Summary of the October 14th meeting of the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe
Topic: "Marriage--what for?"
Michelle introduced the topic by telling a story about a friend who once
proposed to her. He gave three reasons why they should marry: he loves her; they
are a good match; his mother approves. She asked him to give a more
philosophical justification. Now he doesn't speak to her. Michelle then reminded
us that "life is about choices" and that, as Sartre said, "we are condemned to
be free". She suggested we discuss two aspects of the topic: Are the reasons
typically given for marriage justified? and How do partners actually choose each
other?
We began by discussing the topic of attraction. Clifford asked whether we really
have a choice about such matters, or if it is controlled by other factors, such
as society's expectations. Louisa added that biological conditioning may be a
factor as well as society. Roy then pointed out that how we are attracted to
others is not necessarily related to who we choose to marry. The head and the
heart do not always agree. As an example, he suggested that "women are attracted
to bad men." Steve asked him to justify this controversial claim. Roy replied
that it is an observation drawn first from his own experience, but that he
believes there is a general consensus about it as well. He explained that being
attracted to bad men is usually caused by a woman's low self-esteem. Evelyn
suggested it may not be bad men, but men with power, that attract women. Louisa
claimed all of this applies just as much to men as to women. Moi Ying suggested
that it might be a natural instinct. Tom then gave two examples illustrating how
a woman's low self-esteem led her to choose a partner who was really bad for
her. Agreeing with Louisa, he said we all tend to make poor choices based on
past bad habits that we have not yet overcome. Arti agreed that we tend to
repeat our family's past unresolved problems and asserted that the two women in
Tom's examples may have been right after all, because there ARE no good men!
At this point the conversation shifted gears as William asked Michelle to tell
us what marriage means to her. Michelle replied that it is a public announcement
people make when they intend to form a family unit. William pointed out that in
France many people choose to live together with someone they love without
getting married and seem to be very happy with such an arrangement. Michelle
said she is aware of this possibility, but thinks the piece of paper is an
important symbol: being legally married is better. Steve expressed doubts about
whether a legal certificate is actually required before two people are justified
in regarding themselves as "married" (as opposed to just living together). Tom
pointed out that in many countries "common law marriage" is recognized in the
courts as legal marriage, even if the couple never had a ceremony or signed any
paper. Arti then told a story about two people who had been living together
happily as a couple for some time, so they decided to get married. Soon after
the wedding, their relationship became much worse, because it turned out that
they had different expectations: the woman still wanted to maintain the same
level of freedom in other relationships, whereas the man wanted to have children
and raise a family. Their relationship collapsed. Roy noted that such
differences of expectations can occur in any relationship. Louisa then explained
that, when a couple has made a public, contractual agreement to have a long-term
relationship, then they are committed to working out these differences of
expectation, rather than just give up. Clifford stressed that the life-long
commitment is the main element in marriage. Evelyn reminded us that there are
also social expectations that come along with being married. Arti agreed,
pointing out that couples who are just living together always have the freedom
to leave the relationship immediately. Moi Ying pointed out that divorce can
also be very quick nowadays.
Steve asked that we now focus our attention on the philosophical meaning of
marriage. He suggested that, if we can come up with a set of conditions that
must be true in order for a marriage to be genuine, then we could use these to
assess individual cases. It might turn out that two people who seem to be just
"living together" are actually married, while two people who possess a marriage
certificate may not actually be married. Several people objected that the
boundaries are simply too blurred for such a definition to be possible. Steve
was therefore asked to share his own philosophical definition of marriage. After
a reluctant pause, he expressed surprise that nobody had mentioned the
relationship between marriage and sex up to this point. With that in mind, he
proposed the following, tentative definition: Marriage is a publicly known
agreement between two people whereby they willingly exchange sexual pleasures as
an expression of a relationship they intend to keep as a life-long commitment.
Moi Ying pointed out that unmarried lovers are often better at pleasing each
other sexually than married partners are. And Frances protested that there is
much more to marriage than sexual pleasure: communication, shared values, common
goals, etc. Steve agreed on both points, adding that the latter could be
regarded as philosophical conditions that ought to be fulfilled before two
people ever agree to begin a sexual relationship.
Moi Ying then raised the issue of monogamy. Tom claimed that marriage must be
monogamous, because including others would decrease the value of the
relationship. Alex pointed out that true love and marriage are not necessarily
the same thing. Roy asked whether Steve's definition would imply that public
adultery is a type of marriage, as in so-called "open marriage". Steve agreed
that this would fit his definition as previously expressed. Louisa claimed that
exclusivity cannot be included in a definition of marriage, because there are
too many exceptions in various cultures. Steve mentioned Kant's way of defending
exclusivity in marriage: the exchange of sexual pleasures can be compared to an
exchange of property, which can only be owned by one person at a time. Tom
defended a qualified form of exclusivity by pointing out that even in a
polygamous marriage, the agreement between the multiple partners excludes those
who have not entered into the agreement. One person claimed that Steve's
definition will not work for gay people in many societies, because they cannot
make their relationships public without being condemned. Steve responded that
this simply means that those people choose to hide their relationship rather
than living as a married couple. Alex concluded this part of the discussion by
charging Steve's definition with being "highly subversive"--a charge to which
Steve willingly pled guilty.
Roy and several others began a new train of thought by suggesting that there is
no one universal definition of marriage. Rather, we must observe different
societies and different cultural situations in order to discover what marriage
means in each situation. With this in mind, Arti suggested that everyone should
share their own definition of marriage. Veronica responded by saying that to her
the key issue is: what is marriage FOR? To her, the purpose or function of
marriage is to help protect the dignity of two individuals and preserve their
happiness. She shared a favorite quote that describes marriage as "a beautiful
blending of two hearts, souls, bodies and minds." She added that it takes wisdom
to achieve this goal in a relationship. Evelyn said that to her marriage is an
expression of wanting to be loved and a feeling of belonging. Alex agreed with
this, but protested that it is not a philosophy of marriage. He and Steve agreed
that following Roy's advice would put an end to all philosophy. Alex added that
marriage is sometimes actually a trap that is mistaken for love or put in love's
place.
At this point Steve reiterated his view that a willingness to exchange sexual
pleasure is a necessary condition for saying two people are married. He pointed
out that in some countries the unwillingness of one partner to engage in sexual
activity is regarded as legal grounds for divorce. Roy disputed this claim,
citing "irreconcilable differences" as the one and only legal ground for
divorce, but admitted that refusal to have sex could be regarded as one example
of such a difference. He also pointed out that nuns regard themselves as
"married to God", yet do not engage in any sexual activity, and paraplegics
often get married even though they are physically incapable of having sex. Steve
responded that nuns do derive something analogous to sexual pleasure from their
commitment to God, as evidenced by the writings of female mystics, which
frequently include very explicit sexual symbolism. He added that when a person
who cannot have sex gets married, the partners will normally still give each
other physical pleasure to the limits of their ability. Evelyn then pointed out
that sex is not always pleasurable. Arti suggested that procreation may be a
more significant purpose for marriage. And Michelle said "intimacy" would be a
much better term than "sexual pleasure"--a point Steve and others readily
supported.
More ideas were then raised as to potentially "essential elements" of marriage.
Clifford suggested that unconditional love between the couple must form the
heart of any philosophical definition. Others pointed out that not all societies
would expect this in a marriage. Louisa proposed that the common denominator
between all societies may simply be the view that marriage is a long-term
commitment to live together. Several complained that this is too vague and could
just as well describe flatmates. Clifford reiterated his view that unconditional
love is the key: without love, there is no marriage, only cohabitation. Arti
noted that there are many aspects to love. And Roy objected that there is slim
evidence that any necessary connection exists between love and marriage. The
most we can say is that they often occur together. It all depends in the end on
mutual expectations. Partners in an arranged marriage, for example, do not
expect love, so it often does not develop. Other suggestions for essential
elements were: exclusive intimacy (Veronica); sex with love (Arti); initial
membership in different families (Clifford); respect (Michelle and others).
Steve related Kant's view of marriage (as an agreement to exchange ownership of
each other's sexual organs) to several of the views expressed. Alex added that
Hegel supplements this with the need for a social context. Louisa agreed with
Kant (that love is not an essential element in marriage) and with Hegel (that
the social context is important). Roy pointed out that the philosophical
justification of marriage provided by such past philosophers cannot be entirely
sufficient for our situation, because the availability of effective
contraception adds a new social factor that these philosophers never had to deal
with.
Michelle concluded the meeting by saying she is wiser now (as a result of her
past experience and/or our discussion?), clarifying that she is not against
marriage, and confirming that she looks forward to a marriage based on love and
shared values.
++++++++++++
Topics suggested for future meetings were: physical vs. emotional attraction
(Alex); what is philosophy? (Steve); money--not enough? (Evelyn); and
differences between men and women (Arti). Steve suggested that, although it is
good to have successive topics that are indirectly related to each other, we
should beware of having too many of our initial meetings on "relationships"
issues. With that in mind, Roy suggested "freedom". All agreed that this topic
would be interesting, and could perhaps be related in some way to the issue of
attraction. The date for the next meeting was set for Tuesday, 2 November. We
will try meeting next time in the back room at the Open Kitchen (past the hot
food counter), which should be a bit quieter.
This page was placed on this web site on 2 March 2000.
Back to the the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe web site.
Back to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.