Monogamy: Change Through Time
For the most part in the not-so old times of strong Christian overtones blanketing the majority of country, when an individual in our society would ponder upon the idea of their vision of a perfect life they would imagine an existence with the opportunity to grow up healthy following their dreams and ambitions, perhaps go to school, find something that made them truly happy, and ultimately find a love partner that they adore and get married, have 2.5 children with them and a beautiful home with a golden retriever named Rover. In present times, Western cultures are each day warming up to the idea of eastern cultures’ more free vision of relationships in the rest of the world. Monogamous relationships are more and more being viewed as insipid and bland things in life, and the idea of polygamy is not as shocking as it once was, as far as western beliefs go. This, however, could be the window to ethical and moral disarray within our country itself, since the strong old-timing virtues that this nation stands upon are not yet gone, and many Americans deeply frown upon the newly acquired insensibility of the people towards the idea of marriage or relationships in general. Each form of public opinion strives to sway society in their own way when an issue such as this overlooks the people. While the 2009 article by Pawlowski titled: Mate Debate: Is Monogamy Realistic portrays several points as well as personal opinions of people in the United States in regards to the evolution of the idea of marriage, the political cartoon against polygamous marriages posted by Terry Crowley on 2010 portrays the frowning of the still-present primary western ideals due to the apparent irrelevance of monogamy in the land nowadays.
In the article written by CNN reporter A. Pawlowski on October of 2009, the author clearly identifies the fact that the American people are embracing the idea of open marriages and polygamy each time more. The author indicates this through several examples of known celebrities throughout Hollywood and the movie world such as Englishman actor Jude Law and late night talk show host David Letterman. This being an informative article, rather than one meant to change the minds of the people into thinking like the author, Pawlowski keeps a logical, unbiased voice throughout the reading. The idea being processed through this article was the fact that the types of relationships that these people lead are correct interpretations of the marriages and relationships that most Americans are now in or at least approve of. The article is not necessarily directed at a specific audience or people. Since it is an informational article, the audience should be only people that are mature enough to understand and be interested in the topic being covered within the reading.
The political cartoon published in Terry Crowley’s blog on March of 2010 shows the unhappiness of some of today’s society in regards to the current openness of western culture to the idea of ‘unsacred’ relationships such as polygamy, open marriages, and adultery, whereas the current overlooking of the type of relationship that some people believe to be normal and acceptable: a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. The cartoon in general is the picture of five characters standing on top of a wedding cake that has the word ‘polygamy’ written on its side with what appears to be cake frosting. One character is a man who is marrying the three women standing next to him, all the while the fifth character, a Supreme Court judge, frowns down at them. As well as most political cartoons, the one posted by Terry Crowley is, in a way, attempting to draw the acknowledgement of the general public towards the idea that they portray being correct. The cartoon is definitely biased, showing discontent with the suggestion of a polygamist marriage, which is the summary of every open relationship in the country. The cartoon is directed at people who are mature enough to understand that monogamy is the type of relationship that was primarily intended when the entire invention of marriage was thought up.
Within Pawlowski’s “Mate Debate” article, it is mentioned that “[t]alk show host David Letterman recently joined presidential candidate John Edwards, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer on a long list of politicians and entertainers who have admitted having sex outside their marriage or committed relationship” (Pawlowski, 2009). The way that this issue is introduced to the reader lets them know that the idea of an open marriage or multiple partners has never been less frowned upon by the general public in western lands as it currently is today. Some people, like psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton (Pawlowski, 2009) believe that it has never been human nature to have only and be committed to only one life partner. As a matter of fact, evolutionary biologist David Barash comments that: “[monogamy is] within the realm of human potential, but it’s not easy” (Pawlowski, 2009). However, when the idea of ‘open marriages’ was introduced to the western countries in the 1970s, it was not given a lot of attention by the people due to the fact that most of society thought it unreasonable and overall against their religious beliefs.
In the cartoon, a polygamist marriage is underway while a Supreme Court judge looks down frowning at the people in the marriage. The Supreme Court is known to look at issues in today’s world in a very old-fashioned manner. This is due to the fact that the United States’ Constitution is the ultimate word of law that the Supreme Court goes by, which has an incredibly conservative voice throughout it. In the cartoon, the Supreme Court is representing the minds of many of the older people in our society that have a peculiarly strong and not lenient way of approaching ideas like polygamy as well as homosexual marriages. The judge of the Supreme Court in the cartoon also represents the primary members of the American government that put down their ideas into the Constitution and based the creation of the country from it.
Article author Pawlowski wrote the article in a general start-to-finish matter. The article is mainly informational, thus the usage of logic and straight facts seemed crucial. Pawlowski gives the universal idea in regards to the topic of the article first. Next, the author goes about elaborating on the topic with some general information as well as giving some examples of celebrities and politicians. After doing this, Pawlowski gives more examples from random interviewees, in an attempt to capture the attention of the general public. This is done due to the fact that every author needs a way to reach their audience, and not only give examples from celebrities and thus make the addressees feel disconnected.
The structure of the political cartoon follows that of most other published political cartoons. It is a black-and-white drawing with no apparent artistic genius to it. There is not specific way that one must look at the cartoon in order to fully comprehend it. One just has to be able to look at the whole picture in order to understand the idea meant to be passed on. Political cartoons are meant to provide the public with an idea in the form of a picture. As well as most political cartoons, the one published by Terry Crowley does not contain many words within itself, but bases their informational prowess on pictures and drawings.
The style of the article titled “Mate Debate: Is Monogamy Realistic?” is logical and informational. The language remains semi-casual throughout, since the audience is the general public. The audience is not one that would necessitate a completely formal method of language.
The style of the political cartoon differs from that of the article since it is a drawing. Artistically speaking, the style of the cartoon is bland enough that the audience will concentrate more on the issue that it is trying to convey, rather than the beauty of the picture. The cartoon is lacking in language in comparison to the article; other than the word ‘polygamy’ written on the side of the cake and the word ‘judge’ written on the judge’s shirt, the cartoon has no language. The tone, however, is most likely casual, since it is an appropriate way to reach an audience.
Both Pawlowski’s article and the political cartoon posted in Terry Crowley’s blog deal with the issue of monogamy and polygamy in the western countries. Pawlowski’s article talks about the fact that adultery and open ended marriages are each time more common in today’s society. The political cartoon states the fact that some of the citizens are still convinced that monogamy should be the only way to marry and are upset that this idea is not being enforced as well as it should be within society. The article seems to be stronger and does what it is intended superiorly, which is to inform the masses about an issue today. Since it has the privilege of having words, much less like the political cartoon, the article is able to fully express itself and give detailed information to the reader. The political cartoon fails to undergo its main purpose, which is to sway the people towards them, since it does nothing to give any sort of viable information. The issue of monogamy and polygamy in the United States is too complicated to be dealt with a simple political cartoon.
Article: