On the Marital Problem

Re: Ferdinand von Paungarten: The marriage problem as reflected in our time, Munich

Rudolf Steiner, Berlin

Dear Baron! In your circular letter, the first question is whether one can have the opinion that there is a crisis in the marriage question that urgently needs reforming. The answer to this question depends on one's ideas about the conditions under which the marriage question can be discussed at all. These conditions are given by the fact that through marriage, man places himself in a whole of humanity in two directions. Therefore, he cannot by any means claim the full right to make demands on the marriage question based on personal considerations. The one whole in which man places himself through marriage is the social context in which he lives: religious community, state, etc. Not only the person who enters into the marriage has an interest in the marriage being a success, but also the context. If a person wants to serve this context, they must be able to make sacrifices for the whole with the institutions they enter into. Therefore, any discussion of the marriage question is impossible if only the individual interests of the people entering into the marriage are included in this question. But the social context, for example, must have an interest in ensuring that marriage, which by its very nature is so closely linked to the maintenance of this context, can be considered a stable relationship that can be counted on once it exists. Of course, individual interests can come into conflict with general interests; but the solution to the problem lies in the individual not placing his or her interests above those of his or her social context. The second whole into which man places himself through marriage is the family, and with that into the whole development of mankind. The normal thing is that marriage with children leads to the family. Therefore, the relationship between a man and a woman is only part of what comes into consideration when considering the question of marriage; the more essential part is, normally, the care for the family, and thus for the following generations. But this makes the question of marriage a family question. Anyone who correctly assesses the forces that are at work in this regard in the present and will probably also be at work in the distant future will realize that with the child, on whom the hearts of the man and the woman should be equally dependent, a bond is given that has a retroactive effect on the stability of the marriage; and this undoubtedly demands it. But I cannot see anything else in the modern marriage question at all but the question of greater or lesser firmness and indissolubility of the bond. All other questions always go back to this one, even if one is not aware of it in all cases. And as soon as marriage is placed in its necessary context, it becomes clear that both the social and the family context always force us to recognize stability, however personal interests may tend otherwise. In such matters, man cannot shape institutions according to individual needs; he must adapt these institutions to the whole.

For someone who thinks this way, the “crisis in the marriage question” cannot appear as one that can be judged for social, historical reasons, etc. The fact is that in many areas of life, people are confronted with a certain contradiction between the whole of a context and their individual experience. This contradiction affects many relationships in the present, and only one of these relationships is the institution of marriage. What follows from this fact for many marriages does not depend at all on the essence of marriage, but on things that lie outside of it. For example, marriages can end unhappily; but this unhappiness does not necessarily depend on the marriage, but on the fact that one or both spouses have not been educated to get along with each other at all. Here we see how the focus can be shifted from a single institution to the great intellectual and cultural issues of the present day. And as long as these are in such a state of flux as they are at present, the discussion of a single issue will not lead to anything significant. A world and life view that gives people inner peace and harmony will also have an effect on marriage; and the form of marriage will then have no influence at all on this effect.

From what has been said, however, it follows that the “marriage question” should have nothing to do with the modern women's movement in the deeper sense. Both should be kept quite separate from each other. Whatever is intended and achieved by the women's movement has no direct effect on the family issue. Because, for example, whether improving the social situation of women can also have a favorable influence on education belongs to a completely different area. It certainly can. But all the demands that are given by the nature of the family remain in place for themselves, as do the demands of the one part that enters into marriage, in the rest of social and intellectual life.

For all these reasons, I must express my opinion to you, Baron, regarding your main point of inquiry and, at the same time, regarding the fourth point, namely that the “form of marriage,” as it has developed among the civilized peoples of the West, could never, by its very nature, contribute to any decline in culture, nor to any such decline in ethical, aesthetic or racial hygiene; such a decline would have to arise from quite different things, e.g. questions of world view, of inner soul harmony, etc. It could express itself in marriage, but could never be brought about by the “form of marriage.

Yours sincerely
Dr. Rudolf Steiner.