nation: Sweden

Marriage–as a social and legal institution–has not always been what it is today.

In early American history, when families largely lived on farms and worked for sustenance, people didn’t marry because they loved each other.  And they certainly didn’t split up because they did not.  Marriage choices were highly influenced by their families and, once married, husbands and wives formed a working partnership aimed at production.  They teamed up to support themselves and make children who would take care of them when they were old and help them in the meantime.

Today, we still (generally) think of marriage as comprised of a man, a woman, and kids, but mutual love and happiness are now central goals of marriage.  This idea only emerged in the 1900s.  It hasn’t actually been around all that long.

I bring this up in order to shed some light on the pro- and anti- gay marriage rhetoric.

On the one hand, those against gay marriage need to define “marriage” in a way that excludes same-sex couples.  One way to do this is to refer to a “traditional” marriage (image found here).

But there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage, just a long history of evolving forms of marriage.  For example, few anti-gay marriage types would actually be in favor of returning marriage to one in which women were property that can’t contract, vote, testify in court, own anything, and have no rights to their own bodies or custody of their children (though the idea that women are property is still out there today).  Because there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage (that is, no reason to privilege one historical form over another), when someone speaks of “traditional” marriage, they actually just mean “the kind of marriage that I like that I am pretending existed throughout all time before this current threat right now.”

On the other hand, to make an argument in favor of gay marriage rights, the movement must either (1) change the collective agreement as to what marriage is (the social construction of marriage) or (2) convince the collective that gay marriage already is what we believe marriage to be.

This ad in favor of gay marriage does the latter. Mobilizing the social construction of marriage as about love, the commercial then defines same-sex relationships as about love. If you accept both premises, then, presto, you are pro-gay marriage.  That is exactly what this commercial is trying to do:

NEW!  This Swedish commercial for Bjorn Borg’s dating website, sent in by Ed L., similarly mobilizes the idea that marriage is for love and that gay men’s marriages are, therefore, beautiful:

This quick video presents an American and a Swedish military recruitment commercial back-to-back.

Our member blogger, Wendy, who is writing her dissertation on the military, had this to say:

The most striking difference between these ads to me is what these commercials choose to show and what they don’t show to recruit new members.

The Marines’ commercial focuses on the duty, bravery, glory, honor aspects of service. And this is entirely focused inward– toward the Marines and the country’s goals (and in that order– Marines’ loyalties are to “unit, Corps, God and country” in that order). Where is the “other” in this commercial (that is such a part of the Sweden commercial)? Who is the “for honor” for? Who is the “for courage” for? It seems implicitly to be to the corps.

This is right in line with most Marine discourse. All of their recruitment info is the same– the focus is on the corps, and on the highly specialized ways Marines serve. As a popular Marine slogan says “The USMC: When it absolutely, positively must be destroyed overnight.”

And the Swedish commercial is even more fascinating. There is no focus on the actual members of the Nordic Battlegroup. Instead it is all about everyday people– both in Sweden and in countries experiencing conflict. The focus is on the privilege of living in a country not at war (”everybody’s everyday is not like ours”).

The images of war in this commercial are disturbing– hectic, scary and out of control. This is the exact opposite of the Marine commercial where everything is ordered and organized and machines (helicopters, guns) are shown as extension of this order and control– instead of in a context of chaos. There’s a HUGE disconnect between the weapons shown and what they actually DO during war.

War in all its chaos is present in the Swedish commercial, and absent from the Marines commercial. That in and of itself is interesting.

Via Spiked Humor

Thanks to Julie C. for this tip!