There are promises from the heart, and promises from some other place which, for the sake of differentiating here, I’ll call the “mind”.
One might quickly assert, having accepted this differentiation for the sake of discussion, that promises from the heart are to be more trusted and desired. This, especially, since we don’t yet know where the other promises come from.
I will argue the opposite.
It’s an easy rebuttal to note that the most solemn of public promises are those contained in the traditional marriage ceremonies, and yet in the USA around 50% of new marriages will eventually end in divorce. I have promised, three times now, “for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.”
To promise to love. Can one really make this promise? Is the heart the most constant of guides in our lives? Will the loved one, or oneself, be eternally lovable?
We don’t promise to love our children, yet we will love them through times more trying than we would endure in a marriage. How often have you heard phrases like “we stayed, or are staying, together for the sake of the children”?
Take another solemn, public promise: that made by all members of Congress and employees of the federal government upon taking office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
For the year 2010, the Gallup Poll found that only 19 percent of respondents thought they could “trust government in Washington to do what is right… just about always, or most of the time”. Of course there may be no correlation between an individual’s oath of office and the public’s general perception of government performance. But then, why not? I think it fair to say that this public oath has no value except where the oath-taker might be charged with gross dereliction of duty, or of treason.
Using these two examples, I assert that public promises are suspect in value.
What about private promises?
The most important glue between humans is that of trust. Will we show up on time? Will we return that book when promised? Will we complete our assignment? Will we keep a confidence?
If questions like these can be answered in the positive, then we are bound ever closer together. If not, we drift apart.
Do these promises come from the heart? Or do they come from a deeper place, one that involves us as members of a clan, or tribe, or species—the collective “mind”?
Promises build expectations. Disappointments build distrust and bitterness.
Be careful what you promise.
Likewise, be careful of what you expect from others.
The problem with promise as public ritual is that every little child wants to get on the bandwagon. Extended adolescence makes everyone a child “star”. A wedding loaded with pomp and circumstance is more toward the ritual merging of dynasties, presuming the parents of the bride and groom are paying.
I think that there is a lot of wisdom in arranged marriages assuming the families are not wholly dysfunctional and corrupt (like mine). If not arranged by family, friends ought to take a greater role. However, in the cult of “individual” (which I admit to belonging to in many ways), no one dares to interfere in the “romance” or irrational attachment of a couple as some sort of “love bug”. Meanwhile, I personally don’t believe I really knew how to love until age 50, and clearly trust is a huge component of love as well as sacrifice.
Pressure of resources onto expectations of living standards is a huge competitor for love. Perhaps our extended adolescence is in fact another manifestation of “rats-in-a-cage” for every mis-coupling decreases social and therefore wealth chances of the children, if any, that result.
Meanwhile, the promise of marriage itself has become corrupted by overreaching state influence. In my view, the only possible counterbalance to this overreach has got to be original and highly individual “blood oaths” made stronger by their very secrecy. Having a need for such thing is a consequence of the gender wars. Expecting one’s entire gender to be the proxy for “family” has got to be the height of dystopia but perhaps necessary for population control.
If only a few couples are capable of forming an enduring syzygy it is no wonder that those who are incapable might be envious and thereby consciously or unconsciously working to sabotage it. Envy unravels community and the capacity to trust.
As for myself, I have only married in the eyes of the state once and regret it in every way except for the wisdom born out of pain that resulted. Pain often accompanies transformation and some of us apparently require multiple, painful transformations.
I think I understand your thesis regarding marriage and partner selection; that is, what ‘ought’ to be in a more rational(?) world. However, something is flying the face of this possibility: the increase in the number of fatherless children (of course I don’t mean they didn’t contribute their sperm, but just only that). We (let’s call us ‘Western civilization’) are headed somewhere strange and dysfunctional. Has the state in times before 1900 ever been so largely a surrogate father/parent? Of course, ‘states’ are relatively new in human history. So what would be the equivalent, if any, in previous times? But, there were empires; did the emperor/empress try to be, in some way, parents to their people? Possibly. Just brainstorming with myself here…
Exactly. I tend to believe that it is possible that in our collective memory there are entire civilizations that have been erased whether by astronomical or entirely human-engineered catastrophe on this very planet or in another dimension. There is such a thing as too big and our governments/aristocracy has become too powerful, thanks to technology, and too interconnected and inbred. Surely some members of it by now have also come to that realization and therefore what remains is when or how will they also go completely insane or will someone get the brilliant idea to backpedal before running us all off the cliff.