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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you are wrong concerning the separation of Church and State in colonial Mexico, and furthermore about the invasion of privacy. First, the institutions of Church and State were separate. There were ecclesiastical courts and there were civil courts. As we learned in class, the civil and ecclesiastical courts tried different crimes (sins), and therefore there was a separation, even if it is not similar to what the American left promotes today.
ReplyDeleteSecond, in essence privacy was not invaded. Our modern conception of privacy (and the implicit/supposed right) is different. We live in a ruggedly individualistic culture, where the colonial Mexicans were communitarian. Privacy could not be separated from the family because your life did not just affect you, it affected everyone within your family and community. Therefore, the State had an obligation to maintain morality and order.