mandarine

‘For as long as we both shall live’: how long might this be? To back up Litlove’s recent illustration of this question, let me point out that a couple of centuries ago, people who had survived to the age of marriage could reasonably expect to live until 40. This means that roughly half the people died before that age. Therefore, the probability that someone would stay married to the same person for more than 20 years was at most one in four. Nowadays, the probability that both husband and wife
exceed the ripe age of 40 or 50 is close to 100%. We are thus four times more likely to stay married 20 years at least (if we do not get a divorce). The fact of the matter is that the same oath now represents a far deeper commitment than of old.

Reason enough to contemplate fidelity as a priceless commodity and try to understand what it is really about and how it works. To this day, I am still trying. This is just a glimpse at some personal, partial, fragmentary and jumbled conclusions I could draw from ten years of marriage.

A basic definition

Let us go beyond the shallow and archaic equation fidelity = monogamy. I believe fidelity, in marriage or any kind of engagement (even in business) is about mutual trust around any common project chosen together. Trust because there is no contract, around a project because it cannot be about everything and also because time matters, chosen because we are free, together because we are equal.

(I initially intended to plant a sailing methaphor here, but it is so obvious that everyone can make their own as an exercise.)

Mutual trust

Fidelity comes with no guarantee. Otherwise it is not fidelity, it is subjection. Mutual trust is the binding medium of fidelity.
Trust is very suspicious in our individualistic interpretation of the world, as it makes no sense individually. ‘How much trust do I have?’ is a meaningless question, whereas ‘How much trust is there between us?’ makes perfect sense.
Trust requires constant effort in both directions: I have to give trust, and I have to deserve trust. Trust shares many common points with love: you get more when you give more; the more you get, the more you give; the more you get, the more you do to deserve it. Therefore, once we find a way to prime the virtuous chain-reaction of trust, all the rest becomes much much easier.

When our son was born, I had believed that all young mothers simply could not trust anybody else with their baby, and that I would have to earn this trust. I was puzzled at the ease with which my wife immediately trusted me on how I would care with the baby. But when I looked at it the other way around, I knew I would have done the same. We had thirteen years of mutual trust behind us after all.

Common project

I do not believe fidelity is a concept that should apply to each and every action once I have pledged to be faithful. Faithfully peeling carrots, calling grandpa, tying shoelaces or fixing the faucet makes little sense. I have to know what it is I must be faithful to. Fidelity needs a frame.

And now that we live so long, this frame can hardly be a succession of short-lived matters. If we do not know where we are going, then the accumulation of day-to-day decisions results in a random walk, after which we end up nowhere near where we’d want to be; especially when outside events toss our life in all manner of unwanted directions. The frame should have a lasting meaning, direction and goal: fidelity lives on a project.

Our ancestral culture often continues to equate infidelity with adultery. It would mean that the whole thing is only about ’sleeping together always’, which is not much of a project (especially on the very long run). In my opinion, it has to be a more specific project. ‘Raising kids’ is fine (and an all-time best-seller), although it will not last a lifetime. In fact, we will probably need to have many projects if they have to keep us going for fifty or sixty years.

I believe it is important to know what these projects are. Maybe not formally, but I think it should be explicit enough: as we have more and more freedom to redefine the rules of marriage outside of the ‘make children - manage home - store wealth’ pre-1960 dictate, it gets easier to misinterpret implicit goals, our spat would definitely be infidelity. If I suddenly and unilaterally accept a job elsewhere and we have to move to another state (as did the now-ex-husband of one of her colleagues), that would be outright treason (with no notion of adultery whatsoever).

What about love?

Fidelity does not need love. That’s the whole point. Firstly, the concept of fidelity should work outside any love considerations (e.g. with associates, brothers, friends), and I do not think it should be much different in the marriage context.
Secondly, naively trusting love to ensure fidelity, while also picturing love as an external resource that just happens is probably a dangerous spiral that plagues many couples nowadays. With unreasonable expectations, we put too much burden on love. How often did I hear ‘It did not work out’ as some kind of excuse, like ‘It did not rain this spring’.

Let me play Devil’s advocate a little more and develop an interesting concept. In decisions of marriage or fidelity, passionate love can be a double-edged sword: fidelity is a grown-up thing, and love can carry us over the dangerous ford of our naive and immature years (we met when we were 17 and 18), until we grow up together some more; but it can also make us so blind and wool-headed that we confuse love with trust, bliss with faith, desire with project. Taking a fidelity oath is probably less risky between two good friends than among lovestruck doves. Maybe I am being dull and unromantic when I say this, but I have deep doubts that Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty actually lived happily ever after with their respective Princes Charming. I would be much more confident with the Beauty and her Beast, who slowly learned to know and trust –and then love– each other.

Love is not the condition of fidelity. I believe it is the other way around: fidelity is a container for love, when love is part of the fidelity project. Then we should give it constant care. A lasting marriage is often one that has love on everyday’s agenda, one that finds ways to spawn, grow and radiate love.

Finally, I believe the cement of marriage and fidelity requires a lot of work on the fine alchemy of mutual trust, shared faith, common projects, mature choices. Love is the extra magic that can thrive within this alchemy.

Read on

Read on

Till death do us part — 1 — the first decade of forever
Till death do us part — 2 — small chances, big changes
Till death do us part — 3 — on fidelity and other trifles
Till death do us part — 4 — Honey, we have to talk
Till death do us part — 5 — a love-letter blog ?

We do not really want to live long
Changing the world in half a minute

This entry is filed under psychology, marriage, philososphy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.