Love, the Law of Life

Is monogamy, then, an erroneous principle? By no means. Apparent failures of monogamy rather serve as proof that the individuals concerned were not advancing toward perfection and were unable to accept the principle of monogamy. In fine, the principle of monogamy arises neither from physiologic racialism nor from sentimental individualism. Monogamy is possible only when love has progressed to an intensity wherein the two natures are aflame through and through and it is impossible for them to harbor any impure thing whatsoever. Wherefore, the principle of monogamy is a perpetually fresh ethic, and when the self-consciousness of the individual is extinguished, it breaks down forthwith. Those who in part seek for beauty and in part flounder in selfish desires are perpetually the enemies of monogamy. ‘The fact that - among advocates of free love may be found some who practice strict monogamy is the result of these individuals experiencing a self-awakening and knowing that polygamy and polyandry are psychically impossible. Therefore, the principle of monogamy has not been derived from mere theory, but from the perfecting of individual character. If character be destroyed, the principle collapses.

In the ancient times of incomplete personalities, monogamy was impossible; but since the coming of Christ completed personality has been presented to our view and we have become incapable of bigamous love. Yet, naturally, as I have just stated, the principle of monogamy breaks down if there is more or less of abnormality in the character.

Quite rently, in many parts of Japan, lovers, finding this whole-souled love unattainable, have sacrificed themselves; and there are certain thinkers who dispute the eternal validity of the principle of monogamy, regarding these cases as disproof of it.

However, I think quite otherwise, for in situations where lovers attain control over their environment, mastery of their passions, and consciousness of true human nature, their character union will, in any period whatever, be recognized necessarily as valid, and therein a perfect monogamy is realized. I therefore do not say, add one and one, and arrive at unity, but rather, that that which is essentially one cannot be divided into two. The two souls aflame will be perennially ardent. This is what I term monogamy.

In ancient Greece, in order to secure children of fine physique, women of superior stock, even though married, were as a matter of course considered to be free to do as they pleased. From the standpoint of race improvement, such a practice was highly commendable, that is, in an age so remote, when personality was undeveloped. In the present day of closer approach to perfection of personality, the practice absolutely cannot be tolerated.

Responsibility toward the race and perfection of personality are interdependent, and those whose natures have burned together in a synthesis of souls are the truly monogamous. Therefore, for persons who have experienced the self-awakening of conscience, there is no other way to choose than that of monogamy. It is not confined to Christian morality, but throughout the ages it is perforce an enduring principle.

In sexual love there are three phases: sexual desire, love, and marriage.

Sexual desire appears instinctively; and while it may be controlled, it cannot be obliterated. It isa most sacred instinct, for by it the races of mankind are maintained and humanity perpetuated. But sexual desire does not necessarily carry with it selection. Sexual desire to which selection is added is love. Without romantic love sexual desire cannot be purified. In the strength of sexual desire inheres the potency of passionate love. The more intensely this love is practiced, the more possible becomes the ascent of man. Marriage is the means by which the social adjustment of passionate love is effected. It is the name given to the institution through which physical love, ever tending to be selfish and willful, is recognized, controlled, and accorded economic security and position by society.

Darwin, in his Descent of Man, says that marriage is the method properly adopted by man for the perpetuation of the race; and he cites illustrations of the lengthening of life by marriage. Darwin appears, moreover, to have opposed the theory of celibacy. In my view, it is most closely in accord with Nature, in order to maintain the quality of the race, for man at the proper time to refine the sex-impulse. This impulse is not a moral lapse or anything of the kind. Tolstoy proclaimed an extreme individualism, overlooking the existence in man of a racial will, and absolutely denying that social instinct works through the medium of sexual desire. For my part, I believe he seriously erred. In the sexual act there is assured a certain kind of pleasure, and through this pleasurable experience is effected the preservation of the race, a result of the greatest importance. For if the sexual act were unpleasant, the perpetuation of the race might be quite impossible. Nature has given a flavor to sexual desire, and in it has created a garden of pleasure. But man’s psychology is such that he is disposed to be one-sided: he forgets the preservation of the race and falls into the awful error of seeking his own enjoyment exclusively. It is for this reason that today sexual desire is separated from love and from marriage, and there have appeared the exploiters of commercialized lust.

When desire is separated from love and from marriage, it becomes that divisive love which is real lust, that which draws men’s lives down to the horrible bottom of hell. For example, a man who upon marry- ~ ing makes lust his sole aim, no matter who his mate may be, descends along the way of least resistance, se long as he can satisfy his own lust. He cares not a whit what the character of his mate may be or' how society regards his conduct. He lives solely to indulge his own selfish desire, and is a mere slave to mean, mechanical instincts. Marriage to such a man is a sort of private prostitution: when he tires of his wife or the prostitute with whom he is familiar, his lust demands new means of satisfaction. He is reduced to seeking for more stimulating, defiling practices. Such abnormal men are to be found in the licensed quarters, in geisha districts, in homes of the upper classes, and in all the slums—the saddest phenomena in the life of present-day society. We see, then, that Tolstoy had in mind this type of man when he said that a man could commit adultery with his own wife. The man who lives only for selfish gratification of his own lust demeans marriage to adultery. I know the sacredness of marriage and I am convinced that such adulterous marriages proceed from the degenerated instincts of man.

Thus the mission of love becomes one of deep import. In passionate love there is that which accompanies the sexual act; but once passionate love has developed, sexual conduct is no longer primarily sexual: it transcends sexual desire. Therefore, it is imperative that romantic love be emphasized—a spiritual, sacred love in which there is absolutely no admixture of the sexual. The love of St. Francis of Assisi and St. Clara is an example. Without any sexual relation they were intoxicated with a sweet love which was higher than that of husband and wife. Dante, though married, wrote never a line about his wife, but made Beatrice, the friend of his youth, the object of his affection and raised her to a position above that of an angel. The possibility of such sacred love as that of the medieval type arises from the fact that love is superior to sexual desire. It is the purest device for refining mankind. It calls to man to abandon the unlovely and cling to the pure. Thus it is that such relationships as those just cited are rendered possible.

Such must be the nature of the new order which will be set up by men awakened to completely conscious individuality, who advance to the task with the creative spirit. Into this order nothing impure can enter. Foul impulses cannot create the universe of love. In the realm of this sublime new order the quest of mere pleasure cannot be countenanced; and since there is to be creation, there must also be the bearing of suffering. In men who are rising to participate in this new world creation every vestige of mere impulse must vanish.

In animal society love is an impressive phenomenon. When the males of the lower orders have once accomplished their duty, the majority of them die without — appearing to realize that they still have seed left. Indeed, among certain species the males are even killed and devoured by the females. The tarantula is an example, and numbers of other insects show the same tendency. In other words, the male which has once undertaken his part in the preservation of the species — loses the qualification for repeating the act. In the animal world, then, passionate love is treated in this serious manner. Among men, however, it receives no such solemn, rigorous treatment. For men, in defiance of Providence, make selfish satisfaction the standard, and abandon the creative attitude.

When one acquires this creative attitude toward love, one cannot lightly surrender oneself to another. The defect in many marriages has been that they were not:marriages as creation but unions for sexual intercourse. And they all proceed calmly on, though standing on the very brink of destruction. Their passion, as they call it, is easily exhausted; they are merely captivated by fleeting sentiment; they have lost the creative feeling. The love of the majority arises from sentimentality and has no time for the training of the will. It quite lacks strong, selective will. Today it drops the one once welcomed as the ideal wife, and tomorrow takes the cowardly position of transferring its affection to another woman. And such conduct is not considered strange; for folk fail to comprehend the creative feeling of passionate love. I venture to declare that passionate love is bound to be ethical.

When I declare that love must be ethical, I do not imply that love must be sacrificed to morality, but that love in its essence is above the sexual act. Where-

1“The philosophy of Nietzsche teaches only of the ‘I’—me, myself. My philosophy is the discovery of the ‘you’ basis, the creation of the ‘you’ inside of the ‘I.’ That is my philosophy of love. Herein is made plain the reason why so many personalities have appeared in the universe. God created men on the earth to live together in society. They are not to be self-centered, but to live in love, to serve one another.’”’—T. Kagawa.

fore, when one considers the various psychic relations, has regard to social relations as well, and settles one’s own personal attitude, then in the ardor that flames up above these and as a result of the great determination to create a new order, passionate love itself emerges. In other words, passionate love must be that which wells forth from one’s personality as a starting point, from the creative feeling of the other personality—the discovery and creation of ‘‘you’’—and from the high intention to develop a new order. Therefore, it is impossible for one easily to shift from one lover to another. If one has many loves, it must be concluded that one has a multiplicity of selves; and such a one we call insane.

I desire to consider both the warmth of passionate love and its enduring nature. The love of Japanese people, though warm, has no power of endurance. Hence, many young people change from one affection to another. I term this the love of divided personalities. How can any such love bring pleasure? In polygamous, divided love how can there be any quiet joy? For love to endure, it is necessary that it be maintained by strength of will. It is not for this reason that I maintain that love must be given a moral quality. If we are masters of single personalities, then at any given period it follows that we can have but one single affection; and this affection must continue as long as the personality lasts. Herein is the uniqueness of love. It is what may be called puremindedness, and the power which maintains this puremindedness is simply one’s strength of will.

Marriage is a social relation achieved by the unificative effort of matured personalities. In marriage love is first accorded its social recognition; upon it is bestowed the great guarantee of social approval. Society is blessed through marriage, and marriage is blessed through society. Since love is essentially social, society desires to recognize marriage. Of course, since society today is in a transition period, many social phenomena are exceedingly confused. In sucha transition period there are numerous instances of people who, awakened ethically to a holy love, are forced to contravene certain restrictions. There are certain forms of marriage which experience extraordinary difficulty in gaining social recognition. But that is only because this is a period of transition. In an ethical society every marriage ought to receive society’s benediction. Love is higher than sexual desire. Essentially, love signifies the creation of personality.