Radical Relationship Shifts--Will They Ruin Society As We Know It?

Radical Relationship Changes--Will They Ruin Society As We Know It?
Rant #20 (Opinion)


March 30, 2020

Homosexuality, birth control, children born out of wedlock, divorce, single mothers, casual sex, transsexuals--all sinful choices that will lead to a ruinous society, so say the right-wing, traditionalist, often religious voices.

They've said this before. Radical shifts around sexuality and family structure rocked Western societies with the spirit of Enlightenment in the late 18th and early 19th century. It started in America and France (doesn't it always?) before it rocked the establishment conservatives of that time. What crazy, liberal, revolutionary new sexual and relationships started to become common then?

Some people at that time began to practice the previously taboo act of marrying a person that they felt limerance towards. In other words, couples began to get married on the basis of infattuated feelings and love for one another. Which went against the centuries-old traditions of marrying off one's daughters for material gain in a kind of gray area quasi-pimpery. Or it was done as a means of consolidating the classes, with wealthy men marrying wealthy women, the union of whom would mutually benefit their families. 

Marrying for love was dangerous and untested waters. The idea that somebody would choose their spouse because of butterfly feelings was perceived as irresponsible. No son of aristocrats became the duke of anything by wedding a poor farm girl. And how could women choose the right husband? Obviously they lack the capacity to think rationally; only a father would know what's best for his daughter. Emotional attachments fade, while plots of land last forever. And to waste the chance of obtaining more property, things or to guarantee class identity because of love--that somebody would squander such a solemn economic opportunity for feelings--would surely bring about such a disruption of society and perversion of morality that it would ultimately cause the collapse of civilization. Or so said the most extreme observers, anyway. Most people just looked down on it, or at least said so, avoiding open criticism of the status quo.

To marry for love was unnatural, and any arguments otherwise would fall on deaf ears. Willfully deaf ears, ignoring their own experience of suppressed limerance, or the feeling that they themselves acted on discretely in extramarital affairs. Imposing their own subjective worldview onto everybody else.

Yet the Enlightened people followed their hearts and married the people that they felt like they wanted to marry, or at least respected the decision. Rather than marrying just for stuff and to keep fancy titles, these pioneers of thought sought a more abstract type of wealth: happiness. That is why the Founders changed one word when otherwise plagiarizing a line from philosopher John Locke. Rather than guaranteeing "life, liberty and property" as proposed by Locke, our Founding Fathers believed in the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If a plot of land, 16 cows and a loveless but steadfast marriage made you happy, that was your right. If a steamy romantic was what you wanted, and living in abject poverty didn't bother you, and that made you happy, that was your right. It IS your right.

Nowadays, conservatives reflect on periods which they view through the lens of romanticized collective nostalgia, and conclude it to have had a heightened morality and traditional cultural institutions. Many will cite the 1950s, others the 1920s or Victorian era, while some still may go further back in time to cite when humankind had their bearings right, and from which point we've deviated.

How different then does allowing two men to marry, or a man and a woman to not marry but have a kid, or all these other supposed symptoms of an imminent collapse any different from the 18th century's repulsive response to individuals selecting their own spouse, or romantic marriages? Critics will highlight several alleged differences, which I say are just minutae. Realistically, a traditionalist faction will always resist any changes to who gets to do what within a society. Conservatives try to retain a snapshot in time, while history moves forward like a movie whether one likes it or not. It works more like a movie. Motion pictures link frame after frame after frame, presenting images progressively  that show a story. Rather than a violent attempt to white-out now's photo, history happens as a continuation, so that this one doesn't just disappear. The future builds on minor alterations of what we know now, just like we did with the frames before us. Preservation is best achieved by allowing this evolution to take place. The only thing that doesn't change is change.