Excerpts from Russell’s Marriage and Morals.docx

The following excerpts are from the famous British philosopher Bertrand Russells Marriage and Morals (1929).1. Introduction“In characterizing a society, whether ancient or modern, there are two elements, rather closely connected, which are of prime importance: one is the economic system, the other the family system” (1). Russell continues by arguing that private property exists because of the family. He thinks that if children were raised by the state (like in Platos republic) there would be no need for private savings or private capitalism. He notes that many communists believe that in a true communist system the family (as we know it today) will not survive. He emphasizes the close relationship between the family structure and the social and economic structure.“Among human beings the co-operation of the father is a great biological advantage to the offspring, especially in unsettled times and among turbulent populations, but with the growth of modern civilization the role of the father is being increasingly taken over by the state, and there is reason to think that a father may cease before long to be biologically advantageous, at any rate in the wage earning class. If this should occur, we must expect a complete breakdown of traditional morality, (*) since there will no longer be any reason why a mother should wish the paternity of her child to be indubitable” (4-5). The purpose the Russell sets out for this book is to criticize the current ethics surrounding this issue of marriage and morals. He believes that in order to do this it is necessary to identify the “superstitions” that govern morals, as well as to address the unique circumstances of the modern age.2. Matriarchal SystemsIn this chapter Russell emphasizes that very little (if any) of human behavior is based on instinct. In societies in which the biological understanding of reproduction is not understood, families tend to be matrilineal (based on the mother, not the father) and the role of the father is divided between the mothers brother and the mothers husband. In societies of this sort, the notion of biological fatherhood does not exist, yet a man will still show the same affection for his wifes children, while officially playing the role of father to his sisters children. Russell believes that the emotions associated with parents for their children are not instinctual, but rather are the natural feelings that any adult will develop for children that they take care of.3. Patriarchal SystemsAccording to Russell, the patriarchal family system arose once man realized that offspring are biologically connected to him through his “seed.” Once men realized that children were their offspring and not merely the offspring of women, mens desire to live forever through their offspring, coupled with the feeling of power that came from creating life, caused men to subjugate women in an attempt to maintain and promote their own offspring. In matrilineal societies, there is no reason for wars to increase the power of a family since women control families while it is men who fight. However, once men take charge of the family, society is no longer as stable.“One must suppose, therefore, that the discovery of fatherhood would make human society more competitive, more energetic, more dynamic and hustling than it had been in the matrilineal stage” (15). Russell notes that this shift in society is somewhat hypothetical, but that the shift to a patriarchal society did create an increased emphasis on the virtue of wives.“The purely instinctive element in jealousy is not nearly so strong as most moderns imagine. The extreme strength of jealousy in patriarchal societies is due to the fear of falsification of decent. A legitimate child is a continuation of a mans ego, and his affection for the child is a form of egoism. If, on the other hand, the child is not legitimate, the putative father is tricked into lavishing care upon a child with whom he has no biological connection. Hence the discovery of fatherhood led to the subjection of woman as the only means of securing their virtue a subjection first physical and then mental, which reached its height in the Victorian age” (16). Russell argues that the subjection of women actually destroys the relationship between men and women, and hurts society.“Owing to the subjection of women, there has in most civilized communities been no genuine companionship between husbands and wives; their relationship has been one of condescension on the one side and duty on the other. In most civilized communities women have been denied almost all experience of the world and of affairs. They have been kept artificially stupid and therefore uninteresting. Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children. And not only love, but the whole contribution that women can make to civilization, has been stunted for the same reason” (16-17).This same focus on the legitimacy of offspring also caused men to demand that wives must be virgins. Russell notes that in earlier times having more children was an asset, but this ceased to be true for the upper classes during Roman times. Eventually the Greco-Roman system was destroyed by the poor masses. Russell ends this chapter by pointing out that while the patriarchal system remained, it changed to accommodate the Christian view of sex, individualism, and the belief in personal immortality.13. The Family at the Present Day“The causes which brought about the decay of the family were partly economic and partly cultural. In its fullest development, the family was never very suitable either to urban populations or to seafaring people”(106).“The position of the family in modern times has been weakened in its last stronghold by the action of the state. In its great days, the family consisted of an elderly patriarch, a large number of grown-up sons, their wives and children - perhaps their childrens children - all living together in one house, all cooperating as one economic unit, all combined against the outer world as strictly as the citizens of a militaristic modern nation. Nowadays the family is reduced to the father and mother and their younger children, by the decree of the State, spend most of their time at school, and learn there what the State thinks good for them, not what their parents desire. The state provides medical and dental care, and feeds the child if the parents are destitute. The functions of the father are thus reduced to a minimum, since most of them have been taken over by the State. With advancing civilization, this is inevitable. In a primitive state of affairs, the father was necessary, as he is among birds and anthropoid apes, for economic reasons, and also to protect the young and their mother from violence. The latter function was long ago taken over by the State. A child whose father is dead is no more likely to be murdered than one whose father is living. The economic functions of the father can be performed, in the well-to-do classes, more efficiently if he is dead than if he is living, since he can leave his money to his children without having to use up part of it on his own maintenance. Among those who depend on earned money, the father is still economically useful, but so far as wage-earners are concerned this utility is being continually diminished by the humanitarian sentiment of the community, which insists the child should receive a certain minimum of care, even if he has no father to pay for it. It is in the middle classes that the father is at present of most importance, for so long as he lives and earns a good income, he can give his children those advantages in the way of an expensive education which will enable them in their turn to preserve their social and economic status, whereas if he dies while the children are still young, there is a considerable chance that they may sink in the social scale.” (109-110)Russell continues by pointing out that in modern society, many children often do not spend much time with their fathers, which further diminishes the importance of the father in modern society. He does, however, think that the type of affection that parents give to their children can be beneficial for children. He then discusses why the family is still important.“Perhaps the greatest importance of the family, in these days of contraceptives, is that it preserves the habit of having children. It would, of course, with a slight change in our economic institutions, be possible to have families with mothers only It may be - and I think it far from improbable - that the father will be completely eliminated before long, except among the rich (supposing the rich to be not abolished by Socialism). In that case, women will share their children with the State, not with an individual father (114). Russell stresses that the replacement of the role of the father by the state will have a serious impact on male psychology. He believes that men will not work as hard, they will not care as much about private property, they will not care as much about history or the future. On the other hand, he thinks that men will also be less likely to go to war.14. The Family in Individual PsychologyIn this chapter, Russell looks at some alternatives to the patriarchal family. The possible alternatives he sees are two: families with only the mother, or children raised by the state. Russell questions whether the psychological effects of a family with only a mother and no father would have any negative effect on the children. While the influence of both masculine and feminine influences are helpful, Russell does not think that the advantages provided by a father are significant. He says,“No doubt the ideal father is better than none, but many fathers are so far from ideal that their non-existence might be a positive advantage for children” (120). Russell notes that children are seriously affected b