Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Informer Rubriques

Informer

Readings for an Informed Divorce Debate.

This is the first in a series of posts I intend to prepare for this blog with regard to the divorce debate. It’s all very well for us all to pontificate and prod each other with our preconceptions but where are we coming from and more importantly what are we talking about? The other day I read a status update on facebook by someone who insisted that we should keep partisan politics out of the divorce debate. It’s already bad as it is but confusing party rhetoric with informed debate could be dangerous. This set of posts goes beyond parties and entrenched positions. In this series, J’accuse will attempt to collate information – sociological and analytical – about what surrounds a question such as divorce.

This first article, translated from French (apologies for the not so exact translation) deals with the evolution of the post-modern family from a French perspective. It would be interesting to hear how this kind analysis fits in with the Maltese reality. Is our social set-up so different from that of the French so as to say that the anaylsis is inapplicable in our island? Or have we not yet taken the time to look in this particular mirror and see what it is we are up to when setting up our domestic units? Do the same processes apply to Malta and Maltese marriages? Is the step of divorce and remarriage a necessary and missing step or not? Discuss. Civilly and responsibly if you please.

Extract from “Sociologie de la famille contemporaine”
François de Singly (Paris, 1993, Nathan, pp. 87-89 and 110-113)

The Post-Modern Family

The history of the contemporary family can be divided into two periods. Fom the 19th century to the 60s one can observe a coincidence between the institution of marriage and the focus on interpersonal relationships. Three elements form the basis of a little contested reference model: love before marriage, the strict division of labour between man and woman, and the care for the infant – it’s health and education. For half a century (1918-1968), the fact that the male would work outside to earn the family money and that the woman would stay at home to best take care of the infants was evident in most places.

Starting from the 60s, the housewife model is criticised, particularly by the female social movements – by feminism. The stability of marriages decreases and divorce by mutual consent becomes possible by the law of the 11th July 1975. Cohabitation outside marriage begins to develop. Neither the marriage institution nor the sexual roles disappear – the majority of couples in 1990 are married and live in accordance to rules of specialisation with regard to domestic tasks – they have however lost a huge part of their legitimacy. Thus, three quarters of the persons questioned on the future of two persons engaged in a stable love relationship believe that these persons should live together without getting married if they do not want any children – marriage would become a necessary option if the couple would want a child. The dissociation between conjugal life and marriage has become strong.

The logic of affection, for a long time extraneous to the family and marriage (the myth of love having been constructed against the concept of marriage of interest) has managed to pervade the marriage institution. During the first period of the contemporary family one could have believed that the fusion between these two elements would have been durable. Now the force of the requirements of affection has progressively undermined the institution. In his essay ‘L’amour et l’Occident’ (Love and the West), Denis de Rougemont had the intuition in 1939 that the love worm resided in the marriage fruit:

“If one therefore got married due to a romance, once this romance evaporates is it normal that at the first sign of conflict of characters or tastes one asks: Why am I married? It not any less natural that, obsessed by the universal propaganda for romance, one admits at the first chance of having fallen in love with someone else. It is perfectly logical that one decides just as quickly to divorce to find a new “love”, which means a new marriage, a new promise of happiness; the three words are synonymous.”

The passage from the modern family to the “post-modern” family is the result of an emphasis on a characteristic of the first period: the focus on relations. What changes in face is that relations have less value themselves than the satisfaction that they are expected to procure to each of the members of the family. Today the “happy family” is less attractive. What is important is being happy oneself. Contrary to certain utopias in 1968 or to certain feminist texts that wanted to destroy the bourgeois family and the patriarchal family, the family has not vanished in the sense that individuals believe that it constitutes one of the ideal means to be happy. The “me” (or “I”) trumps the “us” but the former does not require, the elimination of the conjugal group or of the familial group. (…)

Since the end of the 60s, individuals tend to have a conditional engagement with the family group they have created. Approximately a third of couples married in the 80s have divorced or will divorce. They do this earlier: the maximum frequency lies at four years of marriage (a length of time to which we must add the period of cohabitation with the partner). Conjugal instability during the second period of the modern family has increased, without however forcing a general turnover – as certain commentaries would like us to believe. The majority of married couples remain stable.

The devaluation of “perenniality” (pérennité)

The most important change is the relative devaluation of the idea of marriage that believes that one of the objectives of marriage is stability. For example, cohabitants do not think that marriage “protects affection ties”, “proves to the other that one really loves him/her”. The length of the couple’s relationship has no value unless the partner continues to provide the expected satisfaction. As we have seen with unmarried and graduate women, the belief in autonomy (independence) does not suppress the need to establish conjugal ties – the couple remains the main reference – it only renders unacceptable a union that could be perceived as not serving the construction of a personal identity, or one that does not serve the unification of internal contradictions. Conjugal intimacy must not be lived as a tyranny; it must, on the other hand, be the ideal place, at least in the daily private life which allows one to believe that one’s self is stripped of its social roles and has finally reached a deep zone of authenticity. Such a (reciprocal) request is difficult to fill – the analysis of the division of domestic labour has proven it. If the women would refuse certain arrangements, separations would be much more numerous since they have, for the large part, the almost exclusive responsibility of these jobs. The ideal of individual autonomy within a stable group is not simpler to put in place than the ideals of previous periods. Dissatisfaction leading to divorce could, in this perspective, have two different causes (origins):

– either the belief in the ideal of the post-modern couple is too strong; it prevents the possibility of any compromise (notably, the most common compromise in middle and superior couples is that which tolerates a double professional activity on the condition of not putting into question the hierarchy of male and female investments in the professional sphere);

– or the partner (or oneself) cannot sufficiently play the game by participating in the creation of obligatory compromises, the level of contradictions is to elevated.

In short, the modernist project seems to be strictly tied to a higher level of separation. It does not seem to be a greater disfunctionality than the traditionalist project. It is more of a general attitude – giving more rights to the individual vis-a-vis “us the family” – that which easily allows the perception of a conjugal dissatisfaction on the one hand and the transformation of the latter into divorce on the other. Divorce is contained, in a certain manner in certain unions. The intuition of Denis de Rougemont is confirmed by such differences in the rate of divorce with regards to values proclaimed many years earlier. The logic that conditions the foundation of post-modern families is the search, not of solitude, but of the satisfaction of the psychological needs of each member of the family.

Reference
D. de Rougemont, L’ammour et l’Occident, Paris 1972 (1938)

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The Ignorant Masses

James Debono penned a brilliant blog post that you can read here : There’s something about Labour. J’accuse agrees 100% with his assessment (see earlier post today “Sphinxes”) but we are not here for some general agree-fest.

By browsing through the comments appended at the end of the article you get to understand what will hold this country back for ever. Given a clear, well-explained article about how Joseph Muscat is effectively betraying Labour by making it a risible, spine-less alternative unable to get the real political pulse of the moment, your average flag-waving supporter will ignore the message and instead scorn the messenger:

  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:20.You know what is the cherry on the cake James, that now you have really showed that you are another puppet of the PN. This will be the last time I bought MALTA_TODAY, because with articles like yours its becoming worst then the TOM, not independent anymore.
    gscerri
  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:14.You know James – I think there is something about you and your clear biased against Labour. Not only you are unfair but clearly seem to be pushing some agenda. Moreover, you have a disgusting condescending way to refer to the people living in the South and to Labour supporters, which I find it akin to Nats who always look down to 50% of the population like it is an inferior tribe or race of people. So why don’t you come out and say it: You want the Nats to remain in power! I have had it with you and your patronizing views – I’m stopping buying Maltatoday, which I was gladly doing until a Sunday ago.
    RJ
  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:11.Maybe if you took your head out you and remove the blinkers you would understand more. PL is not perfect but I have yet to hear you say one decent word about the party. It seems you want the PL to be exactly as you wish it was which you know can never happen with any party in the world.
    But then again, why should I waste my breathe with you, we all know who you support while trying to portray yourself as a left-leaning liberal. I enjoy reading MaltaToday very much but your own articles leave much to be desired.

    zeit

It’s about “support” or “puppets” to them. James Debono is much more of a labourite than anything Joseph Muscat can aspire to be when it comes to principles yet the “supporters” only see him as a traitor to the cause. Not for one moment will they question the contradictions inherent in the flimsy marketing (for it is not politics) in which Joseph Muscat engages. Muscat knows that this is his audience and he only has to hope that more are enticed into the anti-PN fold in order to be a beaming PM with no clue about principles, politics or diplomacy.

Meanwhile valid minds full of valid ideas are left to “wallow” writing blogs in some newspaper. I wonder what it is that keeps James going.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Sphinxes

Listening to Tony Blair’s ideas about the North African Uprisings could have the effect of making your blood boil. The Born Again Catholic is sounding more and more like George W. every other minute. He is more concerned about the possibilities that democratisation would open up to Islam and Islamic parties than about the fact that for the first time since colonisation two Arab nations are really asserting their right to appointing their own representatives. The Egyptian protests have been fascinating in many ways – they are the testing ground as to whether the fire started in Tunisia can rage through other dictatorships and break the post-colonial moulds in the Maghreb and Mashreq.

Hosni Mubarak is proving to be a tougher nut to crack than Ben Ali. While some may be joking that the Saudis might soon have a village of ex-dictators in their midst, Mubarak seems intent on getting away with a smoother “transition”, probably hoping to put up one of his anointed who could still keep in place the elite of businessmen he seconded into parliament and other important posts around him. Like Joseph Muscat with the shadow cabinet, Mubarak has been performing a bit of shuffling of his own in an attempt to appease the protesting crowds who can take no more of the arrogance and nepotism of his false democracy.

The protestors in the North African Countries are having to switch to such devices as fax machines and ham radios in order to send the news out to whoever is willing to relay it. Meanwhile, as we all know by now, tourism in the two Mediterranean (and Red Sea) paradises is once again down to its knees. Egypt had already suffered a setback thanks to the 1997 Luxor attack on tourists. It will now have to adopt a wait and see position until the political situation is clearer. Tourists are not normally so hesitant to return after coups (see what happened very recently in Thailand) but there will still be problems to revive the Sharm-al-Sheik and Hourghada business.

Which is where the glaring insensitivity (and insensibility) of Joseph Muscat’s hopeless attempt at seeming the sly player of international intrigue sticks out in all its glaring ploukism. The irony of it all is that Joseph Muscat’s wonderful idea of calling on the government to lure tourism away from the unstable Mediterranean nations is actually a call to draw the livelihood away from the mouths of millions of protesters suffering poverty, rising prices and corrupt government. Joseph Muscat might know that but he does not care does he? Neither do the potential voters for a new PL government. Who cares if their neighbour is dying for freedom and a for what he hopes is a better economy? What they worry about is their farcical marches into Valletta where Joseph can stand on some stage and sing to the ocean of unhappy people who cannot afford the petrol to fill their car or the money to pay for the electricity bills.

Following this last call by Inhobbkom Joseph we have reached an important conclusion here at J’accuse. Joseph Muscat has proven to be way out of his depth in matters international and has blown the last few chances he had of being considered a viable alternative to a tired and arrogant government by the intelligent voters among us. He should step down now and we should pray to God that Labour manages to fish out something remotely sellable as a leader.

From the Labour Press Release (thanks Fausto):

Filwaqt li wiehed irid jibqa jsegwi b’interess dak li qed jigri f’pajjizi bhat-Tunezija u l-Egittu, minhabba l-pozizzjoni taghhom fir-regjun Mediterranju, l-Partit Laburista jrid jara l-akbar kampanja ta’ pubblicita’ li qatt saret biex nigbdu lejn pajjizna dawk it-turisti li kienu qed iharsu lejn dawn il-pajjizi fl-inkwiet bhala destinazzjoni ghal vaganza taghhom. B’hekk igawdi l-pajjiz u s-settru turistiku malti li fuqu jiddependu l-ekonomija tal-pajjiz u eluf ta’ familji.

And this from Maltatoday:

NATIONAL Monday, January 31, 2011
Updated | ‘We had a good laugh’ – PL on satirical mock campaign

By Nestor Laiviera

The Labour Party’s reaction to the satirical ‘Visit Malta’ mock poster campaign was that “the issue merits not just the original touch of humour by a commentator, but serious consideration and a well thought campaign.” The Labour Party was reacting to a satirical ‘Visit Malta’ campaign circulated through facebook sparked off by remarks by PL Leader Joseph Muscat that Malta should capitalise on unrest in Egypt and Tunisia. A party spokesperson said “we had a good laugh and won’t accuse the authors of lacking ‘savoir faire’.” He added that however “the issue merits not just the original touch of humour by a commentator, but serious consideration and a well thought campaign which would attract tourists to Malta instead of other destinations which are in turmoil.”

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Memor et Fidelis

Last Thursday I flew to Malta from Brussels on an Air Malta flight. Having braved the trials and tribulations of the Brussels ring and having risked being stuck in the suburb of Zaventem (GPS alternative routes are not always fortunate), I enjoyed the comfort of a flight and meal on our oft wrongfully maligned airline. There’s nothing like an Air Malta pampering at economy class level to soothe the nerves after a tumultuous drive.

This last minute visit was planned earlier the week in order to surprise my mum during the farewell celebrations that her colleagues at Stella Maris College had planned for her retirement. So there I was, armed with a newspaper and in flight magazine, trying to catch up with the news while in transit and in between warm cooked meals and sips of Kinnie. It’s impressive what a good and cheap form of in flight entertainment the paper and the magazine turned out to be.

Pornographic

Divorce and mafia-like shootings aside, it seems that the next best thing to read about in the Maltese media are two − not too unrelated − court cases. The first deals with the owner of City Lights Cinema who has been charged (again) with the screening of hard porn (is it like water? does hard mean more calcium?) in his establishment in Valletta. Now correct me if I am wrong but this cinema (and the movies it shows − referred to in common parlance only in Malta and India as “blue”) was not opened yesterday. I recall the illicit chats during break in secondary school in which some maverick senior might recount of his escapade into this den of Beelzebub sited in the midst of our capital.

And if kids knew about it then you can bet your last greasy lira that most adults did as well. So how come the police are only now suing the guy for running a cinema without a permit? Without a permit? What did they think the two signs saying “CINEMA” on the front of the City Lights Arcade represented? A prank? So yes, why pick on this milder form of release for the desperate at this point in time?

Theatrical

Which leads us straight to the case of the Romanian girl caught stripping in one of the Paceville joints. Sod the sub judice myth, I cannot hold back from commenting on this. In a very theatrical effort (that won over the court reporters), defence lawyer Arthur Azzopardi asked for a recess in order to be able to accompany the police inspector to a newsstand whence he would procure a copy of Hugh Hefner’s best (that would be Playboy). I could imagine Atticus flinch (sic). Through some logic that is only useful to the defence lawyer (and his client), we are supposed to think: if you can see nude pics on a magazine then there is nothing wrong with seeing them live.

Sure. It’s the legal equivalent of defying the laws of gravity. Imagine the same argument in a murder case in which the victim was stabbed to death in the shower. “Can I ask for a recess m’lud? I’ll just pop down to a video outlet and get a copy of Psycho. If people can see that on film then why not in the flesh?” Q.E.D. Irrespectively of whether you agree or not with the availability/legality of topless dancers, you’ve got to admit that this legality by proxy argument is really tops. So I shut the newspaper court reports for a while and switched to the in flight magazine.

Where I found not one, not two, but three adverts for “Gentlemen’s Clubs”. They do not leave much to your imagination do they these ads? One of them advertised “various services within our venue for an exciting night of entertainment”. Hmm let me see. Do they mean sanitised bathrooms? Sofas maybe? A dance floor? For heaven’s sake how naive can we pretend to be by leaving this Gentlemen’s Club and porn business in a legal vacuum? Can you blame defence lawyers for the logistical gymnastics they go through? If this society is unable to discuss the truth of broken families and couples, how much less ready is it to discuss the positives of regulating (and making available) such venues of “release” as adult cinemas and gentlemen’s clubs?

Masquerade

Can we really wonder when the platform of discussion is polluted by modern day pragmatism and relativism? Why does Austin’s Bluff even merit discussion for example? Don’t get me wrong. I applaud the politician for stating outright that he would not be comfortable in a party that actively commits in favour of divorce. I would not expect him to do otherwise. It’s the way the message was conveyed (are the press to blame again?) in a manner as to suggest that Austin is blackmailing the country with a resignation that he had already decided would happen anyway.

Even in our discussion about marriage we are still equivocal. Both the pro- and anti- movements have argued that they are in favour of marriage. Beyond that though it’s all about statistics. Have we really asked ourselves what the modern day family unit is all about? In France the discussion goes back to the 60s and the sexual revolution, the emancipation of women and the gradual loss of any semblance of childhood. We dare not expose our ugly warts and ask questions of ourselves and prefer to wave the idealistic banners of conservative utopia vs. liberal intransigence.

Our ugly warts meanwhile are free to run abroad. Malta was twice in the news in Italy this week. First the man who claims to speak to Mary caused a ruckus in the Vatican. Never did the word “fedele maltese” sound any closer to “Arabic jihadist” than it did that day. There was also the bright spark who, worried that his friends might miss the boat, called in a bomb scare for the Pozzallo ferry.

Lasallian

Forgive me an extra run on the self-imposed word limit but I must congratulate a wonderful head, teacher and mum upon her retirement after 30 years of teaching at Stella Maris College. I am happy to have flown over to share the joy of all your colleagues, students past and present, and friends in celebrating your work over three decades. I’ve only confirmed what I’ve always suspected… that I’m not the only lucky one after all and that many, many others have had the honour to have had you as a guiding light in their life.

I am proud of your achievements and on Friday I remembered what it meant to be part of a larger family that goes beyond the boundaries of the nuclear family unit. The Lasallian frères are aptly known as brothers and though they seem to be getting scarcer and scarcer, I am glad that you chose to follow your vocational calling among them and with the principles of their founder. Back in 1981 I was just a young soon to be seven-year-old when we both walked into that College for the first time − you as a teacher and me as a student − and we lived through the dark years of the “Jew b’xejn jew xejn” period with classes in garages and basements.

The thousands of students whom you have overseen might have moved on but they still retain the ties to the Lasallian spirit that created a very strong foundation for their future. Your time to rest and enjoy the fruits of your labour has come; don’t underestimate the value of this moment. Carpe diem. Meanwhile, on behalf of all of us who have crossed paths with you in your vocation, it’s definitely time to say… thank you very much Mrs Zammit.

www.akkuza.com has gone all emotional this weekend. You’ll find we are our usual cynical self on the blog.

bert4j_3110130

Categories
Divorce Mediawatch

J'accuse Tube (cryptic)

One and cross (clue) : Cut cord and vie for marriage terminal (7). J’accuse presents the breeding ground for a public discussion in graduated stages. You’ve been mentally challenged. About f***in’ time…

Think of it as a J’accuse version of RAI3’s “Blob” – the unmissable programme on Italian TV. (P.S. It’s not “me” in Gensna)

ffwd the issues

from tammy…

from billy…

from david (lynch)

rev. jennings

farrakhan (virtuous women)

Opinions… they’re divided

or unclear…

someone is collecting facts…

Categories
Mediawatch

Angels Abroad

You probably read it by now. Angelik Caruana has taken his mystic mystifications abroad and has managed to attract the international audience. He managed to get the attention of all and sundry via some yelling tantrum in the middle of a public audience of Papa Ratzi in Paul VI hall at the Vatican. The alleged visionary was quickly surrounded by security who feared the worst when this envelope wielding grey-haired man started yelling at the top of his voice. I can just about imagine his communicative abilities when he is far from the fawning audience on some hill in Malta.

We’ve feted the man for long now. We’ve been amused by his antics and he has enjoyed the platforms of our most notorious talk shows. Now it is no longer funny because our fervent Catholicity has taken a comic twist on the international stage. “Di nazionalità maltese” is what stands out in the La Stampa report – in the same way as “jihadist” would sound in some report on an attack.

Secondo quanto si è appreso, i due fedeli identificati sono di nazionalità maltese e la Gendarmeria Pontificia ha fatto sapere che la busta conteneva messaggi devozionali.

Thank God for devotional messages. If the website is anything to go by we can expect gibberish of the highest order that would be difficult even for a deity busy apparating in Malta on a hot summer day to decipher. Angelik is one of our circus of freaks and though he has his followers does not get elected to any post (unless you give weight to the big Marian vote). This episode does ring a warning tone about electing persons of dubious sound mind or with absolutely insufficient nous of international diplomacy and aplomb to public posts.

After all there is little to go between a quickly penned letter to the Pope and an angry rant to Jerzy Buzek.

Enhanced by Zemanta