Hola mi Gente,
Hope everybody is well with the start of the work week
because if you ain’t, you’re in for a fucked up week. LOL!
Man…
Am I gonna get ripped for today's post. ::runs::
* * *
The Marriage Myth
I married beneath me, all women do.
-- Nancy Astor
Everywhere we look, it seems, we’re
being told that the institution of traditional marriage is in a state of
crisis!
That is a misleading statement. It is
not that marriage is in crisis. Rather, it is that the institution of marriage
isn’t, nor has it ever been, traditional. Human unions have gone through so many
transformations, we would be wrong to assume that it was ever a stable
institution. The reality is that marriage has always been in flux. It has only
been based on the concept of love for 200 years, for example. Before that, it
was a way of ensuring economic and political stability. Historian Stephanie
Coontz points out that since the hunter-gatherer days to the modern era,
“almost every marital and sexual arrangement we have seen in recent years,
however startling it may appear, has been tried somewhere before.” So when we
think of cohabitation, gay marriage, or stepfamilies as deviating from the
so-called “norm,” we are wrong, because there has never really been a “norm.”
This should be a wake-up call for
people in the U.S. obsessed with the ideal of the perfect nuclear family --
mother, father and two kids. In fact, the nuclear family, as espoused by
religious fanatics is actually a downsized version of the agricultural extended
family. Today’s family is a fragmented version imposed by the exploitative
effects of the industrial revolution and capitalism.
We are trying to force ourselves to be
something we never really were, or were for a very brief period of time.
Instead, we need to be more tolerant of and open to wider range of human unions.
People overly invested in traditional “family values” lack the skills to adapt
to current social realities that have changed marriage, such as the increased
independence of women.
I would agree that many of our familial
woes come from an unrealistic, idealized version of marriage. “Forever after”
is a an idealistic and, I would submit, an immature vision of marriage. I think
advocating for a more expansive interpretation of marriage would help. What I am
stating here isn’t new, many have had this idea before, and centuries-long
historical documentation confirms it.
Coontz’s basic thesis is that what we
think of as the traditional marriage -- marriage based on love -- was not the
purpose of marriage for thousands of years. Instead, marriage was about
acquiring in-laws, jockeying for political and economic advantage, and building
the family labor force. If you were a farmer, you had children in order to
increase the workforce, for example. Admittedly this is not very romantic, but was
very pragmatic. It was only about 200 years ago that society began to accept
the notion that young people could choose their own mates, and should choose
their own mates on the basis of something like love, which had formerly been
considered a threat to marriage. As soon as people began to do that, all of
the demands that we now think of as radical new demands -- from the demand for
divorce, to the right to refuse a shotgun marriage, to even recognition of
same-sex relations -- were immediately raised.
But it was not until the last 40 years
that people began to actually act on the new ideals for beloved marriage.
Social conservatives say that there has been a crisis in the last 40 years, and
I agree with them, that marriage has been tremendously weakened as an
institution. Where I disagree with conservatives is whether this is such a bad
thing. What is clear is that marriage has lost its monopoly on organizing
sexuality, human relations, and political, social, and economic rights. I agree
that this shift poses tremendous societal challenges, but I disagree with the
idea that one could make marriage better by trying to shoehorn everyone into
the older and outdated forms of marriage. We need newer, more relevant
metaphors to live by because the main things that have weakened marriage as an
institution are the same things that have strengthened
marriage as a relationship.
Marriage is now more optional, because
for the first time ever, in Western democracies, men and women have more or
less equal rights in marriage and outside it. Women have more economic
independence, for example. This means that a marriage can be negotiated, and made
more responsive and individualized than ever before. So modern marriage, when
it works, is better for people, it’s fairer, it’s more satisfying, it’s more
loving and fulfilling than ever before in history.
The contradiction is that the same
things that make it so are the things that allow people not to marry, or to
leave a marriage that they find unsatisfying. I would agree with those that say
you can’t have one (equality) without the other (the power to choose).
Therefore, we need to learn to deal with the alternatives to marriage.
Alternatives to marriage being singlehood, cohabitation, divorce, and
stepfamilies to name just some -- and all of the kinds of alternatives to
marriage that have arisen.
What we need to be doing is not
necessarily strengthening the union of marriage as it’s been known for years,
but better adapting to new forms of marriage that have arisen as a response to
modern life.
With every evolutionary leap, there are
opportunities and crises. The industrial revolution opened up new opportunities
for many people, but it also created havoc in some peoples’ lives and in the
biosphere. But the point is that there was no way to go back to turn everyone
into self-sufficient farmers. So we had to reform the factories, and we had to
deal with the reality we faced. I say that it is the same with marriage. There
is no way to force men and women to get married and stay married. There is no
way to force women to make the kinds of accommodations they used to make, to
enter a shotgun marriage, or to stay in a marriage they find unsatisfying
because they didn’t have the economic freedom to make those choices. We have to
learn to adapt to both the opportunities and the problems that raises for us.
It’s a fact that evangelical Christians
are just as likely to remain single or divorce as atheists. And this is just
one example of an irreversible revolution in personal life on the same order as
the industrial revolution. It doesn’t matter what your values are. Everyone is
affected by this. Even people who want or think they are in a traditional
marriage are not exempt from these changes. So that the divorce rates of evangelical
Christians are the same as those of agnostics and atheists. And in fact, the
highest divorce rates in the country are found in the Bible Belt. People
who believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral, tend to get married early
and that is a risk factor for divorce. So that’s one of the reasons that they
tend to divorce more. We are experiencing a revolutionary change in the way
that marriage operates, and the dynamics of marriage. Today, the demands on
relationships are so much higher. It is so much more important now to meet as
equals, to be good friends as well as lovers, to have values that allow us to
change throughout our lifespan and negotiate. And a lot of people with
so-called traditional values in fact don’t have those skills.
I think we can start from the
beginning, acknowledging that people need support systems. We live in a very
unfriendly environment for families. Ironically, it’s the social conservatives
-- the same who like to spout empty rhetoric about “traditional family values
-- who are least friendly to families. They oppose, for example, policies that support
married couples. If marriages are going to survive, couples need things subsidized
parental leave so it’s not a class privilege to take some time with your children.
Family-friendly work policies are needed. We need high quality, affordable
child-care. So that we don’t have to call in sick or quit a job or spend hours
agonizing about our children.
The lack of social supports for a
broader definition of what it means to be a family, stresses families. So it’s
very ironic that many of the people who claim to be most in favor of marriage
do not spend any time building these support systems.
My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery
from civilization…
Resources
Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a
history: From obedience to intimacy, or how love conquered marriage. New
York: Viking.
Click
here to go to Stephanie Coontz’ website, which offers of
articles by the author.
No comments:
Post a Comment
What say you?