Thursday, April 08, 2004
(12:48 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
The sex lives of theologians
In Barth class this week, we discussed Barth's sex life. The course title is "Karl Barth without Apologies," and Prof. Cathey made extra-special sure to tell us that he did not intend to do any pro-Barth apologetics, either for his life or for his rather restrictive teachings on gender. As the class went forward, I found myself becoming an ever greater partisan of the Barth-von Kirschbaum relationship. First came the realization that his relationship with von Kirschbaum (no patronizing allowed! do not call her Charlotte, like everyone in class did) was a reflection of his lax stance toward bourgeois morality. Sure, he was "violating his marriage vows" or "committing emotional infidelity" or something, and his wife got a raw deal (i.e., she was virtually ignored by her husband because of his attention to another woman, rather than just plain being virtually ignored because he was bored) -- but what do those vows really mean? What does it mean to pledge "emotional fidelity" to someone? Are we vowing that we will betray every other for the sake of this one? Surely we are -- and "forsaking all others...." Can we make that vow in good faith? If we could, should we? What does it mean for that impossible vow to be expected of everyone? Do we really want to sacrifice this unique partnership on the altar of some abstract "duty"? Would it be better for them both if they had never loved each other and had instead attended to fulfilling their respective contracts?
If Barth had discharged his marital duties to the fullest, his betrayal of von Kirschbaum would have been greater than his factual betrayal of his wife. For all Barth's personal flaws and for all the areas of that relationship about which we might want to sit in judgment, the fact remains that this would not have seemed like a tragedy if we could imagine another relationship for men and women other than marriage or imitations thereof. If they had a sexual relationship, I say good for them. If they didn't, then that's a testimony to the strength of bourgeois conventions even over those who consciously reject them.
(Admittedly, at bottom, my ultra-lefty opposition to marriage probably stems from the fact that Belle Waring is already taken.)
AFTERTHOUGHT
Among the books I arguably shouldn't have read at a very young age: Jude the Obscure, Anna Karenina, the Bible...
