I ran across this article today thanks to my friend Lee Gimenez on Facebook (thanks, Lee!). Apparently a Japanese couple has been married by a robot called the iFairy, which was designed to give museum tours and just needed a bit of new software to perform this new function. It's complete with video...
http://mashable.com/2010/05/17/robot-priest-marriage/
Of course, from a pragmatics and speech acts point of view this is rather fascinating. I had an earlier post about weddings and the speech acts associated with them, but one of the critical ingredients here is that the speech acts that make the marriage real have to be performed by an authorized person - usually a priest or someone representing the laws of the state.
Now, it appears this couple worked for the same company where robots were being designed, so there's a certain logic to their decision. Couples often tailor their weddings to fit their own needs, whether those be of one religion or another (or more than one - I've been to a Jewish Buddhist wedding before), or whether the trappings be those of a historical period, a garden fantasy setting or a science fictional world. On the other hand, the role of the celebrant is right at the center of what goes on at a wedding: the uttering of words that create a real change in reality for the couple being married. I can only assume that in this case, the people involved were willing to approve the robot as an authorized celebrant - for otherwise, the marriage would be considered invalid.
That's an interesting twist on the cultural significance of marriage!
Interesting! Of course from the legal standpoint the fact remains that the marriage wasn't 'valid' (nor indeed 'invalid'). It is simply an act with meaning only on the private level. Unless I'm mistaken, the marriage doesn't come into being until the couple submits their documents to the local authorities. So, it may be be strictly true that "the speech acts that make the marriage real have to be performed by an authorized person," except in the strictly personal sense (as in, make it real to the two people involved).
ReplyDeleteBut it is still an intriguing glimpse into the perception of the roles played by each person and the speech acts which make up the marriage ceremony. Clearly it indicates a shift in what people are willing to accept among themselves as a rite of matrimony. I wonder whether they consider the robot to have added anything objective to the 'reality' of their marriage, or whether they never considered the celebrant to be anything but a non-essential decoration on top of the (presumably authoritative) exchange of consent.
Gah, that should read, "may NOT be strictly true." And extra points lost for repeating the adverb in such a short space.
ReplyDeleteIn Christendom, the ministers of marriage are the couple and the only requirement is consent (declared in public), with a few impediments relative to consanguinity and the like. The function of the priest is as a witness for the Church.
ReplyDeleteCivil marriage was instituted in the Hapsburg Empire in 1868, and spread to Italy (1873), Switzerland (1874), the German Empire (1875), and France (1881). Today, we cannot imagine how people might marry without permission from the State. (The "compelling state interest" since the Code of Khamurapi and Plato's The Laws has been that such activity naturally produced children and assurance was needed that they not become wards of the State.)
Thank you so much for your insights, Mike. The function of the priest as Church's witness makes a great deal of sense. This definitely helps to clarify the issues that dbp raised.
ReplyDeleteLOL! I love the ceremony! The robot is toooo cute and oddly childlike. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteChristian marriage definitely considers it a private act, and it may be the case that it was so in Japan, as well; but my comment was simply noting the fact that no marriage is considered official, as I understand it, until the proper forms are filled out and submitted.
ReplyDeleteI don't know whether the marriage is considered valid as of the date of signing, submission, or official processing, nor have I actually read the forms that need to be filled out (though now I may just go and try to find them and do so), so I don't know what the official stance is on what 'makes' the marriage.
However, thinking a bit on it, it's also possible that the Japanese legal machine doesn't make any judgment about 'marriage' as an entity or relationship between the two people, and instead concerns itself only with 'married' as a legal status or relationship between the two people and the state. If so, such status naturally only comes into being upon official recognition, and doesn't speak at all to the relationship the two people hold to each other.
Oops
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09691b.htm