Essay on Reasons to Completely marrying millions season 3 couples the Current Model of Marriage

First, what is marriage? Let's go to the dictionary: (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> (From Merriam-Webster online Dictionary).

Of course the word consensual is dubious and debatable. How many choices and decisions in any person's life are actually in truth consensual could be hotly debated. Yes, we seemingly consent to many things, but really, what other options do we have, and besides, our minds have been fiddled with and conditioned since birth to choose certain things, and value certain things. So in the above definition consensual is too open to interpretation to be accepted as part of a definition. So we take it that marriage is simply - a contractual relationship recognized by law.

Secondly, it is accepted that among humans there has always been marriage. But obviously the marriage that existed before industrialization, state government, and the now emerging global government, had an entirely different context, and correspondingly an entirely different purpose, meaning, and implication. Indeed, we will be arguing that the central focus of industrialization (which naturally evolved into the mass consumerist capitalism of today), state control and global government, was and is the exponential generation of wealth for a few, through the direct and indirect control and management of people. And one of the key institutions employed by governments to control and manage people is the current model of marriage. It is a model of marriage that is devoid of any tribe or clan or broader family considerations or context. In fact it seems to the author that when couples submit themselves to the current model, it is recognized and accepted that they become a completely separate nucleus from any tribe or clan or broader family context or consideration that they were a part of before marriage. Perhaps that is why it is called nuclear marriage (The nuclear family or elementary family is a term used to define a family group consisting of a pair of adults and their children [Wikipedia]). The author acknowledges that "nuclear families" have been common in Europe and Britain for some time now, but after industrialization they changed in nature and became very much private and exclusive units of two, completely inwardly focused. The more accurate term for this, should you wish to research it, is The Isolated Family, or The Closed Nuclear Family, or The Private Nuclear family. There can be little doubt that whatever families were before industrialisation and the emergence of capitalism as the dominant ideology underlying social organisation and now globalisation, they became quite clearly, and are even more so now, closed exclusive units of two.

But in this essay we are not merely looking at Britain and Europe, but family models around the globe, which may be termed complex family units, and which are common in tribes and clans, and which, wherever globalism and capitalism have become established, have all been vilified and made illegal.

The chief assertion of this essay is basically that whatever "marriage" was and however it was practiced it derived all its significance and meaning and power from the context of the tribe/clan, and without the broader clan/tribe context it has no relevance, efficacy, or point. The idea that you can marry one person devoid of tribe or clan is as ludicrous as the idea of citizenship without a country. When couples submit themselves to a wedding that has as its marriage model the private nuclear marriage, they are merely going through the motions of a ghost ceremony that developed in and from a context that no longer exists. It can be argued that the modern mass consumerist capitalist nation state is not a culture. It is more of a business. When people marry in this context, they are joining themselves exclusively to one person, and not to anything more. The back drop of that one person, in fact both people, is utterly cultureless. There are no "ways", or "traditions", or "roles" or strata of relatives by which one may define the meaning and significance of the union of these two people. There are merely two abstract individuals, going through a ceremony that needs a cultural context to define it, but doesn't have one. Once they are wedded, they are part of nothing, but their own little exclusive set of goals and concerns, and the only context that can be found to define the significance of their little mock marriage is the utterly impersonal, isolating, faceless, nameless, indistinct mass consumerist mega mall of global capitalism.

Marriage is embedded in a social context. It can never be isolated from, assessed or commented upon outside of the social, cultural, political context within which it is embedded. So to view marriage clearly, we must consider also its corresponding antithesis, singleness. Included in singleness, are people who are now divorced. One can see that the current ideal of marriage as it is now accepted is inseparably linked with singleness. The author proposes that singleness would've been as bizarre and as alien a concept as the currently accepted model of marriage would've been to many generations of humans, who lived for thousands of years in tribes and clans. In a tribal model, there is no "singleness" before marriage, and no rift or separation from the tribe after marriage, because tribal models don't force people into camps of one's and two's, but incorporate all people whatever their stage in life or relationship status. In fact many languages around the world do not even have a word that signifies parent-child domestic units known as families in English. For example the Zinacantecos of Southern Mexico identify the basic social unit as a "House", which may include one to twenty people.