Harper College - Halcyon Yearbook (Palatine, IL)

Page 43 text:

By aiding epople to achieve self and marital satisfaction, the institution society is most concerned with is strengthened and en- hanced. It is on the question of mongomy where traditionalism and innovation clash most severly. l believe the larger question to be: ls American society flexible enough to embrace pluralistic forms?lVly guess is that it must be, to survive and productively utilize its vast heterogeneity. High rates of divorce and adultry point to the need for revisions of form. Rather than coericively promoting strict monogamy as natural and ordanined, one might view real behavior as an idication of the need for exploring other forms. Human beings are sexual beings. Failure to recognize this has led to a hideous double standard, has promoted the ugly hypocrisy of legitimate vs. illegitimate sex, has instigated guilt and exploitation into human sexuality. What happens between the time the infant first delights in genital play, and the advert of a young girl labeling her menstrual period a curse? Societal sanctions, adult ignorance and chauvinism, antihuman religosity all contribute to the savage castration of human sexuality. The notion that sex should be confined to marriage, at the same time remaining the greatest ploy of Madison Ave. is diametric and absurd. Medical technology has sufficiently eradicated the traditionalistic rationale. Yet, the great lie persists, yielding adole- scence a time of frustration and axiety- ridden experimentation and sublimation. The viginity cult, with all it's misrep- resentations lchastity is next to godlinessj persists. And a serious, seemingly unpenetr- able wall divides adults and their children, due to the attempted inculcation of con- fusing values lpremarital sex is dirty, post marital sex is holyl Until these values are rationally and realistically altered, sexual- ly-related problems will continue to rupture the psyches of countless unhappy people. . Closely linked to the above argument is the continuing permeation of tradition- alistic sexism. Rather than being complementary, the differentiated family roles often serve to promote separatism, elful dominance-submissive patterns in rela- tionships, and denying children the exper- ience of quality and quanity interaction with both parents. American society limits its growth potential by advocating con- stricted and simplistic role models for children's imitation. Thankfully, a reexamination of these roles is occuring, resulting in new forms. Vast maternal employment is now altering family economic structure, providing women with new senses of integrity and worth, perhaps leading to egalitarian, modernistic marital forms. Another problem of the American mid- dle class is the demaging over-emphasis on possession and individual gratification. The pioneer days, typified by rugged indivi- dualism and competition are lang-gone. It is anachronistic and demaging to stress values unsuitable to the functioning of the golbal village we inhabit today. The frontier is now sufficiently mapped and settled. New problems now arise - urban tension, savage racial distinctions, alienation. Values stress- ing human interdependency and humanistic concern are necessary to salvage and recon- struct the American community. The family structure can aid in this value revision by emphasizing sharing rather than individual possession, coopera- tion over competition, contribution as well as achievement. The less divisionary a unit, the stronger than unit becomes, in turn strengthening the members of that unit. The middle class strives to protect its children from the problems of adulthood and seeks to prolong the internship period. This appears to grate against an offspring's need for autonomy and self-sufficiency in realistic self-appraisal and environmental manipulation. This is not an advocation of exposing the child deliberately to brutality and ugliness. Rather, my belief is that 41

Page 42 text:

don't fas women dol derive their sense of worth and status through their mate. Per- haps this is reflected in the pronouncement man and wife. When marriage is viewed as a goal, an end in itself, the mate is reduced to a vehicle through which one obtains the state of marriage. One wonders how joy and satisfaction would increase if marriage for alternative structuresl was viewed as a by-product of a happy relationship, rather than a concrete, inculcated goal. lt seems hardly surprising that, given sex- differentiated preparation and nonques- tioning acceptance for resignationl of the marriage goal, so many marriages are beset by the probelms of limited fulfillment and stifled growth. Middle class values extol personal affec- tion and individual choice as the solid foundation for marriage. Often, this is little more than lip-service. Homosexual, bi- sexuals and other pioneers of new forms, striveing to exercise their individual choice, are denied expression, and are fabled deviant. Freedom is allowed existence only within tight societal limitations result- ing in operative hypocrisy. Personal affec- tion and individual choice must be allowed fuller rein f85,UECfc'lff,l' in such a diversified land as ourl resulting in greater satisfaction for greater numbers of people, and an extension of the meaning of freedom. Another facet to this point can be raised. Personal affection between the mates is hailed as the prime basis of a successful marriage. Yet, as we have seen, many marriages conceived in romantic love fail devastatingly. An overemphasis on romanticism may lead to idealifation and eventual disillusionment. Perhaps marriage might be better based on the blending of personal affectuibm cinnib abd realistic sense, and active awareness and preparation for the difficulties marriage can present. ln earlier days, and in some present agrarian situations, the family was incor- porated into a tight, primary, extended group, encompassing several generations -lil and networks of affinal ties. No doubt stress and problems resulting from over- control and life-long interdependence existed. Today, though, due to the myriad effects of urbanization, corporate employ- ment, etc., the family structure has evolved into an isolated, nuclear unit, removed from kinship ties, or residential ethnic groupings. The effects of this, both positive and negative, are too numerous to examine here. Instead, we shall question the value of nuclearism upon the children. It would be fascinating to investigate the influence upon children of the many close adult models found in urban and rural communes and tribal structures. Several positive aspects can be hypothesized. The children might identify with a wider scope of humanity due to increased affectional adult contact. Also, a wide variety of surrogates could be offered to a child who perceived his parents as rejecting, or even momen- tarily unpleasant. Peer-group values might more closely reflect the needs and desires of the group at large. Perhaps middle class America has unconsciously limited the rich- ness and scope of family life be emphasiz- ing an autonomy that might lead to the barren sense of anomie. A marriage's success is measured by the degree of personal satisfaction and happi- ness derived from it. Tragically, the number of successful, working marriages is small. Considering society's major investment in the marital structure, one would think that several facilitators could be instituted to aid the success of a marriage. These could include financing neighborhood day care center. fProviding affection, pre-scool readiness aids, supervised peer involvement and aiding working and student mothersl Other ideas might include extensive and humanistic sex-education programs, neighborhood workshops on family plan- ning, economic advisment, human poten- tialities. Happiness, rather than a gift granted from the heavens, is a continuing process of compromise and understanding.

Page 44 text:

children need to experience risk-taking, and in some instances, failure. By doing so, they could increase social and personal competence, provided their failures do not affect ithrough the ignorance of insensitive parents and teachersl their sense of worth. Also, the polarization between child and adult spheres appears to enhance the adult mystique as exciting and tempting. Rather than afforded protention, the adolescent is subtly seduced into awkward adult imitation f drunkenness, aggressive- ness, precocious, teasing sexuality -to demonstrate his frustration and impatience. Tragically, misguided protection may result in social andfor psychological path- ologies. How much more natural it would be to view life as a continuim, rather than separ- ating epople into cloistered, segregated catagories. The failure to view life holistic- ally is perhaps the saddest aspect of the middle class ethos. By declaring youth as the most desirable of ages, people exper- ience a hollowness decades before their biological death. How incredibly wasteful. Youth is only a segment of the eighty year span expected, of which each year brings the promise and opportunites for new growth, new choices, increased happiness. Throughout the course of the year, a myriad of new models have been presented and discussed with regard to viability and functionality. I am not fully convinced as to the worth of delineating an alternative model until further research, and perhaps practical experience is incorporated. The fault of traditional middle class marital model lies not so much in its structure, but in its sanctimonious claim as the one right way. What is ow necessary is not just an alternative model, but an increasing libera- tion of options. The blueprints for alternative. forms must come from the participants desiring those forms. They must dictate the struc- ture, constantly modifying and experiment- ing. The middle class marriage is dictated to, resulting in traditional reactions to 42 authoritarianism - resentment, feelings of entrapment, hostility - not exactly the basis for joyful interaction. Major issues in erecting new forms include the recognizance of sexuality, both pre- and postpubescent, and incorporation of expanded sensitivity and sexual educa- tion programs. Coupled with this could be expanded definitions of parenthood iincluding adoptive, biological and social parentagel, or forms denying the essen- tiality of parenthood. Types of family interation and sexual regulations iextended, tribal, homosexual, radically egalitarianl are only as limited as the number of structures considered. Provi- sions for establishment and dissolution of marriage could become as individualistic as the couple or family deems viable. Only when marriage iin its various formsl is viewed as an element of individual choice, rather than societal coercion, will it truly provide maximum satisfaction and happiness for the families concerned. The faminine mystique is quite an effective persuader. The un-married fem-ale seems as enigma, viewed as a pitiable, barren spinster or a male-devouring, hard- assed competitor. Mothers, anxious to secure a satisfying future for their daughters fand perhaps to vicariously fulfill their own livesl prepare them early for wife- and motherhood. Seven-year-old chil- dren are taught to murture plastic surrogate babies. Pink ruffles are the order of the day. Achievement and independence are deemphasized, passivity and domesticity are praised. Women come to believe in their inferiority and allow parental, societal, and media manipulation of their minds, their bodies and their lives. The masculine mystique is equally insidious. en are denied their emotion- alism, their gentleness, their humanism, through a widespread promotion of aggres- siveness, raw courage, self-assertion and strength. Due to an arbitrary economic structure, the joys and wonder of child- rearing are chiefly entrusted to the female.