Anthropological Aspects of the West:
Who Governs the Private Contract?
While there will be some who disagree, I am confident that a study of anthropological Western history will reveal the historicity that the personal relationship was governed through a Private Contract between families, where the families for their own reasons had either a formal or an informal Private Contract.
Historically, it would help the Modern West (circa 1500s to present) to see that prior to the beginning of the Early Modern English time period (beginning about 1500 AD/CE) families and entities working as an Electorate and thus working through the State to govern the personal relationship did not functionally exist.
That means that prior to the 1500s, families had the primary governing authority over the personal relationship, which means that SCECS, as an Electorate, had very little influence or direct control to be an active, third party governing and controlling authority over the personal relationship through the State.
That was because prior to the developments of the last 500-600 years, whether for good or ill, families primarily governed the personal relationship through a Private Contract.
Because of that, it seems possible (plausible?) that Society and Culture began using both the Church and the State to influence the Private Contract. Importantly, in the United States the Electorate influences both the Church and State.
Yet, it can also be understood that both the Church and State give their definitions, developments, understandings of the personal relationship, and assign accountabilities and responsibilities to the participants of the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
However, the question is: Ultimately, who has the right to determine what happens between/among the individuals of a Private Contract?
The answer: the individuals.
Interestingly, it is immaterial and irrelevant as to whether other families and/or entities within SCECS agree with the individuals of a Private Contract. This is because how individuals choose define, develop, and understand their personal relationship and assign accountabilities and responsibilities within their own Private Contract is their own business.
Importantly, after each family has contracted with each other, the individuals in that personal relationship could/can choose to contract in a way different from their respective families.
Additionally, Western history and poetry are filled with examples of individuals wanting and desiring a personal relationship and/or Private Contract at variance with their respective families.
Historical examples that come to mind are royal families. Sometimes they formed alliances through having one family’s son begin a new family unit allied through another family’s daughter.
But non-royal families did similar, all in order to help solidify the goals and future success of each family.
A poetic example that comes to mind is Romeo and Juliet. Two families who did not want an alliance. But the son of one family and the daughter of the other family wanted to ally themselves together.
Western anthropological history is replete with both families and entities within ‘scec’s and SCECS challenging the concept of what a personal relationship and Private Contract should be.
That is why Western anthropological history is filled with debates, decisions, and social ramifications issuing forth from families and entities within ‘scecs’ and SCECS, along with the Church and the State, about who has the ultimate right to determine the definitions, developments, and understandings for the personal relationship, and who assigns accountabilities and responsibilities to those in the personal relationship.