Introduction
For a long time, marriage was used primarily as a political and economic institution. However, in the 1950’s and 1960’s the male breadwinner / woman homemaker ideal became the most prominent form of marriage. In the eighteenth century love was seen as the primary reason for marriage. As the nineteenth and twentieth centuries came around, “sentimentalization” and “sexualization” of love based marriage became popular and widely accepted. Coontz makes clear one of her main points when she said: “As soon as the idea that love should be the central reason for marriage, and companionship its basic goal, was first raised, observers of the day warned that the same values that increased people’s satisfaction with marriage as a relationship has an inherent tendency to undermine the stability of marriage as an institution” (5).
My confusion with marriage as an institution is summed up in this one quote:
“For the next 150 years, societies struggled to strike the right balance between the goal of finding happiness in marriage and the preservation of limits that would keep people from leaving a marriage that didn’t fulfill their expectations for love.” (5)
I am completely dazed and confused by how people find a partner whom they find compatible and attractive, and manage to be satisfied throughout their many, many years (if that is what they want) together. (I realize that there are many people who do find this, I just haven’t yet so I have a hard time seeing how it’s possible).When we expect a person to be our lover, friend, business partner, companion, co-parent, mentor…the list goes on…how can we ever really be satisfied with this other person? We can not possibly be everything to one person…I don’t believe people work like that. We have different friends to fulfill different parts of who we are, to play out different aspects of ourselves. Then we get married and expect one single person to be able to handle all of those different sides? I can’t help but be skeptical of this kind of relationship. I think marriage makes sense when reviewing its historical transformation. Marriage as an economic choice makes sense, and marriage for love of another person makes sense. But today I feel there is a combination of all of these things it has been in the past. How can marriage live up to those kinds of expectations?
Chapter 1
Coontz starts off by quoting George Bernard Shaw’s joke about marriage: ‘“under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions. They are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.”’ The main point being that historically love has not been the main reason for marriage. Coontz mentions how feelings for other person should not be put before other relationships (parents, siblings, cousins, neighbors or God) (16). Love has been seen as everything from a “derangement of the mind”, inconvenient, threat to society, disruptive, etc. It is interesting to think about how the definition of “love” has changed, and how it differs cross-culturally (i.e. in
Chapter 2
Marriage has been known to be one of the most prominent social institutions throughout history, and if this is the case how can it be that it is so difficult to agree on one universal definition? Definitions range from what age is appropriate for marriage…to how many partners one can have…to if the marriage is about the individuals or families joining lives…to how much time a husband and wife should spend together or live together. On what grounds do we base the definition? One definition the Royal Anthropological Institute of Britain came up with is “a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners.” I understand the need anthropologists have to define marriage, but this one is so incredibly restrictive. Let’s think about who’s perspective is this definition representing…
She goes on to discuss the impacts of marriage on children. In
There are many similarities in marriage as an institution, despite the many differences Coontz has suggested throughout this chapter. Marriage usually gives us a way to determine “rights and obligations connected to sexuality, gender roles, relationships with in-laws, and the legitimacy of children” (32). It has also helped people figure out and define their place in society. It has been useful in passing down property to the next generation. She mentions that becoming ‘in-lawed’ has been one of the most important purposes of marriage. The fact that parents and relatives and stopped being so much a part of the marriage process has given the married couple more freedom to create their own marriage, which in general, has led to couple being much more satisfied with their relationship. However, it has contributed to the “crisis” in marriages today.
Chapter 3
Coontz reviews the male provider theory. This theory has been used to explain why women have been the homemakers and men the breadwinners. It also supports the general claim that women want “powerful, dominant men” and men want “young women who will be good breeders and hearth keepers” (36). But, women have also participated in the hunting and gathering—they would just carry the baby while doing these activities. Although women were restricted in many regards by child-rearing, this doesn’t mean women were dependent on men. Because of this independence, women were able to learn other skills that men were not. For example, they learned how to “gather, process plants and shellfish, manufacture clothing, trap small animals, and make digging or cooking implements” (38). This perhaps led to an even greater separation and independence between men and women. Teaching ones children became something for a couple to invest in together, a way for a couple to spend time together as well. Foraging and hunting became something communities depended on each other for, it wasn’t just a couples responsibility. Everyone provided for everyone. This started many traditions, rituals, dances, and festivals where community developed and connections between families occurred. Social interactions were important because they were necessary for survival. Sharing and pooling resources was a smart economic choice in these communities so they could be sure to never waste or be depleted of food. These societies were all about sharing and reciprocity. A hunter spent time hunting for the whole group, not just for his nuclear family. Coontz goes on to address the time of trading women or ‘spousal exchange’. In an aboriginal society in
As marriage became more and more about status and property, men and women began to feel more restricted in the ways in which they were ‘allowed’ to act. Sexual behavior was supervised, as bloodlines became very important. Beauty also became criteria for marriage and a main differentiator between high and low class women. Because of all of this marriage became very political. And there was no room for the discussion of love between the couple when they were dealing with economic and political negotiations between families. It has been only within the past 100 years that women have had the right to choose their partner. Although there is a growing notion that pre-marital sex and divorce is okay there are still many who hope that marriage as institution keeps sexuality and gender roles in its traditional roles. She ends the chapter with the revisiting the question of how we categorize and systematize our “rights and obligations now that our older constraints are gone is another aspect of the contemporary marriage crisis” (49).