I saw the following post on social media and thought it worthwhile recording it here. It describes, I think, a type of archetypal experience that we have as men and women.
It reminded me of a passage I read years ago from a biography of Alice James, the sister of the novelist Henry James. She lived alone as a spinster. In 1889, she was visited by her brothers:
As the three of them sat and talked, as they exchanged memories and opinions, the afternoon became for Alice a soul-quickening experience wherein the family itself seemed to come richly back into being, a revived and reintegrated presence. Her isolation was overcome for the moment by the sense of being once again a surrounded and nourished member of that family.
When her brothers left, Alice was plunged again into solitude:
she confessed with bleak clarity that she could never allow it to be "anything else than a cruel and unnatural fate for a woman to live alone, to have no one to care and 'do for' daily is not only a sorrow but a sterilizing process."
As the "Feminist Turned Housewife" points out, modern liberal culture is pushing people toward this kind of solitude. In part, this is because the aim of life is held to be a freedom defined as maximal individual autonomy. This assumes that we can develop solo, outside of relationships with others, and that stable relationships can be sacrificed to autonomous choice.
Another reason is that the dynamic described in the post, one in which the man feels that his masculine qualities and efforts are needed by his family, and the woman feels that her feminine nurturing presence is needed, requires higher aspects of our nature to be successfully maintained. We have drifted a long way from a concept of virtue, of cultivating the higher qualities of our nature. Instead, there is an ethos of "empowerment" in which we are encouraged to act in any direction we choose, without negative judgement, as long as we uphold the same right for others. In this modern ethos, it is assumed that individuals are pursuing their own wants and desires, and therefore rejecting the idea of service to others.
And so there is little concept of a common good of family life that a man and a woman might deliberately seek to uphold. After all, for men to commit to the role described in the post, they would need to have some confidence that their wife would be both loyal and appreciative (and, also, to have some level of respect for him as a man). The wife, for her part, would need some confidence that she would be loved and supported, and that the man would use his position within the family for the good of its members (i.e., that he really would achieve a strength and steadiness in his presence within the family).
This represents a mission for both the husband and wife, one that tests their character and their commitment to the higher goods of family life. And it requires that both spouses deliberately orient themselves to this mission, rather than one alone.
It can be done, because it is such a deeply embedded aspect of our natures as men and women. But it's not easily done within the current cultural frame.
I think it’s worth noting that this solitary conception necessarily excludes real love entirely from human life. Properly defined, real love is sacrificial action (as opposed, say, to some sort of sentiment of affection or “fuzzy feelings”, which is merely a passive state), but if we are entirely self-sufficient and autonomous then there is never any opportunity either to love or be loved.
ReplyDeleteEven if we might deign to voluntarily do things for one another for the sake of loving, in practice this is unlikely to last very long without an actual ineradicable need driving it. Depending on other people makes one vulnerable to them and requires trust (that is: faith), and when it comes to other human beings is guaranteed to hurt us from time to time. The vast majority of people would rather forsake love for the sake of not being vulnerable. In this sense, removing natural dependencies on one another is an even greater evil.
Well said, thank you. The people who advocated for the kind of situation we have now claimed that if we did not need someone, but simply chose to be with them, that it would be a more pure form of love and therefore better. But the irony is that it has led in practice to a more transactional form of relationship between the sexes. If a woman does not need a man, she does not feel an urge toward a relationship, she can take it or leave it. So in her mind it only makes sense to choose the relationship if he is offering her a definite upgrade in life. She has lost a sense of the value, for instance, of spousal union. Instead, she wants either bragging rights within her female peer group ("he does thing "x" that we think politically he should do) or she wants him to offer an absolute level of material wealth/status/lifestyle. And she wants the best transaction she can negotiate - one in which she has fewest reciprocal duties toward him. This, at least, is the social trend - it is what the culture is pushing toward. The one positive counter-trend I can observe are those Gen Z women who pair up earlier in life and who are still pushed along by passion/hormones into a more emotionally bonded relationship.
DeleteBut you have relentlessly mocked the r men this orphans in the comments of this very blog, ghast.
Delete