Here it is, our regular Friday diet of suggested readings for the weekend:
It’s possible I’m missing something, but this smells too much of postmodern nonsense about immunology.
Foucault understood the Stoics only in part, but he got something out of ’em by the end of his life.
A temporary marriage makes more sense than marriage for life (though why marriage to begin with?).
A well balanced follow up to the discussion on whether the philosophy curriculum should be “decolonized.”
The circles of American financial hell and what causes them.
How to do social media shaming in an ethical way (though I’m not convinced it is actually possible).
6 big differences that turn city dwellers into liberals (very down to earth and enlightening).
Not from Venus, not from Mars: what we believe about gender and why it’s often wrong.
Footnotes to Plato 
Boy does that article on marriage pretty much misunderstand everything about what a marriage actually means. Unsurprising, given what passes for social thinking today, but depressing nonetheless. Sometimes I’m actually glad that I’m getting old, as the shape of the society we seem to be forming is so ugly and unappealing, I’ll be glad not to be there when it happens. Fortunately, in many ways, my daughter seems to be even more old fashioned than my wife and me, so it is unlikely that she will fall for the shallow, technocratic rubbish that fills this article like an overloaded landfill.
Far from the “until death” being something that should be “rethought” in favor of “defining goals and expectations,” it is the most crucial part of the marriage bond. The trouble is that in a time of Self Actualization! and Life as One’s Project! and 27 Steps and Practices for Happiness! and all of the rest of the intellectual detritus for which we can thank the pop psychology / self-help wave that came out of the 60’s and humanistic psychology, people have no capacity to understand marriage beyond the adolescent notion of “dating for a really long time.” That’s not what a marriage is, is never what marriage was, and is the reason why so many marriages are ending in divorce. If you think of a marriage as a long-term girlfriend/boyfriend, then not only are you stuck in the mind of a 14 year old, you fail to understand a fundamental social institution that has existed for millennia.
When I stood in the synagogue, under the Chuppa and was married to Nancy by our Rabbi, I wasn’t creating a long term dating situation. I was extending my family, by bringing it together with another family — bringing the Kaufmans together with the Brights; gaining new siblings and cousins and parents-in-law. And a family isn’t something that is “rethought” and for which one “defines goals and expectations.”
Not only is the essay shallow and stupid, it is rather repulsive as well. What a sad bunch we are turning into.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Somebody else has gotten married for me, thank doorknob. And, the nuclear family is an architecture of one slice of history.
The immunology piece does sound New Agey!
Fine is right — and on reproduction, we have the facts to show that, even with humans, as far as the percentage of women with children not the offspring of their husbands, etc. This, of course has spilled into the sexist idea of man the noble hunter gatherer in ev psych, etc.
Never thought Massimo would link to Cracked to talk about urban liberalism!
Nor did I think he would turn to the neoliberal Atlantic to explain financial circles of hell. It’s a shock that 44% of those in the US with incomes over $100K/yr still have no month-plus cushion — or allegedly so. Remember that anything above about $70K has about no psychological benefit. The breaking the bank for kids’ education could be more easily done, cost-wise and effort-wise, both, by working on one’s own neighborhood, and on public education and its financing. But, economics is where the myth of H. rationalis hits the road — and gets run over.
LikeLike
Somebody else has gotten married for me, thank doorknob. And, the nuclear family is an architecture of one slice of history.
= = =
The article is about marriage as a “renegotiatable contract, sans the “until death” part , not the nuclear family. And in my comment, I emphasized the extended family dimension of it. The point just is family rather than some barren technocratic contractual relationship, which isn’t a relationship at all.
LikeLike
As I recall, Jerry Coyne had a savage takedown of Fine not that long ago. Of course he took the tack she was just an incompetent biologist. I didn’t think he made his case at all successfully. But then, I think Coyne is a supporter of evolutionary psychology, not a critic as he claims. And that EP is also pseudoscience. So, what do I know? So, as of now, isn’t the prevailing opinion amongst the competent that Fine is a crank?
LikeLike
The wise and perennially read Chesterton has a good reply to the silly, to-be-forgotten-in-5-minutes Larson. (He is talking here about polygamy, but the point applies quite well to Larson’s “renegotiatable contracts” view of marriage):
“To complain that I could only be married once is like complaining that I could only been born once. It is incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one is talking. It shows not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it. A man is a fool who complains that he cannot enter Eden by five gates at once. Polygamy is a lack of the realization of sex; it is like a man plucking five pears in a mere absence of mind.”
From G.K. Chesterton, “The Ethics of Elfland,” Orthodoxy (1908)
LikeLike
Dan, it wasn’t a reference specific to you. It was a general comment on my personal thoughts on marriage. I know that you’ve previously said you simply don’t understand how, for some people, blood is NOT thicker than water running all the way back to childhood. Maybe that’s why you don’t understand how some people don’t see marriage, or other relations, in the same way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steven, Coyne is very much a defender of ev psych. No surprise he wouldn’t like Fine, whether the critique is accurate or not.
LikeLike
Steven,
That is not really a fair summing up on either point. For example, Coyne’s post (read it here) includes:
“I read Fine’s previous book, Delusions of Gender, and thought it was pretty good in taking apart some poorly designed experiments that themselves seemed to reflect the researchers’ ideologically driven agenda of hard-wired sex differences. But I also thought that Fine herself was at least partly motivated by ideology (the view that there are absolutely no behavioral differences between the sexes that don’t arise from social conditioning), and so my opinion of the book was mixed.”
On evolutionary psychology Coyne takes the position that there is a lot of underlying truth in the general idea, but that specific pieces of research and specific claims are often flawed. That, by the way, is the line that anyone with any sense takes on evo-psych.
LikeLike
Alfred I Tauber says at the outset that among “students of science, in contrast to those who do science, the dominant discussion revolves around the degree to which scientific interpretations are subject to extra-curricular influences, specifically, to what extent are facts independent of the larger political context in which science resides.” His article is, in fact, a vivid illustration of the opposite: the degree to which philosophical speculation is dependent on scientific ‘facts’. The huge problem with such an approach is that scientific facts have a very bad habit of changing continuously.
When I entered medical school in the 1960’s organ transplants were just coming online due to our ability to suppress the immune system. Our understanding of the immune system seemed impressive then. How ignorant we were!
Tauber sees patterns in biology and tries to argue that they support his political views. That strategy is fraught with error. I see patterns in nature that suggest the exact opposite, i.e. that individual action may be more fundamental than communal behavior in many important situations. (Individuals committing to each other in marriage?) Communal behavior seems to require the partial suspension of critical individual judgment.
LikeLike
Rhetorically, what’s the difference between a trial marriage and a marriage with a pre-nup, anyway? Beyond that, most religions have provided various standards for divorce — witness Jesus’ “if you get remarried, you’re an adulterer” in Mark to the Pharisees, followed by its softening in Matthew and Luke a generation later. And, presumably, in actual life, threats of divorce would lead to “renegotiation,” even without a formal contract.
LikeLike
Dan,
For someone who loudly complains when others moralize, you sure can dish it out to people who have a different take from your own on certain issues.
Just fyi, I’ve had five long term relationships in my life, including a whopping four marriages (if you don’t believe me, here is the NYT article… http://tinyurl.com/5tqnuf).
It seems I am most comfortable adopting the life style of a serial monogamist. But I’ve always treated my companions with utmost love and respect; I have an extended family that I very much care about (beginning of course with my daugher); and I have never cheated on anyone.
I’m happy that the “until death” thing works for you, but it doesn’t for everyone, obviously. And I see no reason — other than the Jude’s-Christian tradition — why it should be imposed on others, either legally or by way of moral shaming.
Steve, Coel,
Jerry has changed significantly his attitude about evopsych. He used to be a strong critic, then he went to the dark side. He is aware of the limitations of the approach, but I think has decided that too many “politically correct” scientists and philosophers criticize evopsych, so he needed to oppose them.
Fine certainly has an ideological agenda. And so does everyone, whether they’ll admit it or not. I’ve read two of her books and found them very well argued and enlightening, without for this having to agree with everything she says. If people are interested, Julia Galef and I had her as a guest on the Rationally Speaking podcast a while back: http://tinyurl.com/hrjyoxv
LikeLiked by 3 people
As far as “traditions” and marriage, polygamy (for the rich, at least), was once the norm. Dowries still are in many places. “Traditional marriage” in the Tanakh includes Levirate marriage. Traditional marriages for royals included forced marriages for alliance reasons.
It’s a mug’s game, at best, to cite “traditional marriage.”
Wiki has more on what’s all out there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_marriages
LikeLike
As far as “traditions” and marriage, polygamy (for the rich, at least), was once the norm. Dowries still are in many places. “Traditional marriage” in the Tanakh includes Levirate marriage. Traditional marriages for royals included forced marriages for alliance reasons.
= = =
Well, that’s all spectacularly irrelevant.
The disintegration of marriages over the last several decades has been the most socially devastating development in our civilization, with far-reaching effects on the well-being of children, crime rates, etc. Making scholastic points regarding ancient history and cultures so far from our own that they might as well be Martian from the standpoint of the current discussion is just frivolous and unserious. And the suggestion that what everyone needs is an even greater trivialization and contractualization and an even more self-absorbed view of the relations that produce children is not just stupid but reckless beyond belief.
We deserve exactly what we’re becoming. Trump is the perfect president for us. He has definitely “re-negotiated” his marriages in accordance with his “goals and expectations.”
LikeLike
Massimo: I am just responding to the in-my-view execrable article you linked to and about which you said “though why marriage to begin with?” And who is forced to get married in the modern US, other than a handful of people who belong to uber-traditionalist sub-cultures?
So, you put forth a very opinionated article on marriage and endorsed it in your comment. How is it moralizing for me to push back against it? And how does it coerce anyone? Or do anything else other than express what I think — strongly — on the subject?
LikeLike
Hi Dan,
Seems hyperbolic. Anyway, crime rates last I checked where in general not all that bad and tending downwards.
I suspect what is important is that children have support as they grow, but that doesn’t necessarily have to come from within a nuclear family. Divorced parents can potentially offer plenty of support too.
I say this as someone who has been married once and hopes never to get divorced, but who recognises that everyone is different. Don’t be so quick to judge.
LikeLike
Seems hyperbolic
= = =
Do you really want me to start quoting the social science statistics about the outcomes of children from homes that have disintegrated?
I have been teaching students now for nearly three decades, and there is no question that the single most devastating development in their lives, with the farthest reaching consequences, was the disintegration of their families as a result of their parents splitting up. Does that mean everyone? Of course not. It just means a whole hell of a lot.
But the article isn’t about divorce. It’s about marriage. And as I explained in my initial, somewhat lengthy remark, it has no idea what a marriage actually is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Certainly the lives of some students have been harmed by the divorce of their parents, but equally I suspect some students would have been better off if their parents had not stayed together. It depends on the circumstances and how the separation is handled. I wouldn’t be absolutist about it.
Marriage is different things to different people. What your marriage is to you is not “what marriage actually is”. There is no “actually”. Marriage isn’t a thing out there in the world, it’s a concept, and different people have different versions of that concept.
LikeLiked by 3 people
DM: Kids from homes that have broken up have worse outcomes across a large range of social indicators. This is pretty demonstrable and has been for quite some time.
Given that I never suggested banning divorce, I don’t see the relevance of your point re: bad marriages. Of course there are some marriages that should never have been or should end in divorce. But if you think that number even approaches the current divorce rates, then you’re seriously confused.
And if you think the solution to our social problems is to contractualize our relationships even further than they already are and to think of them through even more self-absorbed lenses then I can only wonder what world you’re living in.
LikeLike
DM: One more thing. Certainly, marriages may mean different things to different people in the subjective sense. Who denied that? What I said I did when I got married was this”
“I was extending my family, by bringing it together with another family — bringing the Kaufmans together with the Brights; gaining new siblings and cousins and parents-in-law.”
And the last time I checked, that was true of everyone who gets married.
LikeLike
Hi Dan,
You should probably check again. I don’t think everyone thinks of marriage in this way. For some, a marriage is a union of individuals. And for some it may be a temporary arrangment.
The way you’re talking about it, one would think marriage has a universally acknowledged fixed meaning. Its hard to distinguish the kind of argument you are making from those who insist that marriage is a union between a man and a woman (as opposed to a man and a man or a woman and a woman).
That’s not to say you are in the same boat as these people, but the kind of rhetoric and argument you are making is very similar.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not reacting to or commenting on the article. I’m reacting to and commenting on your moralising and hyperbole and judging. Perhaps the article is nonsense. Perhaps the ideas it suggests are ill-conceived. I am offering no opinion on that.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The decolonizing article – shouldn’t philosophy be about ideas, questions, problems and not the famous people who think about ideas, questions and problems?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dan, “And the last time I checked, that was true of everyone who gets married.”
That is the point that others here take issue with. It certainly isn’t true in my case. I have been married twice. The first because of accepted social pressures of the time. It lasted seven years, and my then wife had the sense to ask for a divorce. It was mostly amicable. My second marriage has lasted thirty-three years and was entered into despite our mutual understanding that it would be childless (my wife could not conceive). Never once was there any discussion regarding “extending . . . family.” Has the second marriage been a happy, mutually satisfying one? Honestly, I think both of us would respond, “No.”
LikeLike
Thomas Jones: Interesting. So when you got married, people didn’t become your cousins, nieces and nephews, siblings and parents in law? Because that’s what I said.
I didn’t see those kinds of marriage contracts at the county clerk’s office.
LikeLike
Dan, wow, you’re getting very close to going down the road that certain segments of the Religious Right do on abortion, and that the Vatican does on birth control in general.
I assume you use none, other than the rhythm method, so as to maximize family size?
And, of course, gay marriage is wrong, because procreation is impossible.
LikeLike
DM: I’m not moralizing. As for judging, it’s the article and its assertions I’m judging and that’s about it. Which is, of course, the point of posting articles for people to comment on. The fact that you disagree with my take doesn’t make my take “moralizing” or “judging” other than in your own mind.
LikeLike
Socratic: Nice try. You can demagogue the discussion all you want, but I’m not biting. As you know very well, I am for same sex marriage, for birth control and am vehemently opposed to the religious right. But demagoguery comes so naturally to you, you just can’t help yourself.
Clearly this is not the place to have an open conversation on this subject, as only one viewpoint will be allowed, lest one be accused of “moralizing” “judging” and siding with the Religious Right. It’s pretty nauseating, but not particularly surprising. Have a nice day.
LikeLike
Actually, we were having an open discussion.
Otherwise, per Massimo’s previous post, erm …
“Marriage” is a sign. Nothing more. There is no Platonic Idea of Marriage.
I think that’s called a “petard.”
LikeLike
Hi Massimo,
He opposes those who reject the whole concept of evolutionary psychology in favour of pure social constructionism and blank slateism. I think he is right to do so, and that overall his take on evolutionary psychology is pretty sensible and measured.
I suspect that it is also pretty much in line with yours. 🙂
LikeLike
Dan, “So when you got married, people didn’t become your cousins, nieces and nephews, siblings and parents in law?” Sadly, yes, but mostly on holidays 🙂 or when summoned to make an appearance by in-laws. The problem in the first case were the circumstances that led to it. And, no, there was no extended family in a meaningful sense for either side. The same was/has been largely true of my second marriage.
Don’t get me wrong. You seem happy in your marriage. Sincere congratulations, and I say this without any trace of sarcasm or condescension. It has just not been my experience. When my first marriage ended, I remember thinking how easily it was dissolved as opposed to the trauma of entering it. If it is true that marriage is too easily ended, it is possibly also true that it is too easily entered. Hence, the emphasis on prenuptial counseling one encounters in religiously based contexts. But that is not the argument pursued in the article.
LikeLike