Thomas Knieps-Port le Roi
INTAMS review | Volume 14 | Issue 1 |
Spring 2008 | Pages >
What
Future for Marriage in Postmodern Times?
Introduction
into the INTAMS Colloquium 2008
To ask whether there is any
predictable future for marriage, and if so, what it may look like, is
admittedly not a very original question nor is it a new one. Historians tell us
that marriage and the family have at all times been discussed as if they were
in a crisis. This is not surprising if one considers that throughout the
history of the Western world, marriage served the purpose of biological
reproduction, warranted the transmission of property and social standing, and
functioned as a school in which social behavior, cultural patterns and religious
values were reproduced. Society in itself must have appeared to be in a state
of crisis whenever this bedrock came under strain, be it in the aftermath of
sudden, irruptive events such as economic recession and political upheaval or
as a consequence of gradual processes of demographic development or cultural
transformation. Should political and religious leaders not have got alarmed
when the existing order seemed to be threatened from its most vulnerable side?
If we assign the question about the future of marriage to
the genre of crisis-talk, historical recollection could perhaps help us to calm
down and keep our present state of alertness in perspective and in proportion.
If previous generations have been preoccupied by the imminent decline of marriage
and yet it is still here today, why then should we get so alarmed by what may
now appear to be a dramatic moment of disruption but will ultimately turn out
to be just another episode in a millennia-old history?
We should be cautious, however, and not underestimate the
importance of psychology first of all. Whoever is or believes him- or herself
to be in a crisis situation, whether individually or as part of the wider
social context, is not very likely to accept comfort and consolation from a
look into the past. It may be that there have been comparable situations in the
past, perhaps others before us have been confronted with similar difficulties,
they would argue, but the situation now really
is serious, in fact it is more
serious than it has ever been before, so that any historical parallel is
inadequate. Is there not plenty of evidence that the current historical
situation of marriage and the family is indeed completely unparalleled? When
have there ever been so many people divorcing, forming new unions shortly
afterwards and separating again? When in history have couple relations ever
been so optional and at the same time so fragile? Has there ever been a time
when children have been exposed to such a high degree of instability in
parental relationships? Ultimately, even the most optimistic among contemporary
analysts would agree that within a few decades, lifelong marital commitment as
a model of intimate partner relations and the basic unit of the family has lost
its monopoly and will probably never regain the privileged position it held
until recently in the organization of private and public life.
It seems to me that much of the recent debate among
family scholars and others engaged or interested in the issue of marriage and
the family is organized along these two lines. While some point to overwhelming
evidence before our very eyes that prompts us to recognize the gravity of the
present situation and act upon it, others try to downplay the agitation of the
moment by assessing the legitimacy of diversification and pluralization in the
contemporary culture of relationships, or even argue that marriage has after
all adapted fairly well to the dramatic changes it has undergone and still
undergoes. As is often the case with ideological trench wars, both camps
provide striking arguments to defend their case, but fail to recognize the
grain of truth which may also be found in the opposite view. The
"conservatives" and cultural pessimists are certainly right in
putting their finger on the open sore of both adults and children who
increasingly find themselves victims of living arrangements that are based on
spontaneous decision and individual preference rather than on enduring
commitment. But do they not pay the price of sheltering behind the idea of a
matrimonial institution that in its traditional form no longer serves the real
needs of contemporary couples? Liberals and progressives in turn rightly
emphasize that personal fulfillment, relational satisfaction, and gender
balance are precious achievements of modernity that should have priority over a
rigid marital institution, but they sometimes ignore the fact that even
autonomous subjects can’t do without structures of protection, care, and
support.
In times of manifest transformation, the temptation can
be real either to adhere anxiously to a "golden age" in the past, or
to embrace naively a better future to come. This may explain why predictions
about the future of marriage sometimes look like the results of crystal-ball
gazing, forecasting a future that can in any case only be either dark or
bright. In moments of transition, however, we should turn to more reliable
sources of analysis and prognosis, and try first to take a balanced view of
where we are at present, to take stock of what we think should be preserved and
perpetuated and to prepare ourselves to let go of what is not very likely to
stand the test of time. It is the intention of this colloquium to readdress the
question about the future of marriage from that perspective. Not to predict the
future, but to prepare for it seems to me the more challenging and more
promising endeavor and should therefore be the guiding idea underlying our
exploration. But since we do not trust crystal-balls, where are we to look for
answers about the future of marriage? Let me briefly sketch three areas which I
believe need to be re-considered:
The first one is the realm of empirical evidence. Never before in history have we accumulated
such a huge body of data recording the developing pattern of family change that
has occurred over the past few decades. Demographic statistics provide the
rough picture and confirm broad trends which include declining marriage rates,
the rise of cohabitation, and more births outside marriage; increases in
divorce, in remarriage and in newly constituted families; a growing number of
lone-parent families, falling birthrates and smaller families. If we zoom in on
marriage, we are confronted with a number of significant changes which all seem
to predict a rather somber future: marriage no longer serves as the standard
model for couple formation, it has been undermined by the increasing resort to
divorce and it is no longer the conventional setting for bearing and rearing
children.
Unequivocal as these data may be, they do not allow us to
conclude that marriage has lost its importance. One of the puzzling findings
today is that although fewer people are marrying, a great majority – according
to recent
Some cohabiting couples have already decided explicitly to get
married, although they might not describe themselves as engaged. Others have
less commitment, but may have decided, at least implicitly or privately, that
they are going to marry the partner. Yet others enter cohabitation without any
plans to marry but consider marriage as a possibility that cohabitation may
help to realize. Thus, all of these couples make the decision to cohabit in the
context of considering marriage – from having a definitive plan to
contemplating the possibility.[4]
These and similar findings
should not, of course, mislead anybody into believing that the tide is turning
and that people will massively return to formal marriage. But they are part of
an overall picture that seems to be much more complex than the figures on
declining marriage rates and increasing alternatives to marriage may have
suggested for quite some time. The American sociologist Andrew Cherlin at least
thinks that today "the interesting question is not why so few people are
marrying, but rather, why so many
people are marrying, or planning to marry, or hoping to marry, when
cohabitation and single parenthood are widely acceptable options."[5]
Cherlin notes, however, that many of the theoretical
frameworks which have been developed in the twentieth century to sketch the
evolution of marriage over a longer historical period are not very helpful in
explaining why marriage has remained so popular. That brings us to a second
field which deserves to be revisited when exploring the future of marriage:
The domain of theoretical
concepts. According to a dominant theory, the contemporary status of
marriage is the result of long-term material and cultural trends that have
altered its meaning and reduced its relevance. On the material side, the trends
included the decline of an agricultural economy and the corresponding increase
in paid labour, rising standards of living, the emergence of the nuclear
family, and, in the latter half of the twentieth century, the increased entry
of women into the paid workforce. The cultural shift was initially marked by a
growing emphasis on romantic love and emotional satisfaction and then developed
into a heightened individualism that found its unbridled expression in the last
decades of the past century. As late-modern people are preoccupied with the
pursuit of personal happiness, they no longer wish nor do they need to be bound
by obligations to others and therefore traditional institutions such as
marriage are bound to erode.
One may wonder, however, whether the history of marriage
can really be told in terms of such a progressive decline. Some scholars at
least challenge our firmly-held beliefs by claiming resemblances between some
forms of unmarried cohabitation today and marriage in the past. Many people
today believe that marriage typically occurs when a statement of promise and consent
is made before a representative of the religious or state authorities, and that
this has been the practice in history for hundreds and thousands of years. Yet,
a closer look at our history shows that before the sixteenth century a simple
exchange of vows could turn an unmarried man and woman into husband and wife.
Only gradually did church and state succeed in removing marriage from the hands
of individuals and placing it under their control. As the historian John Gillis
notes, "In
the period roughly from 1870 to 1970,
This appears to have been something of an aberration, however, and now
Western societies are once again coming into line with their own past and with
other world cultures by tolerating a wide range of formal and informal marriage
practices and by honoring both big and little marriages. For people having
trouble dealing with outsized marriage expectations, the smaller version is
increasingly attractive, at least in the short term. Seen in the larger
historical and global perspective, there is nothing particularly alarming in
this tendency. In fact, there is much to recommend it.[6]
Whatever the historical truth
of this position may be, it challenges us to reconsider our theoretical
frameworks, which may provide plausible explanations for the contemporary
erosion of marriage but possibly eclipse from our view the fact that marriage
is still quite alive, albeit in a "lighter version" than our short
historical memory allows us to acknowledge.
But at the same time, this position makes it clear that
next to empirical data and theoretical perspectives which help us interpret the
data, there is a third field which deserves our attention.
I am talking here about our human interests, wishes and desires, which inevitably and
legitimately slip into and influence even the most apparently objective
predictions about the future or end of marriage. When in the early 1970s the
feminist sociologist Jessie Bernard published her book The Future of Marriage, in which she concluded that marriage was
good for men but bad for women’s mental and physical health, her prognosis was
more radical than her diagnosis seemed to suggest. While she answered the
question she had put to herself "Does marriage have a future?", with
an unambiguous "Yes!", she did not think primarily of linking this
promising future to a reform of marriage in order to make it more equal and
more fulfilling for both husband and wife. Instead, she altered the very
definition of marriage she had used to distinguish between its male and female
variant.
Not only does marriage have a future, it has many futures. There will
be, for example, options that permit different kinds of relationships over time
for different stages in life, and options that permit different life styles or
living arrangements according to the nature of the relationships. There may be,
up to about age twenty-five, options for childless liaisons; for the years of maturity,
stable and at least ‘temporarily permanent’ marriages involving childrearing;
for middle age and beyond, new forms of relationships, perhaps even polygynous
ones. People will be able to tailor their relationship to their circumstances
and preferences. The most characteristic aspect of marriage in the future will
be precisely the array of options available to different people who want
different things from their relationships with one another.[7]
It may be typical of our
postmodern condition that our present definitions of marriage betray much more
of what we want it to be in the future
than of what its timeless essentials are – an exclusive, lifelong commitment or
a temporarily permanent engagement, a heterosexual union for the sake of
procreation or the joining together of two harmonizing souls. "Nennen wir es also der Einfachheit halber
Ehe" ("for the sake of simplicity, let’s call it marriage")
– I’m afraid that this suggestion which I find in the afterword of a recent
collection of world literary texts on loving relationships,[8] will
not meet the amicable agreement it intends to achieve. We do have differing
views about the meaning of marriage and therefore make different projections of
what it ought to be in the future. There is no other way to proceed than
calmly, perseveringly and respectfully to juxtapose these diverging positions.
I am not so sure that we have gone very far in that direction. If this
colloquium could make a contribution to doing so, much would be achieved.
[1] J.R. Goldstein/C.T. Kenny:
"Marriage Delayed or Marriage Forgone? New Cohort Forecasts of First
Marriage for
[2] E. Coast: Honourable Intentions? Attitudes and
Intentions among Currently Cohabiting Couples in
[3] L. Halman et al., Changing Values and Beliefs in 85 Countries:
Trends from the Values Surveys from 1981 to 2004 (European Values Studies;
11),
[4] A. Thornton/W.G. Axinn/Y. Xie: Marriage and Cohabitation,
Chicago-London:
[5] A.J. Cherlin: "The
Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage", in: Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (2004), 848-861, at 854.
[6] J.R. Gillis:
"Marriages of the Mind", in: Journal
of Marriage and Family 66 (2004), 988-991, at
[7] J. Bernard: The Future of Marriage, 2nd ed., New
Haven-London:
[8] Lob der Ehe: Ein weltliterarisches Treuebuch, ed. R. Schami, Zürich: Manesse, 2007, 462.