Some of my best friends are married.
They must have their reasons. Or perhaps, for some people, marriage isn't a matter of "choice." Perhaps their marriage-orientation was simply inborn, a genetically-inherited trait which no amount of expensive rehab or deprogramming could cure.
So I try to be open-minded, tolerant, liberal, non-judgmental.
Still, in the privacy of my celibate state, I at times cannot help feeling, well, superior--more advanced, more evolved. Because somehow--and actually without any great struggle--I have managed to keep myself free from the oppressive (and primitive, it seems to me) legal and ethical bonds that so enthrall my matrimonially inclined friends.
Consequently, I am under absolutely no obligation to love, honor, cherish, or remain sexually faithful to anyone. I have neither sired a child nor committed myself to nurture, support or motivate any wee mini-me's. My life is blissfully mine to plan and organize--free from any responsibility toward others and independent of any whiny or needy "dependents."
Surely this solitary, autonomous, self-sufficient state is the ideal toward which civilization has been striving for millennia: complete freedom for the individual to pursue his/her own happiness along any path of his/her choosing.
Here's how I see it: in our long struggle for freedom, human beings have fought against and eventually overcome many forms of psychological, emotional, and physical enslavement. We have fought against slavery itself--and in most places, we have triumphed. We have fought against poverty, hunger, disease--and in much of the world, we have prevailed. We have fought against religious intolerance--and we have made at least "some" progress--in places like Denmark and Vermont, anyway. Finally, in 21st Century America, we are fighting against the most insidiously oppressive of ancient institutions--marriage and family--the final frontier in our quest to evolve into a freer, happier species.
Surely I need not remind my readers of the immeasurable pain and suffering caused by marriage and family throughout the ages. The evidence is there--on the pages of all the Great Books, especially the Bible. Gratefully, then, I mutter every night, as I climb into my unshared bed, "God, I'm lucky to be alone!" (Honest, that is what I mutter.)
Of course, I understand that, even today, our society remains committed (albeit reluctantly) to producing and rearing children. I suppose, therefore, that a breeding program of some kind will continue to be a cultural necessity, at least until medical advances can guarantee eternal life to all individuals already in existence.
But why not replace the archaic and dysfunctional marriage/family with a more efficient and more rational breeding/rearing system? I'm not advocating Brave New World decanting, mind you, but it does seem to me that a truly "evolved" society should immediately remove all newborn children from parents (who from time immemorial have proven themselves utterly incompetent at raising children) and placed in the care of trained experts--to be brought up in schools or asylums, where they can be properly socialized and taught both good hygiene and proper spelling.
Indeed, as my own example as a trained "rearer" suggests, our society seems to be moving in this positive and progressive direction.
Nonetheless, loyalty to old ways dies hard. Many people--indeed, almost half the adults of the United States--according to recent statistics--cling, at least intermittently and sometimes even hysterically, to some form of traditionally dysfunctional marriage (with or without children)
Well, that is regrettable. But, as I said before, we must nonetheless endeavor to be tolerant of these seemingly backward individuals--for in fact, the marriage orientation may be innate, something my married friends could simply not exorcise, hard as they might strain.
In short, it behooves those of us who are more evolved and liberated to, as the saying goes, "hate the sin, but love the sinner."
I, for instance, play cards with married people; I go to restaurants with married people; I even send Christmas cards to married people.
And, when I was still working at Diamond Bar High School, I uncomplainingly taught the children of married people--treating them exactly as I treated the children of more enlightened people who were shacking up without shackles. Furthermore, if some disgruntled student hazarded a derogatory remark about married people or family life, I was quick to silence the offending child. I would point out that marriage and family, though rejected by an increasing majority of forward-looking Americans, were nonetheless cherished by a significant minority--including many gays and lesbians who were seeking new experiences in BDSM. I accordingly demanded respect for differing viewpoints and lifestyles.
Then, just to make the lesson stick, I generally confessed that "some of my best friends" were married.
That always got 'em.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
As dispassionately as possible, I would like to discuss conservatism.
Conservatism rules the airwaves. Fox News, far from being "fair and balanced," feeds its viewers a steady stream of conservative viewpoints and spins; the rival candidates for the Republican presidential nomination exhaust themselves trying to out-conservative one another; right-wing politicians, legislators and bloggers fill both real and cyber space with conservative creeds and screeds.
What does it all mean? What IS a conservative? And why do so many Americans seem to believe that conservatives--unlike frequently-denounced liberals and even moderates--are somehow the "good guys"? ARE they the good guys?
I grew up in a small midwestern town where the term "conservative" was usually applied to someone who dealt honestly with others, paid his bills, went to church and didn't entertain any newfangled ideas about how to run things. "Liberals," on the other hand, were thought to be dreamers, risk-takers, gamblers and, perhaps, even atheists--bad guys, in short. Naturally, nearly everybody in Lewiston, Minnesota, regarded himself as a conservative--i.e., a solid, respectable, law-abiding citizen.
And a good guy.
John Kenneth Galbraith took note of the conservative's preoccupation with being "good" He famously wrote that the "modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." In other words, as Galbraith implies, the typical conservative has a nagging sense of guilt about his interactions with others. He (the conservative) senses that his actions are not, in any absolute sense, particularly admirable--that they are, in fact, selfish and even blameworthy--intended to benefit himself and his family, quite often at the expense of others. Accordingly, in an effort to assuage his guilty conscience, the conservative engages in compensatory do-gooding and moral posturing, which cost him relatively little and which allow him to justify his (objectively unjustifiable) propensity to take advantage of the weakness of others. This is often called "compassionate conservatism"--probably because "being nice" and "giving to charity" are involved. However, since true compassion--"co-suffering"--denotes actual fellow -feeling and real self-sacrifice, neither of which conservatives are likely to embrace, the term "compassionate conservatism" strikes me as a good example of Orwellian doublethink.
Then, too, above and beyond his no-real-cost philanthropy, the conservative often seeks to perfume his smelly behavior with the incense of holiness. As Salmon Rushdie observes, "the idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas -- uncertainty, progress, change -- into crimes." In other words, a particularly guilt-ridden conservative will, with great self-righteousness, proclaim that God himself (in his holy Bible, Koran, Torah, Oracle of Delphi) has decreed that any deviation from the status quo, any reform in which the conservative can no longer dominate, any attempt to make wealth flow away from rather than toward the conservative worshiper, is quite simply evil.
Is this an over-generalization? A too-sweeping explanation of the conservative psychology? Perhaps. I know, for instance, that not all conservatives are religious--though, in my personal experience, most are. Certainly there are some who feel, à la Ayn Rand, that selfishness is an objective and rational value, implicit in the very order of the universe and that, as such, it requires no apology and no moral justification. Others, who may or may not be religious, fear that any change (apart from a personal salary increase) might diminish their rank in the social hierarchy. Paradoxically, such conservatives generally occupy a very low rung on the socio-economic ladder. Nonetheless, they resolutely oppose reforms, even those that might improve their own lot, because they fear that others--lower still on the ladder--might thereby leapfrog over them to a higher rung. According to The Scientific American this "last place aversion" accounts for a lot of the conservatism-cum-racism found in poor, rural, economically-depressed areas. Everyone wants to have someone to look down on.
So let me try to conclude in some way. Lincoln, endeavoring to validate the radically transformative Emancipation Proclamation, wrote, "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" Yes, for a variety of reasons--usually involving untrammeled selfishness and /or the fear of losing something--conservatism is indeed "adherence to the old and tried." And furthermore, especially in its American avatar, this conservatism frequently avails itself of religion to justify its almost fanatical aversion to the "new and untried."
How odd that Lincoln, the first Republican president, ''conserved'' the Union by defying the very principles of conservatism, by trying new things, by getting laws changed, by co-suffering. Accordingly, he may have been the first--and, quite possibly, the last--"compassionate conservative."