"Stark Happiness Beating at the Gates"
I'm single. How happy am I allowed to be?
The Case for Misery:
"Wickedness never was happiness." - Scripture
Morality and Doctrine are the supporting premises behind this case. People who propone these arguments often do not realize that they are demanding unhappiness from many different kinds of people whose lives they are not used to acknowledging. But so it goes.
The Doctrinal case for misery begins with the doctrine of eternal marriage. In mormon theology, the highest degree of "glory" (not necessarily "happiness," although there may be a connection) in the afterlife is only available to those who have obtained an eternal marriage - to those who have been sealed to a spouse of the appropriate gender - in this life, or by proxy. The "by proxy" clause isn't explicit in scripture, and the stipulation that marriage is strictly a "before the final judgment" thing IS explicit in all scripture, up to and including revelation to Joseph Smith, so you'll have to forgive single people who remain unconvinced by contemporary reassurances that there's a Knight Templar (ha ha) waiting for them on the other side of the veil of death.
Whether you believe being married is inherently a source of happiness or not (some don't - in all seriousness), the doctrine states that we should want it, should actively seek it under appropriate circumstances. But despite Lacan's insistence, I have never been fully convinced that desire is its own end. I do not enjoy wanting something I may never have, and yet the doctrine insists that I should continue in my righteous desires despite a complete lack of progress towards that end. Doctrine insists this about many things, though, including personal perfection.
I have been informed often by divine sources that I'll get what I righteously desire, and the Holy Spirit refines our desires. So if I am speaking personally, I cannot honestly argue that I will never marry and that God is being cruel in this way. I can only argue about how I am allowed to feel in this finite time between the awakening desire to unite my life eternally with another and the moment I cease desiring it (either because I have achieved it, or my desires have shifted). I must also consider the possibility that it may be more ideal to continue desiring the thing after I have supposedly achieved it, which means I am discussing a longer span than originally estimated.
But I also understand that mine may be a unique case, and when it comes to the possibility or likelihood of marriage, ymmv.
Popular culture has been advocating the supremacy of romantic love (and sex), romance (and sex), and sex (outside of its biological or spiritual context) for centuries. Now few mainstream novels, movies, television shows, etc. are about anything else. For some, this is nearly consistent with the doctrine of eternal marriage, but for many, it is in irreconcilable conflict. People with same-gender attraction, for instance, as they fight for the right to marry whom they love, are only fighting for the same experiences that the media has been teaching them to expect since Lancelot tilted for Guenevere (not all love was courtly, and that's the point). There are no other happy endings than consummation and permanent unity. Everything else is a disappointment.
I have a dear friend who will not consume media that does not end with a happy, heterosexual couple. She simply does not believe that any other kind of end is "happy." I have a brother who tells me I should abandon all pursuits except the quest for a husband, because that's the only way to be happy.
So, you know, Happy Valentine's Day!
The Case for Happiness:
"Frequently I am not so miserable as it would be wise to be." - T. H. White
To understand the problem, we need to understand what is really missing from a single person's life:
Couples are forced to be more selfless and giving, because their companion and/or children depend on them. Service causes happiness. Because marriage is a commandment, they have the confidence of their obedience to this law AND a healthy outlet for sexual self-expression. This will bring them closer to God, which causes happiness. Couples experience nearness and emotional/intellectual intimacy that many (most?) humans crave. They can feel loved, and have a source of reassurance when they are insecure. They also earn appreciation and admiration for successfully achieving a spouse.
By this calculation, a single person is unhappy because s/he is a selfish, disobedient, repressed, fallen, lonely, unappreciated, insecure, rigid LOSER. Tell me you haven't seen an unattached person judged like this. I dare you. Liar.
But we need to work through the problem with those inaccuracies corrected. Single people are just like married people, except they're single. They are not denied access to the temple, and are not disciplined for their singleness, therefore there isn't anything inherently disobedient about singleness (again, ymmv). Single people can overcome human selfishness as quickly as anybody else by giving all the time and resources they can spare to those who need them. I see single people giving service A LOT. It's not built into their lifestyle, but doesn't that make it more meaningful because it is not expected?
We singles are sexually repressed. Unless we don't have sexual urges, and I insist that most of us still do. But since most humans (even the ones in lawful marriages) encounter limits on their hedonism, we're all sexually repressed. We're supposed to be: see any conversation about "Natural Man" or the naturalistic fallacy. In a way. I think this argument against single happiness is only significant when you make the mistake of leaving sexuality in its worldly context. As a locus of disagreement between doctrine and secularism, it looks a lot more important in individual identity than it really is.
We are underappreciated, but again, I feel this might be a human condition, and not directly related to singleness at all. We're all fallen, single or spliced. We all get lonely, and we all get overwhelmed by proximity. We're all insecure, and marriage does not loosen rigidity.
I must conclude this list with a refutation of the "loser" accusation. "Losing" implies being in some sort of contest, and although dating has often been compared to an auction house or market, in no market on earth do the wares have agency, but people who date always do. Marriage is not "earned." It is not an expectation or assumption. No matter what your mission president told you, knocking on doors does not "earn" you a human being, skinny, blonde, or otherwise. A person who has found a mate does so because they seized an opportunity that they alone were given. BE GRATEFUL, NOT PRIDEFUL. If you have a spouse, he or she is NOT a status symbol. Therefore, the lack of a spouse is likewise empty of significance. You haven't won. We haven't lost. This isn't a race. And if we can bring ourselves to believe it, single people will have more space for joy outside of themselves.
If singleness is not defined by these absences, it is defined by that simplest of Valentiney absences: the lack of another person that would make me not single. My life is less one person whose presence I would imbue with the power to my happiness, and they are less me. I still have the power to choose whom I imbue with that power, though. I am not lacking the power to choose my happiness, I am just less that single option.
I, then, should be able to achieve as much happiness as anyone else, or perhaps more, because I do not choose to consolidate my investments. This is the shape of my life, and like the shape of my body, no matter what it looks like, I can love it, and it can do what it needs to. Whatever my time is, the Lord will polish it into a jewel for its eternal setting. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
If we have established that I am capable of happiness, then we have only to establish that it is the morally correct decision. This is more difficult. If eternal marriage is the ideal, then I have an obligation to set an example, and in this I clearly fall short.
Except, what if I have an advantage? If singleness is not a sin per se, and if happiness happens in some OTHER way than romance and marriage (even if romance and marriage is a shortcut) then this truth can only be learned from a single person. I have an obligation to find real happiness in my life as it is, and an obligation to articulate it so that people who experience adversity (divorce, loss of a spouse, devout homosexuality, etc) that can leave them single will see that singleness need not cause them pain forever, and there is brightness at hand. The trick is to convince people that it's real despite popular culture's obsession.
So I guess it's okay that my life is brilliant and everybody's jealous. If somebody handed me a check for a million dollars, no strings attached, I'd be stupid not to accept it. But I don't have to overwork myself to earn a million when my health and happiness are optimal at a different and steady income.
The Case for Misery:
"Wickedness never was happiness." - Scripture
Morality and Doctrine are the supporting premises behind this case. People who propone these arguments often do not realize that they are demanding unhappiness from many different kinds of people whose lives they are not used to acknowledging. But so it goes.
The Doctrinal case for misery begins with the doctrine of eternal marriage. In mormon theology, the highest degree of "glory" (not necessarily "happiness," although there may be a connection) in the afterlife is only available to those who have obtained an eternal marriage - to those who have been sealed to a spouse of the appropriate gender - in this life, or by proxy. The "by proxy" clause isn't explicit in scripture, and the stipulation that marriage is strictly a "before the final judgment" thing IS explicit in all scripture, up to and including revelation to Joseph Smith, so you'll have to forgive single people who remain unconvinced by contemporary reassurances that there's a Knight Templar (ha ha) waiting for them on the other side of the veil of death.
Whether you believe being married is inherently a source of happiness or not (some don't - in all seriousness), the doctrine states that we should want it, should actively seek it under appropriate circumstances. But despite Lacan's insistence, I have never been fully convinced that desire is its own end. I do not enjoy wanting something I may never have, and yet the doctrine insists that I should continue in my righteous desires despite a complete lack of progress towards that end. Doctrine insists this about many things, though, including personal perfection.
I have been informed often by divine sources that I'll get what I righteously desire, and the Holy Spirit refines our desires. So if I am speaking personally, I cannot honestly argue that I will never marry and that God is being cruel in this way. I can only argue about how I am allowed to feel in this finite time between the awakening desire to unite my life eternally with another and the moment I cease desiring it (either because I have achieved it, or my desires have shifted). I must also consider the possibility that it may be more ideal to continue desiring the thing after I have supposedly achieved it, which means I am discussing a longer span than originally estimated.
But I also understand that mine may be a unique case, and when it comes to the possibility or likelihood of marriage, ymmv.
Popular culture has been advocating the supremacy of romantic love (and sex), romance (and sex), and sex (outside of its biological or spiritual context) for centuries. Now few mainstream novels, movies, television shows, etc. are about anything else. For some, this is nearly consistent with the doctrine of eternal marriage, but for many, it is in irreconcilable conflict. People with same-gender attraction, for instance, as they fight for the right to marry whom they love, are only fighting for the same experiences that the media has been teaching them to expect since Lancelot tilted for Guenevere (not all love was courtly, and that's the point). There are no other happy endings than consummation and permanent unity. Everything else is a disappointment.
I have a dear friend who will not consume media that does not end with a happy, heterosexual couple. She simply does not believe that any other kind of end is "happy." I have a brother who tells me I should abandon all pursuits except the quest for a husband, because that's the only way to be happy.
So, you know, Happy Valentine's Day!
The Case for Happiness:
"Frequently I am not so miserable as it would be wise to be." - T. H. White
To understand the problem, we need to understand what is really missing from a single person's life:
Couples are forced to be more selfless and giving, because their companion and/or children depend on them. Service causes happiness. Because marriage is a commandment, they have the confidence of their obedience to this law AND a healthy outlet for sexual self-expression. This will bring them closer to God, which causes happiness. Couples experience nearness and emotional/intellectual intimacy that many (most?) humans crave. They can feel loved, and have a source of reassurance when they are insecure. They also earn appreciation and admiration for successfully achieving a spouse.
By this calculation, a single person is unhappy because s/he is a selfish, disobedient, repressed, fallen, lonely, unappreciated, insecure, rigid LOSER. Tell me you haven't seen an unattached person judged like this. I dare you. Liar.
But we need to work through the problem with those inaccuracies corrected. Single people are just like married people, except they're single. They are not denied access to the temple, and are not disciplined for their singleness, therefore there isn't anything inherently disobedient about singleness (again, ymmv). Single people can overcome human selfishness as quickly as anybody else by giving all the time and resources they can spare to those who need them. I see single people giving service A LOT. It's not built into their lifestyle, but doesn't that make it more meaningful because it is not expected?
We singles are sexually repressed. Unless we don't have sexual urges, and I insist that most of us still do. But since most humans (even the ones in lawful marriages) encounter limits on their hedonism, we're all sexually repressed. We're supposed to be: see any conversation about "Natural Man" or the naturalistic fallacy. In a way. I think this argument against single happiness is only significant when you make the mistake of leaving sexuality in its worldly context. As a locus of disagreement between doctrine and secularism, it looks a lot more important in individual identity than it really is.
We are underappreciated, but again, I feel this might be a human condition, and not directly related to singleness at all. We're all fallen, single or spliced. We all get lonely, and we all get overwhelmed by proximity. We're all insecure, and marriage does not loosen rigidity.
I must conclude this list with a refutation of the "loser" accusation. "Losing" implies being in some sort of contest, and although dating has often been compared to an auction house or market, in no market on earth do the wares have agency, but people who date always do. Marriage is not "earned." It is not an expectation or assumption. No matter what your mission president told you, knocking on doors does not "earn" you a human being, skinny, blonde, or otherwise. A person who has found a mate does so because they seized an opportunity that they alone were given. BE GRATEFUL, NOT PRIDEFUL. If you have a spouse, he or she is NOT a status symbol. Therefore, the lack of a spouse is likewise empty of significance. You haven't won. We haven't lost. This isn't a race. And if we can bring ourselves to believe it, single people will have more space for joy outside of themselves.
If singleness is not defined by these absences, it is defined by that simplest of Valentiney absences: the lack of another person that would make me not single. My life is less one person whose presence I would imbue with the power to my happiness, and they are less me. I still have the power to choose whom I imbue with that power, though. I am not lacking the power to choose my happiness, I am just less that single option.
I, then, should be able to achieve as much happiness as anyone else, or perhaps more, because I do not choose to consolidate my investments. This is the shape of my life, and like the shape of my body, no matter what it looks like, I can love it, and it can do what it needs to. Whatever my time is, the Lord will polish it into a jewel for its eternal setting. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
If we have established that I am capable of happiness, then we have only to establish that it is the morally correct decision. This is more difficult. If eternal marriage is the ideal, then I have an obligation to set an example, and in this I clearly fall short.
Except, what if I have an advantage? If singleness is not a sin per se, and if happiness happens in some OTHER way than romance and marriage (even if romance and marriage is a shortcut) then this truth can only be learned from a single person. I have an obligation to find real happiness in my life as it is, and an obligation to articulate it so that people who experience adversity (divorce, loss of a spouse, devout homosexuality, etc) that can leave them single will see that singleness need not cause them pain forever, and there is brightness at hand. The trick is to convince people that it's real despite popular culture's obsession.
So I guess it's okay that my life is brilliant and everybody's jealous. If somebody handed me a check for a million dollars, no strings attached, I'd be stupid not to accept it. But I don't have to overwork myself to earn a million when my health and happiness are optimal at a different and steady income.
Comments
Post a Comment