After a long while, I attempt to initiate a meme. Something funny, I hope. Of course, I realise that I am being entirely silly and using random words whether or not they are relevant in the context. That's the whole point, I guess.

Q: What is better, arranged marriage or love marriage?

A: As with most questions motivated by a subconscious desire to resolve the post-colonial inferiority-complex-based ego-crisis resulting from the so-called "clash of civilisations", this question assumes a false dichotomy. However, it does not assume a false "polarisation" (my own usage of the term, not intended in the usual sense). What I mean by that is the question confuses a somewhat continuous spectrum of cultural practices with distinct systems which have clearly defined boundaries. So, to answer this question I must begin by first addressing this false dichotomy, and correctly defining the reality in terms of what I refer to as a "polarisation".

One should admit that there are no clearly defined boundaries between the so-called "arranged" and "love" marriage systems. But I think there do exist what I would to refer to as "poles" - idealised memetic constructs - around which the majority of the actual instances of the respective systems gravitate. This is complicated by the fact that individual memes, and indeed entire memeplexes may wander all over the spectrum, and that popular culture, blinded by a lack of historical perspective may not recognise this. However, I still think it is possible to define these "poles" under the assumptions of a static, geographically-classified culture.

I shall base my definitions of these "poles" around the roles of the "agent" and in the "object". I think it is fairly obvious here what I mean by "agent" and "object" - the agent(s) acts on the object(s) resulting in the so-called "arrangement". Now we can see why I say this question assumes a false dichotomy - all marriages are, in a sense, arranged.

Now we can define our poles.

Pole of system "A", or "arranged marriage": here the agent is distinct from the object, and is often as large, if not a larger factor in the "arrangement" than the object itself.

Pole of system "L", or "love marriage": here the agent and the object are usually, but not always, the same.

In addition to this, I think we must recognise that in both systems, the agents may not always be just an individual or a group of individuals, but may also include a memetic viruses – some of the agents may be a variety of social pressures which both "individual agents" and objects feel the need to confirm to.

As for the relative merits and demerits of both systems, let me say that both are spectacular failures. However, they are not beyond remedy.

Both systems need to move beyond social pressures and idealised constructs of popular culture, reflecting realistically on what might be result of an "arrangement" on the objects in question. If and when this becomes the standard practice, I believe the two "poles" here will begin to disappear, and merge into one.

Get it? No? Ok, here are the rules:

1) You comment here, and I will reply with a question on some touchy-feely subject.
2) You will post the question and your answer to it in your blog. In your answer, you will deliberately try to obfuscate the matter by stretching your vocabulary to its limit, using "" a lot, and generally making little sense.
3) You will then offer to ask others questions.


I think I haven't done a very good job, but I hope this meme takes off.