I DO, DO I?

I have in this blog referred to marriage as the fundamental federalist union. Here, two adults choose to form a union under the auspices of a covenant or compact. They promise to be by each other's side come hell or high water. And this includes all sorts of situations no matter what either one does. At least, that is the model. We, through the years, have compromised this ideal. I have to admit that the realities characterizing too many actual marriages fall far short of the ideal. Many of our popular dramas we love to watch are about how spouses, most often the husband, cheat on their partners in one way or another. Be that as it may, the importance of the family and the marriage upon which this institution is based need to be examined. It is a subject our youngsters in school should explore, because the role that marriages play in promoting a healthy society cannot be overestimated.

Yet our institution of the family is lacking sufficient success – current rates of divorce have leveled off at 45% since 1980. Consequently, we are under the burden of social effects that are detrimentally keeping us from accomplishing significant goals. Such as what? Such as a society with low crime rates, with an educated populace, with a labor force that can readily meet the demands of our modern economy, with a people who are able to seek and attain those personal ambitions they set for themselves. The simple truth is that marriages not only serve the spouses involved, but also set the stage for the creation of the next generation with all of its promise for the future.

So a central question in analyzing this institution would be: why would people want to get married? Why would they want to set up their lives, committed in the most intimate ways, with one other person? What are they looking for when they say, “I do”? And in this, as it turns out, there has been a significant amount of research, mostly by sociologists.

Eli J. Finkel¹ provides a bit of an overview of recent findings one can find in this academic literature. He approaches this complex concern from the perspective of two domains: economic and psychological. One is the varying economic demands that people faced through the years of our nation's existence – how the particular set of demands of any era shape the expectations of prospective couples. The other domain is the psychological developmental stages that people go through as they have or don't have their perceived needs met.

As for economic demands, Finkel identifies three broad models he sees characterizing how Americans have viewed marriage over the nation's history: the institutional marriage (up to about 1850), the “companionate” marriage (1850-1965), and the self-expressive marriage (1965 to the present). Basically, as Americans were able to more readily meet the economic necessities facing them, this in turn helped Americans meet their needs. As they became more proficient economically, their motivational expectations developed into different psychological views as to what constitutes a workable marriage – a marriage that provides satisfaction of the expectations one has for getting married in the first place.

In general, there is a development among populations that progresses from the oldest, more austere times to the more prosperous times of today. And it happens that a respected psychological model on motivation helps us understand this development. That model is Abraham Maslow's “hierarchy of needs.” The model postulates that as one is able to satisfy a set of lower needs, one is confronted by a higher set of needs. The general trend is from the lowest level – survival needs (mostly biological needs for food, shelter, safety, and touch) – to mid-range needs – social needs of comradeship and love – to finally the highest level needs – personally directed needs of esteem and self-actualization. It's not that we lose our lower needs as we ascend this hierarchy; we continue to seek food and shelter, but our conscious emphasis falls on the higher and in many ways more complex needs.

Using these domains, Finkel identifies the three eras I listed above, each with its own view of what marriage should provide spouses. Let us review the implications of all this by explaining each marital model. The institutional marriage model was in vogue when the primary economic needs of Americans were to provide food and shelter. Sure enough, marriage decisions in the earliest years – pre-1850 – centered around concerns over providing the lowest level needs of food, shelter, and protection against violence. These were the primary considerations in determining whether one was to marry or not and to whom. Love? In an institutional marriage, one could hope for it, but the emphasis was on the more immediate survival considerations that were central to most people during those years.

With a more secure and prosperous economy, one could allow oneself to be more concerned with loving someone and with being loved. With basic needs for the most part met, in a “companionate” marriage, one can begin to look for and focus on companionship that reflects emotional attachment to one's perspective spouse. At the same time, men, especially, found employment outside the homestead – a movement from rural employment to urban labor. The sexes, in vast numbers, began to live in distinct social environments: the home versus a factory, mine, business shop, or office. The expectation became that love would keep these mates together, as opposed to those mutual concerns over making a farm a success.

In our last era, the self-expressive marriage model became prominent at least in people's minds. Since 1965, people have lived in significantly richer times. For those who have benefited from this largess, people have reasons to formulate a new set of psychological expectations. The cultural media outlets tend to promote these types of expectations since they are more likely to describe and focus on people from upper income households. And so, a different marriage model becomes prevalent: the self-expressive marriage. This has taken hold among most people since 1965. Under this model, the new emphasis becomes one's own individual needs: esteem and self-actualization, Maslow's highest levels. Marriage mates, who are now safely ensconced in lucrative careers, are not so dependent on companionship, but instead are apt to look for that person who will help or at least allow one to bolster one's self importance and/or one's self-meaning. But a word of caution concerning this view: I can't help but describe this as an outlook that encourages a more narcissistic view. If one does not define self-importance as being determined by service to others, the outlook is one of selfishness and, by definition, not one that bolsters the sacrifices that living with someone else demands – hence a 45% divorce rate. This is especially true if both partners see marriage with the same set of self-centered expectations. Unfortunately, in an age when the dominant social and political construct is the natural rights perspective, the likelihood that either or both spouses will see marriage as a means to advance a more self-serving agenda is much more likely.

Given the importance of the family and the relationship it has with the institution of marriage, there is a need to address all of these concerns in civics classes. Marriages have a crucial role in securing a healthy dose of social capital in our or any society. To quote a previous posting:

The problem of incivility [a central concern of civics education] can be defined as a lack of social capital. The social scientist [Robert D.] Putnam … defines social capital as a societal quality characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.²

If upon looking around today, you sense we have too few of these listed qualities, perhaps one of the reasons has to do with marital expectations that encourage selfish behavior that is non-conducive to healthy family relations.

Finkel reinforces the notion that we have higher divorce rates, especially among the lower income population (as reflected by lower educational attainment levels). He argues that lack of income makes self-expressing expectations more or less unaffordable. These types of findings lead Finkel to postulate that while divorce rates are high, those who can meet the expectations of current societal conditions tend to find themselves in very rewarding and self-enhancing unions. My take is that there are qualitative issues that these marriages must address, irrespective of their educational or income levels, and federalist thought might guide us toward looking at what those are. Does the marriage encourage healthy perspectives that frame the relationship in accordance with those qualities that advance social capital in whatever minimal amount that relationship can contribute? Does it, for example, promote trust between the spouses and between the couple and their social environment? Or does it encourage a self-serving posture that invites anti-social relations between them and/or among their social relations? All these are factors that contribute to the happiness a particular marriage enjoys and can determine its ability to not only survive but also be fulfilling.

As for couples that cannot literally afford higher expectations, whether in terms of finances, time, or energy (self-actualizing relations do take significant amounts of effort), Finkel suggests: “they might consider adjusting their expectations, perhaps by focusing on cultivating an affectionate bond [mid-range Maslow needs] without trying to facilitate each other's self-actualization.”³ For whatever level a particular person finds him/herself in, an understanding of the psychological forces that are in effect would, I believe, increase the chances for that person's eventual marriage to work. We all have a vested interest in upping the probabilities of successful marriages. These probabilities can be affected by what we address in school, particularly in civics classes.

1Finkel, E. J. (2014). The all-or-nothing marriage. The New York Times, February 16, Sunday Review section, pp. 1 and 6. The reported factual information in this posting is derived from this article.

2See posting More Formal Evidence of Incivility, November 1, 2010.

3Op cit., Finkel, p. 6.