But Affection has it's own criteria. It's objects have to be familiar.
(The Four Loves)
Welcome to my slightly early post for C.S. Lewis Reading Day. As I explained in my last post, C.S. Lewis Reading Day (November 29) this year comes out on Saturday. And since the Sabbath doesn't end until nightfall, I'll miss the festivities over at Pints with Jack. I could wait until Saturday evening to post, but I'd rather be a day early than wait until late on the Reading Day itself.
This year's theme is storge, which is, in Lewis' analysis in The Four Loves, called Affection. Affection includes includes familial love and all others with whom we are a part of our usual day-to-day lives. With that in mind, I start my post.
Of the four types, or genres, of Love defined by the Greeks, Lewis considers Affection to be the most humble and least showy. It lacks the sparkle of romance and the excitement of friendship. Yet, in some way, it underies them all. When the passion has subsided or the adventure has passed, the lovers or friends bound by affection can pause, and enjoy the comfort of each other's company.
That is why Affection is the love used to describe the relationship between members of a family (and here I concentrate on the nuclear family). It's the love that allows siblings to drive each other crazy but immediately stand up for each other against an outsider. It's the missing dynamic when one member is not at home. It is what comes into question when (Genesis 2:24), "a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife..."
However, the challenge opposite 'leaving' arises as well, because Affection requires familliarity. It is the comfort, the feeling that everything is as it should be, that makes Affection tick. So what happens when someone new is added to the family and (correctly) expects affection?
I've been thinking about this, because last week my daughter got engaged!
Now, of course, we are very happy about this. And her finace is a wonderful young man from a fine, upstanding family. So, the question or challenge that I raise is not to look for some sort of excuse. It's more to explore Lewis' point - does Affection require familiarity?
Naturally, when it comes to such relations we explore the biblical corpus and see what we find. Unfortunately, we don't find much, and that which we do find is more a warning than a model. Jacob and Laban whose story we read in this week's Torah portion clearly didn't get along. But even they did better than David and Saul. Despite Isaac's love for Esau, Esau's wive caused him and Rebecca much pain, and let's not even talk about Tamar and Judah. Now, we do find Moses and Jethro and that one seems to work out well. And perhaps we see echoes of that story in Lewis corpus and the relationship between Aravis and King Lune.
To review, Moses escapes the Pharoah's wrath by fleeing Egypt for Midian. There he sees Jethro's daughters (now there is some questions on exactly who is Jethro versus Re'uel, but we'll keep it simple) are being abused by the other (presumably male) shepherds at the well. Moses saves them, and waters their sheep himself. Apparently this abuse was a regular occurrence because when his daughters returned home, Jethro could not believe how quickly they were able to water the sheep. The daughters explained that they were saved by a stranger and Jethro (who, based on this question, was clearly meant to join Judaism) replied, and you didn't invite him to eat!? So, they invite Moses in, he stays, and eventually marries one of the daughters.
To summarize there was a conflict, the protagonist emerges victorious thanks to the help of a stranger, the protagonist tells the story of victory to his/her father, the stranger is invited in by the protagonist's father, and eventually the stranger marries the protagonist.
That same structure is found in The Horse and His Boy. The protagonist (Shasta/Cor) is in a conflict (attempting to escape Calormen), and his helped by a stranger (Aravis). Upon emerging victorious, Aravis is invited to live in the palace by Shasta's father King Lune and eventually Shasta and Aravis marry.
And perhaps is that outline is the key for having a relationship of Affection without the immediate familiarty. I don't need the familiarity with my future son-in-law because I have been told it by my duaghter. The relationship she has built with my son-in-law can be shared by increasing familiarity through story, if not through direct interaction. I can invite him into the family with Affection because I am used to him through my daughter. Affection is familiarity and as my daughter transitions to fulfill the demands of Genesis, her Affectionate connection with her nuclear family enables us to grow our familiarity and Affection for him.
Welcome to the family!
Further updates will be shared as warranted.
No comments:
Post a Comment