In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

one body c h a p t e r 6 Union, Commitment, and Marriage 1. Formation of a “We” I have argued that it is appropriate for higher aspects of the central case of intercourse, such as union of heart and mind, to come about through lower-level ones, like the striving for reproduction. We will not, in fact, analyze the union of heart and mind much further. It is a matter in some ways more suited for exposition in literature than in philosophical argument. But a few remarks might be helpful. Robert Nozick understands romantic love in terms of the for­ mation of a “common identity,” a “we,” where the two persons start thinking and acting as if they were parts of a whole, giving up some of their individual autonomy, and taking goods and bads that happen to the other as happening to themselves. That this is, or should be, a feature of romantic love seems quite correct, though Nozick makes the further controversial claim that the full process happens only in the case of romantic love. If he is right, then there is a competitor to this book’s characterization of romantic love in terms of sexual union—perhaps romantic love can be understood in terms of the mutual surrender of autonomy instead. 158 union, commitment, and marriage 159 It seems that membership in many groups involves some surrender of autonomy and a self-identification as part of the group. Take a stereotypical, traditional English club for men. Membership is by invitation , and it is an honor in terms of which the members identify themselves. There is a concern for the group as a whole and for its unique identity, whether justified or not. This concern is exhibited in upholding of standards of behavior and manners, standards to which one surrenders aspects of one’s autonomy, as well as in the exclusion of women, with the conviction that significant changes in the rules for behavior and membership would destroy the club, turning it into a different kind of institution. Social honors or dishonors befalling one member are generally felt as touching all the other members. But we can at least imagine a case, and approximations surely existed, where this is true not just for social goods and bads, but for all goods and bads: in such a club the members will, ideally, treat each other as other selves. Notwithstanding the moral evaluation of this sexist institution, we should say that it could well involve the formation of a “we.” Acquiring a joint identity, surrendering one’s autonomy, and having any goods and bads that happen to the other person happen to oneself are features, thus, of other group memberships besides membership in a romantic couple. There may be differences in degree, of course, but it is quite unclear that these features should be definitive of romantic love. The depth of bond between fellow Christians, for instance, that the New Testament presents as an ideal suggests that membership in the Christian Church should involve an even stronger “we” identity than a marriage; the “Pauline privilege,” (1 Cor. 7:15) in which a marriage with a non-Christian can be dissolved, is a particularly vivid illustration of this. Nonetheless, even though the formation of a “we” is not an exclusive feature of romantic love, a love surely would not be romantic without a tendency toward a “we.” A significant aspect of a union of heart and mind consists of acting together, especially if we understand “acting” broadly enough to include common deliberation and discussion, or maybe just sitting together and feeling the same thing. This sort of union mirrors cooperative sexual activity on a different level. In some cases, the mirroring will be even tighter, in that both the sexual activity and the one body 160 higher-level activity of the couple will be directed at a closely related goal, the sexual activity being biologically directed at the procreation of offspring while the latter is deliberately directed at care for and education of the offspring, with the education involving physical, emotional, moral, intellectual, and spiritual aspects. In these cases, the union is most integral: all the levels of the two persons are united in at least one set of tightly knit goals. The higher levels of interpersonal cooperation involved in the union are ultimately more important. Scripturally, this is indicated by the fact that there is no more marriage in heaven (Mark 12:25), but agapê remains (1 Cor...

Share