In the June 2005 issue of Harpers' Magazine, Laura Kipnis wrote a book review called "Love or Money: The Matrimonial Mystique" (alas, not online) containing a summary of and musings about Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephanie Coontz. It was fascinating, and, during the course of a few train rides into work, I wrote down my thoughts about it:
"Marriage was always subsumed to various larger purposes, whatever those
purposes happened to be [economic, political, etc.]"
The author being reviewed - Stephanie Coontz - feels that, in modern times,
love conquered marriage in that marriage is now ruled mainly by love, free of
ulterior constraints. Kipnis says that this idea is delusion: "...but notice
how we move through our assigned paces in lockstep with all the other equally
'autonomous individuals' of our time, each of us exercising our free choices
in the same narrowly defined ticky-tacky boxes... If in every period of history,
marriage has been co-opted by the prevailing forms of political power, on what
account have the causality arrows so radically reversed themselves in the modern
period?" I find this to be very astute - it's the same premise by which
you see people of the same socioeconomic background congregate together in cites.
For example, when I moved to Albuquerque, New Mexico - a city where whites like
myself are in the minority - I ended up, almost before I knew it, hanging out
almost exclusively with middle-class whites. These insular groups are not just
about race or class; they can arise though lifestyle states as well. I continually
note how how hard it is for people without kids to regularly get together with
couples with young children. I have a large number of friends who have great
smiling little babies and toddlers, and love to be with them, but inevitably
the kids are the focal point of the group and dominate the conversation to the
point that the most common conversation is to observe and comment on the existing
children and speculate about your own (presumably forthcoming) children. So
I recognize that while it may feel like we are free to make our choices in whatever
way we see fit, the reality is that our decisions are shaped by many external
factors. While Kipnis never answers her ominous question, I posit that the reigning
force today is economic - in order to keep up their socioeconomic status quo,
couples know that both spouses need to work, so people typically end up with
a partner from their same economic background.
As if reading my thoughts, Kipnis continues: "As sociologist Eva Illouz argues in "Consuming the Romantic Utopia" (1997), the real transformation of modern love is that ranking mates for material and social assets is now incorporated into unconscious structures of desire." This is a fascinating idea and one for which I'd love to see proof. I have not read Illouz's book, but this notion did get me thinking about what influences who one ends up marrying. I came up with a few things; for example, many people I know are blatantly attracted to people that are either remarkably similar to (or the direct opposite of) their mother/father. Might not the understandable attraction to the familiar account for some of this stagnant socioeconomic spousal mixing? Or is it simply another by-product of society's segregation? After all, if you never meet a prospective mate, you'll obviously never end up with them. Another notion is the always fascinating idea of the framing power of language. If being a literature major taught me nothing else - and some joke that it didn't - I learned that simply by expressing, writing, or even thinking in one language, the language, by its nature, limits some opportunities and opens others. Perhaps this notion can be extended to apply to social classes, or their notions of "love"; your membership in one necessarily controls your definition of the other and thus puts blinders/controllers in place of which you aren't even aware. All of these notions really bother me; I hate the idea that my thoughts, despite how I might believe they are my own, are simply a product of my time and place. All the more reason, then, to be ever vigilant and continually question yourself about your authenticity. However, this notion only reinforces my thinking that economics are the driving (subconscious) force behind marriage partner selection.
"It was the entry of women into the labor force throughout the 20th century that shook the foundations of marriage. [Basically, 70s economy and feminism=higher divorce and lower birth rates.] With new possibilities for economic independence from men, more women were free to leave unsatisfying marriages, which also meant they tended to make more demands on the ones they choose to stay in." Nothing wrong here, but it does lead into a discussion my wife and I have about spawning children: having a child (and, in our opinions, doing it appropriately) means that at least one of us should stop working (or at least only work at home part time) so we can devote enough attention to raising the child. After all, what's the point in having a child if you spend the equivalent of one of your salaries simply paying for the kid's day care? It makes more sense to stay home and raise him yourself rather then pay for a group of strangers to do your job for you. But today's economic conditions dictate that both spouses must work in order to make ends meet (or else forgo all entertainment and/or live in a location where housing is actually affordable (&, incidentally, where wages are even lower, like Pittsburgh or Buffalo)). As stated: "the role of stay-at-home mom espoused by conservatives is, ironically, entirely incompatible with the economic policies they also promote, unconstrained market capitalism having been far more radical in destabilizing the middle-class family then anything ever dreamed by radical feminists." So, again, you're forced to make choices--if you want a spouse to stay at home, or work while you stay at home, and yet still enjoy middle-class comfort, then you must, by necessity, have a partner that makes six figures. The rest of you are screwed - which to me, summarizes modern conservatism nicely.
As powerful as all these arguments are, we do live in a free society, so much so that choosing a marriage partner cannot simply be limited to just social and economic issues; as Samuel L. Jackson sez: "Personality goes a long way." So while all of the factors mentioned above play an important part in spousal selection, so does an individual's ideals of attraction (blond/brunette, tall/short, etc.) as does religion, fidelity, etc. For example, what percentage of Catholics fulfill their stereotype by quickly getting married and popping out lots of babies just because that is what's expected of them? What of Mormons? Baptists? Part of the "unconscious structures of desire" I suppose, but also a highly personal decision that one has (hopefully) taken the time to carefully consider (whether or not they accept the basic tenants - the implicit rules - of their religion). There is also our modern culture of desire, where foax are bombarded with images of sex and excitement and when, as will happen in any marriage, there's a rough spot where you might not be attracted to the other or there isn't much sex, feelings of dissatisfaction and inadequacy arise. (These feelings and guilt are the bread and butter of the advertising industry.) This combined with the awful "soul-mate" myth may cause individuals to look elsewhere. However, however strong these factors, the point Kipnis was making - and one I think all married couples and people contemplating marriage should examine - is that despite how free you feel your decisions are, our society is structured such that your decision is influenced by other factors (mainly economic). If you want to make a truly free decision, you need to examine your thoughts and feelings in this light before coming to any conclusions.
Back to TGM's Musings