|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| furiousmilksheikali wrote: |
rusmeister:
I happen to find a lot of "arguments from tradition" to be highly suspect. They are often very ethnocentric and often take a very exaggerated idea of how long a practice has been around for. You may say that "I do" and "I object" has been romantic since, well... since as long as I can remember and that is often all anyone does mean by tradition (to be honest I can't see how "I object" has ever been romantic, could you explain this one please...). Also, why is the Kama Sutra less traditional and less romantic than what you refer to as the "mystical joining of two people into one flesh". Do you mean "metaphorical"? What do you mean by mystical?
As for the use of the word "partner" I do agree with you, as I have said, that it can cause "confusion" given that it has a very seperate and distinct meaning in a business sense (and therefore can sound cold and impersonal - my criticism) or it could mislead people about one's marital status (not a criticism of mine) or about the sex of one's "partner" (not a criticism) but the English have been using the word "mate" for centuries and no longer seems to cause confusion despite it having the meaning of an animal's sexual "partner". |
As to arguing from tradition, I will cheerfully point out that most people tend to dismiss tradition from a purely 'modernocentric' point of view - one that assumes superiority of our time over others. Yes, I do believe that a lot of tradition has great value, as it represents the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors that they felt both worthy and important to hand down to us, and people who reject it out of hand are like children who don't want to learn from their parents but would rather repeat all of the same mistakes that lead to the traditions in the first place. I hold that there is value in wisdom spoken or written a thousand years ago, and that we jolly well ought to find it and pay attention to it. Otherwise, we ain't learning from our past, but merely experimenting with our present.
(And what on earth is wrong with being culturally centered, anyway? I generally find that being ethnocentric is fine, unless you happen to be of white Anglo-Saxon origin. Then it is highly suspect.)
It might help if you understand that I mean 'romance' in the broader sense - not merely romantic feelings of love, but the whole sense of adventure, risk, commitment, as well as the intimacy which is destroyed by broadcasting it. As to the Kama Sutra, or Hustler, or whatever, the broad publishing of technique and details of how to have sex (what an awful way to express it!) kills romance and mystery, plain and simple.
I didn't say that those practices have been around forever and what some people argue is not necessarily what I am arguing. I DID say that they have been killed, and are of much greater worth than they are generally given credit for. The whole point of concepts like 'I object' is that marriage, as developed in western society, was a solemn vow before society for life, and any objections to such a lifelong commitment had to be stated and dealt with before the commitment was sealed. The solemnity of marriage was what made it romantic. The difficulty of walking out on that commitment made it the most serious event in one's life, besides birth or death. Nowadays some people change their 'partners' like they change their socks, and even the ones that don't feel free to walk with no condemnation from society. Freedom, perhaps, but at the price of that commitment and the resulting romance.
The Judeo-Christian concept of two people being made one flesh is mystical, and not merely metaphorical. You can reject it if you like, but that is what most people in North America and Europe believed 100, 200 and 300 years ago.
Good point about 'mate'. But I would say it still fits far more with the concept of marriage than does the word 'partner'.
Hope I've made some sense and haven't been offensive... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, you weren't offensive at all.
The point I was making about arguments from tradition, however, is not so much that they are old and stuffy but often not nearly as old as generally thought. I think that "traditional" ideas are well-worth reviewing and a certain genealogy applied to them. In Britain it is now considered "traditional" to eat turkey at Christmas. This "tradition" has been around for about fifty years but very few people who aren't older than fifty know that turkey hasn't been served every Christmas since 1AD. But this "tradition" has taken root and will no doubt be considered by future generations to be the "wisdom of our forebears".
I am only saying that "traditional" things shouldn't be considered timeless, immutable laws of the Universe and may even turn out to be more "modernocentric" than you realize. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| furiousmilksheikali wrote: |
No, you weren't offensive at all.
The point I was making about arguments from tradition, however, is not so much that they are old and stuffy but often not nearly as old as generally thought. I think that "traditional" ideas are well-worth reviewing and a certain genealogy applied to them. In Britain it is now considered "traditional" to eat turkey at Christmas. This "tradition" has been around for about fifty years but very few people who aren't older than fifty know that turkey hasn't been served every Christmas since 1AD. But this "tradition" has taken root and will no doubt be considered by future generations to be the "wisdom of our forebears".
I am only saying that "traditional" things shouldn't be considered timeless, immutable laws of the Universe and may even turn out to be more "modernocentric" than you realize. |
Of course! However, my main focus is on traditions that are at least hundreds (plural) of years old. And some things, like traditional families, and the associated language, are thousands of years old.
In addition I'm saying that most people are far more modernocentric than they realize... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry_Cowell
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 3352
Location: Berkeley
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| furiousmilksheikali wrote: |
| I am only saying that "traditional" things shouldn't be considered timeless, immutable laws of the Universe and may even turn out to be more "modernocentric" than you realize. |
| rusmeister wrote: |
| Of course! However, my main focus is on traditions that are at least hundreds (plural) of years old. And some things, like traditional families, and the associated language, are thousands of years old. |
rusmeister,
Please don't fall into the trap of believing that a "tradition" doesn't change over time. All traditions are in flux and not static -- just as all "traditional cultures" are not still stuck in the Stone Age.
If you are using the word traditional to mean "hasn't changed for hundreds of years," I think you'll be wrong. Words change; actions change; behavior changes. Even if you were to re-create a wedding ceremony from the year 1707 -- language, music, dress, etc. -- it wouldn't be the same ceremony because we don't know how those people actually behaved and thought 300 hundred years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jillford64
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 397
Location: Sin City
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have also been in a situation where boyfriend wasn't quite a strong enough term, but partner didn't work for me either because to me, and most of the people I know, partner denotes a person of the same sex or a business partner. So what do you all think about using the word companion instead? It seems neutral to me and doesn't say one way or another if the person is male or female. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ahchoo
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 606
Location: Earth
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why is it even necessary to define the person. Why not just say "this is (insert name here)" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soapdodger
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I quite like the buddhist term" earthly consort". I think it has rather more validity than baby talk for adults like "significant other". For an amusing skit on "partner", see the Father Ted episode A Song For Europe when the contest organiser introduces himself to Ted! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Trullinger
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 3110
Location: Seoul, South Korea and Myanmar for a bit
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A "F-a-g-g-o-t" originally refered to a quantity of wood, Denise. And no worries about not following me- I didn't know it would get beeped...
I see where you're coming from, Rusmeister. Are you married? (Just kidding...) It's obviously an institution you believe in, and equally obviously, I don't. But whether I believe in it, or not, I have seen far too many cases of people being discriminated against for being unmarried. Partly as an aesthetic matter, partly out of a deep objection to that discrimination, I generally keep my marital status far removed from my professional life.
I'd ask you to reconsider this statement, though.
| Quote: |
| If tradition changes, it ceases to be tradition. |
I believe that the tradition that you refer to, marriage, is one that has changed more than a little over hundreds of years, and even considerably in the last generation as well.
Don't you?
All the best,
Justin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Justin!
Yes, I'm married! (15 years and 3 kids!)
I see a fairly clear distinction between aspects or details of a tradition and the concept of a tradition, and I guess I didn't make that clear. My apologies.
The word 'discriminate' is generally treated as negative. I see positive understandings of it as well. If by it we mean unjust treatment, I fully understand and can agree with you. if by it we mean making distinctions and reasonably classifying, then we might lock horns. (I hope you discriminate between poisonous and non-poisonous mushrooms, for example.  )
I of course insist that marriage has a particular meaning and oppose the institution being 'user-defined'. In that sense I do discriminate, and rightly so. However, I do not support people being unjustly treated because of their marital status (or lack thereof), so oppose that (undertanding of) discrimination.
There are reasons that marriage arose, however varied details of how it has been done might be, chief among them the establishment of family and procreation, and a commitment to ensure that the children would be raised (to adulthood) in a stable environment. All societies throughout history have been based on this basic understanding of family, from the ancient Jews and Greeks to our day. All have had some form of this commitment to family. No society has been successfully built or maintained on free-floating 'partnerships'.
Other things, like companionship, the pleasure of sex, personal happiness etc, were decidedly perks, benefits, secondary.
We now live in a time when people come together for the sake of those perks and procreating is now often seen as secondary and fewer and fewer people make and keep to lifetime commitments, placing their personal happiness and pleasure above that of children and society (by which I mean family and community - not a Socialist, after all). Love now seems to mean something people look for ('need' love) rather than something they give (agape, or the old meaning of charity).
I agree that the terminology is a problem. Since this is another issue where everything depends on your bottom line faith or philosophy, I can't refer to my own faith unless you were to agree with it (within that faith, to quote Darth Vader, "There IS no conflict"). The fact that we don't share commonality in our world views creates linguistic problems because we view man's nature and purpose in life differently. That's the problem - for a society to effectively function its members have to agree on bottom-line principles - a common faith or philosophy. In our time, people are drifting further and further apart on what they agree on, an indication of a society in decline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry_Cowell
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 3352
Location: Berkeley
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rusmeister wrote: |
| There are reasons that marriage arose, however varied details of how it has been done might be, chief among them the establishment of family and procreation, and a commitment to ensure that the children would be raised (to adulthood) in a stable environment. All societies throughout history have been based on this basic understanding of family, from the ancient Jews and Greeks to our day. All have had some form of this commitment to family. No society has been successfully built or maintained on free-floating 'partnerships'. |
"All societies..."
"No society..."
Those are very sweeping statements, rusmeister!! One assumes that you are not an anthropologist or cultural historian. 
With some changes in wording, your statements could equally apply to the traditional instutition of slavery. Its purpose? To establish a certain form of economic and social hierarchy that produced a general social good (from the definers' point of view, of course). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Henry_Cowell wrote: |
| rusmeister wrote: |
| There are reasons that marriage arose, however varied details of how it has been done might be, chief among them the establishment of family and procreation, and a commitment to ensure that the children would be raised (to adulthood) in a stable environment. All societies throughout history have been based on this basic understanding of family, from the ancient Jews and Greeks to our day. All have had some form of this commitment to family. No society has been successfully built or maintained on free-floating 'partnerships'. |
"All societies..."
"No society..."
Those are very sweeping statements, rusmeister!! One assumes that you are not an anthropologist or cultural historian.
With some changes in wording, your statements could equally apply to the traditional instutition of slavery. Its purpose? To establish a certain form of economic and social hierarchy that produced a general social good (from the definers' point of view, of course). |
From your statement it would appear you are a Shavian - an ardent supporter of the Fabian Society by any chance? back
I do mean all societies ever mentioned in normal history books. I think I can risk a sweeping statement here. Even an exception wouldn't disprove the rule or my general point.
If you ever read Chesterton you'll get some interesting perspectives on anthropology.
In any event, let's not change my wording. I chose it for a reason, and it certainly wasn't to support slavery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry_Cowell
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 3352
Location: Berkeley
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rusmeister wrote: |
| I do mean all societies ever mentioned in normal history books. I think I can risk a sweeping statement here. Even an exception wouldn't disprove the rule or my general point. |
And who writes those "normal history" textbooks? (I assume you mean textbooks used in American or UK schools.) If you're discussing cultures and societies in the world, you'd do better referring to ethnographies rather than Western-oriented "history." There are many more socieities than those that can trace certain elements back to ancient Greece or Israel. "Normal history," indeed!! Those "norms" are not universal.
I'm not a Shavian. I do enjoy the sardonic wit and anti-traditionalism of Shaw's plays, however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rusmeister wrote: |
Of course! However, my main focus is on traditions that are at least hundreds (plural) of years old. And some things, like traditional families, and the associated language, are thousands of years old.
In addition I'm saying that most people are far more modernocentric than they realize... |
Traditional families?
Okay, but you may wish to define what you mean by a traditional family. I take it that you are ruling out nuclear families (especially the socially and geographically mobile ones). What is your stance on polygamous families which have been around since as far back as I can remember? Do you prefer the romance of the arranged marriage or the modernocentric marrying-one's-childhood-sweetheart "arrangement"?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry_Cowell
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 3352
Location: Berkeley
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rusmeister wrote: |
| All societies throughout history have been based on this basic understanding of family, from the ancient Jews and Greeks to our day. |
"Basic understandings of family" in your Greek and Judeo-Christian "traditions":
***Polygamous marriages
***Catholic popes and priests in the Middle Ages (and even later) performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples
***Slaves not allowed to marry and form their own "nuclear" families
***Male Asian immigrants and workers in the U.S. not allowed to marry or (if married) bring their wives and "nuclear" families to America |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, you guys listing exceptions doesn't negate the general rule. You can talk polygamy until the cows come home, but historically, it has ALWAYS been an exception, and not the norm. The burden of proof is now on you to point out societies where the RULE was different and the society prospered.
Actually, I would hold modern textbooks in the UK and US as highly suspect for the amount of historical revisionism - changes in historical teaching in the past 30 years.
Traditional family - father, mother, children, where possible surrounded by extended family. The obvious. The rule. Not the exceptions. The norm is indeed universal. It is the exceptions that are temporary and ephemeral.
The manner of formation is not relevant to the existence of the family, so whether it forms via romance or arrangement is irrelevant.
A question for you, Henry - would you deny that tradition has an enormous potential to accumulate wisdom and pass it down?
| Quote: |
***Polygamous marriages
***Catholic popes and priests in the Middle Ages (and even later) performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples
***Slaves not allowed to marry and form their own "nuclear" families
***Male Asian immigrants and workers in the U.S. not allowed to marry or (if married) bring their wives and "nuclear" families to America |
As I have said, polygamy has never been the rule.
Any alleged or even proven marriage of same-sex couples would have been done illicitly - completely against the teachings of the Church and not accepted by society anyway and once again, a rare exception.
What was done to slaves was a horrible sin that we are still paying for today and once again, not the rule in society.
The last example is politically charged - the Asian workers are welcome to stay in their own countries with their families; America cannot contain the population of the whole world in its borders, nor solve the world's economic problems and is not responsible for the essentially voluntary separations of these families. In any event, it is again an exception so not worthy of further consideration.
None of these examples represents the rule for a society but only exceptions - and mostly ones not even approved of by society as a whole - even the slavery issue divided the states from the beginning.
If you do not recognize common sense and understand the most basic definition of a family to be parents and children, I don't think we can even hold a discussion. If one questions common sense, then their own is certainly not common. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
