The majority of chapter 2 in the textbook was concerned with
the declining percentage of couples that choose to commit to a long-term
relationship with each other in the form of marriage. Aja Gabel presented to us
in her essay, “The Marriage Crisis,” that the modern model of marriage is a
result of a changing America. She explains that this modernistic view of marriage
differs from one in the 1960's, during which a couple would've been more likely
to stay together without regard to economic pressures. However, in today's age,
a couple is more likely to divorce simply because they are unhappy, unlike an
unhappy couple in the 1960's. I do see this as a growing pattern that is increasingly
growing in couples, especially in those that marry at a younger age or that
marry with only a high school degree. With growing expectations from either
partner, and the expectation of financial stability, it is becoming
increasingly easier for the marriage to end if either factor is missing in the
commitment. With commitment declining, we are seeing an increase in
cohabitation among unmarried couples, even with children in the family as an
alternative method of creating a traditional family household. This presents
the issue of a failing institution that represented values taught to children
such as meaning, purpose, direction, and stability, as stated by Brad Wilcox.
Conversely though, marriage is not the most important factor when it comes to a
family; rather, it is the care that is shown within the family structure,
whether it be in marriage, cohabitation, or single parenthood, that makes the
true difference.
Do I
think marriage is alive and strong in America? Allison Pugh states, “Maybe
we’re asking too much of traditional forms of marriage to be able to absorb all
these changes.” We may be getting married to each other less in today’s world
due to socio-economic issues, but that does not certainly mean that we are avoiding
love. As the studies show, half of the 40-percent that believe that marriage is
becoming increasingly obsolete still want to be with someone else. We have been
shaping the ways we love one another since the 1960’s, and cohabitation is
simply one of the results that has blossomed from our “love search.” Of course,
there are obvious psychological and social benefits from marriage; however,
cohabitation is fully capable of fulfilling these same personal needs in most
cases. As Pugh also states in Aja Gabel’s essay, children can equally benefit from an
unmarried couple as they would from a married couple.
This begs the question whether or
not marriage is still a part of our social fabric, and although I do think that
it is still present within our social norms, I do not think that it is a
required one. Happiness is one of the most important factors of our lives, and
whether marriage brings that to us personally or not, is 100-percent up to the
individual. Although there still are obvious social pressures to be married, we
should not cave into these pressures to determine what it is we need in order
to provide the structure in the traditional sense. As discussed in Gabel’s
essay, these social pressures could cause the opposite results from what we wish
to gain from marriage. It is shown in the example of a single mother who feels
that she must engage in marriage at all costs just to provide a father for her
child that these pressures could consequently destroy the very values that we
wish to protect. It has continually been observed that these missing factors
can be compensated for in other forms of family structure and a growing
instability of financial and personal issues only further opens the window to
newer opinions that can be chosen to view. Furthermore, we have shaped our culture to the new
options that we are now presented, and in today’s age, marriage is now longer a
mandatory one.
Even though the structures of our
culture are largely determined by socio-economic factors, there is a scientific
vantage point to all of this. As observed by Kayt Sukel in her essay, “Rethinking
Monogamy,” prairie voles are known to be socially monogamous; however, they are
not genetically monogamous. These same prairie voles are viewed as choice
candidates for studies conducted on the understanding of monogamy in humans. This
raises a red flag as only 3-percent of mammalian species exhibit monogamous
behavior, but as stated in Sukel’s essay, this is primarily in the form of social monogamy. In
Natalie Rivera’s essay over the topic of “temporary marriage,” it is thought
that this form of marriage in which a couple can choose the length of time they
wish to be married, after which the marriage will end without the hassle of
divorce, will reduce the growing rates of divorce. However, temporary marriage is
seen more of way to determine whether or not your partner is the right choice
to mate with. This comes off to me as a sort of bridge between the observations
of prairie vole behaviors and the changes in marriage in today’s world. Based off of this scientific study, I see
temporary marriage and cohabitation as a biological mechanism that goes off in
our brains in an attempt to observe a potential mate. This allows us to
determine whether or not a person is suitable to ensure evolutionary success. If
we are truly monogamous as society encourages us to be, then why have we moved
more towards these options (that seem more like biological tests) of temporary marriage
and cohabitation?
- 2014, A&G
