What is the crisis of marriage institution and what it eats
Tons of classical literature and kilometers of film melodramatic films created the illusion of great and pure love, which certainly ends in marriage and further “they lived happily ever after.” And although recent Hollywood movies (not only Arthouse) are beginning to put in the center of the plot the most mysterious thing that follows after the phrase “they lived happily ever after”, in the collective unconscious is strong idea of the ideal “spherical horse in a vacuum”, an ideal marriage that “everyone except me”.
Someone believes that “Romeo and Juliet”, a story about the love-hormonal fever of two 14 – year-olds, which five days after their acquaintance ended in a double suicide, is about love. Someone envious sighs, reviewing for the umpteenth time the movie “Pretty woman” about an insecure man incapable of emotional contact, trying to remove their alarm using a control (money + power) over a known-vulnerable partner.
Yes, of course, a movie or a book about a calm, trusting, open relationship would be boring. Passions and intrigue to experience more interesting. And let it be so, then there are stories. But these images people are beginning seek and in life and disappointed, that unicorns, it turns out, not there is.
For a long time, the meaning of marriage was anything but an emotional partnership. No, it’s great if it worked, but it’s a bonus. First, if you remember the story, the woman left the custody of her father under the wing of her husband. She could not get an education, she could not work, she was dependent on her husband and it was not about love, but about survival. Second, marriage often became a solution to financial and political problems, a profitable Union and a chess move. Third, options especially not was: or married, or social bottom.
But there is another extreme, when love is called wild passion, obsession. One of the options, why it happened, mentioned in the book Norwood “Women who love too much.” There may be a linguistic problem. Here the Greeks were more fortunate, they have for the word love two terms: “Eros” and “Agape”. Eros – passion, demon Cupid, who amuses himself by shooting arrows at people, condemning random people to the love and suffering. Passion and suffering are the definition of such love and the plot for disturbing stories.
And there is “Agape” – another love. Often this word is used in a religious context, the Christian formula “God is love” – it is about Agape. Where love is not suffering, but compassion. Love, which “long-suffering, merciful”, which “does not envy, love is not extolled, is not proud, does not commit excesses, does not seek its own, is not irritated, does not think evil” (1 Cor. 13:4). It is interesting to note that in this gospel text love is defined through negation, through the particle “not”, because no one can say what it is, love, but we can try to say what it definitely should not be.
And if love-Eros can arise by itself, from somewhere in the depths of the subcortical structures, from our ancient “inner monkey”, then love-Agape does not work by itself. She would either learn in the family, inherit, or are trying to gain by going their own way, often very difficult. Across public opinion. In spite of internal and external voices of “time-marry-you-many-years-shame-what”.
The problems happen where the person is not capable of experiencing Agape or the Eros is transformed into Agape is not. When he can not go “deep”, dive into the personal essence of the partner, exploring its uniqueness, which is also not static, but changes and develops over the years. There’s just endless cash flow for the mass market. “How to return the former passion? Buy our lingerie/perfume/cosmetics and your husband will want you as the first day of Dating.”
We seem to be living in a time of transition. The old meanings of marriage are beginning to die out. Women are able to earn on their own, and various social institutions can provide support and protection (at least in theory). People have a choice of how, with whom and when to live. At the same time, people still have so little experience and examples of a new model of marriage, those “pure relationship” – the relationship of two self-sufficient people, the Union of which generates something more than each of them separately. The Union of which follows the philosophical theory that the system is not equal to the sum of the elements, that two plus two is five, that the set of disparate cells assembled together is a miracle of the human body. The Union of which generates so much love that they need someone else to share it, their own or adopted child, other people, animals – all those who are in dire need of this love.