In our previous class (Tuesday the 17th), the discussion (again led in part by Dr. Silverman) centered around the discussion of C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves and its relevance to Till We Have Faces. While the majority of that discussion was centered upon discussing the differences between the four types of love Lewis describes and finding examples of those loves within his other work, there was for a short time a rather deep discussion on the role of marriage.
Obviously, marriage is related to the love Lewis calls "eros," romantic love. I think that once we entered upon that subject, the conversation was diverted towards marriage. There were, I recall, a few different perspectives on marriage, ranging from religious definitions to social and historical definitions. On one side it was argued that marriage was primarily (or at least ought to be) a selfless aspect of eros, while on the other it was argued precisely the opposite, that it was selfish. The discussion even considered whether marriage was natural or unnatural, and so the definition of the word "natural" was commented upon, too.
Lewis, of course, takes the position that marriage is primarily religious, although I recall him elsewhere mentioning (I forget which work) that he realized that marriage throughout much of human history was often regarded as a primarily social and political contract. But he warns that it is easy to make this love, eros, a god, simply because of the extreme passion that tends to accompany it easily. He advises that this, too, must be ordered beneath "agape," or charity, which he considered the Divine Love. And so I think that Lewis would indeed have regarded marriage as centered upon God, even though it was made between two humans. But I am uncertain whether Lewis would have regarded marriage as "natural," and so I will comment briefly on that subject.
Since I usually find myself agreeing with Lewis, I often try to refer back to several of his works in order to aid in the determination of my opinion on a subject. I recall, therefore, many instances in which Lewis defines what the word "natural" means. He notes that oftentimes it simply means the natural world, as is in the "great outdoors." At other times, "natural" means that which mankind has a predilection towards, like certain habits or moods (e.g. "It was only natural that he should be angry.") Natural can even refer to what the ancient Greeks called physis, or the inherent, inborn quality that each human possesses (e.g. Achilles' physis was that of a warrior). Finally, the term can distinguish the material world from the supernatural world; "nature," therefore, means creation, that which God made.
So, with these uses of the word in mind, I think one can attempt to answer the question whether marriage is natural. I think if one applies the first definition, that which applies to the outdoors, marriage is not "natural" in that sense. Animals (and other forms of life) do not marry as humans do; some may be monogamous for lifetime, but monogamy is not the only definitive aspect of marriage. In the second sense, humans may be "naturally" inclined towards marriage; it might be instinctual or socially taught. But I do not think this is the sense that best answers the question, either. The sense of "nature" that is like the Greek physis does not seem applicable here. And so I think it is in the last sense that the question must be considered.
Obviously, one's answer depends wholly upon whether one accepts or rejects the existence of a Supernature. If the material world, the universe, is all that there is, it would not appear that marriage is natural, because the only sense in which it is left to be considered is in a social sense. Even if it is argued that marriage is a product of evolution, I do not think it is appropriate to call it "natural," because it seems to relate more to the social aspect of humanity rather than the biological aspect. But, if one does believe in the supernatural, like Lewis, I think it may well be argued that marriage is natural, in the sense that it was specifically designed by a creator. It is distinct from all that animals do in the "natural world," but Christian doctrine holds that marriage was a deliberate invention by God. And so I think it is in this sense fair to call it natural.
All that being said, however, I think Lewis would agree with me in providing one important thought: the fact that something is natural or unnatural does not really determine whether it is valuable or not. I think the mere fact that something is natural (like marriage) does not mean that all marriages are good and valuable, nor do I think that because all technology is unnatural (it is a human, rather than divine invention) it must follow that technology is inherently bad. I think, on the contrary, that it is rather obvious that some unnatural things are good and some natural things are bad. Animals often kill each other over prey or for other reasons of dominance: this is surely natural in that first sense, but I do not think that this instance of "the natural" is good for mankind. So, while it is interesting to inquire whether marriage is or is not natural, I do not think too much value should be placed on the answer, lest some rather dangerous assumptions about it follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment