Of the 7000 off years of human civilization, many social institutions and ideas have come to be established. But rarely have they been revised. And even if they have, the rate of revision seems to be far slower than the rate of revision in non-social institutions / organizations like business, education or software. I'd like to call these unrevised social institutions as "social software". Perhaps invisible, but they are software none the less. We feel the need to use them. We "buy" them ( yes we pay a price or two :) ) and sometimes also dispense them.
A computer software, created keeping the customer requirements in mind, and intensely geared towards customer satisfaction, roughly goes through 4 major revisions a year. It either did not necessarily conform to the needs/requirements of the customer or it contained bugs. Social software, on the other hand was created, not necessarily keeping customer satisfaction in mind. There was perhaps, little survey, and almost no feedback loop. Is it so incomprehensible that it could contain "bugs"? or that it indeed did not satisfy the said requirement.
Sometimes, companies create new software for a certain need instead of packing it in a current software, so as to relieve the customer of the extra baggage and redundancy. My own company, DataSynapse, is now working on establishing credibility for its new software, "FabricServer", that facilitates distribution of web servers, while its previous product, "GridServer" facilitates parallel computing by distributing libraries (DLLs, POJO, Assemblies) They couldve added the new functionality to GridServer but they deemed it prudent to go in for a new software. It was a decision based on market research, customer surveys, as also in-house discussions and deliberations. It made sense. One size does not fit all. Customization has become the key factor in staying competitive...Why then, is it so incomprehensible that social institutions too, do not necessarily satisfy the needs of all "customers" and perhaps newer institutions need to be established?
Marriage seems a one-stop shop for sex, companionship, emotional and financial stability, social benefits and many other needs. While it may boast of being able to provide all of the above under the "same roof", it seems to leave little room for customization. Perhaps a 9th need may indulge a customer which perhaps is in contradiction to some of the needs, rights or privileges, that outline marriage. Of course, what exactly these rights or privileges are, remain undefined to this day, and best leaft to the imagination of the customer! Can you believe we actually have been buying something for centuries without a spec!??? Isn't it funny that we customize and re-customize computer software to satisfy the capricious needs of clients, and yet, social-software like marriage, largely undefined, are thought of as one-stop shops, where one size fits all?
While a non-satisfactory software can easily be dispensed with, or requested alteration, a similar approach to a social software like marriage does not seem possible. "Cmon, people are not software! You cant just deal with them the same way! You cannot get so technical about this!..." is the favorite rebuttal from the puritans. Yes of course, people are not software and they need to be dealt with more "respect" than perhaps a computer software. But that fact only strengthens the case for a more thoughtful process in evaluating and using these social software. If it is so obvious that people are more "important" than software, then why is it so incomprehensible that more thought needs to be put into creating and using social software as opposed to computer software? In fact, interviews for HR managers and others requiring to work closely with people, contain a barrage of questions pertaining to their social and communication skills. Even developers like myself have to go through one of these rounds in order to prove I am socially competent to work, in addition to my programming prowess. Why then must the same logic not be applied to more informal social institutions like marriage?
Apparently it shouldn't. Apparently, we must go through life and all its software because we "must". We have "no choice". And we have no choice since we have no control and we have no control since we have transferred it to the Matrix. (the Matrix?? Read previous post)
A computer software, created keeping the customer requirements in mind, and intensely geared towards customer satisfaction, roughly goes through 4 major revisions a year. It either did not necessarily conform to the needs/requirements of the customer or it contained bugs. Social software, on the other hand was created, not necessarily keeping customer satisfaction in mind. There was perhaps, little survey, and almost no feedback loop. Is it so incomprehensible that it could contain "bugs"? or that it indeed did not satisfy the said requirement.
Sometimes, companies create new software for a certain need instead of packing it in a current software, so as to relieve the customer of the extra baggage and redundancy. My own company, DataSynapse, is now working on establishing credibility for its new software, "FabricServer", that facilitates distribution of web servers, while its previous product, "GridServer" facilitates parallel computing by distributing libraries (DLLs, POJO, Assemblies) They couldve added the new functionality to GridServer but they deemed it prudent to go in for a new software. It was a decision based on market research, customer surveys, as also in-house discussions and deliberations. It made sense. One size does not fit all. Customization has become the key factor in staying competitive...Why then, is it so incomprehensible that social institutions too, do not necessarily satisfy the needs of all "customers" and perhaps newer institutions need to be established?
Marriage seems a one-stop shop for sex, companionship, emotional and financial stability, social benefits and many other needs. While it may boast of being able to provide all of the above under the "same roof", it seems to leave little room for customization. Perhaps a 9th need may indulge a customer which perhaps is in contradiction to some of the needs, rights or privileges, that outline marriage. Of course, what exactly these rights or privileges are, remain undefined to this day, and best leaft to the imagination of the customer! Can you believe we actually have been buying something for centuries without a spec!??? Isn't it funny that we customize and re-customize computer software to satisfy the capricious needs of clients, and yet, social-software like marriage, largely undefined, are thought of as one-stop shops, where one size fits all?
While a non-satisfactory software can easily be dispensed with, or requested alteration, a similar approach to a social software like marriage does not seem possible. "Cmon, people are not software! You cant just deal with them the same way! You cannot get so technical about this!..." is the favorite rebuttal from the puritans. Yes of course, people are not software and they need to be dealt with more "respect" than perhaps a computer software. But that fact only strengthens the case for a more thoughtful process in evaluating and using these social software. If it is so obvious that people are more "important" than software, then why is it so incomprehensible that more thought needs to be put into creating and using social software as opposed to computer software? In fact, interviews for HR managers and others requiring to work closely with people, contain a barrage of questions pertaining to their social and communication skills. Even developers like myself have to go through one of these rounds in order to prove I am socially competent to work, in addition to my programming prowess. Why then must the same logic not be applied to more informal social institutions like marriage?
Apparently it shouldn't. Apparently, we must go through life and all its software because we "must". We have "no choice". And we have no choice since we have no control and we have no control since we have transferred it to the Matrix. (the Matrix?? Read previous post)
11 comments:
Software is an apt metaphor for social constructs but you ignore the point that even the best written software is not customized for every customer. Usually, you pick the features the biggest subset of your customers would want and go with them. Then you iterate feature additions to the point where ideally all of your customers are satisfied.
If a large contingent of your customers doesn't see something as a bug (whether it actually is or not is sort of beside the point then), you are not going to change/fix it. Indeed "this is not a bug, it's a feature" is standard defense many programmers employ :p
Now consider that societal acceptance essentially means that to get a bugfix/feature request approved you'd have to convince a majority of your co-customers that something is a bug and the enormity of this task and why it happens so rarely becomes apparent.
Even something like "slavery is bad", a fact much more immediately apparent to any logical human being, took centuries to convince them about. It is not a open and shut case that erosion of monogamy as a social construct is a net gain for the society (as a group). Even if analysis proves that it is, our entire society is constructed around the monogamy (ranging from customs, taxes, etiquette et al). Removing it is like changing the instruction set of the Intel x86 processors, it's next to impossible. You may be able to add new stuff but expect its going to be a long time before you can remove the old stuff.
I understand that your basic point is that most people are not re-evaluating their societal assumptions continuously. It's a very valid point. Yet, I don't think you have demostrated that isolating sex from marriage is a feature wide enough that most people and society should want it. Like I said, widespread acceptace of polygamy (to the extent marriage is accepted today, i.e. making it commonplace) would imply that a majority of children will not have an ever present parent. Each will probably have to live with a different mother and father each week (mother and stepfather or father and stepmother) and a different set of step-siblings. It could be proven that this would have no effect on them, but it hasn't so far.
From my interest du jour (Atlas Shrugged ;)
”Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict ‘It is.’ Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say ‘It is,’ you are refusing to say ‘I am.’ By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: ‘Who am I to know?’—he is declaring: ‘Who am I to live?’
Going by this, if marriage is a construct against the self interest of mankind, "against reality", it will self destruct. Interestingly, this seems to be happening (not granting you the point yet though :)
Lovely piece man! Sums up my "Allegory of the Cave" concisely.
Marriage, per se, is not against reality. But yes, marriage should self-destruct if refused to be dealt with or acknowledged or analyzed or thought about; and it does! (You must grant me this now! We have enough evidence??)
Yes that is correct. Barring consultancy, most software is on an off the shelf basis. True.
"If a large contingent of your customers doesn't see something as a bug (whether it actually is or not is sort of beside the point then), you are not going to change/fix it. Indeed "this is not a bug, it's a feature" is standard defense many programmers employ :p"
Yes, the problem here arises from the fact that in terms of social software, we don't even consider the possibility of bugs. Thats not even an option. Once people realize that it IS an option, I am sure gathering this majority won't be a problem. We must first be aware of the possibility of change, in order to report bugs, else the exercise is superfluous.
About slavery again, I respectfully disagree that it took centuries to convince us that it is "wrong". I think most of us always knew it was "wrong". But it was in our best psychological and economic interest that it be. Perhaps slavery is not against logic at all. Therefore the system of slavery is more a "moral" issue than one of reason.
I am not trying to propagate or advocate polygamy. Nor am I saying that sex should not have to do with marriage. Although by practicing safe sex, we could avoid the ills of illegitimacy (if at all its an ill). Contraception, now, allows for a large leeway in sexual customizations; something we should not ignore. All I am saying is that each one of us decide what works best for us. Perhaps we may not be able to go down the path we choose. But at least we will be able to know ourselves.
You are right. Change is not easy and the repercussions of each new feature or bug fix must be duly evaluated. But for now, I appeal that people start to think about it. Think!
Recommended by a friend:
Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective (Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology 50)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521278236/103-9744516-4390206
Hopefully will give me some historic insight in this mystifying concept...
Good debate. Honestly, I've dwelt on what marriage means, and I've dwelt long. What is companionship? Why are marriages hard? And why do they exist in the first place? To some of these questions, I have been able to find my own answers, and by that I mean answers that work for me. Just like love, marriage is what you make it, what you want it to be. "Noone can be told what marriage is..."
The concept of a man and a woman shairng a life and existing in a structured society is not that bad. It is predictable and I (confess) that I find a certain level of security in it.
Over the years, sufis, philosophers and logicians have tried to sum up marriage in a number of ways. Here's one of my favourites
"You were born together, and together you shall be forevermore.
You shall be together when the white wings of death scatter your days.
Ay, you shall be together even in the silent memory of God.
But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.
Love one another, but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.
Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping.
For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.
And stand together yet not too near together:
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow."
The Prophet, Kahlil Gibran
Bangoli, Good stuff from the Prophet.
Yes, marriage is what you make of it. And food is what you make of it. Unfortunately, food involves just yourself and you can make what you want of it(well, assuming you pick your choices to eat ; you're not a chef; just being politically correct comme la Pali! :P) but marriage involves two people and if each makes his own and his/her own assumptions about it,...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/fashion/weddings/17FIELDBOX.html
Questions Couples Should Ask (Or Wish They Had) Before Marrying.
Take 2: Click here
Woww!! awesome! Thats the stuff I am talking about! As unromantic and unSRK that might be, (I still like SRK :P) it makes so much sense.
Just another perspective ... An important thing to remember about marriage is that its not just about love and sex and companionship. Thats the emotional aspect of it. It is a legal institution that is deeply connected with stuff related to property, tax benefits, alimony, ownership of children and so many other parts of the legal system. A certain low complexity structure has to be maintainted atleast in the legal sense cuz we all know as u make things/institutions/laws more complex .. the more the loopholes ... the more they are exploited until ultimately the structure is a farce .. Even the current system as simple and rigid as it may seem has sooo many loopholes but yet it works to a large extent.
I agree that ideally everyone shud be given a choice to define their favorite type of marriage (mono/poly, straight/gay). But rationally to make the system work its impossible to make atleast the legal aspect of it completely customizable. I love the concept of complete freedom in an ideal world but I think pple who seriously think that will ever work in the real world are either being extremely naiive or are just plain dilusional. Marriage is by nature a variably interprettable concept. But that is what makes it so dangerous. If the 2 pple getting married do not have a template definition/structure to build on .. they might assume very different versions of it (say one person wants monogamy and the spouse believes in polygamy) and in many cases that wud end disastrously. If everyone were truly responsible and accountable for each of their actions, a truly free world wud work. Unfortunately we live in a superselfish world. Each one ONLY cares about what makes them happy. No structure is such a world wud be pure chaos!
Post a Comment