Introduction
Marriage has in the recent past had various definitions. The Western world has been on the forefront in redefining marriage because the society is slowly changing the definition of marriage through legal means (Morse 1).
These legal definitions are guaranteed by the state and through this development, the state is gaining a strong influence in the social working of the society.
This point of view is contrary to the Morse’s view of marriage because in her view, marriage is an agreement between two individual, independent adults who associate without the primary influence of the state (Morse 1). From this point of view, marriage is less politicized.
This opinion is held by Roback Morse in her essay titled, “Marriage and the limits of contract” (Morse 1). In the essay, she voices her concerns about the over-politicization of the institution of marriage through its legal definitions.
Her view is contrary to the organic view of marriage because the organic view of marriage is governed by excessive constitutionalism. She defines this arrangement by explaining that:
“I define marriage as a society’s normative institution for both sexual activity and the rearing of children. The modern alternative idea is that, society does not need such an institution: No particular arrangement should be legally or culturally privileged as the ideal context for sex or childbearing” (Morse 1).
In her essay, Morse disputes the legalistic view of marriage and instead proposes that, the society should adopt a minimal constitutional influence of marriage and the state should limit its influence on marriage as much as possible.
The role of the family in a generic scheme of liberal government views the family as a social contract between two people and it bestows them with obligations towards each member of the family.
The role of the family is therefore reduced to a bunch of legal obligations towards each member of the family, and more especially, the parents. The family is therefore reduced to a list of obligations between family members and consequently, the traditional attributes associated with marriage (such as love and sexuality) are eliminated (Morse 1).
From this understanding, the role of the family is reduced to a union of legal obligations towards each partner within the family context. For instance, the husband will have a legal responsibility towards his family members (to provide for them) and the woman will have a legal obligation to guarantee the partner with certain rights in the marriage (such as conjugal rights).
Children are also obligated to receive parental provision for their basic needs. Such is the role of the family in the generic scheme of legal government because through this union, several rights are guaranteed by each partner towards one another.
The government guarantees these rights. From this understanding, this study acknowledges that there is a connection between relationships considered by social contract theorists to be “pre-political” and the viability of a liberal government.
Hobbes on the Family
A. Hobbes perceives the social division between man and woman as a distinction between what occurs naturally and what the society creates on its own (Sexton 1).
In explaining this point of view, Hobbes introduces the Leviathan component of analysis where a work of artifice, without any organizational component is introduced to explain the concept of sovereignty and to establish a sense of stability within the society (through the establishment of a strong social order) (Sexton 1). This is the basis created by Hobbes for the creation of paternal power.
B. This view is similar to Locke’s view on family structure but the two scholars differ on the allocation of paternal power to political power. Hobbes tends to disassociate himself from the entire issue but he agrees on the internal logic of the covenant of the family and the society because he acknowledges that, the family structure is designed in a manner to ensure certain social goals are easily achieved (Sexton 2).
From this understanding, there exists a rebellion between family members and each member has the opportunity to leave the structure at will, but what keeps the family unit together is the sense of interdependence created between individuals in the family structure.
Since people depend on each other for the provision of certain basic needs within the family structure, there exist no difference between paternal power and political power because this is the same relationship evidenced between individuals and the state.
In other words, people depend on the state for the provision of certain basic amenities. Through this perspective, there seems to be a great similarity in the manner Locke and Hobbes perceive political power, viz-a-viz parental power, because Sexton explains that:
“Political society for both Hobbes and Locke represented a transformative approach that sought to deny divine intervention into the affairs of men and instead shift the onus of creating a state deemed natural to a contractual one that is entered, under the best circumstances, with full acceptance of what probably should not be termed inalienable rights to liberty, but nonetheless should be considered a state of nature in which liberty is a right of birth” (Sexton 4).
C. The relationship between paternal power and political power prompts Hobbes to accept that a despotically sovereign is acceptable here because doing nothing about the situation is still a decision in its own regard since it is a way through which people show that, they accept things the way they are (Sexton 4).
This analysis, explains that obedience comes before rationally defined ordered liberty because the family structure is the origin of the social construct and since obedience exists in the family, rationally ordered liberty is bound to come second because it represents the socialization of the family structure.
Often, the rationally ordered liberty is equated to the government of the political power of a state. If the situation is reversed and the role to enforce obedience within the family is left to some other institution, a total disregard of the informal methods of obliteration will be envisaged and consequently, a collapse of the institution of marriage may be evidenced.
For obedience to properly enforced (within the family context), Morse notes that social norms need to be instrumentally practiced because it is part of the natural enforcement of family laws such as obedience (Morse 4). Without social norms, it will be difficult for a parent to discipline his or her children because the children’s conduct will be accepted by the society.
D. Since obedience should be enforced by some sort of structure, substituting such a role to any other institution, apart from the family, is dangerous because such institutions are bound to lose their legitimacy once things revert to their natural state.
In such a case, it is important to acknowledge that when a government loses its credibility, it is no longer in a position to command obedience from the people and this situation may lead to a civil war or chaos. For instance, if a government is overthrown, such a situation may be evidenced (FECC 1).
Locke on the Family
A. Locke’s view of the family is not very different with Hobbes’ view. Locke notes that, the family is a result of artificial structures imposed on individuals by the society.
In this regard, he notes that, individuals are normally born the same and it is the different responsibilities bestowed upon man and woman which creates the social differences between individuals and in turn, this creates the social distinction between individuals. From this understanding, Locke notes that:
“The supreme power at the top is analogous to the father and social strata resonate with the duties and responsibilities applied to spouses, children and relatives.
When one compares the more comprehensive social divisions with the narrower familial divisions it becomes apparent why both men take this approach; the superstructure of the patriarchy continues to apply even when the head of the household is not the father” (Sexton 2).
From this analysis, Locke notes that paternal power emanates from such strong social differences bestowed on individuals by the society.
B. Locke agrees to the existence of parental power even in the absence of patriarchal power because he acknowledges that, the shift of family power to political power is a way family structures are made communal (Sexton 2).
The transition from the family structure to the social structure is the manner social constructs are developed and this is the reason there is no difference between paternal power and political power.
C. However, in as much as this understanding is factual, Locke is of the opinion that, rationally ordered liberty comes before obedience because there may not be a legitimate relationship between people and the state if authority is imposed on them without their will.
This situation is factual because such sort of relationship is bound to create a master-slave relationship which is not healthy or sustainable (FECC 1).
In a family setup, such sort of relationship exists (in rare occasions it is encouraged), but interestingly, if it is not adhered to, such events may be termed deviant. This situation is equated to the acquisition of children whereby children do not choose the kind of family they are born into and they are still bound to live in such families while they are legally under their parents.
According to Locke, this kind of parental power is differentiated by paternal power and it also represents a very complex system of compliance which is equitable to the real life scenario where power is acquired by force.
D. According to Locke, an absolute government is worse than no government at all because according to him, the legitimacy of a government stems from the will of the people and if the will of the people is overlooked, he proposes that, people have a right to rebel against the government (FECC 1).
An absolute government in this case represents a government which has no regard for the will of the people. This form of government is equitable to the earlier reference to the relationship between parents and children where the paternal power is a form of forced relationship between children and their parents.
Conclusion
From the facts envisaged in this study, we can establish that, the family structure is important in the running of any society. Like Morse observes, the family structure is self-sustaining and it operates to fulfill certain roles in the society which cannot be achieved in any better way than to let the entire system operate by itself.
In this regard, though the family structure is self sustaining, it is important to note that, its social nature cannot be sustained without a strong family structure. This analysis is a fact because socialist theories derive their legitimacy from the family structure and since the society embraces certain concepts within families (like male superiority), the same is also envisaged on the political front.
This analysis therefore exposes the concept that social contract of marriage is only a mirror of the family structure and it is difficult for the latter to exist without a strong family structure.
However, from this analysis (and from Morse’s point of view), we can see that, it is important for social constructs to exist for family structures to be strong. It is also important for strong social restraints to exist for the family structure to be sustainable and for minimal government involvement to be realized.
In other words, in order for governmental influence to be eliminated, social constructs ought to be in effect to make the family structure sustainable. These social restraints ensure the relationship between family members is sustainable and consequently, this limitation substitutes governmental restraints.
The social constructs are also part of human nature in the sense that, such restraints emanate from our biological constructs. Since social constructs are in-built and substitute the role of the government, legal sanctions are not necessary for the sustainability of the family structure.
Only in circumstances where such social restrains are nonexistent, is when legal sanctions can exist. However, even the realization of such a situation is almost nonexistent because social restrains emanate from our biological composition and that cannot change.
In this regard, the viability of a liberal government is directly dependent on the relationship considered by social construct theorists.
Works Cited
FECC. The Political Theories of Locke and Hobbes. 2003. Web.
Morse, Jennifer. Marriage and the Limits of Contract. 2005. Web.
Sexton, Timothy. Locke, Hobbes and the Importance of the Family Structure to Society. 2009. Web.