Comments on: Durkheim and Desperate Housewives

By: Anarch

Anarch — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:31:47 +0000

“But how do you know what you want till you get what you want and you see if you like it?” – Cinderella, Into The Woods

By: I vant to be left alone

I vant to be left alone — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:55:45 +0000

Its a sign of the times that Durkheim has been rehabilitated and all his thinly disguised jeriamiads about what really threatens social life are now taken as undiscovered mines of wisdom. Sociological hackdom and moral authoritarianism never had as good.

By: BridalBeer

BridalBeer — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:29:54 +0000

An overwhelming majority of men choose to marry. If the marriage fails, a large percentage marry again though the odds of success are not in their favor. Assuming men enjoy free will and instituions (including marriage) are shaped by men, Durkheim’s theory seems plausible.

By: BridalBeer

BridalBeer — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:27:45 +0000

By: kharris

kharris — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:59:28 +0000

Pierre, You beat me to it. Durkheim seems unaware that there are two basic forms of sexual dissatisfaction in long-standing human partnerships – tired of having sex with your partner and tired of not having sex with you partner. In rare cases, one can suffer from both simultaneously.

By: pierre

pierre — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:04:57 +0000

Aw, crikey. Apologies for the double post.

By: pierre

pierre — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:00:59 +0000

Upon reflection I realize I could have made the same point while introducing much less danger of controversy. Like so: Durkheim: “… there is a quid pro quo. The marriage rules require the woman to give herself to him: hence his one permitted object of desire is guaranteed.” Oh really???

By: pierre

pierre — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:54:40 +0000

Maybe I could have made the same point while still leaving the odious spectres of several cans of worms unturned. Try this: Durkheim: “… there is a quid pro quo. The marriage rules require the woman to give herself to him: hence his one permitted object of desire is guaranteed.” Oh really???

By: pierre

pierre — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:22:18 +0000

Heterosexual monogamy is the defining spiritual practice of the West. (Abelard and Heloise, Chretien de Troyes and all that.) In short, not only is marriage an alchemical discipline, it is the only one recognized and supported, albeit invisibly, by Western secular society. Hence the benefit to individuals. Durkheim’s analysis above is an earlier generation’s version of today’s specious popularized arguments based on “evolutionary psychology”.

By: Ancarett

Ancarett — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:14:45 +0000

Of course, one could also argue that attaining marriage gives one an excuse to no longer compete for and fail to achieve the object of one’s desire. Let’s face it, body of a 30-year-old or not, most people aren’t going to win the singles bar sweepstakes! I’ve always had a soft spot for Durkeim’s theories, though. . . .

By: Cranky Observer

Cranky Observer — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:07:14 +0000

Tomorrow, a new medicine is introduced with at reasonable cost extends the human lifetime to 300 years and maintains the body in the condition of today’s 30 year olds. Do men still agree to marry one woman for life? Do women agree? Cranky

By: conrad barwa

conrad barwa — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:59:20 +0000

As bachelors they can chase every woman they find attractive but they are rarely contented because the potential objects of desires are so numerous. Ahem, so more choice doesn’t necessarily always lead to better results. Just can’t help thinking of the modernisation arguments being offered by some New Labour folks over public services! By contrast, Durkheim argued, the married man is generally happier: he must now restrict himself to one woman (at least most of the time) but there is a quid pro quo. The marriage rules require the woman to give herself to him: hence his one permitted object of desire is guaranteed. Marriage thus promotes the long-term happiness of men (Durkheim was less certain that it helped women) because it imposes a sometimes irksome constraint on their passions. This reminds me in an odd way, of a colleague of mine; much taken with Lacanian psycho-analysis and the applications it can have in social theory. From what I could understand (and I didn’t really grasp the whole theory despite repeated explanations) the economy of desire operates in certain specific ways that resemble language; part of which involves that for desire to exist there much be a lack which it seeks to fulfil and obstructions which prevent its realisation. Like any system with consistent rules, the aim is to reach some sort of working balance, which allows desire to exist but never for it to be satisfied. Marriage in this sense, provides one such mechanism whereby a man can still desire other women; while having this desire governed by a set of nominal prohibitions; so rather than chasing after an Obscure Object of Desire; a series of distant objects now exist to arouse and motivate it while a proximate object is also there for more substantial fulfilment. Of course, the ‘system’ isn’t perfect and breaks down when prohibitions are crossed or the proximate object ceases to be desirable. I suppose using a Freudian analogy; the real problem is that one cannot ever, enjoy secure access to the object of desire and if one could it would no longer be all that desirable. I am not an expert or even well-versed in these theories so I have probably mangled their representation; but what I like about them is the fact that constraint and repetitive obstructions are seen as very much intrinsic to the way desire itself works and part of what sustain it. Pessimistically, it suggests that we almost always ‘desire the wrong things’ (retrospectively, of course).

By: radek

radek — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:40:59 +0000

Fred Lapides: “This helps to explain why there is so little adultery among the marrieds” HL Mencken: “It is, indeed, the secret scandal of Christendom, at least in the Protestant regions, that most men are faithful to their wives. You will travel a long way before you find a married man who will admit that he is, but the facts are the facts, and I am surely not one to flout them.” Apparantly, the major problems are: lack of courage, lack of money, and presence of a conscience. On the other hand, contra Durkheim: “Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who would want to live in an institution?”

By: Alan Schussman

Alan Schussman — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:13:21 +0000

My, does Prouse work hard to note that, okay, Durkheim is good, but sociology? Feh!

By: Baptiste

Baptiste — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:46:56 +0000

Durkheim was very worried by one of his nephews, the famous Marcel Mauss, who married very late. Durkheim wrote him letters urging him to marry, writing things such as “you’re radiating coldness around you” (my bad translation). Durkheim really believed in his theories and really feared “anomie”.