Rating: 
Summary: Love stinks
Review: "Hell is other people," existentialist Jean Paul Sartre once said. That about summarises the philosophy of Laura Kipnis. Her book offers a very jaundiced and bitter look at marriage in particular and relationships in general.While acknowledging that there may in fact be some good marriages out there, somewhere, her main thesis is that marriage is bad for people. Marriage takes nice people and turns them into "petty dictators and household tyrants". All that marriage seems to do, according to the Chicago academic, is smother people with tons of rules and regulations and restrictions. In fact, in her book she spends page after page providing a list of answers to the question, "What can't you do because you're in a couple?" She and a research assistant jotted down hundreds of answers, such as, you can't be a slob, you can't go to parties alone, you can't leave the bathroom door open, you can't leave the dishes for later, you can't take risks, you can't watch porn, you can't smoke pot, you can't make crumbs without wiping them up, etc. On and on it goes. It makes marriage sound like a comfortable concentration camp, to use Betty Friedan's words. She also speaks of that "mantra of a failing relationship: 'Good marriages take work!'" She says we use "the rhetoric of the factory" when discussing marriage and asks, "Who, after spending all day on the job, wants to come home and work some more?" Marriage, says our expert, lures people into "conditions of emotional stagnation and deadened desires". But wait, there's more; the wrecking ball continues: Marriage is a social institution devoted to maximising submission and minimising freedom, she says Not surprisingly, given such a grim and black portrait of marriage, Kipnis says "perhaps rising divorce rates are not such bad news". Indeed, given her version of events, a divorce ranks with the liberation of Dachau or being set free from a heroin addiction. One is left with a lot of questions after reading such remarks. The first question that obviously comes to mind is: Is she now married or has she ever been? Given her jaded perspective, one suspects that she is not, or if she was, it was a pretty lousy affair. But plenty of other questions come to mind, equally deserving of answers. Just what kind of world does Ms Kipnis think we should be living in? She has such a sour view of relationships and what they entail, and such a misguided notion of freedom and happiness, that it seems that the only kind of world she would be happy in is one where she is the only member. She could be quite happy in the company of one, but throw in just one more person, and life degenerates into bondage and misery. One is reminded of the quip by Groucho Marks: "I wouldn't belong to any club that had me as a member". Given that she is a social theorist, this does not say much for society. Indeed, the only kind of social theory she seems to approve of is anti-social, that is, anarchy. Anarchists hate all rules and cumbersome relationships. The trouble is, to keep anarchists happy, one would need to find separate planets for each and everyone, in order for them to fully enjoy life. Ms Kipnis bemoans the fact that relationships take work to succeed. Of course they do. Everything that is of value in life takes some effort and work. Nothing comes easy that is worth while. The only thing that is totally effortless is decay and deterioration. In doesn't take a lot of effort for wood to rot, for cars to rust, or for weeds to spring up. Ask any householder. Nor does it take much effort for relationships to fall apart and for marriages to collapse. All one has to do is resort to a purely selfish and self-centered lifestyle, and the relationship will collapse quick-smart. Thus Ms Kipnis cannot have it both ways. If she wants any kind of social fabric or communal structure, that is going to involve some give and take, some deferral of self-gratification, some compromise, some self-sacrifice, and some humility. All relationship require that. All societies require that. All workplaces require that. I am not aware of any successfully-functioning social institution in which a lot of effort in limiting one's selfish ambitions and desires is not called for. Marriage is humankind's "first society," John Locke once said. Because marriage and family are really mini-societies, if we cannot establish cooperation, unity and harmony in the home, we will never see these virtues in society. That is why marriage and family are so important. They take essentially selfish, me-first individuals, and form them into a working and efficient social unit. Without the taming of rugged individuals in the family, no society can expect to last. But we live in an age that demands instant self-gratification, that values isolated autonomy and individualism above all else, and that mocks and scorns any concern for the common good. Is it any wonder then that families are fracturing and communities are crumbling? And as long as we have folk like Ms Kipnis continuing to undermine everything that is required to make any kind of social relationship work, be it home, the workplace, or democracy, we can only expect to see more shattered societies and alienated individuals.
Rating: 
Summary: Polemic + humor = Engaging Reading
Review: Reading Laura Kipnis' Against Love: A Polemic, is a guilty pleasure, like drinking an extra glass of wine at dinner. In a dazzling display of wit, social science, and chutzpah, Kipnis takes on the prevailing ideal of monogamy and makes a case that monogamy is not the not the blissful byproduct of a committed love-match, but a social contract that serves to police and oppress both parties involved. The heros of marriage, in Kipnis' view, are the adulterers, boldly striking out against chafing domestic bonds. In the chapter titled, "Domestic Gulags," Kipnis rebuts the idea that lasting relationships are hard work. "When monogamy becomes labor, when desire is organized contractually, with accounts kept and fidelity extracted like labor from employees, with marriage as a domestic factory policed by means of rigid shop-floor discipline designed to keep the wives and husbands and domestic partners of the world choke-chained to the status quo machinery-is this really what we mean by a 'good relationship'?" (19). Kipnis holds up adultery as the acting-out of what our collective social unconscious already holds true. ". . . if adultery is a de facto referendum on the sustainability of monogamy-and it would be difficult to argue that it's not-this also makes it the nearest thing to a popular uprising against the regimes of contemporary coupledom (28). The current and rising levels of divorce and the increase in complicated extended family grouping (one expert calls it a family shrub instead of a family tree-because families now tend to grow horizontally, with exes and steps and ex-steps, etc.) are strong evidence that "contemporary coupledom" is a social institution changing before our eyes, while governments, politicians, and religious institutions continue to rely on an out-dated idea of marriage and simply encourage all the coupled to work harder . . . witness Louisiana's covenant marriage law.
Operating on this theory, Kipnis makes some salient points about our national obsession with the sex lives of politicians. While publicly upholding the virtue of holding to fidelity and marriage, many politicians were caught operating outside the bounds of their own marriages. Kipnis says, "What was a poor constituent to think? Maybe that dogged fidelity really isn't all it's touted to be? That out-dated vows should be rewritten, not just blindly reaffirmed (168)? She likens the politician-caught-with-his-pants-down phenomenon to politicians as players acting out our national unconscious and conscious confusion in "some new avant garde form of national political dinner theater." (30). Social theory aside, Kipnis' descriptions of the process and feeling of entering an adulterous affair are dead on and extremely funny. Her first example involves hooking up at an academic conference, where she describes the interior monologue of the about-to-be adulterous player, " . . . you slowly become aware of a muffled but not completely unfamiliar feeling stirring deep within, a distant rumbling getting louder and louder, like a herd of elephants massing on the bushveld . . . oh God, it's your libido, once a well known freedom fighter, now a sorry, shriveled thing, from swaggering outlaw to model citizen, Janis Joplin to Barry Manilow in just a few short decades" (5). Another point that rings true: at the heart of what makes adultery such a vibrant experience is that falling in love is not merely about loving the other, it's about rediscovering and falling in love again with oneself. But love affairs can feel utterly transforming and how few opportunities there are to feel that way in normal life, which by definition militates against transformation. You get to surrender to emotions you forgot you could have: to desire and to being desired (how overwhelming that can feel when it's been awhile), and the thrill of the new thing, of course, but what really keeps you glued to the phone till all hours of the night is a very different new love object: yourself. The new beloved mirrors this fascinating new self back to you, and admit it, you're madly in love with both of them (132).
Kipnis' hilarious nine page listing of "What can't you do because you're in a couple" is worth reading aloud at dinner parties. Does Kipnis really believe that adultery is the savior of marriage? While she uses all her intellectual powers and writerly charm to put together a compelling case, her main intent is to open a dialogue. One must know that the term polemic by definition is a one-sided argument, deliberately controversial in nature. As Kipnis says in her introduction, it's "designed to be the prose equivalent of a small explosive device placed under your E-Z-Boy lounger" (4). Reading Against Love may rattle a few windows, and a few previously unexamined convictions as well.
Rating: 
Summary: This book is speaking to me!!
Review: Wow! How validating to read a book that articulates so beautifully how I feel about marriage and monogamy. Thank you, Laura, for making me feel less alone in my thoughts.
Rating:
Summary: Heroic thoughts in difficult words
Review: Ok, maybe it's her education or maybe my small vocabulary but basically what I found herein was everything I've had on my mind put into words. You may need to read things over a few times if you're not the avid reader but it will definitely sink in. Now that I'm done self-bashing... What can be learned? Everything. I'm taking from this book what I've always taken from my own observations and things have only become clearer thanks to the author. I will never marry. I will never have children (I've already taken the steps to insure this). Therefore I will never require adultery as a means of obtaining "newness" or "what's missing." Tell the truth. The answer is complete and utter shamelessness. Do not sign the contracts that other's sign. The fewer social/financial contracts you sign, the more liberating life will be. Some responsibilities are unavoidable, but few are. Now prepare to smile more. Thank you Laura.
Rating: 
Summary: Those who know don't say. Those who say don't know.
Review: I am amazed that a professor, a talented academic, would regurgitate myths without digesting them and would fail to do even the most cursory historical analysis of her subject. Really. Let's look at your presumption that adultery is something new among women. Yes, I'll grant you all the qualifiers, in twentieth century America among White people. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera. As far back as the 1940s, according to Jared Diamond, at least 10% of babies born to married women could not have been sired by the husbands. When you consider that that was based only on primitive blood typing the actual numbers have to have been higher. A lot higher. Benjamin Franklin, a champion adulterer if there ever was one, said "One can not pluck a fair rose without risking thorns nor enjoy a fair wife without risking horns." as well as "Marriage without love leads to love without marriage". Speaking of women, women's liberation wasn't about women going to work. In this country it was about White women going to work. The Red and Black and Brown and Yellow ones had been out there earning livings for a long time thank you very much. And up until the 19th century most of the White ones had worked in family enterprises of one sort or another. Back in the 19th century it's estimated that most European and American men gave it up for the first time to prostitutes and in many circles got as much nookie in the red light districts as they did in their homes. In fact, through most of history marriage hasn't entered into for romance or sex. Partnership, the household economy, raising children, social and economic alliances, yes. "Luv"? Not really. That came later (Cue Tevyeh in "Fiddler on the Roof" "Do you love me?") Marx, cost benefit analysis and on-the-clock comments aside anything worthwhile improves with practice. And any serious relationship from professor-grad student to engineering design team to husband-wife requires team building and work. You really do get out of it what you put into it if you're lucky. The work can be fun. It can be rewarding. But if you want something that's really really good you have to work really really hard some times. Let's talk about sex, since we're talking about adultery. Any fool can figure out what to do with Tab "A" and Slot "B" - and usually does. But there's a huge difference between, say, the services of a fine hetaera and unskilled labor performed by a bored trull in a cheap motel. There's also a difference between the finest cognac and hooch brewed up in a car radiator. They'll both get you high, but the difference in craftsmanship really is worth it. Likewise there are couples who do the minimum - sex once a week, minimum of assigned chores with minimum of grumbling, kids at soccer on time. And there are ones who make the effort to be interested in and interesting to each other, who take it seriously and get a lot, if you want to go all economist about it, for their investment. If you haven't experienced the difference I'll just say that there's no comparison. It takes time, sure. But I get the world out of it - great sex, someone who will keep my secrets and guard my honor closer than her own, a friend who knows me better than I do myself, someone who will care for me when I am sick, raise my children keep my home like Hera, challenge me, guard my back, and cry for me when they put me into the cold cold ground. By what possible standard could this be bad? How greedy and grasping would a person have to be to demand more? How miserly to count the cost? Since "Against Love" is at least partly a Marxist screed let's take a closer Marxist look. Marx wasn't against work. What he despised was the separation of work from the worker, the actions of a person reduced to a mere interchangeable commodity. If a marriage or relationship is pure drudgery that's bad. If you get personal satisfaction, self improvement and the rest, then it's glorious - fruits of the sort of labor Marx heartily approved of.
Rating:
Summary: A sacred cow finally gets what it deserves
Review: What a courageous and wonderful book! Kipnis has the dignity to credit Marx and others for first revealing the truth about "marriage" (that it's about maintaining and securing the social order, not fulfilling the human need for bonding and companionship) along with the honesty, wit and keen powers of observation to demolish its central myth, "love." Keepers of the faith shudder, for good reason, because she never fails to provoke nods of recognition with her relentless and often amusing chronicle of the miseries of married life, thereby casting an air of inevitability on adultery, the solution resorted to by many, and longed for and thought about by many more. She offers no solutions, but leaves no doubt that the model of idealized and eternal coupledom -- the soul of "love" -- has nothing to do with human nature, and should be dropped. Good social criticism that skewers deeply held beliefs succeeds only when it rings with truth to the reader. This Kipnis achieves with more than a margin to spare. Psychotherapists, preachers, and talk-show hypocrites beware!
Rating:
Summary: It's not pro-adultery
Review: "I want to stress my book is not a book about sex, it's a book about love. I have a reputation as someone who writes about sex, but I think of myself as writing about sexual politics. "Against Love" is an experiment that I'm still trying to see how it comes out. Is the book going to get falsely characterized as a pro-adultery book? So far the longer reviews have dealt seriously with all the political aspects of the book."
Rating:
Summary: Polemic is the correct description!
Review: Laura Kipnis's effort is one of those books that makes you nod in agreement and cringe for having agreed with the author's views in the first place. Against Love's controversial topics on romantic and sexual relationships overwhelmed me in various occasions. Kipnis's wit is priceless - her cynicism palpable. She's voiced all jarring views on sex, love and relationships with black humor and insight. I happen to agree with most of her views. I recommend this daring and polemic book to all relationship cynics.
Rating:
Summary: Astute, shrewd, compassionate masterwork
Review: Laura Kipnis displays a mind so probing and astute, one needs to take this book in multiple readings to take it all in. NOT that it is difficult to read, mind you (she's an eloquent, amazingly fluent communicator); it's simply that she introduces so many unflinching truths and thought-provoking arguments, one has to absorb what amounts to an unbelievable scope of brilliance of thinking on her part. Her wit and(unmalicious)humor (in seeing the abject silliness of certain notions) has so much pointedness and irony, they'd almost be tragic; yet in a very "real" fashion, it serves to heighten her theories on a more engaging level. In a way, she's stating so much of the obvious; in another, she makes her statements in such peeled-to-the-truth language, it's almost as if she alone has been made the designated "debunker" of the mythological rot that's tragically propagated as something that people have to accept; she offers an exquisitely alternative view of that atrocious notion. Kipnis does not have any allusions to the way Things Ought To Be; she sees them for how *they are*. The bad reviews of this book on this forum all have a common underlying fear behind them: that maybe she's right. Some of these individuals act as if Kipnis is a bitter representative of accademia's East coast cynicism, but if one looks to the actual tone of her writing (apart from her assertions and questioning-wary stance), Kipnis oozes compassion and sympathy for the plight of the human condition. And to what the human condition is subjected, almost in a subconscious-conformist manner. Kipnis is a thoroughly modern thinker, presenting an evolutionary, progressive mode of thought, one geared toward the greater understanding of mankind, and the problems that assail us; in that, her understanding is timeless, logical and at the same time, sympathetic. This is one of the most astounding, refreshing, and finally, bracingly fixating books ever turned out.
Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking.
Review: Excellent idea for a book! I found Against Love to be highly thought provoking and intriuging. The only other book I've read that tackeles such a lofty ideal is "Playtime" (Kim Corum.) Kudos for Ms. Kipnis for having the gumption to write such a book.
|
