Aside from its groundedness in research that Bella DePaulo already noted, what i most enjoyed about the book is that Eric isn’t afraid to look at the dark side of being single – or being a singleton, as Eric calls those of us who are single and live alone. The feminist Texan recounts her own experience of being totally alone when sick. Eric adds other stories and asks: What will it be like for singletons when we are too sick to care for ourselves? Will our friendship networks hold up then? Or will we fall back onto the support of our biological family?

Eric touches the fear i have felt, asks the questions i have tried to avoid asking. It is scary to face these questions! And yet there are there like an undercurrent, especially for me because i am also creating my own right livelihood, which in a lot of ways increases my reliance on others. So, Eric dares to ask the touch questions.

He doesn’t stop there, though. Eric doesn’t give the usual answers to these tough questions. He doesn’t tell me that the solution for me is to get married, to go get a job, or whatever cultural quick-fix might be thrown at me. Based on his research, he knows that singletons are here to stay. We are increasing in numbers. We won’t go away. So, instead of calling (only) upon individual solutions, he suggests cultural, social changes: Let’s redesign the way we live to provide the support, connections, and safety we all long for. We cannot legislate away singletons. We can however design our cities to allow for connections beyond family ties and we can nourish these connections by supporting them through legislation. It’s really about community building that consciously increases the responsibility we sense for each other, acknowledging our interdependence rather than pretending that we can all be an island onto ourselves. Eric provides some examples of “states and societies that [...] give singletons the kinds of support that they now offer to those who are married [and are] better able to meet their citizens’ needs” (213).

I read this book as a call to recognize the importance of supporting each other for all of us. Nobody is truly fully supported unless we extend our willingness to help each other beyond biological or marital ties. This will, as Eric puts it at the end of his book, “spark new ideas about how we might better live together.” And, yes, that’s what this is all about: Not living alone but rather living our interdependence.

(You can read other reviews from the book’s tour site.)

The focus of Ancient Greece was the ethical domain of pleasure (Vol 2, 91). Channeling this pleasure was compared to a battle from which the victorious came out in control of themselves, ready for political participation. In general, Foucault contends that pleasure, including sexual pleasure, was seen as positive, as a route to freedom, at least once it was mastered (78). Mastery was not achieved by following a set of rules, though, instead the work suggested depended on variables such as age and status of the person working on himself. Developing certain attitudes that were reflected in interaction with others was seen as more important than figuring out specific rules (93). Foucault places this view on sexuality into the general philosophy of Ancient Greece that was more concerned with fostering the good life than to determine specific rules to follow. He identifies three areas for this care of the self: diet, household, and sexuality. Interestingly, the household was viewed as a setting of the economic world. It was a part of larger society through its economic contribution to it, not through the emotional support it lend, as it will be seen when the idea of separate spheres emerges (93). Despite this fairly positive approach, Foucault observes anxiety around sexual activity since perceived abuses could result in too much sperm being lost, which was seen as highly detrimental to the life force of the man (130). This anxiety was not, however, grounded in the perception of an inherent evil but rather stemmed from practical beliefs, such as the wasting of bodily resources, and the tie procreation established between the procreator’s own death and his immortality through children (136).

Marriage was seen within the context of the economic unit of the family. Foucault describes this unit, headed by the husband, as the provisioning of resources from the outside by the husband and their management by the wife inside of the house (157). Additionally, the fidelity of the spouses were an important aspect of citizenship. Unlike modern notions of the duty for fidelity based on the respect of the other spouse, Foucault stresses that fidelity was seen as a result of respect for the law and one’s honor, an aspect of a city’s stability, rather than the stability of a marriage (170). Fidelity would also ensure a clean lineage that could be traced back to the gods – as long as no children were born outside of wedlock (171). However, Foucault outlines that the laws applying to husband and wife were different. The obligation for fidelity for the wife was legislated by her deference to the authority of the husband. The husband’s fidelity instead was part of his quest for moderation, thus it was his choice – highly encouraged, as it was (182). Foucault points out that this asymmetry is historically important since it disappeared as early as the Roman period he investigated in volume 3. Again, though Foucault reminds us that the obligation to fidelity was not established by the marital relationship but rather connected the spouses to the community at large, especially the city (183).

The husband’s other tie to the city came through his relationship with a teenage boy. This relationship was crucially important for the development of both boy and man into citizens as it combined the mastery of one’s desires and the building of a friendship, which would outlast the sexual relationship between the two men (201). This friendship had all the hallmarks of what would later be folded into the marital relationship: a deep, supportive bond. Socrates elevated this friendship above the physical pleasures of the sexual relationship arguing that it was the highest form of connection (233-4).

The theme of sexual expression as a care of self was intensified during the Roman period of the first two centuries CE (Vol 3, 43). Foucault leaves philosophy to describe the emerging medical views on sexuality, which he contends in turn were integrated into philosophical ideas. Additional, Foucault documents a shift in attitude toward the sexual act from something that has to be moderated to avoid overexpenditure to something that could tax the body too much. Although the shift is slight, Foucault sees this as the first steps toward pathologizing sexuality (122). Together with an increased valuation of virginity, this emerging view would later develop into the Christian doctrine of sexuality as evil.

At the same time as the role of sexuality in personal growth shifted from training in moderation to abstinence, the place of marriage in a man’s life changed. Foucault first describes the institutionalization of marriage as public authority increased over the previously largely private celebrations (73). Furthermore, marriage became more widespread (74). With that, marriage was viewed as a “voluntary union” rather than a necessity if one has property or reputation to pass on to heirs (75). Foucault claims that with this change, the inequality between husband and wife lessened although this claim is not supported by Coontz who stresses the continued patriarchal role of marriage as the wife passed from dependency to the father to that of the husband. Husbands were the rulers of the family (Coontz 79). However, the obligations of the husband and the wife became more similar, suggesting more equality at least in that regard (Foucault, Vol 3, 76). Either way, the roles of both were more heavily regulated as in the past (76). Additionally, these obligations were based not in respect for the law or one’s honor – as they had been in Ancient Greece – but in respect for the partner. Foucault characterizes these developments in the marital practice as “a stronger force for binding conjugal partners and hence a more effective one for isolating the couple in a field of other social relations” (77). The role of conjugality in the form of marriage had become center stage. It was no longer a way to establish oneself as a citizen. It had become an end in itself. With that, though, came increased privatization. This continued throughout history as Coontz documents.

In our society, getting sex in perspective is no small achievement. On the one hand, since childhood many of us have been subjected to repressive teachings that result in guilt and embarrassment where sex or almost anything to do with the body is concerned. In or out of marriage, few of us are able to overcome this unfortunate upbringing completely. On the other hand, we now live in a sex-obsessed culture that hard-sells sex in movies, TV, and magazines, on billboards and at the corner newsstand. (161)

Sex remains a titillating taboo topic: We don’t feel comfortable talking about it yet sexualized stuff is all around us. And while sex outside of marriage is becoming more accepted, sex outside of a serious conjugal relationship is still frowned upon. That makes sex a difficult topic for those of us not in conjugal relationships whether by choice or chance.

Obviously, sex is more than hormones and technique, which is to say that sexual maturity is clearly much more than a matter of puberty.
[...]
The purpose of this chapter is to look at some of the sexual problems inherent in the single life and to help you put sex in perspective. It is intended to help you become realistic about your own sexual feelings and needs, whatever they may be. Our thesis is that just as it is okay to be single, it is okay to have the sexual feelings and the sex life that you choose as best suited to you as a single. (162-3)

Edwards and Hoover start out the chapter with debunking the myth that singles are Don Juan’s and Donna Juanitas who have sex anywhere and everywhere we want to. According to them there are many factors that prevent such sexual freedom (or irresponsibility depending on your viewpoint).

Some of them are psychological – guilt about one’s sexual feelings and confusion over what one’s sex life should be like are two main ones. In addition, there are the simple facts and circumstances in life that keep people apart or make good relationships difficult to establish and maintain. Some of these are the pressures of time, work, and energy, isolated urban life styles, fears and apprehensions about getting involved and the inhibiting presence of children in the homes of many singles. (164)

This leads to a rather unpredictable sex life: Not enough when we’d like more or too much when we’d want less. All of that is overshadowed by a feeling of guilt – whether we want sex (and feel guilty for wanting it) or don’t want sex (and feel weird for not wanting it), it seems like we end up feeling inadequate.

Hoover and Edwards suggest that there are many reasons for wanting sex, the book lists more details on each (166-169):

• Sex for instant intimacy: Confusing physical and emotional intimacy
• Sex to bring love: Thinking that having sex will lead to falling in love
• Sex for reassurance: Someone wants sex with me therefore I am okay
• Sex for self-esteem: Wanting to become the best sex provider in the world
• Sex as an expression of hostility and contempt: If you don’t have sex with me, there’s something wrong with you
• Sex as a weapon: I can tell you want it, so I use it to have power over you

They point out that “none of these distortions of real sexuality is apt to bring true sexual fulfillment” (169). Toward the end of the chapter, a comment makes this statement clearer: “The confounding of sex with love still permeates our cultural milieu to a large extent” (190). It sounds like Edwards and Hoover suggest to decouple sex from love: Having sex does not (necessarily) mean that you’re in love with the person and you can have satisfying sex without being in love. Although they caution that “one-night stands” tend to be difficult and can be rather disappointing.

The consensus seems to be that brief encounters in a romantic setting or those that happen spontaneously have the best chance of being rewarding. Those that come out of a dogged search or out of pure frustration have the least chance of being worth the trouble. (173-4)

Well, so what brings sexual fulfillment? It depends. Instead of telling us what to do, which they can’t, Hoover and Edwards suggest some broad guidelines (169-172).

• Seek greater awareness of your own feelings: Take a look at the above list – are you using sex for any of those reasons?
• Decide what your sexual threshold is: Don’t allow others to tell you what normal sexual behavior is. Figure out what is normal for you.
• Be open and honest with the opposite sex: Talk about what you want (don’t want)
• Don’t let sex dominate your life: It’s not going to kill you not to have sex

Next, Hoover and Edwards discuss some common sexual problems for singles. I found the next sections more interesting, though, which discuss celibacy, masturbation, and cohabitation. Basically, they address the idea that celibacy leads to us drying up, which it doesn’t. Masturbation is even more a taboo than sex itself, partly because we’re associating it with being immature; a desire that should be overcome by having a handy sex-partner through marriage. The latter ignores the relatively high frequency of masturbation of married folks that Alfred Kinsey uncovered. Overall

Masturbation is recognizable as universal among both males and females, from the youngest child to the oldest adult, and should not be viewed, per se, as immature behavior. (186)

Despite Kinsey’s and Masters and Johnson’s work that shows that masturbation is normal and not harmful, the deep taboo persists partly because for centuries it was considered the most horrible sin in both Christianity and Judaism, sometimes punishable by death (182-3).

Reading Edwards and Hoover’s section on Living Together (186-191) is rather interesting because cohabitation is so much more common now. However, the perils remain the same: Most importantly the lack of legal protection for unmarried couples is still far less than marriage bestows on people. Of course, some organizations are fighting to change that but in our matrimanical society that remains an uphill battle.

]]> http://www.rabe.org/the-challenge-of-sex/feed/ 5 http://www.rabe.org/myths-about-singles/ http://www.rabe.org/myths-about-singles/#comments Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:45:29 +0000 Rachel http://www.rabe.org/?p=854 Continue reading →]]> I thought I’d write biased summaries of the book “The Challenge of Being Single” as I read it. Here are the first two chapters.

The first chapter addresses the question “how come you’re not married?” Edwards suggests that society’s theme song toward singles is “there’s something wrong with you.” She goes further than identifying this, though: “This social contempt eventually brings about self-contempt. Like any group that has been constantly ignored or downgraded, singles come to believe what others say about them.” (18) She suggests that we are learning to create a need that is experienced so strongly that it feels as basic as the need for food and water: “Psychiatrist Roderic Gorney, in the Human Agenda, says that from babyhood on, we in the Western world have been overfed and overstimulated on a diet of intense emotional relationships so that what is actually an artificial need is experienced as a basic, urgent, almost physiological one. Intense emotional involvement – with mother, father, siblings, friends, and later lovers, spouses and children – is so taken for granted that questioning it would seem to be denying our need for such essentials as food, water, and oxygen.” (21) This outlook leads to the Eternal Search for a partner. Edwards lists two errors that she sees as underlying the search for the One-and-Only: 1. There is only one such person and 2. Finding the One-and-Only will solve all your problems (31). After presenting a positive vision of being single – including mentioning some developments in the legislative arena, which appear to have disappeared – Edwards suggests that as singles we ask ourselves the question of why we’re not married. Not as a question to determine what is wrong with us but as a question to explore why we are making that choice, what we find positive about being single, and what we might be missing.

It is clear from this chapter that Edwards sees people as either single or married. In the early 1970s, unmarried but coupled people were not as much on her radar screen. This adds to an unfortunate dichotomy and leaves out people who choose not to get married but still enjoy being in a conjugal relationship.

In chapter 2, Edwards addresses myths about being single. These myths are somewhat similar than the ones Bella DePaulo debunks in her book, which is another sad reminder of how little progress we have made in overcoming singlism.

• Myth #1: All single women want to get married
• Myth #2: All confirmed bachelors (single men) are afraid of responsibility
• Myth #3: It is easier for men to meet women socially than it is for women to meet men
• Myth #4: All unmarrieds are terribly lonely
• Myth #5: Single life is hazardous because there will be no one around to help you if you are hurt or sick

Edwards then debunks all of these. I won’t repeat this here because these myths are just that: Myths. We don’t need to continue debunking them; we need to let go of them, especially the internalized versions, as Edwards pointed out in Chapter 1. As she underscores: “Getting married is [...] something one chooses to do or not to do, not something one must do in order to lead what society has deemed a complete life” (45). (If you find this quote, you’ll notice that I changed it slightly: I took out the word “becoming.” Due to the backlash, marriage is still very much expected but it is still true that it should be viewed as a choice).

These myths have a direct impact on us even if we don’t buy into them: Discrimination (what Bella DePaulo coined “singlism“). Edwards explores the examples of taxes, jobs, credit, housing, and insurance. Let’s look at these areas today.

The tax code still very much discriminates against singles and all unmarried (if you don’t believe this, you can use this tool to see what happens to your taxes when you “get married” at the same income). Unless a married couple is an equal-earner couple, they are benefiting from the tax structure.

I have not experienced different expectations on the job between married and single folks. It seems to me that we’re all now expected to get married to our jobs because the old employment-for-life contract is no longer valid… Credit seems to be given to everybody, well, at least before the financial melt-down, independent of marital status. Feel free to write about your experience in the comments, though. Just because I haven’t experienced the discrimination doesn’t mean it no longer exists!

As hard as I find it to believe, housing discrimination is still very much alive and kicking, as stories from the Alternatives to Marriage Project attest, although most of these are not directed at singles but at unmarried couples. It’s discrimination nonetheless.

Insurance, especially health insurance, remains a large area of discrimination, just like taxes. Access to health insurance can be secured through a married partner but not through a friend, for example. And health insurance premiums tend to favor families with a married couple (just like family memberships to museums and health clubs, I might add).

In addition to these areas of discrimination that Edwards identified, AtMP lists adoption, welfare, and immigration. Clearly, we have a lot of work left to overcome singlism!

As Edwards points out at the end of Chapter 2, these are “only” the “major discriminations, but singles are subject to a parade of small needling ones as well” (58). These range from cheaper food in family sized packages to discounts at hotels and health clubs. And then there is the stigmatization we face when confronted by the myths: “the inevitable pauses and puzzled glances from many people you meet when they learn you are single” (59).

I don’t agree with Edwards that “these discriminations and myths which do, indeed, exist in the outside world can only really harm you when they exist in your own head as well” (59). Tax discrimination has a very real harm on our finances and don’t have to exist in our head. Yet, I agree that the myths – not the discrimination – can only harm us if we buy into them. Overcoming singlism has to include both inner work and work in society at large – the political and private are very much interconnected: “If you value yourself enough, you will make every effort to assert – to yourself and to the world around you – ‘It’s okay to be single.’ With that understood, you can begin to fortify yourself with your own individualism and an appreciation of your own talents” (59). And you can move beyond seeing relationships as limited to the conjugal pair and start valuing connections with all people around you.

]]> http://www.rabe.org/myths-about-singles/feed/ 3 http://www.rabe.org/princess-bubble/ http://www.rabe.org/princess-bubble/#comments Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:35:52 +0000 Rachel http://www.rabe.org/?p=421 Continue reading →]]> I usually just delete emails from authors who contact me with information to add to my website but this book just sounds too great: Princess Bubble. It’s a fairytale where the princess is happily ever after without getting married. Here’s an interview with the author. She wants to encourage her readers to find happiness with or without a man. If you read the book, please let us know how you liked it and if there was any singlism in there. Accidental singlism, rather, because from what it sounds like Princess Bubble did face some stigmatization because she still hadn’t found her prince…

]]> http://www.rabe.org/princess-bubble/feed/ 1 http://www.rabe.org/hecht-happiness-myth/ http://www.rabe.org/hecht-happiness-myth/#comments Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:29:37 +0000 Rachel http://www.rabe.org/hecht-happiness-myth/ Continue reading →]]> There are two aspects I want to focus on in my summary of Jennifer Hecht’s Happiness Myths: Wisdom gathered from history about happiness and the influence of money on our society. The book is very well written and contains much more insights, gained through taking a historical perspective, than I will touch on here.

Hecht outlines three different types of happiness:

• Good day: The things that bring us momentary happiness without necessarily considering their long-term consequences, such as a piece of chocolate cake or a one-night stand.
• Euphoria: Intense experiences, which create lasting memories and often require “risk and vulnerability” (10)
• A happy life: Creating our life over the longer term. This might require a lot of work but it brings a sense of contentment and happiness. Examples include walking to keep the body lean or building a relationship.

Hecht stresses that “we cannot do everything we want to do in order to be happy [because] the three kinds of happiness conflict with one another.” She encourages us to maximize our happiness by thinking about how we want to devote our time toward each of these types of happiness. All three are important aspects but because they conflict, we need to set our priorities and ask ourselves for each given moment which type of happiness is most important (314).

Underlying the work toward the happy life are “four doctrines found in all happiness theory from wisdom literature, philosophy, psychology, and self-help” (17). The four doctrines, which when ignored create a strong barrier against happiness, can be summarized as:

• Know yourself: We need to live an examined life in order to be happy.
• Manage your desires: Sometimes it might be more conducive to a happy life to abstain from chocolate cake. This aspect also involves letting go of the desire for revenge, practicing forgiveness and acceptance. Moderation seems to be the key in this area (36)
• Take what’s yours: Play the role that life presents you with, which also involves discovering that role since it is “rarely obvious as a well-worn path” (45). Take what’s yours also includes being “willing who you are,” which essentially means accepting all aspects of yourself (46).
• Remember death: Accepting the reality of death helps us put our focus on life.

Hecht underscores that it is work to master these four areas but if we do, she suggests that we are much happier (67).

In her chapters on money, Hecht develops the idea that the middle level of our interactions disappeared. With the ideas of the Enlightenment came the focus on the individual. Although originally this focus included interacting in associations, those associations disappeared when “the next generation didn’t show up” (161). Instead, the nuclear family evolved, providing an escape from the oppression of the “demands of the extended family, or the town or local church” (162). On the other side of the spectrum was the growing importance of the nation, partly because information about the other side of the country was easily available. Individual freedom and happiness was to be pursuit within the nuclear family with a solid grounding in the nation but without reference to associations or community (163). This left a vacuum that was filled, according to Hecht, by consumption.

People’s average wealth increased after World War II beyond any precedents in history (168). We changed our public behavior by going shopping, with sports and television following as replacements for associations and “public conversation” (166). It is safe to discuss sports and television shows in public; no great ability for discourse is required and critical thinking is not necessary. Television is also important because of advertisement perpetuates the idea that money can buy happiness. Money does buy happiness if you’re in poverty but once we are out of poverty the correlation becomes increasingly weaker (134). Yet, we continue to believe in the “abundance inference,” the mistaken belief that more money will continue to increase our happiness, just like it did when we left poverty (134). Advertising seems to tap into the abundance inference well, thus keeping consumerism going (148).

Combining consumerism with television has gotten us off the street and out of associations. Hecht suggests that talking about the shows we watch and parading our possessions have replaced these middle level aspects (175). Consumerism is now our way of connecting in public and defining ourselves. Hecht describes this as an attempted replacement: We think that we have found an alternative for the midlevel that can provide us as much happiness as being involved in associations and community used to give us. Yet, she also points out that people in the 2000s do not report higher levels of happiness than our 1950s counterparts (133). The importance of the nuclear family gained a hold in our culture in the 1950s, thus the replacement of the midlevel started then. If this shift had been a sustainable one, wouldn’t we stop our perpetual run for money? Maybe consumerism is a cultural trance that keeps us away from a happy life because it ignores our role as social beings. We might exchange symbols by displaying certain brands but we are not involved in dialog, in communal barn raising or problem solving. Thich Nhat Hanh‘s example of the Americans as hungry ghosts comes to mind: we try to fill a void with our consumerism but we never really can fill that void because stuff cannot fill it. Something else has to fill it. I would suggest this something else is a renewed focus on the middle level, on community and associations, without the oppression involved in the past. As human animals, we are essentially social beings and need to connect with others on deeper levels than discussions about soap operas or the latest sales event allows. And, as Hecht points out, this will require work, “drawing on inner resources” (135). Using shopping to fill this void, this vacuum, is focusing on good day happiness, whereas building connections, relationships, and community is work toward a happy life.

]]> http://www.rabe.org/hecht-happiness-myth/feed/ 4