A Tale of Two Colleges

Earlier this evening, I finished reading Part II of Johann Hari's Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression - and the Unexpected Solutions. In this part, Hari lays out what he describes as the nine real causes of depression and anxiety, each of which are tied to the concept of disconnection. As I read through these, I realized that what he was describing would serve as a remarkable lens through which to contrast my college experiences at Fordham University and Burlington College. In this post, I will do exactly that, by briefly examining whether or not the six environmental factors Hari has identified were present during my experience at each school. (I will not examine the three psychological/biological factors, as those are not directly applicable.)

Cause One: Disconnection from Meaningful Work
At Fordham University, I came to feel that the work that I was doing there had little meaning, that it lacked connection to the realities of the world beyond the campus. Additionally, I had almost no control over determining what the work was that I would be doing in the first place. My course schedule was almost completely prescribed for me, and would remain so for the foreseeable future. I had no input into the content of each course, and little leeway regarding the parameters of the individual assignments. This lack of control led me to feel disempowered and disillusioned regarding my own education.

At Burlington College, however, the situation was almost the exact opposite. Every single class that I took there had direct connections to the problems of modern society. I had much more flexibility in determining which courses I would be taking in route to my major. In some classes my fellow classmates and I had the ability to actually determine what we wanted to study and explore. Almost every professor gave me the opportunity to conduct open-ended research, and present the results to my peers. As a result, my education felt much more self-directed, and in turn more meaningful.

Cause Two: Disconnection from Other People
Despite attending a school with thousands of other students, in the largest city in the United States. I felt very lonely at Fordham University. I formed no meaningful friendships, either on- or off-campus. I spent most of my time alone outside of the classroom, even on the occasions when I decided to venture out into New York City. I felt no connection to my roommate, the other students in my residence hall, or my classmates. I had no real relationships with any professors or staff. In fact, it got to the point where I convinced myself that being a loner was my natural status in life. It is extraordinary to me to think that upon leaving Fordham, there was no one there that I felt the need to say goodbye to.

Burlington, of course, was a much smaller city, and Burlington College was one of the smallest schools in the country. Despite this - or perhaps because of it - I was able to develop a strong sense of community at multiple levels. I formed the closest friendships of my life while living at the Cottage, the on-campus residence hall. In general, I had solid relationships with my fellow housemates, classmates, and other students at the school. As my best friend told me during my second semester there, I had really "come out of my shell"; I could feel my social anxiety fading with each passing day. I was also able to form connections with my professors, the staff, and even to some extent the president of the school. I felt a genuine sense of pride in attending Burlington College, a sense that we were all "in this together". Unlike in New York City, I also was able to form some connections off campus. Overall, I felt a much strong sense of community while living in Burlington, compared to my time in the Bronx.

Cause Three: Disconnection from Meaningful Values
One of the initial factors in the process that led me away from Fordham was when I began to question why I was there in the first place. I came to realize that my motivation was almost exclusively extrinsic (a term I only discovered upon reading in Hari's book). In other words, I was attending classes and doing assignments not because I really wanted to, but because I felt I had to. I viewed it as me simply trying to get the grades, so I could get the credits, so I could get a degree in the end. It was nothing more than credentialization. Eventually, as my depression worsened this extrinsic motivation was no longer strong enough, and I stopped doing assignments for some classes altogether. This led me to fail a class entirely, for the first and only time in my life.

When I submitted my personal statement to Burlington College as part of my application, I stated that I sought knowledge for its own sake. For the most part, that was exactly what I was able to do there. I attended classes and completed assignments because I was genuinely interested in and engaged with the subject at hand. There were numerous instances where I would go beyond the requirements of an assignment simply because I wanted to. I felt real pride in my work, something that had been absent in my time at Fordham. In Burlington, the emphasis was far less on the outcome and more on the process of learning itself. As a result, I was able to return to a state of academic success and intellectual enrichment that was far more familiar to me.

Cause Five: Disconnection from Status and Respect
For me, my time in New York City was a classic example of "be careful what you wish for". One of the motivating factors that led me to Fordham in the first place was a desire for "anonymity", for the ability to "blend into the crowd". As I learned, however, that was not what I had hoped it would be. I felt a depleted sense of identity, as if I was a "nobody" compared to previous experiences. I felt that I lacked the respect of my peers - and to be honest, felt little respect for them as well. Perhaps most devastatingly, for the first time in my life, I felt as if I was not "smart", as if I had nothing meaningful to contribute to conversations either inside or outside the classroom.

At Burlington College, I experienced something dramatically different: popularity, or at least some version of it. My friends genuinely seemed to value the time they spent with me and the conversations we had together. At times it almost seemed as if they were competing for my attention! My housemates had so much respect for me that they effectively drafted me to run for president of student government - an office they then voted me into. While serving as student-body president, I felt a sense of responsibility and duty to my peers, unlike anything else I had ever experienced. The remarkable thing about all of this was that this popularity and respect was based not on my academic ability but rather on my actual personality - a truly heart-warming fact.

Cause Six: Disconnection from the Natural World
When I first applied to Fordham, I had the option to choose either Lincoln Center in Manhattan or Rose Hill in the Bronx for my campus. I chose Rose Hill, because I wanted a "real campus", one with green space and trees and things like that. I must admit that it was actually a beautiful campus, with a well-manicured landscape. However, with every day that I spent there my opinion began to shift, and I felt that this beauty was achieved simply through artificial means. I could hear the landscapers constantly outside my room with their lawnmowers and leaf blowers. There was very little "natural" about it, which became only more apparent the more I read Henry David Thoreau's Walden. The fact that the world beyond the campus gates was the concrete jungle of New York only increased my sense of isolation form the natural world.

Burlington College, on the other hand, could not have been placed in a much more beautiful setting if it tried. On one side there was a view of Lake Champlain and the Adirondack Mountains in the distance; on the other was the Green Mountains. At night when I left my windows open in my dorm room, all I would hear were the sounds of wind blowing through the trees, the waves of the lake lapping on the shore, and the insects chirping and buzzing in the late summer air. I took frequent walks - both alone and with friends - through the myriad parks and trails that surrounded the school. The campus itself featured a large, hilly field dotted with trees, which by springtime I found myself reading books under. It was in Vermont that I discovered just how beautiful - and dark - the night sky could be.

Cause Seven: Disconnection from a Hopeful and Secure Future
For the first month or so I spent at Fordham, I had a number of issues. I spent much of that time busy, sick, and broke. However, I felt that those would pass and that I would end up having a great experience. By October that illusion vanished. When I returned home for Columbus Day weekend it fully dawned on me just how much I disliked being there, and found that I had absolutely zero desire to return to campus. From that point on, I knew I had no future at Fordham. My desperation became so bad that I began to consider dropping out of school altogether. The only thing that kept me going through the end of the semester was the prospect of being able to transfer to Burlington College.

In Burlington, the one significant problem I did have was a near-constant state of anxiety that I experienced: the existential fear that my time at Burlington College would come to a premature end. This fear was driven by both my own personal financial problems as well as those of the school itself - and which unfortunately were proven justified when the school abruptly closed just one year into my attendance. The odd silver-lining was that this anxiety drove me to try to get the most out of my experience at Burlington College, as if any given day could be my last one there. And, for the most part, I was able to do exactly that.

Conclusion
I spent much of my time at Fordham - and the period immediately afterward - in a state of severe depression, one of the most severe episodes of my life. It is not hard to see why. I was doing meaningless work to which I assigned little value, surrounded by people I felt little connection to or respect for, while being almost completely isolated from the natural world. It was, simply put, the single worst experience of my life.

Burlington College, meanwhile, was the happiest period of my life. I built strong relationships with people built on shared experiences and mutual respect, did meaningful and relevant work that I valued for its own sake, and was in a community that recognized the importance of its relationship to the natural world. Unfortunately, that experience came to a premature end, and I have found it difficult to move on with my life in the aftermath of the school's closure. In many ways, that sudden severing of connections at so many different levels was a traumatic experience for me, one that I may never fully recover from. However, the lessons I learned there will stay with me forever, and will guide me as I continue the project of rebuilding my life.

Read More

On Gun Control, Disarmament, and Demilitarization

There has been a renewed call for gun control legislation by liberals in the wake of the recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida, just one of many daily acts of gun violence that take place in the United States. Given the size and scope of the problem, this response is reasonable. However, I am concerned that the push for such policies misses the broader problems presented to American society, and may not serve as the silver bullet, so to speak, that liberals believe them to be.

The United States is the most heavily armed and militarized country in the history of humanity. However, when liberals call for gun control, they are only referring to reducing and/or eliminating the possession of guns by the civilian population. While doing so is certainly a worthy goal, it is woefully incomplete. In my opinion, the following steps should also be taken to demilitarize and disarm the United States: elimination of the US's stockpile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; banning of arms exports to foreign countries and non-state actors; withdrawal of US special operations and other armed forces stationed abroad; closure of US military bases in foreign countries; demilitarization of US law enforcement; and disarming of US police forces. These policy changes would go a long way toward reducing the (usually ignored) systemic violence perpetrated by the US government against populations both foreign and domestic.

Of course, such policies would not necessarily address the culture of violence that emanates through American society. Much of this culture is based on the masculine ideology that I have referred to before, which may be more pervasive and deep-rooted in the United States than in any other nation. (There is no more perfect example of this than the militarism and violence associated with American football - which has been dubbed the "national religion" of the United States.) Confronting this masculine ideology head-on with a broad-based feminist movement is thus also a major prerequisite toward reducing gun violence and militarism in the US.

In addition to these measures, attention must be paid to other factors that contribute to the demand for and use of guns in the US. As Johann Hari points out, one of the most significant is the War on Drugs - or, perhaps more accurately, the "War for Drugs" - the fight among criminals for control of the drug trade. This "drug-related violence" - acts done to establish, protect, and defend drug territory in an illegal market - could effectively be eliminated with the legalization of narcotics. Some experts have estimated that ending drug prohibition could reduce the murder rate by as much as 75%.

There has also been much discussion around the relationship between mental illness and gun violence. For instance, liberals have derided President Trump's decision last year to repeal a rule blocking mentally ill people from buying guns. While such policies certainly have merit, there must be caution regarding potential unintended consequences. I and others noted at the time that such a policy may actually discourage those with mental illness from seeking counseling and treatment, for fear that they may lose access to their guns - potentially exacerbating the problem. It is important to work to destigmatize mental illness and ensure access to treatment and care for all those who do have mental and emotional health issues.

As long as we do continue to have such a prolific quantity of guns in American society, it is also important to educate the public about proper use, handling, and storage of said firearms, particularly among youth. Liberals have generally ignored or rejected such an approach, on grounds that sound similar to the conservative arguments for "abstinence-only" education and "Just Say No" drug policy. Encouraging ignorance does nothing to address the problem of accidental shootings that seem increasingly common in American society any more than it did for teenage pregnancies or drug overdoses.

This is certainly not a complete assessment of the causes of gun violence and issues related to gun control policy in the US. I have not discussed, for instance, the role of poverty in gun violence, the history of the racial politics of gun control, or the need to build trust within communities as a potential solution. However, I hope I have laid out a way of looking at gun violence and gun control that moves beyond the traditional liberal-conservative dichotomy and encourages a deeper, reality-based conversation

Read More

On Objectification and Possessiveness

One of the major consequences of patriarchy in our society is the dehumanization and objectification of women. Despite decades of feminists working to tear down sexism and misogyny, far too many men still treat women as sexual objects to be used primarily for their sexual gratification. Following from this objectification is a possessive attitude toward women, in which men believe that they can “own” or “possess” women. Thus men attempt to assert their control and dominance over women - often using their elevated standing within society to do so.

The #MeToo movement has helped to shine a light on this toxic power dynamic between men and women. We have seen case after case of men who have acted upon this possessive attitude and used the power they have over women to exploit them to satisfy their own sexual impulses. Women ranging from Hollywood actresses to Olympic athletes saw their careers threatened with ruin unless they complied with the wishes of their male superiors and authority-figures. Moreover, it must be understood that this behavior has affected women of all classes, perhaps even more so those on the lower rungs of society. Women in the restaurant industry, for instance, face harassment on a constant basis, yet feel they have little ability to respond because doing so could threaten their tip-dependent wages. All of this occurs because women are viewed as objects to be owned and controlled, not fellow human beings to be treated with - at the very least - respect. 

This culture of possessiveness is also very evident in the casual language used around human relationships. It seems that no one ever stops and thinks what phrases such as “my girl”, “my baby”, and “she’s mine” really mean in the context of romance and sexuality. Unfortunately, they are more accurate they we would care to admit in describing how men too often view their female partners. Why, then, should we be surprised by the prolific nature of domestic violence and sexual assault in a society where men feel that they control women and openly use language to that effect?

Of course, one should point out that women, too, objectify men and use similarly possessive language. I would argue, however, that this doesn’t make it any healthier or less toxic. (I can’t help but think back to the disturbing objectification of Tongan athlete Pita TaufatofuaIt during the opening ceremonies of the 2016 Olympic Games.) Instead, it is more a reflection of the reality that as women have gained more equality with men, they have increasingly adopted masculine culture and ideology, whereas men have not done the same regarding femininity. 

What we really need is a complete abandonment of the culture of objectification and possessiveness toward fellow human beings. Relationships, whether within or across genders, need to be based on principles of mutual respect, not on unequal power dynamics. This is particularly true for the interpersonal relationships in the workplace and other professional settings. In particular, women are still relatively new to these environments, and many men have yet to fully treat women as the colleagues that they are. Broadly speaking, these principles should apply to all interpersonal relationships and life partnerships, as I have written before.

Additionally, society itself needs to take measures to protect women from being controlled and exploited by men. We need to ensure that women are paid equally to men, and that their wages are not dependent on the tips of leering, groping customers. We need for women to have complete control over their bodies, not just in their access to reproductive services like contraception and abortion but also by ensuring that men practice consent in their sexual encounters. We also need to ensure that women who do bring forward allegations of domestic violence, sexual harassment and sexual assault are treated seriously, that the charges are investigated fully, and that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.

Ultimately, the problem lies not so much in men as in the cult of masculinity that they have adopted, of which objectification and possessiveness are major components. Only when we tear down this ideology can we truly begin to break the stranglehold of patriarchy in our society.

Read More

Launching the “Vision Project”

I have recently conceptualized something I am calling the “vision project”. As I conceive it, this project has three parts: what does our society look like today, and how did we get here; what is the vision for a new society that we would like to see in the future; and, what would be a possible strategy for achieving that future vision.  It is actually based on some thoughts I had prior to the 2016 election and have been playing around with in my head, but up to this point had yet to give it any structure. The project is rough at this point, but will hopefully become more refined as I continue to write.

My sources for the three parts will primarily consist of the various history, politics, economics, sociology, and other social science works that I have read over the past few years. I will also incorporate some insights from my own lived experiences, as well as from the colleagues and activists I have worked with and continue to work alongside.

I do not expect that whatever I end up proposing in this series will represent a complete analysis of, or a silver-bullet solution to, the myriad of problems our society faces. My intention is simply to better articulate, in writing, the ideas that have been swirling around in my head for a while and share them publicly. If it ends up changing someone’s opinion on a topic, or even amends their worldview a bit, that would certainly be welcome, but that is not the goal I am setting out with.

Read More

The Lie of American Exceptionalism

In the aftermath of Charlottesville, a discussion seems to have arisen about the US's white supremacist roots. Reflecting on this reality raises an even broader and very troubling question: what exactly is to be celebrated about the United States?

Andrew Jackson, Donald Trump's favorite president, battles the

Seminoles (a mix of Native Americans and escaped slaves), as

he conquers Florida for the United States.

As a political project, the US may well have been created as a democracy, but using the genuine Athenian sense of the demos. The demos did not refer to "the people", as many mistakenly believe, but rather to those considered citizens of the Athenian polity, thus excluding slaves, freed slaves, women, and resident immigrants. US democracy was similarly designed to exclude these groups, as well as indigenous people who lived on the land the US claimed. The gradual integration of these groups into the political process was not a part of some "arc of progress" envisioned by the so-called "Founding Fathers". Instead, it has run directly counter to their conception of the US project, in which the ruling majority, the demos, was intended to be land-owning white men.

Those who state that, despite its limitations, the US established the most democratic government ever conceived, do so only by looking through a purely Eurocentric lens. It would not be hard to argue that the Native American societies the US sought to destroy were actually far more democratic and egalitarian, with far greater decentralization and distribution of power and far less reliance on systems of hierarchy based on race, gender, or class. Even the Bill of Rights, perhaps the most genuinely laudable aspect of American democracy, was only made necessary due to the autocratic nature of European monarchy; Native societies had no need for such codified protection of civil liberties, as their governments rarely (if ever) produced such despotism in the first place.

The picture becomes even darker once we look at the United States as an economic project. The US's agricultural economy was developed only through expropriation of Native land and the exploitation of black slaves. The transition to an industrial economy was similarly based on resources expropriated from the US's colonized territories - including the American West - and the exploitation of immigrant labor. The whole capitalist economic system has been upheld through the use of state violence, particularly military invasion and occupation. The gist of US foreign policy has always been the establishment of a hegemonic empire - first continental, then hemispheric, and now global - to promote its commercial interests.

The aspects of US history that tend to be viewed as marks of "progress" - emancipation and the abolition of slavery, the granting of women's suffrage, desegregation and the re-enfranchisement of African-Americans, etc - were primarily the elimination of oppressive systems of predominantly European origin. The rest of the "progress" chronicled in US history - wealth production and technological advancement, with credit given to the capitalist system - has actually resulted in dehumanization, social and economic dislocation, and environmental degradation. Progress indeed.

In short, it strikes me that contrary to the view of "American Exceptionalism", of the United States being the "indispensable nation", the Americas, and frankly the rest of the world, would be much better off had it not been for European colonization, and had the United States never been founded.

Read More

Dismantling Masculine Culture: A Vision for Male Feminism

Barbara Smith speaking at International Women's Strike in Albany, NY (March 8, 2017)

I am a man. I am a feminist. Contrary to what many believe, including both men and women, these two identities are not mutually exclusive. Unlike some, I do not subscribe to the belief that feminism is opposed to men, or that feminism is a movement for women only. On the contrary, feminism is a movement that supports equality across the gender spectrum. Feminism is not opposed to men, but rather to masculinity, and to the binary view of gender.

Yesterday (March 8) was International Women's Day. I attended the local International Women's Strike event here in Albany, one designed to promote the anti-capitalist roots of the day itself. The vast majority of participants in the event were women; I was one of the few men there. This was not unexpected, as feminism is and always has been a movement led by women and promoting women's interests.

Nonetheless, I think this presents a good opportunity to reflect on the role that men do and should play within the feminist movement. Many men do not believe that they can or should be feminists; even some female feminists believe the same thing. Thus men are reluctant to consider themselves as feminists in the first place, or participate in feminist movements or female-led events.

In general, issues of gender and sexuality are primarily looked at as being female fields, compared to other subjects. Consider that the vast majority of college students majoring in gender studies are women (this is also true of sociology in general). Additionally, walking into the average library or bookstore reveals that relative to other areas of feminism, there are far fewer works on masculinity. In many ways, feminism has become "female-only", focusing solely on female equality, and not on encouraging men and women to break down the culture of masculinity itself.

Lisa Wade, writing about hookup culture on American college campuses, succinctly describes the problem presented by such female-only feminism: "Feminists wanted this for women. They wanted them to have the right to put themselves first, to build impressive careers, and to have sex freely. And they got that. But they also wanted men to embrace having sex for love. They wanted to share with men the beauty of a life driven by empathy, care, and tenderness. That's not what happened. Instead, the average woman became more masculine, and so did the average man."

Aside from the obvious harm that masculine culture inflicts on women, many men are also harmed by it. Men are expected to conform to a specific brand of masculinity, one based on strength, competition, assertiveness, and aggression. Men who do not conform to this expectation are told to "man up" and to "be a man", as if being masculine and being a man are the same thing. This is especially harmful to queer and trans men, who are often targeted for the perceived inadequacy of their masculinity. Expressing emotion, sensitivity, or empathy is devalued and often frowned upon. Men who seek help for mental illness and addiction are stigmatized. At times, it seems that violence is the only acceptable way for men to express themselves.

Given these facts, it is clear to me that men have a necessary role to play in the feminist movement. Men should continue to serve as allies to the female-led women's rights movement. Men should be in the streets with women as they fight for equal pay, paid maternity and sick leave, and reproductive rights. Men need to stand alongside women who are survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. Men need to support the global fights working to empower women to make their own decisions regarding their educations, careers, and marriages.

Yet there are other feminist fights that men should be taking the lead on. For instance, men need to be the ones challenging the sexual aggression and objectification of women that comprise rape culture. Men need to challenge the casual sexism and misogyny laden in our everyday language. Men need to challenge the hypermasculine definition of maleness, including that exhibited by our own president, one that too often leads to homophobia and transphobia. Men need to take a leading role in reconsidering our relationships with women as colleagues, as friends, and as romantic and life partners. Ultimately, just as white people need to play an integral role in the movement for racial justice, men need to play an integral role in the movement for gender equality.

It is certainly a mark of progress that women are increasingly entering traditionally male-dominated fields like business, politics, and the military. However, we must be mindful that so-called "lean-in feminism" is not enough. The value of this equality should come from breaking down the masculine cultures that mark these institutions, not adopting them. Unfortunately, it is clear that the women who enter these institutions are just as capable of maintaining hierarchies, exploiting those below them, and pursuing power and profit as the men they replace. Ultimately, masculine culture itself is the problem.

We must recognize the connection between masculine culture and other forms of oppression. We must recognize the masculine roots of racism and ethnocentrism, of chauvinism and xenophobia. Militarism, imperialism, and colonialism are all products of the masculine worldview. We can find the cult of masculinity behind the anthropocentrism driving our current ecological crises. Perhaps above all, we need to acknowledge just how strongly rooted masculine ideology is within capitalism, with its emphasis on individualism, competition, and exploitation. If we want to tear down these oppressive systems, we must look at masculinity as the ideology that holds them all up.

Our goal should be to build a society based on empathy, not dehumanization. A society of equality, not hierarchy; of interdependence, not domination. One of peace, life, and regeneration, not of war, death, and destruction. This is the vision we have, and an intersectional, cross-sex feminism is the best tool we have for getting there.

Read More

Rethinking Life Partnership

The paradigmatic life partnership in American society is a romantic relationship, typically expressed through marriage. This paradigm particularly affects cross-sex relationships, as relations between men and women often carry the expectation for romance. Men and women go on dates with the hope of finding a long-term romantic partner, one who they may eventually marry. In short, romantic ideology predominates, with romanticism valued throughout American culture. However, this has not always been the case, with the romanticization and eroticization of marriage only truly occurring in the early 20th century. There is a strong argument to be made for once again making marriage independent of romance, in order to create more stable, truly supportive life partnerships.

The issues with the current culture surrounding life partnership are obvious. Perhaps the most glaring is the simple reality that the prevalence of romantic ideology actually makes it less likely that people will form long-lasting, stable relationships. Consider the fact that approximately half of American marriages ultimately end in divorce, with many Americans marrying multiple times during their lives. Stress factors such as economic anxiety and long hours spent working certainly contribute to instability. Yet even putting aside these factors, one must recognize that relationships built primarily on romance are inherently constructed to fail.

During the courtship or dating process, each party is putting on their best appearance, trying to make themselves as attractive as possible to impress the other person. Meanwhile, the settings in which people traditionally date (restaurants, movies, events) limit the amount of time one is able to see the other simply living their day to day life. However, as the relationship deepens, to cohabitation, engagement, and eventually marriage, the facade begins to come down. Having started out with an idealized vision of the other person, the only trajectory of perception is downward. Romantic relationships set each partner up for disappointment once the reality of who the other person really is starts to come into focus.

Romantic love, therefore, is conditional. People fall in love with an inherently unrealistic idea of the other person. Once that idea is challenged, the conditions under which the love formed fall apart. This is not to say that romance should play no role in a life partnership. However, romance should not be the primary basis, and cannot be the only basis, for a truly successful, loving long-term relationship. Only relationships in which the love is for the other person themself, not the idea of that person, can survive; this, of course, is unconditional love.

Given these realities, perhaps it is not surprising that younger generations are beginning to challenge the existing romantic paradigm. People are marrying later in life than in the past, and many are eschewing marriage altogether. Young people, college students in particular, are turning away from dating, instead "hooking up" to meet other people. However, as Lisa Wade adeptly points out in American Hookup, "hookup culture" carries its own issues. For our purposes, it is worth noting that hooking up is often inherently based on a lack of mutual respect, focusing instead on "meaningless" sexual encounters. This is hardly the proper pathway to finding unconditional love, especially considering that a majority of young people still harbor a desire for caring, committed relationships.

The most common relationships people form based on unconditional love are friendships. Usually friendships occur between members of the same sex (a product of the so-called "homosocial norm"). However, it is also becoming increasingly common to acknowledge the prevalence of cross-sex friendships, even in the face of conventional wisdom that states that men and women can't be "just friends". Friendships constitute far more genuine personal relationships, as they do not carry the expectations inherent to romantic relationships. Even within romantic relationships, the most successful are usually the ones in which partners view each other as friends and not just lovers.

Rarely do we consider friends (especially those in whom we have no romantic or sexual interest) as potential life partners. This, again, is a product of romantic ideology. It is unthinkable for a marriage to not feature romance; marriages from which the romantic attraction has faded are generally regarded as failures. Meanwhile, romantic pursuits outside of marriage, specifically affairs, are looked down upon. They are further signs that a marriage is falling apart and frequently serve as grounds for divorce. In our culture, marriage and romance are intrinsically connected.

It is worth noting that aside from romance, another feature of marriage has historically been bearing and raising children. In other words, even absent genuine romance, sex is still viewed as a requirement for marriage. However, the childbearing role of marriage has begun to decline significantly. First of all, people are losing interest in having children in the first place, with birthrates falling across the Western world. Marriages that do not produce children are increasingly common, and are far less frowned upon than in the past. The advent of same-sex marriage has also been a major factor; in fact, opponents of marriage equality often cited the inability of same-sex couples to have children of their own. Overall, there is an increasing ability to detach sex from childbearing. Sex is now commonly viewed as a pleasurable activity in and of itself. The expansion of access to prophylactics, contraceptives, and abortion services also reduces the expectation (and risk) that sex will lead to pregnancy. On the flip side, there are alternatives to having children aside from sex, including in vitro fertilization (IVF) and adoption.

With all of this being said, I think it is time that we radically rethink life partnership, including the institution of marriage. Evidence shows that dating and hooking up are poor pathways to the unconditional love relationships that lead to healthy, stable long-term partnerships. Instead, we should look at friendships, cross-sex and same-sex, as the most viable relationships that can produce these partnerships. Although romance and sex can certainly play a role in a life partnership, friendships built on unconditional love should serve as the inherent basis for them.

Under this revised culture, friends would do many of the same things that married couples currently are expected to do (and which are already features of many friendships): spend time together, cohabitate, provide emotional and financial support, support each others' academic and career goals, essentially share each other's lives. They may even do so in a formal marriage, enjoying all of the legal and financial benefits. Even if sex is not a characteristic of the relationship (which in many cases it likely would not be) the partners would still have the option of raising children, particularly through fostering or adoption - something many same-sex couples already do.

If the partnership does not also feature a romantic or sexual component, each partner would be free to pursue other relationships. These relationships, of course, could come without the expectation of commitment or life partnership. They would be similar to affairs, without the inherent stigma or secrecy. In fact, the partners could serve as confidants for each others' romantic and sexual lives - as many friends already do.

The benefits of arrangements like these could be enormous. As Marie Crosswell argues: "If you want a stable, warm, low-maintenance, loving, caring home life; if you want someone there for you who accepts you and likes you exactly as you are; if you want someone to share your life with who will take care of you and be loyal to you and still give you the freedom to be who you are and connect with other people—then be life partners with a best friend, if you’re lucky enough to get one. And you can still have sex and you can still have romantic relationships, and if those romantic-sexual relationships prove to be consistently short-term or troublesome, at the very least, you still have a home and a steady companion and a source of love and support that doesn’t break down, when your sexual relationship of the moment does."

In addition to these benefits, I believe that a culture of life partnership built along these principles would be far more feminist than our current romanticized marriages are. First of all, such a culture encourages the development of stable, healthy relationships between men and women that do not have to be inherently sexual. Second, it allows for both romance and casual sex to occur outside of the confines of a traditionally defined relationship, while simultaneously normalizing non-childbearing relationships (including within marriage). Third, it allows both partners to maintain greater independence than under current marriage arrangements, while still enjoying the benefits of both life partnership and the institution of marriage itself. Finally, it encourages a greater balance of power within relationships, challenging traditional gender roles and treating both partners as genuine equals.

Ultimately, the key is to break through the stranglehold of romantic ideology, the notion that romance must be the inherent component of marriage. We must stop treating our stable, loving friendships as being secondary to our romantic relationships. We must reject the idea that the paradigmatic relationship between a man and woman is a romantic one, and that being "just friends" is inferior, if not even impossible. We must also continue to dismantle the concept that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, one with the inherent goal of producing and raising children. If and when we do this, we can start to create more stable, healthy, loving relationships and life partnerships.

Further Reading

• “Life Partner” Is Not Synonymous with “Romantic Partner”
• The Romanticization of Marriage
• Talking about love and marriage
• Should We Believe in Romantic Ideology?
• Sexless Marriage Is Surprisingly Common

References

• Wade, Lisa. 2017. American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus. New York: W.W. Norton.
• Werking, Kathy. 1997. We're Just Good Friends: Women and Men in Nonromantic Relationships. New York: Guilford Press.

 

Read More