As an authentic old Roman aristocrat, what Guo Kang has to do is, of course, to resolutely confront this behavior and defend the patriarchal system.
This is unavoidable for Rome.
By making a comparison, you can see why.
In the Central Plains, the establishment of social systems was based on some basic principles, or basic consensus, and then organized. This type of social order originated from the era of Duke Zhou and was called "ritual system" by later generations.
By the Han Dynasty, the core of the etiquette system was summarized by Confucian scholars as concepts such as "Three Cardinal Guidelines" and "Five Ethics". The three cardinal principles are the three relationships between monarch and minister, father and son, and husband and wife; the five ethics are based on this basis, adding brothers and friends. Confucianism believes that this is the most basic interpersonal relationship. Both parties bear mutual responsibilities, and then based on this, a complex social relationship network is constructed.
If this two-way responsibility no longer exists, then stable interpersonal relationships will no longer exist - just as monarchs in the past dynasties have tried their best to emphasize the responsibility of ministers, but everyone still attaches great importance to the responsibility of the monarch. If the monarch really cannot fulfill his duties, no matter how hard he preaches, he will definitely be abandoned.
It is normal for there to be disputes between different doctrines regarding specific items and the content of responsibilities. For example, Mozi believed that Confucius's etiquette system exalted women too much.
In "Fei Confucianism", Mozi criticized the Confucian wedding etiquette: According to the system compiled by Confucianism, the husband must greet a wife in person, wear black clothes, and drive for her like a servant; holding the reins in his hand, Handing the lead rope to the bride is like honoring one's parents; the wedding ceremony is majestic and solemn, just like hosting a sacrificial ceremony. This obviously reverses the relationship between superiors and subordinates, violates the etiquette towards parents, and violates the requirements of filial piety.
Early Confucianism regarded the relationship between husband and wife as the first of the "Six Virtues". According to the Warring States bamboo slips discovered by later generations, Confucius' "king, king, minister, minister, father, father, son, son" should actually be "husband, wife, wife, father, father, son, king." "Jun, Chenchen", I don't know who changed the order and deleted two...
Of course, this theory has been constantly questioned both internally and externally. Mozi believed that Confucianism was seriously excessive in terms of marital etiquette, and he did not accuse it out of thin air. Later Confucians themselves began to adjust.
But no matter how the specific content is changed or the importance is adjusted, this order itself must exist. Because the maintenance of social relationships relies on mutual responsibilities. Responsibility is gone and the relationship itself falls apart.
In Guo Kang's time, people actually couldn't figure out whether the relationship between husband and wife and family should be maintained or dismantled. The result of this confused thinking is that they not only want the benefits of the family, but also want to dismantle the family to appear more progressive.
The final result is to advocate the use of simple property relations to replace the previous complex rights and responsibilities mechanism to measure and maintain the family.
But the problem is that the property relationship is too weak to actually maintain the existence of the family. In other words, an organization like the family is not a good choice for investment: if you really want to invest, why not organize a serious commercial enterprise.
Marrying yourself is definitely not as efficient as buying a spouse; buying is definitely not as efficient as renting one. Therefore, in order to maximize the efficiency of the property, short-term leasing should be used to generate future generations and meet various related needs. Isn't this contradictory to the family itself?
So what is the meaning of family?
Directly comparing the situation in Rome, Guo Kang gradually discovered that this thing actually mobilized men.
Just like the legitimacy of the country, any organization has to face the problem of how to persuade others to contribute. A woman can be sure whether the child is hers, but a man cannot be sure directly. Therefore, a stable spouse and confirmed heirs can convince men to work hard for the "future".
After this relationship breaks down, you will face a problem: using your own output to support your wife and children, it is better to enjoy it yourself. People are going to die anyway. If it's not for future generations, then why not just do whatever you want and do it yourself?
In Guo Kang's era, the disintegration of the family and the advocacy of the supremacy of personal enjoyment, the abandonment of family responsibilities, and even the abandonment of responsibilities to the ethnic group, country, and history did appear simultaneously.
In this situation, there is actually no way to evaluate it in terms of "good" or "bad". Philosophers may be able to characterize it and say whether it is "advanced" or "backward", but from the perspective of human history, this judgment of advanced or backward has very limited meaning.
In prehistoric times, various civilizations in the Central Plains began to fight each other to the death. In the end, the reason why everyone chose this kind of organization based on the patrilineal nuclear family has nothing to do with whether it is advanced or backward, or whether it is more fair to men and women. From a cultural point of view, the Central Plains region was even backward at that time. Even ritual vessels and gods had to be copied from other people's homes every day. It can win simply because it has the strongest organizational ability and the best ability to fight...
Later generations of the court knew that adult men with family business were the most disciplined and the most effective in fighting. The army composed of these people is also the basis for the political power of the past dynasties to attack all directions and reach the geographical limits.
So, if you want to break up the family, of course you can. If we could separate the men and women in small families like the merchants and Spartans did, and let all the men enter the big military camp, that would be a solution.
At that time, due to various constraints, this system could not be maintained for too long. But if future generations can really do it, and all men can be gathered together for military training, and all children can be raised and cared for uniformly in large military camps, that would be really good. It is possible to obtain higher organizational and mobilization capabilities than small families. A son of a good family is better at fighting.
But if you can't do this, you have to face the most embarrassing problem: What should you do if you can't beat others?
Many dilemmas in philosophy stem from this:
Reality is more than debates and games within rules, so the "advanced" side often has to face the situation of "I am very advanced, but I just can't win." This may even lead to "You can't even win, so why are you embarrassed to say that?" "I am advanced" question.
After all, the family, as well as the relationship between father and son, and husband and wife within the family, is not only a property relationship, but also an organization and mobilization system.
Only considering economic issues may be okay in peaceful times, but the same old question remains - can humans really maintain peace for a long time, or even never break the existing order? Will these groups, which appear to be rich but have low organizational skills, become cash machines?
When theory conflicts with reality, reality may be denied. But history is cruel and merciless. After all, even people from the Ming Dynasty were already deeply impressed by this.
(End of chapter)
