Since the 1960s, that decade which did so much to establish the idealization of the self, traditions have been steadily devalued. The traditional ways in which people relate to each other, gender roles, the compact of responsibility and freedom between the people and their elected representatives, all manner of traditional emblems and relationships have been in question.
Yesterday, Meghan O'Rourke wrote a piece in Slate which assailed the traditional value of the diamond engagement ring:
Diamonds Are a Girl's Worst Friend
The trouble with engagement rings.
The retail fantasy known as a "traditional" American wedding comprises many delicious absurdities, ranging from personalized wedding stamps to ring pillows designed for dogs to favors like "Love Mints." Of all these baubles, though, perhaps the most insidious is the engagement ring. Most Americans can say no to the "celebrity garter belt" on offer for a mere $18.95 from Weddings With Class. But more than 80 percent of American brides receive a diamond engagement ring (at an average cost of around $3,200) before they get married. Few stop to think about what, beyond the misty promise of endless love, the ring might actually signify. Why would you, after all? A wedding is supposed to be a celebration. Only the uncharitable would look a sparkly diamond in the eye—never mind a man on his knee—and ask what it means.
Meghan O'Rourke reviews some of the history of the engagement ring, focusing on the commercial and marketing aspects. She reviews a bit of the history of the ring as a guarantor of the contract entered into between a man and woman when they become engaged. When the courts began to chip away at the ability of a spurned woman to sue for compensation for the diminution of eligibility she experienced from a broken engagement, an expensive ring became the cost that the couple placed upon the damages. She suggests that with feminism and women's liberation, such guarantees are anachronistic and serve merely to reinforce outmoded gender roles.
It may seem curious that feminism has made inroads on many retrograde customs—name-changing, for example—but not on the practice of giving engagement rings. Part of the reason the ring has persisted and thrived is clearly its role in what Thorstein Veblen called the economy of "conspicuous consumption." Part of the reason could be that many young women, raised in a realm of relative equality, never think rigorously about the traditions handed down to them. So it's easy to simply regard a ring as a beautiful piece of jewelry and accept it in kind (I'm guilty myself). But it's also the case that a murkier truth lies within its brilliance: Women still measure their worth in relationship to marriage in ways that men don't. And many are looking for men who will bear the burden of providing for them, while demanding equality in other ways. (It's telling, for example, that in many parts of Scandinavia, where attitudes toward gender are more egalitarian, both men and women wear engagement rings.)
Jonah Goldberg, in a rather cramped response to Meghan O'Rouke, emphasized the importance of envy and competition; no ring or a small ring would be seen as somehow shameful. He does conclude, however, that the ring has a connection to ancient and very deep emotions:
The diamond is the modern updating of the mastodon hide and the shiny rock. It's a sign, a ritual, a public declaration of commitment grounded in ancient custom and instinctual drives older than democracy, monotheism and the wheel. Of course, it's irrational. Chesterton may have been wrong that the purely rational man will not marry, but surely the purely rational man would never buy a diamond engagement ring. But we are not purely rational creatures. Diamonds are forever. Period.
Finally, Ed Morrissey discusses the role diamonds play in various conflicts around the world and the recent development of the Kimberly Process, an attempt to regulate the market and decrease the role of "blood diamonds" in some of our festering hot spots around the globe.
Now, a disclaimer, I am not an uninterested observer to this discussion. When I became engaged I offered the future Mrs. SW an heirloom ring; I was a student with lots of loans at the time and if she had insisted upon a new ring (which she would never have done, being much more practical than I) she would still be waiting for it. My oldest son, on the other hand, just bought a beautiful ring for his intended, and all of us could not be more delighted.
As far as the O'Rouke-Goldberg discussion, I would like to add a few points.
Jonah Goldberg makes the point that his wife was "far less invested in getting a diamond engagement ring than most women." Yet after all the rationalizations that follow, he purchased one for her; presumably he purchased a ring of adequate size to not be thought overly penurious and to exhibit the level of his commitment and resources.
At the same time, Meghan O'Rourke, despite all of her well reasoned, and occasionally cynical comments, admits that she accepted the ring from her husband, though attempts to make the case that she only accepted "a ring as a beautiful piece of jewelry" without all the powerful projections that inhere in a diamond engagement ring.
It is no coincidence that both writers present themselves as sophisticated and hard nosed realists when it comes to rings, focusing almost exclusively on the ring's utility and message to the observer, while avoiding or minimizing any acknowledgment of the deep roots that the tradition arises from and the deep emotional resonance it contains.
Perhaps this point is clearest in Meghan O'Rourke's parenthetical conclusion:
(It's telling, for example, that in many parts of Scandinavia, where attitudes toward gender are more egalitarian, both men and women wear engagement rings.)
Scandinavia is the epitome of the egalitarian welfare state, where the state is the all giving Mother and the Father is devalued and indistinct. Marriage is no longer socially necessary; living together is sanctioned as the equivalent of marriage. It is perhaps, marriage-lite, where neither husband nor wife are expected to enter into anything more than a commercial relationship that lasts as long as the pairing is enjoyable. In such a social construct, traditional Paternal roles, protecting the home and family, being the prime interface with a dangerous world, have been consistently belittled and disparaged. Scandinavians, with their purposeful amnesia for their history and mythology of great warriors, are awakening to the fact that they are under siege from an enemy that knows nothing but tradition. Many Scandinavians fear they have forgotten how to defend themselves.
Yet, what we have been seeing most recently, is the stirrings of an idea, an inchoate feeling that has been growing in the West. The world is once again becoming more dangerous. Strength and courage are no longer worthless vestigial traits but may very well be necessary traits to ensure the survival of the societies which have been mocking them for so long.
For those who favor evolution and evolutionary psychology, consider that human beings evolved their gender roles for a reason; ie, they worked. The refinements of civilization, which included ensuring that a man who took a bride was able to care for her and support her and their children, have made the family the cornerstone of civilization. So many of our social ills derive from the concerted attacks on our traditions that have undermined the family, undermined the idea of Masculinity and undermined the necessary use and application of male strength's to preserve and defend what we have inherited.
It is easy to poke fun at the tradition of the wedding ring; indeed the entire endeavor, a man getting down on his knees and asking for her hand in marriage, can be easily mocked as a foolish atavism. Yet these mockeries miss the point. Our traditions have survived, even if in vestigial form, because they speak to something powerful within us and assist us to carry the past forward. We trifle with traditions to our great risk.
Recent Comments