--independence: a double-edged sword
--Back to the main argument. So, what's marriage about anyway? It's not a contract, you can't define it yourself, it has an inherent telos: procreation!
--also, marriage is about growing up
--so you can see why an adolescent pleasure-seeking society will screw up marriage
--summing up now: marriage is in trouble.
--Individualism is to blame!
--And luxury!
--And science!
--Francis Bacon predicted it: the progress of science simultaneously advances hedonism!
--Science also undermines teleology! Thus, it undermines a teleological understanding of marriage!
--Science undermines biblical prohibitions!
--And even without science, men are pigs
--Gender roles, biblical morality made men less swinish
--But now men everywhere are acting like pigs, dumping wives and acquiring harems, from Jack Welch to 50 cent!
--Ok, now summing up: courtship is in trouble, and some say "good riddance"
--But they're wrong, people are miserable because courtship isn't working
--sex isn't like hunger
--sex is transformative, defining! Safe Sex, tell it to Othello!
--again with the teleology: purpose of marriage = procreation, not pleasure
--and marriage is part of a flourishing human life
--older forms of courtship got the teleology right, and prepared/trained people for it
--today, not so much
--are there promising signs? We can desperately grasp at some – like Jane Austen! She's all the rage!
--Ok, I admit it's hopeless. Maybe you should send your kids to Hillsdale
--It's not your fault, parents alone are helpless, they need institutional support (bonus points for reference to "deracinated and cosmopolitan universities." Interestingly enough, this would once have been recognized as a stock anti-semitic phrase, but clearly that's not Kass' intent. Telling rhetorical slip showing the affinities between neoconservatism and older, less tolerable forms of American conservatism? You be the judge!)
--maybe we could pay women to marry early and delay their careers. It'd be like the GI bill, except totally different in purpose and execution.
--No, we need a revolution in mores!
--I don't see it happening. Bummer.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03-10-04 12:46 PM