In discussing the development of strict and overt regulation of sexual practices by the Church and by the state, I was struck by the complementary relationship between the Church and state, one seemingly embraced both by authorities in both sectors and in some instances by the governed population. I found this most curious, having been raised under a governmental system that preaches the glories of separation between church and state (though not necessarily practicing such).
As seen in analyzing Spanish and Spanish-American societies around the seventeenth century with regard to policies concerning sex and sexuality, one can clearly see that the church had a guiding hand in the creation of state policy, which is not wholly dissimilar modern American policies aimed at sexuality. One must ask the purpose for such interference – purposeful or inadvertent – does the state seek to promote a universal morality with regards to sexual behavior or does the state hope to promote stability by prohibiting certain behaviors of lifestyles that may be correlated to “high-risk tendencies”?
However, the primary sources we have read, particularly when considering the legal documents, demonstrate an interesting socio-political dynamic – every person (of every race and social class) is granted legal rights, but those rights seem to be exercised with different frequency and purpose with great connection to said person’s conception of honor, based on his or her race and social class. This dynamic would of course remain, and perhaps even be more pertinent, when discussing regulation of sexual activities, as such were directly tied to both men and women’s sense of honor across social class boundaries.
Of course in the “modern” world, we live in a different place and time, influenced by many more ideas and forces; however, parallel laws exist today in our county, our state that highlight the continuing influence of the church on state policy - and not only that, but state policy that dictates the proper and acceptable behavior in which to engage sexually and further with whom. I have seen – and with this study further see – this as a complete invasion of privacy and am baffled at the viability of this law.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Honor as Justification for Discrimination
Throughout history (not exclusive to Spanish or Spanish-American history), honor or the promotion and protection thereof has served as a justification for discriminatory policies and attitudes, particularly concerning sexual and marital relations. However, as discussed in Patricia Seed’s To Love, Honor, and Obey in Colonial Mexico, this conception of honor has evolved over time, reflecting changing values and power structures and challenges.
The mutual conception of honor – moral and social – degraded in stages. The moral conception of honor tied to sexual behavior quickly due to the frequent violation of the traditional model (specifically that, a model à not reflecting the common achieved). These frequent violations of the model, though still discouraged, could not be tied to severe punishment, especially when considering other conception of honor – the social conception. The social conception of honor was related to an attribute reserved to the upper class to wealth more generally, and even this later some encouraged to be broadened, though still of course to the exclusion of others. The distinctions of social class were family and economic situation, which proved to be a source of tension within the upper class, but both groups hoped to exclude the lower classes and “keep clean” the race from the “darker” classes.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is the role of gender and race in determining the degree of permissibility of interracial relations. White men could have sexual relations with “dark” women with little chastisement, if any, but marriage to one was for some time deemed unacceptable. This attitude reflects society’s view of dark women as subservient, sexual objects rather than those intended for marital consumption. At the same time, as the Church later sought to legitimize these relationships further, the Church encouraged marriages between white men and dark women with whom they had previously had sexual relations; however, when white women intended to marry dark men, they met with intense and severe opposition by the Church and society.
I wish I could say I were surprised or indignant at this display of patriarchy to “protect and control the woman’s sexuality” – but I am honestly amused by the depth of the double standard.
To the Africans in the Mexican community, on the other hand, honor seems to be much simpler and much less subject to the whims of the ruling class. Honor reflects an ability to sustain one’s family – such as through economic power – not through family connections or skin color.
The mutual conception of honor – moral and social – degraded in stages. The moral conception of honor tied to sexual behavior quickly due to the frequent violation of the traditional model (specifically that, a model à not reflecting the common achieved). These frequent violations of the model, though still discouraged, could not be tied to severe punishment, especially when considering other conception of honor – the social conception. The social conception of honor was related to an attribute reserved to the upper class to wealth more generally, and even this later some encouraged to be broadened, though still of course to the exclusion of others. The distinctions of social class were family and economic situation, which proved to be a source of tension within the upper class, but both groups hoped to exclude the lower classes and “keep clean” the race from the “darker” classes.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is the role of gender and race in determining the degree of permissibility of interracial relations. White men could have sexual relations with “dark” women with little chastisement, if any, but marriage to one was for some time deemed unacceptable. This attitude reflects society’s view of dark women as subservient, sexual objects rather than those intended for marital consumption. At the same time, as the Church later sought to legitimize these relationships further, the Church encouraged marriages between white men and dark women with whom they had previously had sexual relations; however, when white women intended to marry dark men, they met with intense and severe opposition by the Church and society.
I wish I could say I were surprised or indignant at this display of patriarchy to “protect and control the woman’s sexuality” – but I am honestly amused by the depth of the double standard.
To the Africans in the Mexican community, on the other hand, honor seems to be much simpler and much less subject to the whims of the ruling class. Honor reflects an ability to sustain one’s family – such as through economic power – not through family connections or skin color.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
