This article explores the legitimacy of monogamy and the social acceptability of second marriages, analyzing the meaning of marriage and family from a capitalist and democratic utilitarian perspective.
Not long ago, South Korea was abuzz with news about the abolition of adultery. The Constitutional Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to punish adultery by law, arguing that it violated people’s basic rights. While there were various opinions on the issue based on differences in human rights, laws, and values, it was the argument for the creation of a new crime of second marriage that caught my attention. Second marriage is when a person who is already married enters into a legal marriage with another spouse. However, in this article, the term is expanded to include not only legal marriage but also common-law marriage. ‘Adultery and bigamy’. On the one hand, they seem related, and on the other hand, they seem unrelated. However, a closer look reveals that they are aligned in terms of ‘protecting monogamy’. This raises a fundamental question: why does monogamy have to be monogamous? Is bigamy impossible?
In fact, the idea of loving my lover with someone else was instinctively repulsive. If you think about it, it’s common to feel negative emotions such as insecurity and hostility when someone expresses deep interest or love for your partner. Then I stumbled upon a modern work of literature where the possibility of second marriages appears. At the end of Goethe’s Stella, Cecilia suggests to her husband Fernando that he marry his new lover Stella. How could she propose a second marriage to the man she loved? To understand this, we revisited the meaning of marriage and family.
In modern society, the meaning of family through marriage is somewhat contradictory. Families are shrinking and dissolving, but they are also the last refuge in the face of social marginalization. After being scolded by the team leader all day and greeted by my spouse late at night, I feel that my spouse is the only person I can rely on. Marriage for the two women in “Stella” is close to this idea of a sanctuary. First of all, both women are very male-dependent and feel lonely and helpless without the man they love. Both women feel a sense of identification and affection for each other. Under these circumstances, Cecilia proposes an arranged marriage to Fernando in order to create a common sanctuary with Stella.
The idea of forming a marital community with Stella, who is not just a man and a woman, but an object of spiritual connection, is very unconventional. Of course, this attempt was met with social backlash, as the script was revised after the first performance, and I think that the universal values of that time and now are not so different. However, just like homosexuality, which is not universal but is slowly gaining respect, I wonder if the concept of second marriage or people who hold such values will one day be socially accepted.
To understand marriage in the modern world, I first thought about the family as a product of capitalism. From a capitalist perspective, the family is a unit of labor force reproduction, meaning that it consists of breadwinners and dependents, including children as future labor force. Providing for one’s family can mean many things, but in a capitalist society, the economic aspect is crucial. After all, the breadwinner is expected to be able to support the family financially. In light of this, we’ve looked at real-life examples of second marriages in modern society.
The most famous example is the late South Korean Chairman Emeritus of Hyundai Group, Chung Ju-young Chung. While the well-known Chairman Chung Mong-koo and Chairman Chung Mong-geun are children of their real wives, Representative Chung Mong-joon and Chairman Chung Mong-heon are children out of wedlock. It is hard to deny that the economic aspect is a big part of the reason why Hyundai Group continues to organize and live as a community even after the “Prince’s Nan” incident. In another example, a few years ago in Uzbekistan, monogamous patriarchy was common. As the economic situation worsened, women often sought a second husband who was economically superior. Thus, the creation of family communities through second marriages for economic reasons is a real phenomenon.
From what we’ve seen so far, there’s no reason why second marriages shouldn’t be possible if they provide a psychological sanctuary and financial support. So what is it that makes us instinctively feel uncomfortable about it, and what logic underlies the legal prohibition against it?
The answer lies in the utilitarianism that underlies the concept of democracy. According to the English philosopher Bentham, a just society is one that seeks the “greatest happiness of the greatest number.” If arranged marriages are allowed, the right to marry and have offspring will eventually be enjoyed by only the most able few. Therefore, just as every individual in society has one vote, regardless of ability, the right to marry is defined as one vote. From this perspective, Fernando is bound to be frowned upon by other men, even if both Cecilia and Stella voluntarily agreed to the arranged marriage.
So even Bill Gates, a billionaire, can only marry one woman, and so can the average person. Cecilia and Stella, who sought to resolve their love and loneliness through a consensual arranged marriage, pursued their happiness by creating a marital community with Fernando. However, in the eyes of society, Fernando was seen as having two votes. This caused a social backlash, and the movie had to be revised with a tragic ending. The late Chairman Emeritus Chung Joo-young is also highly regarded as a businessman, but his family relationships have been dubious. In conclusion, it seems unlikely that second marriages will ever be socially acceptable, just like in modern society when Goethe wrote Stella.
Personally, I’m actually glad for this conclusion. In today’s world of endless competition and survival of the fittest, at least your spouse is free of the “winner take all” and “riches to rags” principle.
