This is perhaps the most controversial piece as yet that I would write. I am prompted to write this by some remarks that I heard in response to a recent blogpost of mine about my fascination for a certain musician. The remarks in essence said that my admiration for that artiste could easily be construed as not asexual and so it was not becoming of the happily married man that I claim to be.
My initial reaction was to deny that presumption about the sexuality of my liking for the artiste. I wanted to assert that I was drawn to the way she presents her art than to any other persona of her. Thus, for example, were I to get to know her as a person, it was quite possible that there were many attributes of her that may not have made me feel drawn towards her.
That however did not resolve the matter for me. I was, and continue to be, troubled by the fact that we continue to believe that in the world in which we live, an individual's affinities - be that of a man or a woman - sexual, emotional or intellectual should be circumscribed by the norms of morality that were laid down for a very different world. If the more progressive among us are willing to accept that the tenets of many revealed religions that were prescribed for a different world should not be imposed in a world that has moved on in many ways, equally the social mores of a bygone era should not limit an individual's freedom to engage his or her passion.
And so here is something that has been a major problem that I have had ever since I read Russell's Marriage and Morals when I was a student of business management many decades ago.
Of all the social institutions, marriage is perhaps one that is entirely a human / social creation. That there is a great diversity in the norms governing this institution arcoss societies is one telling instance of how it is largely a social construct. Bertrand Russell examines the institution in his book Marriage and Morals. Russell goes on to wonder if there is even an anthropological necessity to have the institution of marriage and family
the way we have been given to understand it by contemporary social mores.
In Chapter 13 of the book Russell goes on to explain that the family was more of an economic necessity of the pastoral phase in human civilisation where people had to breed their own labour to work their farmlands. He further goes on to explain that in order to ensure that the children worked for the father "it was necessary that the institution of the family should be sanctified by the whole weight of religion and morals." As if to suggest a counterfactual sort of argument Russell then goes on to say that the family as an institution was weakened by the industrial revolution which was an economic phenomenon first, with some serious social consequences.
Russell's thesis about marriage and morals is closely connected with the question of sexual relations and its role in the sustenance of the family as an institution. And that is what persuades me to write this piece.
Interestingly in Chapter 13 Russell argues that the institution of family "affords the only rational basis for limitations of sexual freedom." At the same time physical relations are accepted to be more enjoyable, the greater the psychic or emotional involvement. That raises the question: If sexual satisfaction is indeed one of the three essential reasons for union between man and woman and that joy is heightened through a sense of emotional companionship, should the pursuit of such joy be circumscribed by the institution of family and marriage at a time when the institution of marriage is itself weakened? Russell answers that question partly in in Chapter 12 when he says that it makes no sense to seek all the three bases of the union between men and women, namely sexual gratification, companionship and rearing of children all in the same single institution of a family.
The relevance of Russell is even greater in today's day and age of multiple roles that each of us plays in our daily lives - as a family man, as a worker and as members of various other communities, virtual as well as real. These roles cast us into different lives that are quite distinct from each other.
At the same time the engagement with the social context in each of these roles is quite intense, partly as a means to succeed in each of these roles. Thus for example, collaboration and collegiate rivalry at work is considered an essential means to success in many organisations. Similarly, many hobbies such as a game of bridge or playing music or theatre or quizzing or even social dancing call for close engagement with other members of the group. Given the increasing individuality among members of a family the chances that one partners with a member of the family in all these instances is low.
It is inevitable that the psychic or emotional engagement with one or more members of each of these groups would lead to a desire to explore relationships beyond mere task related collaboration. It is almost as if there is a certain avatar of ours that is distinct from all our other avatars, which is defined by the role that we play in that context. An integral part of that "avatar" is the affinities that go with it. Thus, as a passionate lover of music who spends an enormous amount of his energy, it is not unreasonable, certainly not inconceivable, that I develop an attraction that goes with the passion towards the art.
These possibilities are likely to be more exacerbated in an urban setting where Russell argues that the institution of family is likely to be weakened further.
Russell's thesis that seeking all the three basis of communion in one single institution of marriage is impractical anticipates such possibilities. I am reminded of a news that I read in a blog, that I cannot recall details of now, where a Bavarian politician is said to have proposed that all marriages must be reviewed every seven years with an option to both parties to annul or renew the arrangement. I am not sure if the politician in question proposed the number seven based on the proverbial seven year itch.
Through this piece I am not building the case for a licentious social system. This is not a call to greater promiscuity. Much less am I making a case for me to freely indulge with all the women for whom I routinely develop a crush. That I have this powerful insurance against any such dissipative behaviour in the form of my singular lack of attractiveness to any woman, other than my wife, is another matter altogether.
My contention is that to the extent that economics seems to drive many of our institutions the kind of changes that Russell foresaw is inevitable. It has been borne out by what a colleague of mine refers to as the "socialisation" of family responsibilities in America. The family as a social institution is in decline. A recent survey showed the extent to which fewer people in the UK go through the institution of marriage in its traditional form. Interestingly, Russell seemed to think that the USA was more likely to adopt these lifestyles more widely than the UK.
These changes could be upon us faster than we might imagine. The joint family was common in my generation. The rate at which the joint family has been replaced by the nuclear family in one generation in our society is remarkable. A survey done about a year ago reported that divorce rates were the highest in Chennai, a city that is generally considered to be among the more conservative. While divorces may not be indicative of the failure of the family, they do suggest that the traditional stability of marital relationships is under attack.
My submission is that it is time for us to reexamine some of these traditional beliefs about relationships at a time when society is undergoing a significant metamorphosis, driven largely by economic developments. The rational view of social relationships dictates that these changes are inevitable.
The only hope for a reversal of these trends is the unlikely return of spiritualism to the centre stage in our social values. Very simply, spiritualism requires us to raise our aspirations to more sublime levels, beyond the realms of the body-mind axis. But that and the likelihood of spiritualism being elevated to that position of centrality is another debate. From where I stand today I am not terribly sanguine about the future of spiritualism, although one side of me suggests that the sheer turmoil that we will be thrown into at least for a while as we come to terms with these social changes might force us to turn to spiritualism.
But until then happens I guess we will have to learn to accept what might traditionally be dismissed as "footloose" behaviour.
Nanni. Namaskaaram.
My initial reaction was to deny that presumption about the sexuality of my liking for the artiste. I wanted to assert that I was drawn to the way she presents her art than to any other persona of her. Thus, for example, were I to get to know her as a person, it was quite possible that there were many attributes of her that may not have made me feel drawn towards her.
That however did not resolve the matter for me. I was, and continue to be, troubled by the fact that we continue to believe that in the world in which we live, an individual's affinities - be that of a man or a woman - sexual, emotional or intellectual should be circumscribed by the norms of morality that were laid down for a very different world. If the more progressive among us are willing to accept that the tenets of many revealed religions that were prescribed for a different world should not be imposed in a world that has moved on in many ways, equally the social mores of a bygone era should not limit an individual's freedom to engage his or her passion.
And so here is something that has been a major problem that I have had ever since I read Russell's Marriage and Morals when I was a student of business management many decades ago.
Of all the social institutions, marriage is perhaps one that is entirely a human / social creation. That there is a great diversity in the norms governing this institution arcoss societies is one telling instance of how it is largely a social construct. Bertrand Russell examines the institution in his book Marriage and Morals. Russell goes on to wonder if there is even an anthropological necessity to have the institution of marriage and family
the way we have been given to understand it by contemporary social mores.
In Chapter 13 of the book Russell goes on to explain that the family was more of an economic necessity of the pastoral phase in human civilisation where people had to breed their own labour to work their farmlands. He further goes on to explain that in order to ensure that the children worked for the father "it was necessary that the institution of the family should be sanctified by the whole weight of religion and morals." As if to suggest a counterfactual sort of argument Russell then goes on to say that the family as an institution was weakened by the industrial revolution which was an economic phenomenon first, with some serious social consequences.
Russell's thesis about marriage and morals is closely connected with the question of sexual relations and its role in the sustenance of the family as an institution. And that is what persuades me to write this piece.
Interestingly in Chapter 13 Russell argues that the institution of family "affords the only rational basis for limitations of sexual freedom." At the same time physical relations are accepted to be more enjoyable, the greater the psychic or emotional involvement. That raises the question: If sexual satisfaction is indeed one of the three essential reasons for union between man and woman and that joy is heightened through a sense of emotional companionship, should the pursuit of such joy be circumscribed by the institution of family and marriage at a time when the institution of marriage is itself weakened? Russell answers that question partly in in Chapter 12 when he says that it makes no sense to seek all the three bases of the union between men and women, namely sexual gratification, companionship and rearing of children all in the same single institution of a family.
The relevance of Russell is even greater in today's day and age of multiple roles that each of us plays in our daily lives - as a family man, as a worker and as members of various other communities, virtual as well as real. These roles cast us into different lives that are quite distinct from each other.
At the same time the engagement with the social context in each of these roles is quite intense, partly as a means to succeed in each of these roles. Thus for example, collaboration and collegiate rivalry at work is considered an essential means to success in many organisations. Similarly, many hobbies such as a game of bridge or playing music or theatre or quizzing or even social dancing call for close engagement with other members of the group. Given the increasing individuality among members of a family the chances that one partners with a member of the family in all these instances is low.
It is inevitable that the psychic or emotional engagement with one or more members of each of these groups would lead to a desire to explore relationships beyond mere task related collaboration. It is almost as if there is a certain avatar of ours that is distinct from all our other avatars, which is defined by the role that we play in that context. An integral part of that "avatar" is the affinities that go with it. Thus, as a passionate lover of music who spends an enormous amount of his energy, it is not unreasonable, certainly not inconceivable, that I develop an attraction that goes with the passion towards the art.
These possibilities are likely to be more exacerbated in an urban setting where Russell argues that the institution of family is likely to be weakened further.
Russell's thesis that seeking all the three basis of communion in one single institution of marriage is impractical anticipates such possibilities. I am reminded of a news that I read in a blog, that I cannot recall details of now, where a Bavarian politician is said to have proposed that all marriages must be reviewed every seven years with an option to both parties to annul or renew the arrangement. I am not sure if the politician in question proposed the number seven based on the proverbial seven year itch.
Through this piece I am not building the case for a licentious social system. This is not a call to greater promiscuity. Much less am I making a case for me to freely indulge with all the women for whom I routinely develop a crush. That I have this powerful insurance against any such dissipative behaviour in the form of my singular lack of attractiveness to any woman, other than my wife, is another matter altogether.
My contention is that to the extent that economics seems to drive many of our institutions the kind of changes that Russell foresaw is inevitable. It has been borne out by what a colleague of mine refers to as the "socialisation" of family responsibilities in America. The family as a social institution is in decline. A recent survey showed the extent to which fewer people in the UK go through the institution of marriage in its traditional form. Interestingly, Russell seemed to think that the USA was more likely to adopt these lifestyles more widely than the UK.
These changes could be upon us faster than we might imagine. The joint family was common in my generation. The rate at which the joint family has been replaced by the nuclear family in one generation in our society is remarkable. A survey done about a year ago reported that divorce rates were the highest in Chennai, a city that is generally considered to be among the more conservative. While divorces may not be indicative of the failure of the family, they do suggest that the traditional stability of marital relationships is under attack.
My submission is that it is time for us to reexamine some of these traditional beliefs about relationships at a time when society is undergoing a significant metamorphosis, driven largely by economic developments. The rational view of social relationships dictates that these changes are inevitable.
The only hope for a reversal of these trends is the unlikely return of spiritualism to the centre stage in our social values. Very simply, spiritualism requires us to raise our aspirations to more sublime levels, beyond the realms of the body-mind axis. But that and the likelihood of spiritualism being elevated to that position of centrality is another debate. From where I stand today I am not terribly sanguine about the future of spiritualism, although one side of me suggests that the sheer turmoil that we will be thrown into at least for a while as we come to terms with these social changes might force us to turn to spiritualism.
But until then happens I guess we will have to learn to accept what might traditionally be dismissed as "footloose" behaviour.
Nanni. Namaskaaram.
No comments:
Post a Comment