Living in the House that Culture Built

by Scott H. Payne on July 21, 2009

Shack

It has amazes me how much getting married has affected my life. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’ve had no intentions of leaving or breaking off my relationship for some time now, so it isn’t an inclination of changed freedom. And our engagement period was almost a year, so I had all that time to think about the new direction in which my life would be heading post-June 27, 2009.

I guess part of what the surprise entails is that I was under the impression that after all the time spent thinking about proposing, all the time post-proposal getting ready to get married, and a small handful of breakdown/throughs about this step in my life, I didn’t expect that everything would feel so subtly and yet radically different.

But it does.

It is true that my step with marriage was twinned with the major step of buying a first home together and moving into that home shortly after the wedding, so there has been a lot of change going on in my life. All the same, prior to the event itself I didn’t think that anything fundamental was about to shift. I had lived with my wife for years prior, have been deeply in love with her for at least as long, have had conversations about children and pets and the like, admitted fears, shared dreams… what more was there to do?

And yet, I would be lying if I said that there wasn’t a subtle but undeniable qualitative difference to our relationship that extends far beyond the legal signals of our decision.

What has occurred to me in the proceeding weeks is that the change I feel is our official entrance into the cultural institution and tradition of marriage. They are often unseen and unspoken (at least in a direct sense), but these institutions and traditions are at work behind so many conversations, images, interactions, behaviours,  and loci of meaning we encounter on a day-to-day basis. As someone who spends not an inconsiderable amount of time thinking about the roles of culture and tradition in the practices of politics and life, it was a bit… unnerving to have one such institution so thoroughly sneak up on me and apply such a strong undercurrent of influence to my own life.

It got me thinking about how many other such amorphous and translucent norms and undercurrents are constantly at play in our lives to which we scantly pay attention nor attempt to understand. I think probably far more than we actually care to admit.

Of course, we aren’t always wholly unaware of these cultural forces and some of our most epic and intractable battles are squarely rested on the impulse to either accept or reject such institutions and their attendant implications. But even in those epic battles, I think there is a degree to which we continue to fail in any real attempt to understand those institutions and norms in a deeper sense because we generally get caught up in the debate about their fundamental value to society or their underlying heinousness as a source of oppression and conformity before we’ve really sat in their current of their rivers like a Heraclitian dissenter.

A little time invested with those institutions will often reveal that the source of rancor in our culture wars emanates from the fact that to some degree both sides are right.

It is true that cultural institutions and social norms provide importance sources of value and meaning and operate as a vital interstitial glue to our atomistic wanderings. My own limited experience in the vestibule of marriage has already provided ample evidence about the kinds of opening to a vast swath of grounding, lineage, meaning, compassion, and presence to which such institutions can connect a person.

At the same time, it is equally true that there are elements of archaic thinking, biased and despicable reasoning, and outright brutality that are able to hide away from the light of day safely within the confines of such antechambers. I need think only of the dismay that my wife and I feel at the notion that many same-sex couples in the US remain incapable of experiencing the deepening of love and commitment that we feel because of so-called “traditional” views about what marriage is and isn’t. That this circumstance is on the change is, of course, heartening, but that change is and continues to be hard fought. This is only one such example of where traditions and cultural institutions can be as much harm as they can help in our social lives.

The seeming pendulum, though, is that one either comes to blindly trust in and advocate for the maintenance of such traditions and institutions, citing the usual litany of reasoning behind the position. Or, conversely, that one because a cultural warrior, determined to strike down the inequities and injustices perpetrated against the few by the many through these odious spells. The problem here, again, is that in either case, it seems like the positions there arrived become knee-jerk and, in essence, their own source of shuttered dogma railing against any attempt to circumnavigate an alternative perspective and understanding.

When it comes to culture wars, the real enemy is a felt and self-aware understand of that over which one wrangles.

All of which is decidedly troubling, not in the least because we have a great deal to learn about ourselves by really embracing those institutions in both a loving and critical stance. But also because such a willingness to open to these currents in a full-bodied sense — to inhabit these traditions with a focus on maintaining the brightness of a reflexive mind, heart, and spirit — could well do us a great deal of good in our political machinations as the last presidential election demonstrated. A willingness to set aside reactive sets of “accept” or “reject” and engage in actual discussion about different cultural institutions within the context of a twenty-first century world may well offer a surprisingly fertile ground for communication, cooperation, and mutual understanding between conservatives and liberals, perhaps even libertarians and progressives. In working our the nuances and intricacies of different cultural corporealities, we may well find that we work out the differences and come to a better understanding of one another at the same time — the seeming opaque differences that lie at heart of our lingua franca of venom.

Of course, we’ll never know if we remain fundamentally unwilling to try.

Image via Flickrer Gabriel Hurley

{ 17 comments }

1 Jaybird July 21, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Great essay, dude.

My wife and I put off buying a house for a good long while because we both have debt phobia and the very idea of going into debt, let alone going into debt for six (!) figures freaked us out. We paid off her school debts and then really started leaning into paying off the remnants of mine before we said “okay, we’re going to kill each other if we stay in the apartment.”

Now, when we lived in the apartment, we regularly said stuff like “Let’s go to Best Buy” or “Let’s go to Bambino’s” or “let’s just get the hell out of here for the evening”. After we bought our house, we found that just sitting and reading in the basement was The Diggity Dank. We’d sit quietly and not need to be entertained.

It was awesome.

Best of luck! Keep it up!

(And, maybe, I need to write a guest post about this one sentence: “I need think only of the dismay that my wife and I feel at the notion that many same-sex couples in the US remain incapable of experiencing the deepening of love and commitment that we feel because of so-called “traditional” views about what marriage is and isn’t.” and focus on that last clause… good stuff, dude. Good stuff.)

2 E.D. Kain July 21, 2009 at 1:15 pm

Agreed – very nice piece, Scott. I – on the other hand – did not notice much of a change at all when we were married having lived together for 2 years prior. Just a bit of a blip on the radar and some extra stuff around the house. Now having a kid – that has made waves…

Jaybird – man, that makes me want a house.

3 Mike at The Big Stick July 21, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Great post. One of my favorite wedding readings is from Robert Fulgham. Part of it goes:

All those conversations that were held riding in a car or over a meal or during long walks – all those sentences that began with “When we’re married” and continued with “I will” and “you will” and “we will” – those late night talks that included “someday” and “somehow” and “maybe” – and all those promises that are unspoken matters of the heart.

All these common things, and more, are the real process of a wedding. The symbolic vows that you are about to make are a way of saying to one another, “You know all those things we’ve promised and hoped and dreamed – well, I meant it all, every word.”

Marriage is so transformative because it’s probably the most public and detailed promise we make in our lifetimes. I recall the morning after my wedding just sitting on the couch while my wife was getting dressed and repeating over and over, “I can’t believe I’m married,” while smiling and staring at my wedding ring. After nearly 5 years I feel completely naked without that sign of my commitment on my finger. People scoff at marriage as a dying ideal…that could not be further from my experience.

4 Rob in CT July 21, 2009 at 1:24 pm

My relationship with my wife didn’t change post-marriage. But then we lived together in a house for a couple of years first, had been friends for a decade, etc. We didn’t have to learn how to live together, how to share our money (we’d already been doing that, though in a more limited manner), etc.

The child that’s on the way, on the other hand, will rock our world.

5 Mike at The Big Stick July 21, 2009 at 1:27 pm

To shift gears to the other thoughts in your post… you say:

The problem here, again, is that in either case, it seems like the positions there arrived become knee-jerk and, in essence, their own source of shuttered dogma railing against any attempt to circumnavigate an alternative perspective and understanding.

I give the example of a husband and wife who separate and have children together. If both sides have a firm belief that the other side has the best of intentions towards their children, then quite often issues that come up are negotiated, not argued over, because they are based in mutual trust. The father and mother may no longer see eye to eye as a couple but they don’t doubt one another’s love towards their children.

The problem I think today is a complete lack of trust on both sides of the aisle. Democrats don’t just dislike Republican ideas, they genuinely distrust their motives and vice versa. Both sides believe that the other side doesn’t just have bad ideas but genuinely seek to do harm. So anything the other side suggests, no matter how rationale it may sound on the surface, is going to be filtered through that lens and discounted.

Now of course the question becomes, how do we rebuild that trust that both sides want the best but just have radically different ideas on how to get there?

6 North July 21, 2009 at 1:56 pm

I look forward to exploring whether the phenomena is replicated in a same sex coupling. My partner and I have been together for ten years and are finally going to visit Canada in August (I’m half Canadian moved to the states, he’s 100% American) to say our vows.

7 Scott H. Payne July 21, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Congratulations!!

8 Bob July 21, 2009 at 2:50 pm

Great. Good luck. I love a love story.

9 North July 22, 2009 at 4:30 am

Thank you kindly.

10 Sam M July 21, 2009 at 6:47 pm

It’s fascinating to me that people can have such opposite reactions. To me, the marriage, in particular the civil portion of it, meant absolutely nothing to me, culturally or spiritually. Now, I’m Catholic, so the religious aspect had a lot of resonance and still does. But the marriage license and the “public recognition”? I couldn’t give two craps. People don’t care much one way or another, as far as I can tell. Coworkers who cohabitated with their significant others still brought them to company functions. The significant others got invited to all the parties. Etc. That is, nothing changed in that regard at all.

Which is kind of strange, because it kind of leads me to the same conclusion about same-sex marriage. In your case, it was a huge deal that everyone ought to be alllowed to take advantage of. In my case… it was no big deal. So why would I care of two other people, whoever they are, want to call themselves married? Or have other people call them that?

Seriously. In my case, the religious part was the main thing. But part of that, for whatever reason, was getting a marriage license. Not sure why. And I do think there are some legal rights that go along with the civil portion, so I suppose I would have gotten the license even if the church hadn’t required it. But the license was so far from a spiritual or world-changing experience that it was more like… a license. A drivers license. Just one more bureaucratic hoop to jump through.

Not sure why this is. Perhaps it’s that my wife and I did NOT cohabitate prior to getting married? Or maybe that’s completely tangential. I don’t know. Either way, like I said, the idea of having the relationship publicly recognized and or sanctioned seemed, and seems, really far from what we were after.

11 Mike at The Big Stick July 22, 2009 at 6:44 am

Sam you reaise a good point which is that ultimately I think the use of the word ‘marriage’ verses legally equivelant civil unions is the primary goal of the SSM movement. It’s a way of getting Uncle Sam to endorse their lifestyle as culturally equivelant…not just legally equivelant. That’s why it is often my belief that the stated goal of breaking down legal barriers is a red herring. I would be much more sympathetic to the SSM lobby if they were more honest about their goals.

12 North July 22, 2009 at 7:51 am

Mike, I’ve noted your handle down and shall be bringing it up at the next meeting of my local chapter of the Fuchsia Mafia. Anticipate a punitive strike on your place of residence which will involve at a minimum some offensive redecorating, the replacement of all your jeans with daisy dukes and a whole lot of Liza Mennelli CD’s.

It is not in the interest of the great post heterocentrism cause that you reveal our true purposes. We do not want the great unwashed masses to realize that it truly doesn’t matter to us that we have to leave the country to get civilly married.
-It’s completely incidental to us that gay people who fall in love with a foreigner have to choose between living apart or emigrating.
- We barely notice the 1001 various legal niceties of civil marriage that the government bundles with the civil marriage license that we have to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars duplicating (where we can) with private contracts that often can be taken down in court. Thousands of bucks in legal expenses just means a little less drink money and tips to strippers in our circles after all yes?
-Who cares that patriotic soldiers who happen to be homosexual are summarily heaved from the armed forces often depriving the country of highly useful specialists? Not us gays, patriotism is hetronormative and so last century anyhow.

No, you will regret exposing our true agenda; to use the immense cultural control that the government has to force Christians to call us Married instead of Civilly Unioned. Never mind that everyone and their dog calls us married in normal discourse anyhow (Civil unioned doesn’t trip off the tongue the same way). No, when we say we don’t like being forced to stand in the hospital waiting room while our partner dies surrounded by people he hates who he happens to be biologically related to is entirely a red herring. Our core goal is to use the power of the constitution to make Pat Robertson be forced to admit that two guys have the same moral virtue as a guy and a gal Church and State be damned. You’ve exposed our machinations good sir and have no idea the Armageddon that shall be unleashed upon you. Expect to awaken with a pink nail polished pedicure in the morning. And yes, there will be sparkles!

13 Mike at The Big Stick July 22, 2009 at 8:27 am

So to sum up…you are okay with civil unions if they were more in line with the French model in that they differed form marriage in name only?

As a side note: I’m curious, if someone has a medical directive in place that names their partner why would that person be kept out of a hospital room? What would be the hospital’s legal position?

14 North July 22, 2009 at 10:35 am

Personally I’d be fine with Civil unions more on the French model. Certainly the people to the left of me in the movement would ask why, if there’re no legal distinctions between the two and if the country has separation of church and state, the two need different names but I frankly don’t care.
You are surely aware that culturally the high ground has already been seized by the pro-gay marriage side and in regular every day vernacular an individual with a civil union will most likely be referred to as “married” regardless of what the word on the legal document is. Unless there is a remarkable change of attitude demographically as long as there’re few to no differences between a civil union and a civil marriage the distinction will get erased.

When my fiancé, or since I’m in America right now I suppose I should say proposed illegitimate gay partner or something, and I had our mutual rights of medical attorney prepared for us our attorney was careful to warn us that if a blood relative were to bring a challenge against the document that in an unfriendly legal districts the presumption would be in favor of the blood relatives and we might have to fight it out in court. This is not a consideration in heterosexual marriage power of attorney, but then again married hetero couples don’t have to pay an attorney to draw them up such a document in the first place.

15 Mike at The Big Stick July 22, 2009 at 1:26 pm

I’m not so sure the marriage terminology wouldn’t be reversed if civil unions became the norm. I’ve met more than one gay couple who used ‘partner’ over ‘husband/wife’ so I don’t think anything is set in stone yet.

16 North July 22, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Oh indeed you’re right, there’s no way to predict which way the linguistic shift lands. I suspect it’ll be husband/wife/marriage because the terms are already in place and the verb is so ubiquitous. For instance “In August my fiance will become my husband because we got married.” flows much more easily that “In August my fiance became my partner because we go partnered/committed/hitched/garried.” Doesn’t have quite the same ease of understanding. I’m assuming it mainly because the great masses of the people seem a touch lazy to me linquistically. But it’s all conjecture on my part, absolutely.

17 mike farmer July 21, 2009 at 10:43 pm

“It is true that cultural institutions and social norms provide importance sources of value and meaning and operate as a vital interstitial glue to our atomistic wanderings. My own limited experience in the vestibule of marriage has already provided ample evidence about the kinds of opening to a vast swath of grounding, lineage, meaning, compassion, and presence to which such institutions can connect a person.”

Just wait til you’ve been married for 36 years — talk about a vast swath of grounding, lineage, meaning, compassion, and presence ! What is atomistic wandering?

Comments on this entry are closed.