arranged marriage

[Demiurge]

Let me further demonstrate my individualistic nature, then, in saying that I don't really care about making an ahistorical and transcendent judgement about Man.

I do not mean that you have intentionally formulated a judgment about the human subject. Rather, the judgment was made independent of you, pervades your society's ethos, and underlies your way of conceptualizing the world and man. It's a rough way of putting it, but you're moreso the judgment's than the other way around.

The way I see it, you only live once, and to be quite honest I'd rather spend that time married to someone I want to be married to, if I get married at all. Selfish? Certainly.

I've attempted to undermine the tendency to attribute to a state of affairs a universal oppressiveness that will be recognized as such by humans by virtue of their being what they are. It can be gathered that I don't care if you think it's oppressive.

But it's also far more practical, in my opinion, than exploring moral high ground and viewing individuals unions in a global context. There are 6 billion of us on the planet. In the great scheme of things, who cares? My genetic contribution to the species would at best be one or two children. Does it really matter to society who I would want to provide them with the other half of their genetic material?

I believe my argument was that modern society is discordant and fractured, and we might look to past communities for institutions that help create a unified cultural identity and sense of communitarian responsibility. I've suggested that arranged marriage is such an institution. Perhaps you misunderstood me.

Customs can become embedded in our way of life to the point that they are not viewed as oppressive, but that takes time and a lot of getting used to. I don't think the transition phase would be either helpful to or well received by the vast majority of American citizens, especially those who don't concern themselves in the least with philosophical ideals.

It is true that arranged marriage could not very well be legally mandated within the United States at this time. I never said that it could be, however. This facet of my views on marriage is not mine at all, but your own.

 

[NeverIsForever]

Fair enough. I agree to disagree with you

 

[derek]

Well, I can see what your getting at in saying that. However, theres something that bothered me about your argument.

If we take that autonomy is contingent on context (as you say, many cultural and social groups do not see arranged marriage as oppressive) then what does autonomy become? It now seems to be "what a person can do within the confines of their constructed social world", which seems to negate the whole notion of autonomy. What I am saying is that autonomy doesn't rely on context, otherwise it is no longer autonomy and therefore arranged marriage, regardless of context, remains an oppressive force.

I'm not making value judgements on the feelings of people subjected to it nor the cultural views of it within a society that practices it but rather on a more general scope - ie arranged marriage is oppressive by nature because it negates autonomy.

In short, autonomy means total choice, freedom and liberty - regardless of the context arranged marriage is practiced in - it negates that notion. THAT is what bothers me. I believe autonomy to be transcendent.

I think, perhaps, we're discussing different facets of the whole idea.

Derek

 

[MURAI]

I think arranged marriage should become the practice once again. What, really, is the benefit offered by our selfish marriages of individual choice? Certainly, they're no more lasting or loving. They're short, fickle, and people give up on them quickly. Perhaps if there was familial responsibility to one's own blood to nurture the relationship, couples wouldn't split over petty disputes. Arranged marriage has the benefit of establishing a larger unity, a greater network.

Yes, it's funny how in the U.S and Canada they think of arranged marriages as something so bad for the "individual" because it doesnt give them the "freedom of choice". They can still work out. Couples are still totally different people anyway so it's hard to estimate whether they will last or not.

 

[derek]

Well, I'm not American or Canadian, and I certainly am not a huge fan of individualism but arranged marriage still seems, as an idea, fundamentally opposed to freedom.

I agree though, arranged marriages can work out. I have probably failed to notice that sort of distinction in my previous posts.

 

[kmik]

I don't see how society could benefit from arranged marriage. Besides, if a couple marries they usually fit each other anyway (in terms of intelligence, beauty and wealth anyway)

 

[Demiurge]

Final Project, the notion of "real" or "total" autonomy is a relic of dualism. It makes the assumption that the subject is in the world like water in a glass. The world contains the transcendent subject. However, human being is of a different type. We are a part of the world, are thoroughly enmeshed in it. There is no true freedom from structure.

I'm not making value judgements on the feelings of people subjected to it nor the cultural views of it within a society that practices it but rather on a more general scope - ie arranged marriage is oppressive by nature because it negates autonomy.

Limitation of autonomy is necessitated by the soclal realm we inhabit. Actually, we cannot conceptualize ourselves as not being limited in this way. Oppression is not simply limitation of autonomy, oppression is a value judgment.

 

[Hubster]

Whomever said marriage was an out-dated idea was right. It's not about a lump of paper and a legal joining together, its about something greater.

Excellent post & I agree 100 percent.

Marriage in my opinion is fucked.

Eternal union? Now that is something else.

 

[Hubster]

Ok, i see where he was going with it. I still find problems with arranged marriage in any form, not because I am some nampy-pampy hippy but because marriage has lost its meaning. Many arranged marriages are for money, wealth, respect etc and I have no respect for that. It used to be a sign of love between two folks, but know it seems like that ideal has been replaced by something altogether more vulgar.

(Keep in mind I speak from an Eastern POV): actually, this I have to disagree with, but only because the "behaviour" of arranged marriages in various ethnic cultures differs.

In poorer ethnic cultures, arranged marriages are certainly about money, but on a simplistic level as being able to survive off your land (in South India for example). This is not the only focus, but it's certainly a primary one.

However, in more economically developed ethnic cultures, arranged marriages are about "finding a partner for our child", with survival taking a back seat a bit more, given that the two partners tend to be educated to a reasonable level.

On a funnier level, you can see evidence of the above in many Indian films - many scenarios are depicted of the parents marrying off their children, and the visual evidence of the family's economics are plain to see.

Despite the above though, I am still passionately in opposition to arranged marriage (in the Western world anyway) as it simply doesn't work in a modernised moral system.

 

[derek]

Dimiurge...Maybe I'm out of my depth, I'm not sure. Sometimes I think its possible to get bogged down in philosophy. You've made me aware of various problems, but i still see arranged marriage as basically an insult to autonomy.

I can see what you mean about the notion of autonomy, just incase you think your talking to a brick wall. But, as i think i mentioned earlier, if autonomy is relative to anything then its no longer autonomy. I just see there as being a transcendent, permanent notion of what it constitutes, otherwise it loses it value.

Just my opinion though.

I'm tempted to just back down and agree with the guy who said marriage was an archaic idea to begin with.

cheers,

Derek