I find Cancian’s analysis to be very helpful and insightful in understanding the transition of values with regards to love and how it’s been heavily influenced by government and economics. In particular, it’s funny to note that even within the Protestant religion, the argument about what marriage looks like has shifted in response to cultural values, and used as justification for both dual responsibility as well as separate responsibility (cultural toolbox indeed). But because I personally remain convinced that some models are better than others, I do feel like there can be some objectivity about what we should be striving towards. Cancian leans towards interdependence and androgynous love, and I think I agree but it’s also true that I think it’s the best option available now. I wonder if earlier models were “better” in the sense of actually being more natural.
Certainly there is more “freedom” of expression, but the question with openness and liberty should be tapered with questions of “liberation FROM what?” and “liberation TO what?” I’m grateful that Cancian states first and foremost that she is focused on middle class love, because in all honesty, androgynous love and interdependence are not always possible in certain economic situations. There is a shocking number of children in single-parent households. How does love work in that circumstance? Does it even? I know that her focus is on couples, but there are so many different living situations where people still have to create their own definitions and constructions of love, and I’d be interested in knowing how her analysis can give us insight into those situations.
Even among couples though, there is so much pressure on women to have a career, to want to be more than “just mothers.” More than just “dependent”. I don’t think that’s right either. While liberation from role constraints is “freeing” in one sense, it also adds pressure to individuals to “make the right choice” and places the burden of responsibility on them. Your happiness is on your own shoulders. That’s the message we’re given. In that situation, I almost prefer more traditional models, where your parents find a suitable candidate for your marriage. The Chinese drama that I mentioned in my last post is an interesting twist on that, where two mixed-up arranged marriages actually lead to romantic love. But what creates companionate love? Isn’t it generally pursuing the same goals? In Fiddler on the Roof, there’s a scene towards the end, I believe, when the couple tries to figure out if they “love” each other. And the conclusion is that they do, clearly, because they’ve done life together.
Am I sanctioning girls being sold into marriage? No, but maybe? I’m just saying, is that really such an awful system as we believe? Or is it solely because we have learned to value SEX as an individual’s prerogative? That they should decide who their partner(s) is/are? I’m not condoning rape at all, but I am arguing that if people truly believe that sex is simply for procreation, then why does it matter if young girls are having sex. Personally, this is not my perspective on sex, but if this is the value our culture places on sex, it seems interesting that we think about it in this way. But that’s a separate issue…
I think the problem in society is less that women should be this or love should be this or whatever. Rather, I think it’s the fact that we claim to value one thing but actually praise another. We praise love yet we condemn the feminine. That’s the real issue. I like if we embraced the feminine in society (since EQ is actually extremely important to business), there would be a greater equalization period. But that’s probably just because I’m feminist.
Plato suggested the theory of complementarity, wherein opposites are necessary to define each other. In that sense I agree that we need both “masculine” and “feminine” love and roles and that they should be fluid and flexible. But I also wonder if there’s a better classification than by gender. Rather than using terms like androgynous, I think the idea of the 5 Love Languages is much more useful (even though I still don’t think it’s all encapsulating).
