Modern Philosophers on Love and Property - Essay Example

Love, Intimacy and Property Introduction A world of modern marriage is often misinterpreted. A modern marriage lost its value; it is not a social unit anymore. Modern media and peculiarities of the modern globalized life have shifted accents to individualistic nature of spouses, their individual concerns. On the basis of researches and studies of the modern sociologists and philosophers relation between the concepts of love, intimacy and property is found. It is further suggested that spouses in the modern marriage are independent individuals, who made their common decision of being together. Love and intimacy are two basic pillars of modern marriage. Nevertheless, the issues of property are often challenging for the modern couples. In a sound modern marriage it is relevant to have a well-balanced relations in marriage, which are full-fledged at different levels of a marriage. Modern philosophers on love, intimacy and property In the book written by Laura Kipnis "Against Love" the author claims that there are societal bounds, which connect two spouses together. The concept of marriage is much wider, than it was a century ago. Now, it is a long-term romantic relation (gay, lesbian or straight). The concept of love and intimacy are often correlated with the concept of marriage. From the political perspective relation in a marriage facilitate governmental management over individuals (Kipnis, 2006). Kipnis in accordance with Freud underlines that “basic repression is necessary for any civilization to survive (Csencsitz, 2008). Currently, equal civic stability is an enforced compliance between the modern political and social system. Marriage exerts influence on love in order to "maximize submission and minimize freedom." (Kipnis 2006, p. 53). Kipnis defines love in the following way: “love is the nearest most of us come to glimpsing utopia in our lifetimes” (Kipnis, 2006). Therefore, currently marriage is considered to be an integrative component of spouses. Nevertheless marriage was previously considered as the relations between two spouses and they combined their mutual assets. Nowadays in Australia the number of one-person households increased and currently 9 per cent of Australians live alone (Classen, 2004). Very often it is possible to meet the couples in Australia, which do not have money for their own mansion. They live in the households of their own. Therefore, women do not want to risk their properties and neither do men. In the work presented by Susan Maushart an interesting interrelation between the concept of property and marriage is discussed. Thus, it is described the way family lived through without technology (Shumway, Sterling, Kimball, Korinek, and Arredondo, 2007). Therefore, in the modern world a family and a marriage cannot exist without many external factors. Political factors, technological advancement are crucial issues in the existence of marriage and family. As far as we can see, modern people are dependent on different issues of the world. Another author Marilyn Yalom in her book “The History of the Wife” presents a changing nature of roles of women in the modern world (Yalom and Carstensen, 2002). Women work outside of home more than earlier. Women are turning into more independent; they have turned into a competitive workforce. Modern women want to have marriage and to be beloved women, but they lack role models. The icons of modern women are different. Popular culture represents them from different points of view. A different interpretation of marriage in the modern world Consequently, intimate relations and marriage is presented from an unusual perspective. Currently, modern love should be considered in the modern context. The earlier representation of romance currently coexists with intimacy. In accordance with Shumway the literature of love is focused on a perverted representation of love. Therefore, unlike “romantic marriage”, which existed after the period World War I, there is a high degree of intrigue and courtship in the modern marriage. In accordance with Shumway et al (2007) "the wife can learn a great deal from the mistress" (Shumway, Sterling, Kimball, Korinek, and Arredondo, 2007).  In the American society the 20th century was focused on communication between spouses. A famous philosopher Shumway considers the development of marriage and family therapy as an integrative part of the modern marriage. Two concepts of love and intimacy are closely related, but when they are considered in relation to a concept of property, different accents of this phenomenon may occur. Two spouses are positioned as independent representatives of workforce, who combine their efforts in favor of a hard work for marriage. Currently, relations within marriage are described in the following way: “couples will be equal within the relationship-always a difficult goal in a sexist society-and also that they maintain a delicate balance between autonomy and fusion” (Hawkins, Wardle, and Coolidge, 2007). Healthy spouses are defined in terms of Freud theory. In case an individual loves and works, he is a healthy one. On the other hand, it is often considered if this balanced relation is reached. In this case, it is hard to decide for a couple if they reached intimacy or not (Taffel, 2007). To reach and maintain intimacy in a marriage is rather difficult. Moreover, in accordance with Shumway maintenance of mutual relations in a married couple is another complicated thing. For example, in the novel by John Updike, it is better to focus on ideal relationship and in the modern films ambiguities of intimate relationship are often discussed (Yalom and Carstensen, 2002). Modern love is often considered under conditions of a capitalistic society in America. Helen Fisher (2004) underlines that love is always a product of heredity and evolution. Both, Shumway and Fisher focus on the necessity to correlate discussion of the issues of love and intimacy in terms of anthropological analysis. Romance, in accordance with Fisher, is correlated with brain chemistry. A collective discussion of passion makes people focus on the issue of passion. Therefore, there is an evident difference between representation of love in the modern times and in premodern Europe. Though, it is possible to look for similar features between earlier representation of love and property and in their representations in the modern context. A property arrangement was the basis for marriage in the premodern Europe: “Few couples in fact married for love, but many grew to love each other in time as they jointly managed their household, reared their offspring, and shared lifes experiences. By contrast, in most of the modern West, marriage begins about love, in its middle is still mostly about raising children (if there are children), and ends - often - about property, by which point love is absent or a distant memory” (Shumway, Sterling, Kimball, Korinek, and Arredondo, 2007). This citation describes the difference between relations in a marriage. Unfortunately, pragmatism of modern people often outweighs their love, emotions and feelings. Romantic marriage did not exist till 1800. Nowadays romantic marriage exists hardly as well. Currently, modern marriage is described in the following way: it is a free individual choice on the basis of individual preferences, tastes and aspirations. Moreover, a common living in a marriage does not mean having a mutual property or being involved into mutual goal reaching. Vice versa, it is a split way to different goals. Spouses in a marriage are united in the modern world only by their likes or dislikes, their feelings and emotions. Fortunately, a modern woman has a great advantage over women in premodern Europe and may have their own finances and remain financially independent from their husbands (Christensen, 1950). Moreover, modern laws protect “married woman’s property rights and earnings” (Christensen, 1950). A married woman is not her husband’s legal persona anymore. Moreover, same sex marriage is a modern social phenomenon, which shifts accents of the modern marriage to the greatest extent as well. Ellickson claims that “the moral nuisance position concerning same-sex marriage without giving an account of why he would consider assigning control of this particular kind of public good to the territorial jurisdiction, favoring its land-based effects over its effects on the property and identity of the couple involved” (Spurlock, 2005). In the same-sex marriage, the issue of property is of high relevance as well. In case a different-sex marriage fails, ex-spouses may have a divorce and share their common property, when each owns a half. In the modern American society, gay and lesbian couples can get married, but they do not have right to have a divorce (Yalom and Carstensen, 2002). Does it mean that love an intimacy among same-sex couples is stronger? Moreover, it is more than evident that same-sex couples have their separate property ownership. Concerning different-sex marriages, the spouses have a right to divorce and at the same time they may own their common property or each of them have his or her own property separately from another spouse. Therefore, it is relevant to consider the issue of marriage and two integrative elements of marriage, such as love and intimacy, from different perspectives of marriage definitions suggested in sociology and economy. It is a wide-spread definition that “marriage is the institution through which people join together their lives in emotional and economic ways through forming a household. It often confers rights and obligations with respect to raising children, holding property, sexual behavior, kinship ties, tribal membership, relationship to society, inheritance, emotional intimacy and love” (Shumway, Sterling, Kimball, Korinek, and Arredondo, 2007). Consequently, married couples have their rights and obligations, but in the modern marriage these issues are voluntarily and may be approved or disapproved by the spouses. Modern spouses realize the fact that there is a high degree of economic risk, in case there are no property arrangements between them. As a rule courts supports a position, where a marriage is a partnership. Therefore, spouses are equal partners though they may play different social roles. In case of divorce, partners’ property is divided equally (Ibid., p. 137). In case tangible or intangible property was inherited prior to marriage, then it would not be shared equally between two spouses Conclusion Consequently, we can claim that marriage is a sphere of social, economical, emotional and psychological interaction between two spouses. An emotional investment into marriage of both spouses as a rule is often correlated with their obligations in a marriage. For example, very often a wife is positioned as household manager and a husband is often positioned as income provider. Still, the property would belong to both of them. The best way out for a married couple is to have joint ownership from the start. This will enable both spouses have a right for tangible and intangible property. Moreover, such a way out guarantees equal relations in marriage. On the one hand, feelings and emotions, love and intimacy should not be correlated with the issues of property. On the other hand, it is of crucial importance to have a sound marriage, which is based on free individual choice, love, respect and equality at different levels of relations in a marriage. Bibliography 1. Christensen, Harold T. Marriage Analysis: Foundations for Successful Family Life. New York: Ronald Press, 1950.  2. Csencsitz, Cassandra. Who’s Afraid of Modern Marriage? American Theatre, 25 (October 2008): 14+. 3. Classen, Albrecht, ed. Discourses on Love, Marriage, and Transgression in Medieval and Early Modern Literature. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2004. Questia. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. 4. Hawkins, Alan J., Lynn D. Wardle, and David Orgon Coolidge, eds. Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the Twenty-First Century: An Agenda for Strengthening Marriage. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. Questia. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. 5. Kipnis, Laura. "Somethings Missing." Womens Studies Quarterly 34.3/4 (2006): 22+.Questia. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. 6. Maushart, Susan. The Winter of our Disconnect. (December 30, 2010). Available from: http://www.examiner.com/book-in-national/the-winter-of-our-disconnect-by-susan-maushart-review 7. Shumway, Sterling T., Thomas G. Kimball, Alan W. Korinek, and Rudy Arredondo. "A Family Systems-based Model of Organizational Intervention." Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 33.2 (2007): 134+. Questia. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. 8. Spurlock, John C. "Modern Love: Romance, Intimacy, and the Marriage Crisis."Journal of Social History 39.1 (2005): 287+. Questia. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. 9. Taffel, Jacqui. Love keeps its distance. (March 26, 2007). Available from: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/relationships/love-keeps-its-distance/2007/03/26/1174761337906.html?page=2 10. Yalom, Marilyn, and Laura L. Carstensen, eds. Inside the American Couple: New Thinking/New Challenges. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002.Questia. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. Read More