A New Voice Grips South Korea With Plain Talk About Inequality and Justice

By CHOE SANG-HUN

다음은 페이스북에 올린 어느 오바마 지지자의 글입니다.

영어공부삼아 한 번 읽어 보세용^^

By SUSAN GREGORY THOMAS

For years, 51-year-old Dawn and her husband of two decades, Tim, had buried their differences over finances, child-rearing and religion. But when the last of the Wisconsin couple's three daughters was finishing high school in 2009, those differences were all that Dawn could see. "I had gone back to school to advance my career as a paralegal, and his work had dwindled, so he was just basically hanging out with his buddies," she says. "We had nothing to talk about, and when we did, it was bickering."

They had stayed together all those years because of the kids, but now nothing was left. "He was so uncompassionate, and I had turned to my religion, and he would never go to church with me," she says. "I realized that I was alone in the marriage and would be better off with someone whose values and interests were more like mine." She seized the moment and left, filing for divorce.

For the new generation of empty-nesters, divorce is increasingly common. Among people ages 50 and older, the divorce rate has doubled over the past two decades, according to new research by sociologists Susan Brown and I-Fen Lin of Bowling Green State University, whose paper, "The Gray Divorce Revolution," Prof. Brown will present at Ohio State University this April. The paper draws on data from the 1990 U.S. Vital Statistics Report and the 2009 American Community Survey, administered by the U.S. Census Bureau, which asked all respondents if they'd divorced in the past 12 months.

Though overall national divorce rates have declined since spiking in the 1980s, "gray divorce" has risen to its highest level on record, according to Prof. Brown. In 1990, only one in 10 people who got divorced was 50 or older; by 2009, the number was roughly one in four. More than 600,000 people ages 50 and older got divorced in 2009.

What's more, a 2004 national survey conducted by AARP found that women are the ones initiating most of these breakups. Among divorces by people ages 40-69, women reported seeking the split 66% of the time. And cheating doesn't appear to be the driving force in gray divorce. The same AARP survey found that 27% of divorcés cited infidelity as one of their top three reasons for seeking a divorce—which is not out of line with estimates of infidelity as a factor in divorce in the general population.

So what is going on with these baby boomers? Are they finally seeking adventure, now that their kids are out of the house? Are the women exacting their revenge, at last, against the feminine mystique?

John Kuczala for The Wall Street Journal

In 1990, 1 in 10 of all divorces were by people ages 50+. In 2009, 1 in 4 of all divorces were by people ages 50+.

The trend defies any simple explanation, but it springs at least in part from boomers' status as the first generation to enter into marriage with goals largely focused on self-fulfillment. As they look around their empty nests and toward decades more of healthy life, they are increasingly deciding that they've done their parental duty and now want out. These decisions are changing not just the portrait of aging people in the U.S., as boomers swell the ranks of the elderly, but also the meaning of the traditional vow to stay together until "death do us part."

"Some of those marriages that in previous generations would have ended in death now end in divorce," says Betsey Stevenson, assistant professor of business and public policy at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, who studies marriage and divorce. In the past, many people simply didn't live long enough to reach the 40-year itch. "You can't divorce if you're dead," says Ms. Stevenson.

Enlarge Image

 

But that's not the whole story, given that the bulk of the increase in late-in-life divorce has come among people ages 50-64. As a generation, boomers have changed American notions of marriage—and in the process, they have sown the seeds of their own discontent.

Most sociologists argue that boomers entered marriage with expectations very different from those of previous generations. "In the 1970s, there was, for the first time, a focus on marriage needing to make individuals happy, rather than on how well each individual fulfilled their marital roles," says Prof. Brown, author of the gray marriage paper.

According to Prof. Brown, over the past century there have been three "phases" of American views of marriage. First, there was the "institutional" phase, in the decades before World War II, when marriage was seen largely as an economic union.

This was succeeded in the 1950s and '60s by the "companionate" phase, in which a successful marriage was defined by the degree to which each spouse could fulfill his or her role. Husbands were measured by their prowess as providers and wives by their skills in homemaking and motherhood.

In the 1970s, the boomers initiated what Prof. Brown calls the "individualized" phase, with an emphasis on the satisfaction of personal needs. "Individualized marriage is more egocentric... Before the 1970s, no one would have thought to separate out the self as being distinct from the roles of good wife and mother."

None of this is especially surprising for the "Me Generation," but today's gray divorces include a generational twist: For many boomers, it is not their first marital split. Fifty-three percent of the people over 50 now getting divorced have done so at least once before.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images

More than 600,000 people ages 50 and older got divorced in 2009.

In fact, more "complex marital biographies," as Prof. Brown puts it, seem to be one of the driving forces behind gray divorce. Having been married previously doubles the risk of divorce for those ages 50 to 64. For those ages 65 and up, the risk factor quadruples.

For boomers who have had trouble maintaining commitments in the past, hitting the empty-nest phase seems to trigger thoughts of mortality—and of vanishing possibilities for self-fulfillment.

"With the children out of the house, boomers in unhappy marriages often look at each other and think, 'I may have another 25 to 35 years to live. Do I want to spend it with this person?' " says Deirdre Bair, author of the book, "Calling It Quits: Late-Life Divorce and Starting Over," a chronicle of nearly 400 interviews with people splitting in midlife. "There is an overwhelming, urgent feeling among them of, 'I have to strike out now, or I'll never have the chance again,' " says Ms. Bair.

Many of those now opting for gray divorces, however, fail to foresee its complications in today's bleak economic landscape. This is especially true of women.

Though homes are often awarded to ex-wives, points out Pennsylvania divorce and family lawyer Elizabeth Bennett, this can be a burden instead of a blessing in a collapsed housing market. And when it comes to obligations to kids for things like continuing education, weddings and down payments on homes, according to Janice L. Green, a divorce and family law attorney in Texas, "it's always the mother who is willing to give up settlement money that should be on her side of the ledger."

Divorcing fathers have their own reasons to be concerned. According to a 2003 study from the University of North Florida, they are more likely to see a major decline in contact with at least one child, compared with stably married fathers, whereas divorced mothers tend to get closer to their children.

Still, many older divorcés say they're happy. According to the 2004 AARP survey, the vast majority of divorcés ages 40-79 (80%) consider themselves, on a scale from 1 to 10, to be on the top half of life's ladder. A majority of 56% even consider themselves to be on the uppermost rung (8-10). But "being alone" was nonetheless the top fear among both men and women, and those who had remarried reported significantly higher levels of life satisfaction.

So would some of these late-in-life divorcés have been better off trying to preserve their troubled marriages? According to John Mordecai Gottman, founder of the Gottman Institute in Seattle and author of "What Predicts Divorce?," the behavioral precursors to late-life or empty nest divorce are no different from those for younger couples—criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling. And, of course, the longer such behavior has persisted, the more deeply ingrained it becomes in a couple's personal dynamic.

In its work with older couples in crisis, Gottman Institute therapists recommend that spouses "turn toward" each other—that is, that they actively respond to bids for reconnection—rather than, say, snapping: "Excuse me, I'm trying to watch 'CSI' here!"

Those boomers who can't manage to hold on to their marriages, though, will hardly be alone. Prof. Brown's paper predicts that the number of over-50 divorces in 2030, based on current trends, could easily top 800,000 per year. And all those new divorcés shouldn't have too much trouble finding a date. Indeed, over the past year, the number of dating-site users 50 or older has grown twice as rapidly as any other age group, according to comScore Inc., an online data-analysis and marketing company.

Dawn, the 51-year-old who divorced her husband of 20 years, found her current boyfriend of nine months on the over-50 dating site OurTime.com. He's a divorcé with no children, and Dawn describes him as "very religious and compassionate, the things I was lacking in my former husband." Her kids—19, 20 and 26—are less sure, she says. "You can't expect kids to be excited about a new person who isn't their dad…But I'm very happy."

—Ms. Thomas is the author of "In Spite of Everything: A Memoir."

Source : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203753704577255230471480276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read#articleTabs%3Darticle

한글번역

By SUSAN GREGORY THOMAS

돈(51세)과 남편은 20년 동안 결혼생활을 하면서 금전관리와 양육, 종교 차이를 덮고 살았다. 그러나 막내딸이 고등학교를 졸업한 2009년에는 이러한 차이를 더 이상 견딜 수가 없었다. “난 법률보조원으로서 경력을 발전시키기 위해 학교를 다니고 있었고 남편은 일감이 줄어 친구들과 놀고 있었다. 이야기할 거리도 없었고 입을 열면 다툼이었다.”

아이들 때문에 결혼생활을 유지했지만 이제는 그것도 끝난 상황이었다. “남편이 나와 전혀 공감하려 하지 않았기에 종교에 의존했지만 교회도 같이 가지 않으려 했다. 나 혼자 결혼생활을 하고 있다는 것을 깨닫게 되었다. 나와 비슷한 가치관과 관심사를 가진 사람과 더 행복할 거라고 생각했다.” 그녀는 곧 남편을 떠나 이혼을 신청했다.

빈둥지 세대에서 이혼이 점점 흔해지고 있다. 볼링그린주립대학의 수잔 브라운과 이펜린 교수의 논문 “황혼이혼혁명”에 따르면 지난 20년 동안 50세 이상 연령층 이혼율이 2배 이상 증가했다고 한다. 브라운 교수는 오는 4월에 오하이오주립대학에서 이번 논문을 발표할 예정이라 한다. 논문 데이터는 1990년 미국 생활통계보고서와 지난 12개월 동안의 이혼경험에 대한 질문이 포함된 2009년 통계청 미국공동체조사에서 추출되었다.

1980년대에 최고점을 찍었던 이혼율이 계속 감소해 온 반면 황혼이혼은 사상 최고수준으로 증가했다고 브라운 교수는 말한다. 1990년에는 이혼부부의 10%만이 50세 이상이었지만 2009년에는 25%로 증가했다. 2009년에는 50세 이상 연령층 중 60만 명이 이혼했다.

미국 은퇴자협회 2004년 전국통계조사에서는 여성이 이혼 대다수를 신청한 것으로 나타났다. 40세에서 69세 연령층의 이혼에서 여성이 이혼을 신청한 비율은 66%였다. 또한 황혼이혼에서는 배우자부정이 최대 원인이 아닌 것으로 드러났다. 2004년 조사에서 이혼 3대 사유 중 하나였던 배우자부정이 차지하는 비율은 27%로 전체 인구 이혼의 배우자부정 추정치와 크게 다르지 않은 양상을 보였다.

그렇다면 베이비붐 세대 이혼은 왜 발생하는 걸까? 자녀양육이 끝났으니 드디어 모험을 추구하는 걸까? 여성들이 마침내 여성의 신비라는 환상에 복수를 시작한 걸까?

황혼이혼 트랜드를 간단하게 설명하는 것은 불가능하지만 베이비붐 세대가 자기실현을 목표로 결혼한 최초 세대라는 사실이 일부 요인인 것은 분명하다. 빈 둥지를 보면서 앞으로 수십 년 동안의 건강한 인생을 어떻게 살지 생각한 끝에 부모로서 의무를 다했으니 이제 끝을 낼 때라고 결정하는 것이다. 베이비붐 세대 이혼은 미국 장년/노년층에 대한 이미지를 바꾸는 동시에 “죽을 때까지 같이”라는 전통적인 혼인서약의 의미도 흔들고 있다.

“이전 세대 같았으면 사망 때까지 지속되었을 결혼이 이혼으로 끝나고 있다”라고 펜실베니아대학 와튼경영대학원에서 사업 및 공공정책을 가르치고 있는 벳시 스티븐슨 조교수는 말한다. 과거에는 결혼 40주년을 맞을 때까지 사는 사람이 많지 않았다. “사망하면 이혼할 수 없지 않은가.”

그렇지만 50~64세 연령층이 황혼이혼의 대다수를 차지하고 있다는 점을 고려해 보았을 때 다른 요인도 있다는 것을 알 수 있다. 베이비붐 세대는 미국의 결혼에 대한 개념을 바꾸면서 불만족의 씨앗도 뿌린 것이다.

베이비붐 세대가 이전 세대와는 매우 다른 기대를 안고 결혼했다고 대부분의 사회학자들은 주장한다. “1970년대에 최초로 각 개인이 배우자 역할을 얼마나 잘할 것인가가 아니라 개인의 행복을 중심으로 한 결혼이 이루어졌다”라고 브라운 교수는 말한다.

브라운 교수는 지난 1세기 동안 미국인이 결혼을 바라보는 관점을 정의하는 세 단계가 있었다고 한다. 우선 2차세계대전 이전 시기인 “제도적” 단계에서는 결혼이 경제적 결합으로 간주되었다.

1950년대와 1960년대에는 배우자가 역할을 잘 수행할 수 있는지로 결혼의 성공을 평가하는 “동반자적” 단계가 뒤를 이었다. 남편은 가장역할을 얼마나 잘 수행하는가로 평가되었고 여성은 주부와 엄마 역할로 평가되었다.

1970년대 들어서 베이비붐 세대는 개인욕구 충족에 중점을 두는 “개인적” 단계를 시작했다. “개인적 결혼은 보다 자기중심적이다…1970년대 이전에는 좋은 아내와 엄마 역할과 분리해서 자신을 생각하지 않았다.”

오늘날의 “나 중심 세대”에 있어서는 놀랄만한 일이 아니지만 베이비붐 세대의 황혼이혼에는 또 한가지 특징이 존재한다. 재혼이혼이 많은 것이다. 현재 이혼절차를 밟고 있는 50세 이상 연령층의 53%는 이미 전에 한번 이상 이혼한 적이 있다고 한다.

실제로 브라운 교수가 말하는 “복잡한 결혼이력”은 황혼이혼의 주요원인 중 하나인 것으로 보인다. 과거 결혼경험은 50~64세 연령층의 이혼 위험을 배가하며 65세 이상인 경우는 4배 이상 증가시킨다.

결혼생활에 실패한 경험이 있는 베이비붐 세대가 자녀양육이 끝난 빈둥지 시기에 들어서면서 죽음에 대해 생각하고 자기실현 가능성이 사라지고 있다고 느끼는 것이다.

“자녀가 독립한 상황에서 불행한 결혼생활을 하고 있는 베이비붐 세대는 서로를 바라보며 ‘앞으로 남은 25~35년을 이 사람과 보내야 되나?’라고 생각하고 있다”라고 중년 이혼부부에 대한 400건 이상의 인터뷰를 담은 ‘포기하기: 황혼이혼과 새로운 시작’의 저자 데어더 블레어는 말한다. “지금 나가지 않으면 기회가 없다라는 위기감에 사로잡히는 것이다.”

그러나 황혼이혼을 선택하는 사람들 다수는 오늘날의 경기침체 상황에서 어떤 어려움이 있을지를 예상하지 못하고 있다. 여성의 경우 특히 그렇다.

비록 부인이 집을 갖는 경우가 많지만 주택시장 침체를 고려해 보았을 때 오히려 짐이 될 수 있다고 펜실베니아의 이혼전문 변호사 엘리자베스 베넷은 말한다. 또한 자녀의 평생교육과 결혼, 주택자금 지원 등을 위해 “항상 엄마들이 위자료를 내놓는다”라고 텍사스의 이혼전문 변호사 제니스 그린은 지적한다.

아빠들 역시 나름의 문제를 안고 있다. 노스플로리다대학의 2003년 연구에 따르면 이혼한 아빠는 결혼한 아빠에 비해 자녀 한 명 이상과 연락이 뜸해지게 된다고 한다. 반면, 이혼한 엄마는 자녀들과 사이가 더 가까워지는 것으로 나타났다.

그렇기는 하지만 황혼이혼자 다수는 행복하다고 말한다. 2004년 은퇴자협회 조사에서는 40~79세 이혼자의 80%가 1에서 10으로 만족도를 측정했을 때 6 이상이라고 답했다. 56%는 8 이상의 만족도를 기록했다. 그럼에도 남성과 여성 모두 “혼자 남게 되는 것”을 가장 큰 두려움 중 하나로 꼽았으며 재혼한 이혼자들은 재혼하지 않은 경우보다 현저하게 높은 만족도를 보였다.

그렇다면 결혼생활에 문제가 있더라도 황혼이혼을 하는 대신 노력해서 해결하는 게 더 나을까? 시애틀 고트만협회의 창립자이며 ‘이혼을 알리는 신호’의 저자인 존 고트만은 황혼이혼을 예측하게 하는 행동적 요소—비난, 자기변호, 경멸, 무시—는 젊은 층의 경우와 다르지 않다고 말한다. 물론 지속기간이 길수록 이러한 행동이 부부관계에 더 깊게 뿌리내리게 된다는 것은 사실이다.

결혼생활이 위기에 처한 장년부부를 돕는 고트만협회의 상담치료사들은 부부가 “나 지금 CSI 보잖아!”라고 소리치는 대신 친밀함을 되살리려는 상대방의 노력에 적극적인 반응을 보여야 한다고 조언한다.

결혼생활 유지노력이 실패해서 이혼하게 되는 베이비붐 세대의 수는 계속 증가할 것으로 보인다. 브라운 교수의 논문은 현재 추세로 지속될 경우 50세 이상 연령층의 이혼이 2030년경에는 1년에 80만 명을 넘어설 것이라 예측하고 있다. 따라서 이혼자가 새로운 상대를 만나는 것은 크게 어렵지 않을 것이다. 실제로 작년에 데이트 웹사이트를 이용한 50세 이상 연령층의 수는 다른 연령층보다 2배 이상 증가했다고 온라인 데이터분석 및 마케팅업체인 컴스코어는 밝혔다.

20년 간의 결혼생활을 끝낸 돈(51세)은 50세 이상을 위한 데이트웹사이트인 아워타임닷컴에서 남자친구를 만나 9개월째 연애 중이다. 남자친구는 자녀가 없는 이혼남으로 “전남편과 달리 신앙심이 매우 깊고 이해심도 많다”고 한다. 각각 19세, 20세, 26세인 자녀는 남자친구를 그다지 좋아하지는 않지만 “아이들이 아빠가 아닌 다른 남자를 좋아하기를 바랄 수는 없다…그래도 정말 행복하다”라고 그녀는 말한다.

-수잔 토마스는 “In Spite of Everything: A Memoir” (가제: 모든 것에도 불구하고: 비망록)의 저자이다.

Source : http://realtime.wsj.com/korea/2012/03/08/50%eb%84%98%ec%96%b4-%ec%9d%b4%ed%98%bc-%ec%9d%98%eb%ac%b4%eb%8a%94-%ec%9d%b4%ec%a0%9c-%eb%81%9d-%ed%8e%b8%ed%95%9c-%eb%85%b8%ed%9b%84%eb%a5%bc-%ec%9c%84%ed%95%b4/

Sometimes it takes going through a bad marriage to figure out what makes a good marriage. Five strategies for a successful, happy marriage from divorced people who learned these lessons the hard way. Elizabeth Bernstein has details on Lunch Break. Photo: AFP/GettyImages.

Want great marriage advice? Ask a divorced person.

People who lose the most important relationship of their life tend to spend some time thinking about what went wrong. If they are at all self-reflective, this means they will acknowledge their own mistakes, not just their ex's blunders. And if they want to be lucky in love next time, they'll try to learn from these mistakes.

Research shows that most divorced people identify the same top five regrets—behaviors they believe contributed to their marriage's demise and that they resolve to change next time. "Divorced individuals who step back and say, 'This is what I've done wrong and this is what I will change,' have something powerful to teach others," says Terri Orbuch, a psychologist, research professor at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research and author of the new book "Finding Love Again: 6 Simple Steps to a New and Happy Relationship." "This is marriage advice learned the hard way," she says

Dr. Orbuch has been conducting a longitudinal study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, collecting data periodically from 373 same-race couples who were between the ages of 25 and 37 and in their first year of marriage in 1986, the year the study began. Over the continuing study's 25 years so far, 46% of the couples divorced—a rate in line with the Census and other national data. Dr. Orbuch followed many of the divorced individuals into new relationships and asked 210 of them what they had learned from their mistakes. (Of these 210, 71% found new partners, including 44% who remarried.) This is their hard-earned advice.

Boost your spouse's mood

Of the divorced people, 15% said they would give their spouse more of what Dr. Orbuch calls "affective affirmation," including compliments, cuddling and kissing, hand-holding, saying "I love you," and emotional support. "By expressing love and caring you build trust," Dr. Orbuch says.

She says there are four components of displays of affection that divorced people said were important: How often the spouse showed love; how often the spouse made them feel good about the kind of person they are; how often the spouse made them feel good about having their own ideas and ways of doing things; and how often the spouse made life interesting or exciting.

The divorced individuals didn't specifically identify sex as something they would have approached differently, although Dr. Orbuch says it is certainly one aspect of demonstrating love and affection.

Men seem to need nonsexual affirmation even more than women do, Dr. Orbuch says. In her study, when the husband reported that his wife didn't show love and affection, the couple was almost twice as likely to divorce as when the man said he felt cared for and appreciated. The reverse didn't hold true, though. Couples where women felt a lack of affection weren't more likely to divorce.

Do something to demonstrate that your partner is noticed and appreciated every single day, Dr. Orbuch says. It can be as small as saying, "I love you," or "You're a great parent." It can be an action rather than words: Turn on the coffee pot in the morning. Bring in the paper. Warm up the car. Make a favorite dessert. Give a hug.

Talk more about money

Photo Illustrations by Stephen Webster

Money was the No. 1 point of conflict in the majority of marriages, good or bad, that Dr. Orbuch studied. And 49% of divorced people from her study said they fought so much over money with their spouse—whether it was different spending styles, lies about spending, one person making more money and trying to control the other—that they anticipate money will be a problem in their next relationship, too.

There isn't a single financial fix for all couples. Dr. Orbuch says each person needs to examine his or her own approach to money. What did money mean when you were growing up? How do you approach spending and saving now? What are your financial goals?

Partners need to discuss their individual money styles and devise a plan they both can live with. They might decide to pool their money, or keep separate accounts. They might want a joint account for family expenses. In the study, six out of 10 divorced individuals who began a new relationship chose not to combine finances.

"Talk money more often—not just when it's tax time, when you have high debt, when bills come along," Dr. Orbuch says. Set ground rules and expectations and stick to them.

Get over the past

Photo Illustrations by Stephen Webster

To engage in a healthy way with your partner, you need to let go of the past, Dr. Orbuch says.

This includes getting over jealousy of your partner's past relationships, irritation at how your mother-in-law treats you, something from your own childhood that makes it hard for you to trust, a spat you had with your spouse six months ago.

It isn't good advice just for those with broken hearts, she adds.

In Dr. Orbuch's study, divorced individuals who held on to strong emotions for their ex-spouse—whether love or hate—were less healthy than those people who had moved on emotionally.

Having trouble letting go of anger, longing, sadness or grief about the past? Keep a journal. Exercise. Talk to a friend (but not endlessly) about it.

Or try writing to the person who has upset you to explain your feelings: "Dear Mother-in-Law. It's about time you treated me like a full-fledged member of this family and stopped second-guessing my parenting decisions."

Then take the excellent advice Abraham Lincoln is said to have given his secretary of war, who had written an emotional missive to one of his generals.

"Put it in the stove," Lincoln said. "That's what I do when I've written a letter when I am angry."

"This is an exercise for you, to get all the emotions out on paper so you can release them," Dr. Orbuch says.

Blame the relationship

Photo Illustrations by Stephen Webster

The divorced individuals in the study who blamed ex-spouses, or even themselves, had more anxiety, depression and sleep disorders than individuals who blamed the way that they and their partners interacted. Those who held on to anger were less likely to move on, build a strong new relationship and address future problems in a positive, proactive manner.

It's hard not to blame. In the study, 65% of divorced individuals blamed their ex-spouses, with more women blaming an ex-husband (80%) than men blaming an ex-wife (47%). And 16% of men blamed themselves, compared with only 4% of women. Dr. Orbuch says the men may simply accept their ex's view of the breakup. More men than women admitted to an extramarital affair.

How do you blame in a healthy way? Say "we," not "you" or "I." Say, "We are both so tired lately," not "You are so crabby." When you remove blame, it's easier to come up with a solution.

Ask your partner for his or her view of a problem. Say, "Why do you think we aren't getting along?"

"There are multiple ways of seeing a problem," Dr. Orbuch says. "By getting your partner's perspective, and marrying it with your perspective, you get the relationship perspective."

Reveal more about yourself

Photo Illustrations by Stephen Webster

Communication style is the No. 1 thing the study's divorced individuals said they would change in the next relationship (41% said they would communicate differently).

Spouses need to speak in a calm and caring voice. They should learn to argue in a way that produces a solution, not just more anger.

They have to practice "active listening," where they try to hear what the other person is saying, repeating back what they just heard and asking if they understood correctly.

To communicate well, partners need to reveal more about themselves, not just do "maintenance communication."

"It doesn't have to be emotional," Dr. Orbuch says. "But it should be about issues where you learn about what makes each other tick." Such topics help your partner understand you better.

Dr. Orbuch suggests a 10-minute rule: Every day, for 10 minutes, the couple should talk alone about something other than work, the family and children, the household, the relationship. No problems. No scheduling. No logistics.

"You need to tell each other about your lives and see what makes you each tick," Dr. Orbuch says.

Write to Elizabeth Bernstein at Bonds@wsj.com

한글번역

By ELIZABETH BERNSTEIN

결혼에 대한 훌륭한 조언을 원하는가? 이혼한 사람에게 질문하라.

인생에서 중요한 관계 중 하나인 결혼에 실패한 사람들은 적지 않은 시간을 들여 무엇이 잘못되었는지 생각한다. 자기성찰을 조금이라도 하는 사람들은 전 배우자의 실수뿐 아니라 스스로의 실수에 대해서도 인식하며, 다음 관계를 위해 이러한 실수에서 교훈을 얻고자 한다.

연구에 따르면 이혼한 사람 대다수는 결혼실패와 관련된 5가지 후회를 꼽으며 다음에는 이러한 행동을 되풀이하지 않겠다고 결심한다고 한다. 신작 ‘다시 사랑을 찾기’의 저자 테리 오부흐 미시간대학 교수는 다음과 같이 말한다. “실수를 인식하고 앞으로 같은 실수를 반복하지 않겠다고 말하는 이혼경험자로부터 많은 것을 배울 수 있다. 힘들게 배운 결혼생활의 교훈인 것이다.”

오부흐 교수는 미국국립보건원의 자금지원을 받아 1986년 결혼 당시 25~37세였던 동일인종 부부 373쌍을 대상으로 장기연구를 실시하고 있다. 25년차에 들어선 지금, 연구대상 부부 중 46%가 이혼한 상태이다. 미국통계국 등 정부통계에서 밝혀진 이혼율과 비슷한 수치이다. 오부흐 교수는 이혼한 연구대상 중 210명에게 초혼에서 무엇을 배웠는지 질문했다(새로운 사람을 만난 비율은 재혼한 44%를 포함해 71%였다). 다음은 이들이 힘들게 배운 교훈이다.

배우자 기분을 좋게 하라

이혼한 사람 중 15%는 배우자에게 칭찬과 키스, 껴안고 손잡기, ‘사랑해’라고 말하기와 감정적 지원 등 애정표현을 더 많이 하겠다고 말했다. “애정표현을 통해 신뢰를 쌓을 수 있다”고 오부흐 교수는 말한다.

이혼경험자들은 애정표현 빈도와 상대방의 인격에 대한 긍정적 표현 빈도, 상대방의 아이디어와 행동에 대한 긍정적 표현 빈도, 상대방의 인생을 흥미롭고 신나게 만드는 빈도가 중요하다고 말했다.

다음 결혼에서는 성생활에 대해 다르게 행동할 것이라고 구체적으로 답한 사람은 없었지만 오부흐 교수는 성생활이 애정표현을 할 수 있는 확실한 수단 중 하나라고 말한다.

연구결과 남성이 여성에 비해 성관계 외적인 애정표현을 더 필요로 하는 것으로 나타났다. 아내가 애정표현을 안 한다고 남편이 생각할 때 이혼가능성은 그렇지 않은 경우보다 약 2배나 높았다. 반면, 남편이 애정표현을 잘 안 한다는 부부는 이혼가능성이 더 높지 않았다.

오부흐 교수는 배우자를 소중하게 여기고 있다는 사실을 보이는 언행을 매일 하라고 조언한다. “사랑해”나 “당신은 정말 좋은 아빠/엄마야”라는 말이나 아침에 커피메이커 켜놓기, 신문을 들여놓고 차 시동 걸어두기, 상대방이 좋아하는 음식 만들어주기, 안아주기 등 행동으로 애정을 표현할 수 있다.

돈에 대해 이야기하라

사이가 좋든 나쁘든 결혼생활 대다수에서는 금전문제가 다툼의 제1원인인 것으로 드러났다. 연구대상 중 이혼한 사람의 49%는 서로 다른 씀씀이나 지출에 대한 거짓말, 부부 중 한쪽이 돈을 더 많이 벌면서 상대를 통제하려는 행동 등 금전문제로 워낙 많이 싸워 다음 관계에서도 돈이 문제가 될 것이라고 예측하는 경향을 보였다.

모든 부부에게 적용되는 일괄적인 해결책은 없기에 각 배우자가 금전에 대한 자신의 행동을 되돌아볼 필요가 있다고 오부흐 교수는 말한다. 성장기의 당신에게 돈은 어떤 의미를 가졌는가? 현재의 당신은 지출과 저축에 어떻게 접근하는가? 당신의 금전적 목표는?

부부는 각자의 지출과 저축방식에 대해 논의하고 서로 합의할 수 있는 계획을 도출해야 한다. 자금을 공동관리하거나 계좌를 따로 보유하기로 결정, 또는 가족 관련 지출만 공동계좌로 해결 등을 선택할 수 있다. 오부흐 교수 연구에서는 새로운 관계를 시작한 이혼경험자 중 60%가 자금을 공동관리하지 않기로 선택했다.

“세금신고기간이나 빚을 많이 졌을 때, 생활비를 처리해야 할 때와 같이 특별한 시기뿐 아니라 평소에도 돈에 대해 자주 이야기할 필요가 있다”고 오부흐 교수는 말한다. 기본원칙과 기대치를 정하고 이를 지켜라.

과거를 극복하라

건강한 결혼생활을 유지하기 위해서는 과거를 극복해야 한다.

배우자의 과거 관계에 대한 질투심, 시부모/장인장모에 대한 짜증, 신뢰를 어렵게 하는 어린 시절의 경험, 과거의 부부싸움 등에 매여있어서는 안 된다는 것이다.

실연한 사람뿐 아니라 모두에게 적용되는 말이다.

오부흐 교수의 연구에서 애정이나 증오 등 전 배우자에 대한 강한 감정을 품고 있는 사람은 그렇지 않은 경우에 비해 건강상태가 나쁜 것으로 드러났다.

과거와 관련된 분노와 안타까움, 슬픔과 애도를 극복하기 어렵다면? 일기를 쓰고 운동하고 친구에게 이야기하라(그렇다고 끝없이 이야기를 늘어놓아서는 안 된다).

또는 상대에게 보낸다고 생각하고 당신의 감정을 담은 편지를 쓰라. “어머님께. 저를 가족의 진정한 일원으로 대해주시고 제가 아이를 키우는 방식에 대해 뭐라고 하지 않으셨으면 좋겠어요.”

그 후 장군 중 한 명에게 감정적인 편지를 썼던 전쟁장관에게 아브라함 링컨이 했다는 훌륭한 충고를 따라라.

“태워버려라. 화났을 때 쓴 편지는 모두 태워버린다.”

오부흐 교수는 “모든 감정을 종이에 담은 다음에 놓아버릴 수 있는 훈련이다”고 말한다.

사람을 탓하지 말라

전 배우자나 스스로를 탓하는 사람은 전 배우자와의 의사소통방식을 탓한 사람에 비해 높은 불안감과 우울증, 수면장애를 보였다. 분노를 품고 있는 사람은 초혼을 극복하고 바람직한 새로운 관계를 시작하며 긍정적이고 선제적으로 문제에 대응할 가능성도 낮았다.

탓하지 않기란 쉬운 일이 아니다. 오부흐 교수의 연구에서 이혼한 사람 중 65%는 전 배우자를 탓했으며(전남편을 탓한 여성의 비율은 80%, 전부인을 탓한 남성의 비율은 47%) 자기 탓을 한 남성의 비율은 16%, 여성의 비율은 4%였다. 남성이 이혼에 대한 전부인의 관점을 받아들이는 경향이 있는지도 모른다고 오부흐 교수는 말한다. 외도를 인정한 비율은 남성이 많았다.

그렇다면 바람직한 방식으로 탓하려면 어떻게 해야 할까? 너나 나 대신 ‘우리’를 사용하라. “당신 요즘 왜 이렇게 못되게 굴어?” 대신 “요즘 우리가 피곤한 것 같아”라고 말하라. 해결책을 도출할 수 있는 더 쉬운 방법이다.

또한 문제에 대한 배우자의 관점을 물어라. “요즘 우리 사이가 왜 안 좋은 것 같아?”

오부흐 교수는 다음과 같이 말한다. “한 문제에 대해서도 다양한 관점이 존재한다. 배우자의 관점과 당신의 관점을 결합시켜서 전체적인 관계에 대한 통찰을 얻을 수 있다.”

스스로에 대해 더 많이 드러내라

이혼한 사람들이 다음 관계에서 바꾸겠다고 말한 1순위는 의사소통방식이었다(41%가 다른 방식으로 의사소통하겠다고 답했다).

배우자에게 차분하고 애정이 어린 목소리로 말하고, 분노를 초래하는 대신 해결책을 도출할 수 있는 방식으로 다투는 법을 배워야 한다.

‘적극적 경청’도 연습해야 한다. 상대의 말을 경청하고 반복한 뒤 내가 잘 이해했는지 질문하는 것이다.

효과적으로 의사소통하기 위해서는 스스로에 대해 더 많이 드러내야 할 필요가 있다.

“감정적일 필요는 없다. 그러나 내가 열정을 갖고 있는 주제에 대해 이야기를 나눔으로써 배우자가 나를 더 잘 이해하게 할 수 있다”고 오부흐 교수는 말한다.

오부흐 교수가 제안하는 10분 규칙은 부부가 매일 10분 동안 직장이나 가정, 가족과 아이들, 관계를 제외한 다른 주제에 대해 둘이서만 이야기하는 것을 골자로 한다. “문제나 일정, 가계에 대해 이야기하는 대신 자신이 열정을 갖고 있는 주제와 서로의 인생에 대해 이야기하는 것이다.”

수능영어 구문 인강 동영상 Level 1

수능영어 구문 인강 동영상 Level 2

The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Barack Obama a major victory, upholding the key part of his controversial health care plan in a 5-4 decision.

The so-called "individual mandate" requires Americans to purchase heath insurance or face a financial penalty.  Chief Justice John Roberts ruled with the court's more liberal justices, writing in his majority opinion that "because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our [the court's] role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.''  

The Obama administration had argued the "individual mandate" was constitutional because all Americans will need medical care at some point in their lives -- individuals do not choose to participate in the health care market.

Twenty-six states filed suit against the reform law, contending that individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a product they may neither want nor need.

개역개정판성경.txt

NIV_BIBLE.txt

영어성경 각종판본

THE PROBLEM STATED

What is the essential difference between the primitive and the higher societies? It does not consist in the presence or absence of institutions for institutions are the vehicles of the impersonal relations between individuals in which all societies have their existence, because even the smallest of primitive societies is built on a wider basis than the narrow circle of an individual's direct personal ties. Institutions are attributes of the whole genus "societies" and therefore common properties of both its species. Primitive societies have their institutions -- the religion of the annual agricultural cycle; totemism and exogamy; tabus, initiations and age-classes; segregations of the sexes, at certain stages of life, in separate communal establishment -- and some of these institutions are certainly as elaborate and perhaps as subtle as those which are characteristic of civilizations.

Nor are civilizations distinguished from primitive societies by the division of labour, for we can discern at least the rudiments of the division of labour in the lives of primitive societies also. Kings, magicians, smiths and minstrels are all "specialists" though the fact that Hephaestus,[1] the smith of Hellenic legend, is lame, and Homer, the poet of Hellenic legends, is blind, suggests that in primitive societies specialism is abnormal and apt to be confined to those who lack the capacity to be "all-round men" or 'lacks of all trades."

An essential difference between civilizations and primitive societies as we know them (the caveat[2] will be found to be important) is the direction taken by mimesis or imitation. Mimesis is a generic feature of all social life. Its operation can be observed both in primitive societies and in civilizations, in every social activity from the imitation of the style of film-stars by their humbler sisters upwards. It operates, however, in different directions in the two species of society. In primitive societies, as we know them, mimesis is directed towards the older generation and towards dead ancestors who stand, unseen but not unfelt, at the back of the living elders, reinforcing their prestige. In a society where mimesis is thus directed backward towards the past, custom rules and society remains static. On the other hand, in societies in process of civilization, mimesis is directed towards creative personalities who commanded a following because they are pioneers. In such societies, "the cake of custom," as Walter Bagehot[3] called it in his Physics and Politics, is broken and society is in dynamic motion along a course of change and growth.

But if we ask ourselves whether this difference between primitive and higher societies is permanent and fundamental, we must answer in the negative; for, if we only know primitive societies in a static condition, that is because we know them from direct observation only in the last phases of their histories. Yet, though direct observation fails us, a train of reasoning informs us that there must have been earlier phases in the histories of primitive societies in which these were moving more dynamically than any 'civilized' society has moved yet. We have said that primitive societies are as old as the human race, but we should more properly have said that they are older. Social and institutional life of a kind is found among some of the higher mammals other than man, and it is clear that mankind could not have become human except in a social environment. This mutation of sub-man into man, which was accomplished, in circumstances of which we have no record, under the aegis of primitive societies, was a more profound change, a greater step in growth, than any progress which man has yet achieved under the aegis of civilization.

Primitive societies, as we know them by direct observation, may be likened to people lying torpid upon a ledge on a mountain-side, with a precipice below and a precipice above; civilizations may be likened to companions of these sleepers who have just risen to their feet and have started to climb up the face of the cliff above; while we for our part may liken ourselves to observers whose field of vision is limited to the ledge and to the lower slopes of the upper precipice and who have come upon the scene at the moment when the different members of the party happen to be in these respective postures and positions. At first sight we may be inclined to draw an absolute distinction between the two groups, acclaiming the climbers as athletes and dismissing the recumbent figures as paralytics; but on second thoughts we shall find it more prudent to suspend judgement.

After all the recumbent figures cannot be paralytics in reality; for they cannot have been horn on the ledge, and no human muscles except their own can have hoisted them to this halting-place up the face of the precipice below. On the other hand, their companions who are climbing at the moment have only just left this same ledge and started to climb the precipice above; and, since the next ledge is out of sight, we do not know how high or how arduous the next pitch may be. We only know that it is impossible to halt and rest before the next ledge, wherever that may lie, is reached. Thus, even if we could estimate each present climber's strength and skill and nerve, we could not judge whether any of them have any prospect of gaining the ledge above, which is the goal of their present endeavours. We can, however, be sure that some of them will never attain it. And we can observe that, for every single one now strenuously climbing, twice that number (our extinct civilization) have fallen back onto the ledge, defeated.

This alternating rhythm of static and dynamic, of movement and pause and movement, has been regarded by many observers in many different ages as something fundamental in the nature of the Universe. In their pregnant imagery the sages of the Sinic[4] Society described these alternations in terms of Yin and Yang -- Yin the static and Yang the dynamic. The nucleus of the Sinic character which stands for Yin seems to represent dark coiling clouds overshadowing the Sun, while the nucleus of the character which stands for Yang seems to represent the unclouded sun-disk emitting its rays. In the Chinese formula Yin is always mentioned first, and within our field of vision, we can see that our breed, having reached the "ledge" of primitive human nature 300,000 years ago, has reposed there for ninety-eight per cent of that period before entering on the Yang-activity of civilization. We have now to seek for the positive factor, whatever it may be, which has set human life in motion again by its impetus.

THE MYHOLOGICAL CLUE

An encounter between two superhuman personalities is the plot of some of the greatest dramas that the human imagination has conceived. An encounter between Yahweh[5] and the Serpent is the plot of the story of the Fall of Man in the Book of Genesis; a second encounter between the same antagonists, transfigured by a progressive enlightenment of Syriac souls, is the plot of the New Testament which tells the story of the Redemption; an encounter between the Lord and Satan is the plot of the Book of Job; an encounter between the Lord and Mephistopheles is the plot of Goethe's Faust; an encounter between Gods and Demons is the plot of the Scandinavian Voluspa[6] an encounter between Artemis and Aphrodite[7] is the plot of Euripides' Hippolytus.

We find another version of the same plot in that ubiquitous and ever-recurring myth -- a "primordial image" if ever there was one -- of the encounter between the Virgin and the Father of her Child. The characters in this myth have played their allotted parts on a thousand different stages under an infinite variety of names: Danae and the Shower of Gold; Europa and the Bull; Semele the Stricken Earth and Zeus the Sky that launches the thunderbolt; Creusa and Apollo in Euripides' Ion; Psyche and Cupid; Gretchen and Faust. The theme recurs, transfigured, in the Annuniciation. In our own day in the West this protean myth has re-expressed itself as the last word of our astronomers on the genesis of the planetary system, as witness the following credo:

"We believe … that some two thousand million years ago … a second star, wandering blindly through space, happened to come within hailing distance of the Sun. Just as the Sun and Moon raise tides on the Earth, this second star must have raised tides on the surface of the Sun. But they would be very different from the puny tides which the small mass of the Moon raises in our oceans; a huge tidal wave must have travelled over the surface of the Sun, ultimately forming a mountain of prodigious height, which would rise ever higher and higher as the cause of the disturbance came nearer and nearer. And, before the second star began to recede, its tidal pull had become so powerful that this mountain was torn to pieces and threw off small fragments of itself, much as the crest of a wave throws off spray. These small fragments have been circulating round their parent sun ever since. They are the planets, great and small, of which our Earth is one."[8]

Thus out of the mouth of the mathematical astronomer, when all his complex calculations are done, there comes forth, once again, the myth of the encounter between the Sun Goddess and her ravisher that is so familiar a tale in the mouths of the untutored children of nature.

The presence and potency of this duality in the causation of the civilizations whose geneses we are studying is admitted by a Modern Western archaeologist whose studies begin with a concentration on environment and end with an intuition of the mystery of life:

"Environment … is not the total causation in culture-shaping. …It is, beyond doubt, the most conspicuous single factor. …But there is still an indefinable factor which may best be designated quite frankly as x, the unknown quantity, apparently psychological in kind. …If x be not the most conspicuous factor in the matter, it certainly is the most important, the most fate4aden."[9]

In our present study of history this insistent theme of the superhuman encounter has asserted itself already. At an early stage we observed that "a society … is confronted in the course of its life by a succession of problems" and that "the presentation of each problem is a challenge to undergo an ordeal."

Let us try to analyse the plot of this story or drama which repeats itself in such different contexts and in such various forms. We may begin with two general features: the encounter is conceived of as a rare and sometimes as a unique event; and it has consequences which are vast in proportion to the vastness of the breach which it makes in the customary course of nature.

Even in the easy-going world of Hellenic mythology, where the gods saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and had their way with so many of them that their victims could be marshalled and paraded in poetic catalogues, such incidents never ceased to be sensational affairs and invariably resulted in the births of heroes. In the versions of the plot in which both parties to the encounter are superhuman, the rarity and momentousness of the event are thrown into stronger relief. In the Book of Job, "the day when the Sons of Cod came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them," is evidently conceived of as an unusual occasion; and so is the encounter between the Lord and Mephistopheles in the "Prologue in Heaven" (suggested, of course, by the opening of the Book of Job) which starts the action of Goethe's Faust. In both these dramas the consequences on Earth of the encounter in Heaven are tremendous. The personal ordeals of Job and Faust represent, in the intuitive language of fiction, the infinitely multiple ordeal of mankind; and, in the language of theology, the same vast consequence is represented as following from the superhuman encounters that are portrayed in the Book of Genesis and in the New Testament. The expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, which follows the encounter between Yahweh and the Serpent, is nothing less than the Fall of Man; the passion of Christ in the New Testament is nothing less than Man's Redemption. Even the birth of our planetary system from the encounter of two suns, as pictured by our modern astronomer, is declared by the same authority to be "an event of almost unimaginable rarity."

In every case the story opens with a perfect state of Yin. Faust is perfect in knowledge; Job is perfect in goodness and prosperity; Adam and Eve are perfect in innocence and ease; the Virgins -- Gretchen, Danae and the rest -- are perfect in purity and beauty. In the astronomer's universe the Sun, a perfect orb, travels on its course intact and whole. When Yin is thus complete, it is ready to pass over into Yang. But what is to make it pass? A change in a state which, by definition, is perfect after its kind can only he started by an impulse or motive which conies from outside. If we think of the state as one of physical equilibrium, we must bring in another star. If we think of it as one of psychic beatitude or nirvana,[10] we must bring another actor on to the stage: a critic to set the mind thinking again by suggesting doubts; an adversary to set the heart feeling again by instilling distress or discontent or fear or antipathy. This is the role of the Serpent in Genesis, of Satan in the Book of Job, or Mephistopheles in Faust, of Loki in the Scandinavian mythology, of the Divine Lovers in the Virgin myths.

In the language of science we may say that the function of the intruding factor is to supply that on which it intrudes with a stimulus of the kind best calculated to evoke the most potently creative variations. In the language of mythology and theology, the impulse or motive which makes a perfect Yin-state pass over into new Yang-activity comes from an intrusion of the Devil into the universe of God. The event can best be described in these mythological images because they are not embarrassed by the contradiction that arises when the statement is translated into logical terms. In logic, if God's universe is perfect, there cannot he a Devil outside it, while, if the Devil exists, the perfection which he comes to spoil must have been incomplete already through the very fact of his existence. This logical contradiction, which cannot be logically resolved, is intuitively transcended in the imagery of the poet and prophet, who give glory to an omnipotent God yet take it for granted that He is subject to two crucial limitations.

The first limitation is that, in the perfection of what He has created already, He cannot find an opportunity for further creative activity. If God is conceived of as transcendent, the works of creation are as glorious as ever they were but they cannot "be changed from glory into glory." The second limitation on God's power is that when the opportunity for fresh creation is offered to Him from outside He cannot hut take it. When the Devil challenges Him He cannot refuse to take the challenge up. God is bound to accept the predicament because He can refuse only at the price of denying His own nature and ceasing to be God.

If God is thus not omnipotent in logical terms, is He still mythologically invincible? If He is bound to take up the Devil's challenge, is He also bound to win the ensuing battle? In Euripides' Hippolytus, where God's part is played by Artemis and the Devil's by Aphrodite, Artemis is not only unable to decline the combat but is foredoomed to defeat. The relations between the Olympians are anarchic and Artemis in the epilogue can console herself only by making up her mind that one day she will play the Devil's role herself at Aphrodite's expense. The result is not creation but destruction. In the Scandinavian version destruction is likewise the outcome in Ragnarok[11] - when "Gods and Demons slay and are slain" -- though the unique genius of the author of Voluspa makes his Sibyl's vision pierce the gloom to behold the light of a new dawn beyond it. On the other hand, in another version of the plot, the combat which follows the compulsory acceptance of the challenge takes the form, not of an exchange of fire in which the Devil bas the first shot and cannot fail to kill his man, but of a wager which the Devil is apparently hound to lose. The classic works in which this wager motif is worked out are the Book of Job and Goethe's Faust.

It is in Goethe's drama that the point is most clearly made. After the Lord has accepted the wager with Mephistopheles in Heaven, the terms are agreed on Earth, between Mephistopheles and Faust, as follows:

FAUST:
Comfort and quite-no, no! none of these
For me-I ask them not-I seek them not.
If ever I upon the bed of sloth
Lie down and rest, then be the hour in which
I so lie down and rest my last of life.
Caust thou by falsehood or by flattery
Delude me into self-complacent ~miles,
Cheat me into tranquillity? Come then,
And welcome, life's last day-he this our wager.

MEPH:
Done.

FAUST:
Done, say I: clench we at once the bargain.
Soothing my spirits in such oblivion
That in the pleasut trance I would arrest
And hail the happy moment in its course,
Bidding it linger with me. …
Then willingly do I consent to perish.[12]

The bearing of this mythical compact upon our problem of the geneses of civilizations can he brought out by identiying Faust, at the moment when he makes his bet, with one of those "awakened sleepers" who have risen from the ledge on which they had been lying torpid and have started to climb on up the face of the cliff. In the language of our simile, Faust is saying: "I have made up my mind to leave this ledge and climb this precipice in search of the next ledge above. In attempting this I am aware that I am leaving safety behind me. Yet, for the sake of the possibility of achievement, I will take the risk of a fall and destruction."

In the story as told by Goethe the intrepid climber, after an ordeal of mortal dangers and desperate reverses, succeeds in the end in scaling the cliff triumphantly. In the New Testament the same ending is given, through the revelation of a second encounter between the same pair of antagonists, to the combat between Yahweh and the Serpent which, in the original version in Genesis, had ended rather in the manner of the combat between Artemis and Aphrodite in the Hippolytus.

In Job, Faust and the New Testament alike it is suggested, or even declared outright, that the wager cannot be won by the Devil; that the Devil, in meddling with God's work, cannot frustrate but can only serve the purpose of God, who remains master of the situation all the time and gives the Devil rope for the Devil to hang himself. Then has the Devil been created? Did God accept a wager which He knew He could not lose? That would be a hard saying; for if it were true the whole transaction would have been a sham. An encounter which was no encounter could not produce the consequences of an encounter -- the vast cosmic consequence of causing Yin to pass over into Yang. Perhaps the explanation is that the wager which the Devil offers and which Cod accepts covers, and thereby puts in real jeopardy, a part of Cod's creation but not the whole of it. The part really is at stake; and, though the whole is not, the chances and changes to which the part is exposed cannot conceivably leave the whole unaffected. In the language of mythology, when one of God's creatures is tempted by the Devil, God Himself is thereby given the opportunity to re-create the World. The Devil's intervention, whether it succeeds or fails on the particular issue and either result is possible -- has accomplished that transition from Yin to Yang for which God has been yearning.

As for the human protagonist's part, suffering is the keynote of it in every presentation of the drama, whether the player of the part is Jesus or Job or Faust or Adam and Eve. The picture of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is a reminiscence of the Yin-state to which primitive man attained in the food-gathering phase of economy, after he had established his ascendancy over the rest of the flora and fauna of the Earth. The Fall, in response to the temptation to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, symbolizes the acceptance of a challenge to abandon this achieved integration and to venture upon a fresh differentiation out of which a fresh integration may -- or may not -- arise. The expulsion from the Garden into an unfriendly world in which the Woman must bring forth children in sorrow and the Man must eat bread in the sweat of his face, is the ordeal which the acceptance of the Serpent's challenge has entailed. The sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve, which follows, is an act of social creation. It bears fruit in the birth of two sons who impersonate two nascent civilizations: Abel the keeper of sheep and Cain the tiller of the ground.

In our own generation, one of our most distinguished and original-minded students of the physical environment of human life tells the same story in his own way:

"Ages ago a band of naked, houseless, fireless savages started from their warm home in the torrid zone and pushed steadily northward from the beginning of spring to the end of summer. They never guessed that they had left the land of constant warmth until in September they began to feel an uncomfortable chill at night. Day by day it grew worse. Not knowing its cause, they travelled this way or that to escape. Some went southward, but only a handful returned to their former home. There they resumed the old life, and their descendants are untutored savages to this day. Of those who wandered in other directions, all perished except one small band. Finding that they could not escape the nipping air, the members of this band used the loftiest of human faculties, the power of conscious invention. Some tried to find shelter by digging in the ground, some gathered branches and leaves to make huts and warm beds, and some wrapped themselves in the skins of the beasts that they had slain. Soon these savages had taken some of the greatest steps towards civilization. The naked were clothed; the houseless sheltered; the improvident learnt to dry meat and store it, with nuts, for the winter; and at last the art of preparing fire was discovered as a means of keeping warm. Thus they subsisted where at first they thought that they were doomed. And in the process of adjusting themselves to a hard environment they advanced by enormous strides, leaving the tropical part of mankind far in the rear.[13]

A classical scholar likewise translates the story into the scientific terminology of our age:

"It is ... a paradox of advancement that, if Necessity be the mother of Invention the other parent is Obstinacy, the determination that you will go on living under adverse conditions rather than cut your losses and go where life is easier. It was no accident, that is, that civilization, as we know it, began in that ebb and flow of climate, flora and fauna which characterizes the fourfold Ice Age. Those primates who just 'got out' as arboreal conditions wilted retained their primacy among the servants of natural law, but they forewent the conquest of nature. Those others won through, and became men, who stood their ground when they were no more trees to Sit in, who 'made do' with meat when fruit did not ripen, who made fires and clothes rather than follow the sunshine; who fortified their lairs and trained their young and vindicated the reasonableness of a world that seemed so reasonless."[14]

The first stage, then, of the human protagonist's ordeal is a transition from Yin to Yang through a dynamic act - performed by God's creature under temptation from the Adversary -- which enables God Himself to resume His creative activity. But this progress has to be paid for; and it is not God but God's servant, the human sower, who pays the price. Finally, after many vicissitudes, the sufferer triumphant serves as the pioneer. The human protagonist in the divine drama not only serves God by enabling Him to renew His creation but also serves his fellow men by pointing the way for others to follow.

THE MYTH APPLIED TO THE PROBLEM

The Unpredictable Factor

By the light of mythology we have gained some insight into the nature of challenges and responses. We have come to see that creation is the outcome of an encounter, that genesis is a product of interaction. …We shall no longer be surprised if, in the production of civilizations, the same race or the same environment appears to be fruitful in one instance and sterile in another. …We shall be prepared now to recognize that, even if we were exactly acquainted with all the racial, environmental, and other data that are capable of being formulated scientifically, we should not be able to predict the outcome of the interaction between the forces which these data represent, any more than a military expert can predict the outcome of a battle or campaign from an "inside knowledge" of the dispositions and resources of both the opposing general staffs, or a bridge expert the outcome of a game from a similar knowledge of all the cards in every hand.

In both these analogies "inside knowledge" is not sufficient to enable its possessor to predict results with any exactness or assurance because it is not the same thing as complete knowledge. There is one thing which must remain an unknown quantity to the best-informed onlooker because it is beyond the knowledge of the combatants, or players, themselves; and it is the most important term in the equation which the would-be calculator has to solve. This unknown quantity is the reaction of the actors to the ordeal when it actually comes. These psychological momenta, which are inherently impossible to weigh and measure and therefore to estimate scientifically in advance, are the very forces which actually decide the issue when the encounter takes place. And that is why the very greatest military geniuses have admitted an incalculable element in their successes. If religious, they have attributed their victories to God, like Cromwell; if merely superstitious, to the ascendancy of their "star," like Napoleon.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Greek god of fire, metallurgy, and and craftsmanship.
[2] Something important to remember, a significant reservation.
[3] Nineteenth-century economist.
[4] "Sinic" refers to the Chinese.
[5] Jehovah.
[6] An ancient eipic poiem in Old Norse.
[7] The play by Euripides focuses on Aphrodite's (the goddess of love) revenue against Hippolytus, who was vowed to chastity as a follower of Artemis (Diana).
[8] Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930), pp.1-2.
[9] P. A. Means, Ancient Civilizations of the Andes (New York and London: Scribners, 1931), pp.25-26.
[10] In Buddhism, a state of enlightenment free from passion and illusion.
[11] In the Volupsa, a destructive battle between the gods and the powers of evil led by Loki, gives way to a vision (by the Sibyl, Voluspa) of a world resurrected through the efforts of the god Balder, where the sole surviving human beings, called "Life" and "Desiring Life" repopulate the earth.
[12] Faust, 11. 1692-1706 (John Anster's translation).
[13] Ellsworth Huntington, Civilization and Climate, 3rd edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1924), pp.405-406.
[14] J. L. Myers, Who Were the Greeks? (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1930), pp. 277-278.