No More Fathers, Only the Child

 I’m intrigued by the archetypal image found in the story of the prodigal son — as deserving love but, in some modern minds, absent the father image (absent the oppressive patriarchal authority and, at a popular level, embracing a reductionist jettisoning of essential predication regarding the masculine or something like that). 

The community, loosely defined as: domestic arrangements, receives the child displaying something akin to nurturing acumen (I’m not thinking of Peter Singer styled, animal kingdom only, reductionism at this point).The authority for such an action is derived from a variety of paradoxical premises. Common amidst such premises — youth are not liable in the same way a mature adult is and kinship bonds of various types commit the community to act in ways that contribute to the wellbeing of children. Putting aside both ideas around a child is not liable and is an independent agent paradox together with nurturing acumen as is. What sort of thing warrants unconditional love? Is such a love even possible for humanity? Simon May suggests that unconditional love like that cannot account for distinctions. Why love this person and not that one? Simon May goes on to point out that something like Agape (in the modern mind)  is impossible for man as man (incoherent to the atheist and Karl Barth like saint). Still, taking a step away from notions of impartiality, is it the case that we are dabbling in the love which amounts to, ‘I feel therefore this is love for me’?

For the sake of argument let’s accept Simon May’s thesis — the result then? The child now fits the new object of unwavering devotion archetype and not anything that looks like authority. The perpetual baby in a manger absent divinity. I suggest that both libertarian, social welfare or even biblical parenting programs that assemble themselves around such a mistaken notion will fale on account of the deficiency in argument integrity. So what about authority is so repugnant to the modern mind? Does misuse negate proper use? Clearly not, that is, if the community is still obligated in some way. The corporate personhood of the community is a favorite idea in sub Saharan Africa. Death and separation via war and disease may well account for the broad account of domesticity. This is not the same as the entitled American who has been groomed on a steady diet of being told ‘your good’ and the delusional adults robbed you of a future (did not consult you about bringing you into existence, and as such, adults must pay for this oversight). On a broadly African notion that accounts for what is the case, I believe the notion of paternity both biological and in a broader familial setting has remained remarkably resilient to the shredding of family bonds at grass roots if not in the halls of authority dominated by reductionism. Be that as is may, abuse in the area of fatherhood cannot, it seems to me extinguish the longing for something of the protective Loving connection.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

All Truth is Mere truth?

Merely Natural Rights In a recent discussion with regard to natural law, a comment was made (it seemed to suggest, I think) that such appeals to a natural law are merely reformed (merely part of, any marginal group, for the sake of argument). It is difficult to grasp, given the context -  Thomas Aquinas in view, why the reference to the Reformed position at all. But I did think, at the time, it would be interesting... to some, to read this.  “Fundamental to Rawls’s theory is the principle of equal respect for all members of the social order (or for all members who can engage in the relevant “bargaining”). The question is, what is the basis for this principle of equal respect? Dworkin’s conclusion is that “justice as fairness rests on the assumption of a natural right of all men and women to equality of concern and respect, a right they possess not by virtue of birth or characteristic or merit or excellence but simply as human beings with the capacity to make plans and give justice.” Dw
Read more

Visual Perception for Fun

Don't I see red and you see blue and we call it green as we told to do? At this time of year I often find myself embroiled in family dinner conversation. In my family someone will bring up, one of the old classics thought puzzles normally in an effort to steer the conversation away from the same old same old - money, religion and morality trench. Last night was no exception and I was delighted again to hear the re-discussion of such a classic puzzle. Do we all see red or do we have a random conditioned - name - allocated to a particular frequency of light - red in this case, irrespective of how it appears to us. The argument normally ends in the typical line - well, it's impossible to know. This morning I thought I would examine the claim for fun. So red (400–484 THz) hits the retina cones, each "tuned" to respond best to light from a portion of the spectrum of visible light (red, green and blue). In this case long-wavelength of light = red. Then it’
Read more

Weapons of Freedom?

Weapons of Freedom? The Jacob Zuma Coup d'état, was ultimately thwarted, some believe, on grounds that: 1. Private security in South Africa, outnumbered the military, (many private people also bare arms). 2. The taxi industry, it seems, also has no taste for state capturing dictatorship. So what seemed impossible, happened when Zuma stepped down. To be ‘...free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources;’ is something we need to all stand for. Yet, today it seems no more than a useful fiction in the mouths of government officials hell bent on the boiling of all sorts of frogs. ‘Boiling frogs’ for those that don’t know, notoriously the words of President Cyril Ramaphosa in reference to those excluded from the category ‘our people’. This category seems to shrink daily in those it now excludes, Michael Cassidy reminded us. It is a cruel irony when Bheki Cele implied (beneath rhetorical concern for our people) that South Africans have no right to arms. That is, in
Read more