Marriage and Other Social Constructs
Few people would be surprised
to learn that the institution of marriage is under severe criticism (at least
in the West). Divorces are common, regardless of religious affiliation.
Celebrities often deride marriage as passé and prohibitive.
For example, here is an
excerpt from a recent article of how divorce is really unnecessary if people
would just stop getting married. Why is marriage so difficult or impossible?
Because we humans evolved to live long lives. . .
Dr. Habib Sadeghi & Dr.
Sherry Sami on Conscious Uncoupling
During the upper Paleolithic period of human history (roughly 50,000BC
to 10,000BC) the average human life expectancy at birth was 33.[i] By 1900,
U.S. life expectancy was only 46 for men, and 48 for women. Today, it’s 76 and
81 respectively.[ii] During the 52,000 years between our Paleolithic ancestors
and the dawn of the 20th Century, life expectancy rose just 15 years. In the
last 114 years, it’s increased by 43 years for men, and 48 years for women.
What does this have to do with divorce rates? For the vast majority of
history, humans lived relatively short lives—and accordingly, they weren’t in
relationships with the same person for 25 to 50 years. Modern society adheres
to the concept that marriage should be lifelong; but when we’re living three
lifetimes compared to early humans, perhaps
we need to redefine the construct. Social research suggests that because
we’re living so long, most people will have two or three significant long-term
relationships in their lifetime.
To put in plainly, as divorce rates indicate, human beings haven’t been
able to fully adapt to our skyrocketing life expectancy. Our biology and
psychology aren’t set up to be with one person for four, five, or six decades.
This is not to suggest that there aren’t couples who happily make these
milestones—we all hope that we’re one of them. Everyone enters into a marriage
with the good intention to go all the way, but this sort of longevity is the
exception, rather than the rule. It’s important to remember too, that just
because someone is still married doesn’t mean they’re happy or that the
relationship is fulfilling. To that end, living happily ever after for the
length of a 21st century lifetime should not be the yardstick by which we
define a successful intimate relationship: This is an important consideration
as we reform the concept of divorce.
You really ought to read the
whole article. There are numerous things one might say in response. I just want
to highlight one thing.
What underpins the entire
article, of course, is a particular worldview called Naturalism. These two
doctors use expressions like, “redefine the construct” and “reform the concept
of divorce” deliberately. Their worldview demands it. Their beliefs are the
natural, logical outworking of Naturalism.
What is the worldview? What is
Naturalism? Simply put, Naturalism is the
belief that the physical world is all that exists. The universe, and
everything that occurs in it, is the product of blind, amoral forces at work.
Humans, including all their “thoughts,”
are merely dancing to the tune of their own DNA (something evolutionist Richard
Dawkins says). In such a worldview, we are simply evolved primates behaving
according to socially-constructed “morals” and customs that can change at any
time the group decides it's time to change. What is “right” is what the herd
wants; what is “wrong” is what the herd doesn't want.
This point really needs to
sink in: in Naturalism, the word “good”
means, “what helps creatures/the species to survive”; the word “bad” means, “what
hurts creatures/the species.” What they most certainly do not mean by “good and bad” is that which
conforms to the objective Moral Law
given by God.
Therefore, everything in life
that humans do is up to the herd. Everything. Want to get married? Sure, just
don’t hurt other creatures. Want to take drugs? Sure, just don’t hurt other
creatures. This is why we hear over and over and over again the same dictum by
any teenager, “But I’m not hurting anyone!”
See why this is so powerful to
so many people? Because in that
worldview, “not hurting anyone” is the only real thing that is “bad” (because
it hurts the survival of creatures/the species.) If one assumes the
Naturalistic worldview, there is nothing "wrong" with redefining anything whatsoever, just as long as it
doesn’t hurt the species.
Now, assuming their worldview, fill in the blank:
·
Is divorce causing you pain? Then don’t get married.
·
Is marriage causing you pain? Then get divorced.
·
Is not
being married to your love causing you pain? Then get married.
·
Is not marrying your gay lover causing you pain?
Then get married.
· Is not marrying all the people you want causing
you pain? Then have multiple lovers
and/or be polygamous.
·
What if my country doesn’t allow me to get
married? Then fight to have your “rights”
heard and accepted.
· But, what if other crackpots and fundamentalists
who worship an ancient book want to stop me? Then fight even harder. Educate them: they’re just ignorant. That’s
all. They haven’t evolved yet. (Now do you see how really backwoods and
stupid Christians come across; since, in their view, we still hold to beliefs
that our very ancient superstitious ancestors believed?)
Remember, in Naturalism,
everything humans do to one another is either acceptable or not acceptable
based on subjective preferences. It’s no different than deciding which flavor
of ice cream society should allow you to eat.
For the doctors in the article,
their evidence for a longer human life span demonstrates (to them) that humans
have changed, so their social constructs
must change too.
“Get on board, people! You’re
so backwards! Progress! Progress! Change! Don’t be caught in the history books
as stupid and unenlightened!”
Marriage, social etiquette,
pedophilia, polyamory, bestiality—whatever—it’s just a social construct. And
social constructs can change, and should change, whenever that belief or
practice impedes on the survival of the society.
In their worldview, everything
I’ve just said is perfectly logical and natural.
The question to ask next is,
of course. . .
