Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
In Part 7 I argued that in our society marriage has become an institution without an acknowledged social rationale or raison d’etre. We still do it, but we no longer know why it exists in the first place, or how it benefits society. Marriage is seen in individual terms, not social terms. It is something that people have a right to, and a healthy social egalitarianism inclines toward the view that rights should be equally accessible to all. But we no longer know what “it” is, and what qualifies as it and what doesn’t.
In part, marriage no longer makes sense because we have weakened or abandoned the connections between sex and children, sex and marriage, sex and commitment, marriage and children, marriage and commitment, and children and commitment.
Crucial to all of this is the mainstreaming of contraception. Contraception offered everyone the options of sex without children and marriage without children. The option of contraceptive sex helped make sex without marriage and even sex without commitment socially acceptable, contributing to the mainstreaming of casual sex, cohabitation and ever-delayed marriage. Contraceptive sex even weakened the taboo against adultery, while the option of marriage without children further weakened the connection between marriage and commitment, since marriage no longer entailed agreeing even in principle to the long-term joint project of raising whatever children might come along.
Once sex without marriage, sex without commitment and even marriage without (the same level of) commitment achieved a level of acceptability, the connection between children and commitment was compromised. The normalizing of cohabitation, casual sex and divorce on demand was made possible in part because it was possible to take children out of the equation—but once the normalizing took place, it was no longer possible to stigmatize having or raising children out of wedlock, or without the commitment of both partners. Artificial conception technologies were another factor, opening the door to children on demand without a marriage, a committed father figure or even a baby daddy.
Because marriage no longer serves any acknowledged social function, what’s left of marriage is largely whatever it means to the individuals wishing to marry. Marriage used to be part of society’s pedagogy—something society imposed on individuals. Now, as far as the larger society is concerned, it’s substantially up to the individuals to decide what it is and what it means. (Since everyone comes to marriage for the first time with no experience of being married, this is a somewhat problematic arrangement. Mark Twain once noted, “No man or woman really knows what perfect love is until they have been married a quarter of a century.” The phenomenon of couples writing their own vows and creating their own ceremonies, proclaiming to society their own notions of what love and marriage are instead of being instructed by the long experience of society, reflects this social abdication.)
Since sex, children and even commitment are all available without marriage, and since society no longer offers any compelling reason to marry, why should anyone desire marriage? Clearly, the practical force of this question has been felt by many. Far more people choose not to marry in the first place, or to marry much later, or to divorce much sooner. Still, people still marry in large numbers, and even among same-sex couples there is at least some wish (though perhaps much less than one would sometimes gather from media reports) for something that is thought of as “marriage.” What explains this ongoing wish to participate in an institution without an acknowledged rationale?
For a great many people, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others, the meaning of marriage may be supplied not by society as a whole but by a religious subculture and its beliefs. In Part 5 I noted that Christianity teaches that marriage is a reflection the universal human vocation to love and a partnership ordered toward the perfection of the spouses. Many Americans still believe that, or something like it, and this is sufficient to explain a great deal of the ongoing desire for marriage.
There is likewise the ongoing cultural legacy of a time when marriage as a social institution functioned more effectively. Much as cultural forces have labored to tear down and dethrone marriage in many ways, we still live in a generally marriage-positive culture, and marriage still commands a significant cultural approbation. Cohabitation may be widely accepted, but marriage hasn’t entirely lost its aura of gold-standard authority.
Even an occasional wedding (or anniversary) among one’s peers can exert some social pressure on those who remain unmarried. Those who are cohabiting or dating may have a lingering sense of being second-class citizens, or may feel that they have not yet achieved the pinnacle of what life together is meant to be. A woman in particular is more likely to feel less than completely satisfied, and perhaps less than completely secure, with the love of a man who shares a roof and a bed but is unwilling to put a ring on it, to proclaim it to the world—particularly if she gets around to thinking about having a baby.
Children still grow up with fairy tales and Disney movies that end with wedding bells. Romantic comedies send mixed but still generally positive messages about marriage as the ideal. The wedding industry labors mightily to preserve the romance and pageantry of the “big day”—and of course there are the showers, the presents, the reception and so forth.
Of course the real effect of much if not all of this is often to encourage people to desire a wedding, not necessarily a marriage, and certainly not the fullness of what marriage entails. Still, the idea of marriage remains a compelling one.
More to come.
Comments
Post a Comment
I feel like adults used to be more grown up, as their lives were hard and didn’t have the luxury of the latest trends or fashions. Perhaps prosperity helps to bring about a kind of cultural rot - a selfishness that those with more suffering don’t have the time or energy for.
Steve, couldn’t agree with you more… you make these arguments ring so true…why can’t the world see or understand or accept the truth? Keep up the good fight!
I like this post - it’s like a leopard after a long chase finally gathering itself together for the final spring and the kill.
@ Pachyderminator: You are a perceptive reader. The thing is, I keep thinking the spring is coming in the next post, and then I realize I have one more step to take. Perhaps if I had planned it better I could have taken a more direct route and cut down on some of the zigzagging. We’ll see how the leap goes.
Love the articles, and I love this quote.
“Mark Twain once noted, “No man or woman really knows what perfect love is until they have been married a quarter of a century.””
In all this societal confusion, I know -and hope that soon, we will reach the quiescent point for Catholics and contraception.
Great job Steve.
I loved all the zig-zags. It may have been shorter for you to have taken a “more direct route,” but necessarily better. Sharing this on Facebook. God Bless.
I have been critical of earlier posts. This is a great post. Pachyderminators comment was on the mark. It is a great summation. Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 are especially observant. I’m still waiting for what is to be done about the situation, but this is a powerful piece of writing.
Posting to rec. comments
No bob yet??! Drat, I was looking forward to him… ;-)
Here is a great link I think. It also talks of birth control and the results.
http://gloria.tv/?media=134357
Gloria tv is the more catholic the better.
Now that I am finally , by the grace of God, learning(after 25 years of marraige ...I’m a slow learner)) the true and full meaning of marraige, especially Christian marraige, I understand why many of the martyrs fo the church died to defend it. And why the devil goes to such pains to attack it, by any means necessary. It is a HOLY sacred thing.
These people trying to redefine marraige don’t know what marraige is. They’re arrogance and ignorance is stupifying. And what they are trying to create isn’t ‘marraige’...its a union, yes(a demonic union), but it will never ever be *holy matrimony*. NO laws will ever make it that. Calling a pile of foul waste a rose wont make it smell sweet, and neither will calling same sex unions ‘marraige’ make it a marraige.
Sorry if that isn’t politically correct. its the truth.
Sadly, it looks like history will soon be demanding more martyrs to defend marraige. Keep speaking the truth!
Thankyou for all these wonderful articles Steve. Keep them coming. They are so richly written and informative. And When you are done…put it together in a book.
:)
M~
@Mary Illicete—I like this comment I’m copying here about marriage.
Anyone who has been married for a while will agree — that they knew nothing about marriage before they were initiated into it. Before they were married, most of them had thought they knew a lot about the subject, and there is reason for this. It is likely that they grew up in a family with a mother and father who were married, or at least they had grandparents, aunts and uncles who were married. What they saw was the fruit of the marriage and not the process. Such observation alone had instilled a false perception of this mystery, and what sealed their ideas about marriage was when they fell in love with the ones they would marry. What else was there to know about it? Twenty years of observation and two months of love should be all anyone needs to vault into the easy life of marriage, right? Wrong! For once they became married, after they were firmly initiated into it, they came to realize — there is a lot more to marriage than their imaginations had assumed. No amount of observation, instruction, or love could have revealed. They had to experience it for themselves. The nature of marriage, like all of Gods mysteries, prohibits its secrets from being revealed by words alone. Words may describe the outward shell, the principles of a relationship called marriage, but its inner essence will stay hidden to those who have not been initiated into it.
We have a new feature in our Sunday Indianapolis Star that I hate! It is called, “Creative Duos” and focuses on creative couples. Out of the five weeks that I have seen it, not one of the couples has been married, and they are all living together. This weeks article was on two women. It is telling that one question is, “together since ?” and it is always a year or two at most. I keep thinking if they really want to highlight a creative duo, they need to put a married couple with several children that have been married 25 years or more who might actually have some wisdom for the general population, rather than these couples who are playing at marriage. I have started throwing this section away before my kids even see it - I don’t want them to get the impression that this kind of behavior is normal.
I’m going to put in a word about a very good ministry to marriages called Retrouvaille. It saved my marriage.
http://www.retrouvaille.org/
““Mark Twain once noted, “No man or woman really knows what perfect love is until they have been married a quarter of a century.””
And there’s no way anyone else understands any other marriage. Too bad you can’t even begrudge gays a chance in the first place. But then again-our government will.
@Pia—Are you speaking of just same sex marriage? Are you refering to other types also?
PIA, it would only make sense to “begrudge gays a chance [to have marriage] in the first place” if they could be reasonably expected to fulfill the reasons that we demand marriage of couples in the first place. We cannot expect them to fulfill those reasons, so on what basis would we ask them to commit to marriage?
Kevin Rahe
Explain how they can’t.
why is it you who can “demand” reasons for marriage?
Are you saying they can’t love each other?
The reason that the Church - and society in general - expects a man and woman to make a commitment to each other in marriage before beginning an intimate relationship with each other is due to the probable results of that relationship, which are children. If that probability didn’t exist, or if it were instinctual for men and women to stay together long enough to raise their children, there would be no such thing as marriage. That probability doesn’t exist between two people of the same sex, so I ask again why we would ask them to commit to each other in marriage?
Part 9 is up.
I attended a beautiful wedding ceremony this past weekend. In his sermon the pastor said this, “Our society loves and is very good at weddings - but it is very bad at marriage.” This quote kept going through my head as I was reading your post, Steve.
Part 10 is now up.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.