The smokey February mist is lifting off the hills, snowdrops and crocuses are boldly making their first shows and the blue tits are getting very interested in the garden nest box. There is more cold weather to come, no doubt, but the distant fanfares of spring are unmistakeable. I seem to remember that this used to be a popular time of year for marriage, not least because of an advantage to be gained by tying the knot before the end of the financial year.
Recently I listened to a radio phone-in response to a recent government statement of its intention to offer financial inducement in support of marriage.
The conventional liberal view was duly expressed as a distaste for government interference with hard-won freedom to choose the form of association or dissociation best suited to the individuals concerned. Nevertheless, we should perhaps acknowledge that this government has been consistent in delivering the (sadly) necessary reminder that quite often the apportioning of rights is a zero-sum game - when one person's additional freedom implies another's self denial.
Our sympathy, or otherwise, with the outright anti-interference liberal might reasonably depend on their consistency over such issues as legislation on the wearing of helmets, seat belts and the sale of tobacco.
A common liberal view is that a relationship which both parties wish to continue has its own stability without need of artifices to bolster it. And when there is no longer a mutual desire to continue, the relationship should be free to end - as easily and painlessly as possible. Nevertheless, suggestions that such relationships lacked commitment would be stoutly rejected.
An old codger called in to speak of his 'worked-at' forty-year-old marriage and his belief that
modern 'fecklessness' was responsible for the evidently diminishing chances that such long-
lasting marriages would continue to be as common as in the past.
Personally, I think that fecklessness (ie aimlessness) is being mistaken for something very different - and less deserving of such evident scorn. Surely the essence of this whole matter, and of a number of related questions - not all moral - is the changing meaning of the word 'commitment.'
Originally, I believe, 'committed' was what one either was or wasn't - like being pregnant! The idea of a qualified commitment seems to be a relatively recent innovation. This goes beyond mere semantics because, in the wake of the appearance of conditional commitment, the unconditional sort seems to be out of favour. In short, one would have to be naive to take one's new partner's 'till death us do part' vow at its face value.
This brings me to my first major point. In my view, the obliteration of the concept of unconditional commitment represents the loss of a valuable social tool. A particularly serious loss because without unconditional commitment, even in this era of expanded possibilities, certain very important things have become either impossible or exceptionally difficult.
My second major point is that while modern living has indubitably brought with it a huge
increase in the number of options from which people can choose, the usefulness of such options
can be confined to the short term by simple human frailty. Frailty which has been greatly enhanced by loss of recognition of the relevance of unconditional commitment to the successful adoption
of long-term solutions.
In other words, modern 'fecklessness' is not remotely related to carelessness or aimlessness. On the contrary, modern behaviour is more likely to be a perfectly rational short-term response to the fact that nowadays, if a first attempt at fulfilling a 'want' doesn't work (and work very quickly) there are plenty of other possible avenues which can readily be explored. Our old codger no doubt feels very virtuous about his 'stickability' but his undoubtedly important belief that long-term solutions require long term commitment doesn't impress modern people who know that in the past such stickability was easier when the number of options was considerably less.
So there we have it. In creating a vastly greater set of options for people we increase our vulnerability to temptation to chop and change when the benefits of an inherently sound course of action come worryingly slowly.
We would, of course be mad to argue for a reversal of the trend towards greater flexibility of response. What is needed therefore is the wisdom to manage the greater choice. And that, as the (for once) wise politician said requires 'education, education etc. It also requires long-time accumulated wisdom. During the accumulation process, when we wish to protect our maturing young from unwise courses of action, and support their often wise initial choices against the ravages of short-term temptation, the employment of short-term sticks and carrots is both effective and principled.
At any age long-term thinking is tough country and can benefit from artificial bolstering. In the
past, when in any case choices were hugely more limited, peer and other social pressures often
gave young couples the artificial support they needed to see them through that difficult territory
between short term difficulties and the emerging realisation that long-term commitment fosters
often unforeseen rewards.
Today, with a twin-track policy of providing training for the acquisition of long-term wisdom, and some tangible support for 'hanging in there,' we could employ our mushrooming freedom of choice to better long-term effect.
What do you think about it? You could let me know by using the mail form.
Back soon with more views from the hills.