The Point of ‘Marriage’

Question: 

What is the point of marriage?

Background Material: 

http://www.abbasrattani.com/2/post/2011/01/on-relationships.html

Taking people for granted:  http://www.abbasrattani.com/2/post/2011/01/enhancing-relationships.html

Dynasty 1:  Marriage as Contract

As I see it, marriage is a contract between two people, and in that contract there are a number of promises that are made and are to be kept.  Things like: will help with the financial burdens, take care of any offspring if we choose to have them, not copulate or have intimate relations with another person, etc.  And morally speaking, we are obligated to uphold these promises, and if we don’t we are basically denigrating the worth of that person.

For example, if a man cheats on his wife he is basically saying via action:  “The betrayal and hurt you will feel by my actions is not worth anything such that I feel comfortable violating my obligation.”

Demonizing another human’s value is immoral because if the tables were turned we wouldn’t want that same situation to happen to us.  Almost all relationships that we have with people are contractual relationships; we expect certain things and behaviors from people, and when they break those contracts we expect them to apologize and make amends.

But what makes a marriage different is that it is intended for life.  It has legal and moral components. The legal part intervenes when the contract is broken or violated.  Law is useful in addressing situations when someone wrongs you so much that they need to be punished for their immoral actions.  The moral component is similar to most relationships between people, it is a constructed obligatory principle that makes humans operate with each other on an ethical level.

Maybe marriages should have an escape clause, or a renewal clause so that after X amount of years people can decide to renew it or negate it.  But then the question of children come in, is it necessary for children to be raised by a mother and father?  (What about homosexual parents, or single moms, or being raised by other relatives, adoption, etc).  Is it reasonable to expect two individuals to be married happily for so long? Is happiness even a concern?

It seems to me when humans start viewing other humans as disposable in value, or take them for granted they seem to act in morally suspect ways because to them, their relationship, and that person is not of equal value to them.  Because all humans are infinite in value, it’s concerning when someone starts devaluing another person.

Dynasty 2:  Paternalistic Power Dynamics in Marriage

While in the most ideal fashion marriage is, as described, a contract between two individuals formalizing their commitment to one another I begin to question its value and in some cases relevance in the modern era. As U.S. divorce rates remain quite high (1 in 2 in some studies), one is forced to confront the necessity of marriage in the first place. If we extract the obvious tax and medical benefits that heterosexual couples are offered in the U.S. if they choose marriage: filing joint tax returns, federal and state benefits, the ability to make emergency medical decisions, then we come to consider the less quantitative benefits associated with marriage.

Several studies have been devoted to studying the biological human need for establishing kinship systems (I certainly am no anthropological expert) however several researchers have explored our intense human need to settle down with a mate, it is in our nature to trust the familiar and fear the strange. I fully accept the human pursuit of settling down with someone; however I refuse to believe that this can only be successfully achieved through the institution of marriage. Recently the number of long term committed couples who choose not to get married has risen. This can be attributed to a number of factors, many point to the rising number of women in the labor force as women no longer have to become married in order to be financially stable.

The Canadian Encyclopedia refers to these couples who cohabitate but do not perform a ceremony as “common law marriage” which I think stems from the need for Western societies to formalize and codify relationships. “In Canada and most other industrialized countries the marriage rate is declining and the number of families living in common-law relationships is increasing… The 1981 census was the first Canadian census to record common-law unions: at that time approximately 6% of couples were living common-law. Twenty years later the rate had more than doubled (14%)”  (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005119)

Which leads me to my major problem with marriage: the paternalistic power dynamics that accompany marriage and serve to oppress women.  I can’t put it any better than militant feminist activist Emma Goldman in her essay Marriage and Love, “The popular notion about marriage and love is that they are synonymous, that they spring from the same motives, and cover the same human needs.  Like most popular notions this also rests not on actual facts, but on superstition….Marriage is primarily an economic arrangement, an insurance pact.  It differs from the ordinary life insurance agreement only in that it is more binding, more exacting…If, however, woman’s premium is her husband, she pays for it with her name, her privacy, her self-respect, her very life…If motherhood is the highest fulfillment of woman’s nature, what other protection does it need, save love and freedom?  Marriage but defiles, outrages, and corrupts her fulfillment.  Does it not say to woman, Only when you follow me shall you bring forth life?  Does it not condemn her to the block, does it not degrade and shame her if she refuses to buy her right to motherhood by selling herself?”

While Goldman’s point of view is certainly extreme and she was writing in 1917 which one can argue women have come a long way since then, as a woman living in the contemporary world I can’t help but point out that my perceived value as a human being is lessened if I choose not to get married and if I choose to get married there inevitably is an expectation that I will take on the burden of 80% of the chores, leave work if I want a family and give up part of my identity for my husband. Is it worth it? Many continue to think so and as someone who has been blessed to live in a home with two parents who are happily married and truly love each other, not fabricated cheesy Hollywood love with walks on the beach and making out in the rain, but rather a commitment to one another through the good and the bad, to support one another and be companions, perhaps there is still a thrill to be found in declaring eternal love to someone in a formal contractual agreement.

Also as I explore the current fight for homosexual couples to marry I was touched by this NPR peace: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128409696.

I do not know if I will ever be able to fully accept that marriage as an institution. It is flawed, and mostly outdated, carries consequences in the quest for gender equality and is mistakenly associated as the only means for couples to demonstrate true love. I think love is a far more powerful force, radically more significant than any contract or institution. However, I speak from the perspective of a semi jaded 19 year old feminist and my biases are apparent. Currently I think it is most important that we allow all individuals to make the choice of whether they want to be married or not. Even if it is a poor choice, I believe all people should have the right to make that decision for themselves.

Dynasty 1:  Formal Marriage and Love

If true love exists outside of marriage and a “common law marriage” is a way of holding parties accountable in a court of law if there is a contract breech, then is there a point of getting married formally?

I ask this because:

(1) I also believe that love can exist outside of a legal marriage, but I also believe that two people in love or two people who care about each other already enter in a contract with each other.  Close friends have obligations to each other, and if one violates their obligation their friendship can be at risk.  Hence, couples, non-legally married, are more or less married in an unspoken contract and they more or less make a commitment to each other not to violate the sanctity of their bond (side note, interesting new book by Harvard philosophy professor “All Things Shining” on how the term ‘sacred’ has lost meaning in today’s society; I agree. MacIntyre talks a little about this in “after virtue”).  I see nothing wrong with awarding them the privileges that certain cultures, religions, and societies bestow upon formally married parities.

(2) The concept of marriage is socially constructed and one probably created to preserve lineage or legacy.

Dynasty 3:  A Dating Contract

The purpose of marriage, and possibly life itself, is simply happiness. Focusing on any particular perspective of marriage, such as the moral / legal / expectation conception (Dynasty 1) or the feminist perspective (Dynast 2) may over-complicate the picture unnecessarily or just attempt to explain away individual preferences / emotions.

I have to call out this obligation / expectations theory.  The foundation of marriage, or any union, is love. The contract / obligations come second. But defining marriage in terms of ‘I expect X as per contract clause Y’ takes the essence out of any loving relationship. Expectations usually get in the way emotional well being, as they can turn into burdens. However, recognize the distinction between expectations and decisions. Decisions are where two people out of love decide to do X or Y for one another. Expectations can be created out of thin air while Decisions are made by two people set on a foundational basis of love.

On a tangent, I still think that some preparation before getting married is very necessary. Dating can be useful but is highly vulnerable to abuse, while temporary marriages are quite useful but presupposes good faith. So, I support some sort of dating contract that sets the goals / boundaries of pre-marriage interaction for those want to get married.

Dynasty 1:  Expectations and Marriage

A marriage is a promise; you can have love without making promises.  You can make promises without having love.  A promise is a contract.  And expectations do not come out of thin air; expectations are something you can anticipate to happen because it is only what a morally mature person would do. You expect a person to be at location Z when they said they would.  You expect person to not cheat on you when the both of you are exclusive.  You expect the truth, etc.  Decision is made when a problem or dispute is present, it is something you solve/resolve.

Is there any real need to get married?

Dynasty 2: Marriages as Social Etiquette

I have to disagree with a previous point saying that discussions of perspectives/obligation/roles are arbitrary when discussing marriage because love is the most important factor to be considered. If this is the case and in hopes that we formulate societies that allow for the ultimate open pursuit and recognition of love then we must question whether when we impose institutions like marriage if they serve as unnecessary burdens and in some cases detract from what the previous commenter (and Aristotle) previously stated as the ultimate human goal: true happiness.

I also have a hard time understanding the emphasis on contracts when discussing agreements/relationships. Western thought seems to have this obsession with contract. Social contract is heralded as the basis for our political system. If we extract the term contract and say instead that humans enter relationships on a leap of faith, hoping that when you allow yourself to be vulnerable with another person that they will not take advantage of that trust and vulnerability I don’t know if that is necessarily a ‘contract’ or rather just our biological need to find ties.

But even as I make the most rational argument I can think of for why marriage seems on the whole unnecessary and based upon antiquated notions of ‘being proper’ there are individuals who despite these doubts choose to get married, some even fighting fiercely for the opportunity. I don’t really know why someone would want to get married but there seems to be a sort of security that comes with formally establishing that you plan on staying with someone for the rest of your life.

However, what I do not understand is that if you wanted to be with someone then you would be with them, marriage or no marriage. Even if you choose to stay married simply to follow up on your commitment past the point of loving someone doesn’t that prove that marriage serves more harm than good?

Dynasty 4: Marriage as a Symbol

In my attempt to begin to answer that question, I have to bring us all back to our earlier thread about symbols.  Marriage, in the way I see it, is very much a symbol of one’s love/commitment/devotion to someone else. No, I do not in any way think that is the only way, or even that it is necessary (as I said earlier), to demonstrate one’s love to one’s significant other. However, I do think that marriage is, in our society, perceived as a symbol of the love two people have for one other. I think it is for this reason (excluding the legal benefits Dynasty 2 mentioned that one gains from being in a marriage) that same-sex couples and allies fight so adamantly for the right of marriage.

Aside from the legal advantages a marriage has over a civil union, marriage has itself stood for many centuries as a symbol, a symbol that many feel (including myself) that all couples deserve to partake in. I believe it is for the sake of this symbol (and to not be discriminated against) that homosexual couples want the state to recognize same-sex marriages.

This may be an aside, but I was just considering this a couple of days ago – why do people wear wedding bands, or engagement rings? (I am not including here the women who love to show off how much money their husband/fiance has) I could not come up with a practical reason, other than perhaps functioning as sort of a I’m-not-available warning sign to other singles out there; I think, most significantly, it is a symbol that has carried on through the years that demonstrates the endless commitment and love two people have for each other.

Although I agree that, technically speaking, marriage is a contractual agreement between two people, I view it more importantly as a symbol that has permeated our society for thousands of years. Whether we choose to marry someone or not should certainly be left at each person’s discretion (and if one chooses not to be married, he/she most definitely should not be criticized for it), but my understanding of why one would choose to be married is for the sake of this symbol, a promise – as Dynasty 1 said earlier – to be fully committed and loving “until death do us part.”

Dynasty 1: A Deontological View of Marriage

Symbols, in this day in age, still do and don’t have meaning.  The contemporary Aristotelian scholar, MacIntyre, seems to believe that our language of things that have meaning, namely morality, is fragmented and now meaningless.  That book “All Things Shining” also references the idea that we have lost meaning to the word sacred.  Marriage, in some alternate universe, is supposed to be a tawheedic (Oneness) symbol, a union of two in a cosmically divine sense.  Some even say that the circular nature of a ring is in and of itself a symbol of an infinite eternal type of love.

A contract is a promise that is made.  That promise doesn’t have to be vocalized, and I think in our own human consciousness we automatically make promises to uphold certain expectations when we make that “leap of faith” to trust someone and we also expect that when a person joins us in that “leap” he/she also promises to uphold and honor the expectations made of said person.  Because, if it was such the case that we didn’t think or care about promises (or more formally, contracts) we wouldn’t feel guilty if we hurt someone, or the person wouldn’t feel resentment if they were wronged.  The very nature of feeling wronged is based on the idea that as a human being we owe something to our fellow human being and at its base level, it is to respect our dignity (a word that has now lost meaning as MacIntyre points out.)  Tim Scanlon, in “What We Owe To Each Other” highlights this concept in more detail.  At the fundamental bond between two humans, a contract/promise/expectation exists of a certain type of behavior that does not lead to feelings of indignation.

If I decide to copulate with another out of biological inclination, there is still a level of moral obligation that I owe to the person I am copulating with, and that is to acknowledge them as an end, and not as a means.  The moment, I simply use another to satiate my desire (a biological inclination) I have committed an immoral act because I have basically said that the person I am copulating with has no worth outside of satiating my desire.  That right there is immoral.  This also goes for our need to have a partner, or be social.  We should be aware if we using others for our personal socio-psychological reasons.

The moment you extend your vulnerability to someone, you expect that the person honors and respects it.  You trust the person with your vulnerability.  If that trust or expectation is violated, you are less likely to extend it in the future as a way of protecting yourself from crippling feelings of indignation.  Biologically, a person wouldn’t extend their vulnerabilities (an element of human weakness) if they were going to be violated because that lead to devastating biological consequences.  People only extend their vulnerabilities because latent in that extension is an expectation of upholding a contract/promise to not violate or undermine one’s dignity.

Dynasty 3:  Marriage as a Tool

Asking ‘what is the point of marriage?’ risks building a straw man to be knocked down, and presupposes that marriage has to have a point.

Rather, why not think of marriage as tool, which seeks to achieve what all loving unions seek (companionship, love, etc).

So, if one feels that marriage will help you achieve your goal, it’s for you. Otherwise, it’s not. This decision rule provides a simple, neat and pragmatic solution as to the question of whether marriage works or has a point (for you).

Dynasty 5:  Marriage as a Form of Control

As everyone has discussed so far, marriage does not hold a monopoly on love.  In fact, I’d argue that most couples who love each other aren’t married, whether that’s because love is fleeting or marriage isn’t necessarily something that interests everyone I don’t know.  And actually, I can’t know if most couples who love each other are or aren’t married, so I’ll stick to my point.

What made the first cave man who loved his lover say, “You know what, this love thing isn’t enough.  I want to sign a contract that states how I will love you, support you, and spend my time with/without you”?  Probably the first cave woman.  But what made the first cave woman say that?  I venture that it was compulsion of some sort–from familial pressure, a chief, a rudimentary government.  Marriage contracts have always been accountable not only to the two people joined but to the governing body that rules over those two people.  Can homosexuals be married in North Carolina?  No.  Ergo their marriage license from Vermont is void, even though their love remains and their commitment persists.  Can pedophiles marry preteens?  Absolutely not.  Here.  Could they in a lawless place that has no norms, restrictions, or controls against such a union?  Maybe.  That place may not have legalized forms of marriage either, but I digress.

No matter what, marriage is indeed a symbol.  It’s a symbol that people love each other and it’s an evidence of how they love each other.  But it is a symbol that is undoubtedly rooted in governance, contracts (and not just Western contracts).  Think of who is entitled to marry and divorce, of who entitles others to marry and divorce.  There is always a ruling body–a church, the Church, a chief, a state, something–and these bodies proclaim their dominion over peoples’ love in every corner of the globe.  They always have.

Dynasty 6:  Marriage as an Evolutionary Adaption

I’m inclined to agree with Dynasty 3’s initial utilitarian bent. There’s a reason why monogamy as opposed to polygamy, polyandry, etc. is the most acceptable form of marriage in the world today. Robert Wright actually has some interesting things to say about this topic in the Moral Animal. Disclaimer: this is purely a recreation (from memory, so some of it may be off), and is by no means an endorsement. I do believe that the following illustration does have some value in this discussion:

*********

Imagine a society in which there is a thousand men and a thousand women, each ranked in terms of desirability. Like our ancestral environment, each man desires to reproduce as many times as possible and each women seeks to maximize resources for her offspring. This means that woman 1-1000 desire man 1 and, well, each man, with a few exceptions, maybe, desires woman 1-1000 (the idea is that men are inherently much less choosy than women when it comes to choice of mate). Now, in an ideal polygamous society, man 1 would take on as many wives as his resources would allow. This continues down the list, leaving a certain number of men at the bottom of the list who have no potential for reproduction. That is, they get screwed (evolutionarily, anyway). Wright goes on to say that, in such a society, the men at the bottom, due to their lack of mating opportunities, would be more prone to violence, desperate attempts (rape, etc), creating an altogether less pleasant society. Regarding this last assertion, there is also a large body of supplementary literature on criminality among young men. In summary, both criminality and genius/achievement, strangely enough, peak at a very young age. After marriage, both decrease.

Now, according to this framework, a perfectly monogamous society is actually a compact among men. That is, the more desirable men decide to sacrifice the opportunity to have a greater number of wives in order to create a more harmonious society. Man 1 pairs with woman 1, man 2 with woman 2, etc, all the way down.

*********

Anyways, a few things to think about. Again, the illustration is a very simplistic one as it is grounded in the “ancestral environment.” It begs several questions, including those regarding the implications of the financial empowerment of women. That being said, I do think that underlying logic is sound. Over thousands of years, monogamous marital arrangements have been found to be more conducive to peaceful societies than other arrangements and that is why it is so widespread today. This isn’t to say that it is “right” or “good.” It’s simply at attempt to explain why it’s there in the first place.

Regarding that “body of supplementary literature,” here’s a primer:

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/JRP2003.pdf

Dynasty 7: Governance, Control, Symbols: A Recontextualized Approach

Marriage is an extremely complex thing to break down, as people get married for a ton of reasons (social, emotional, legal, economical, religious etc), and marriage itself means different things among different cultures and societies. I’ll attempt to break down this aspect that Dynasty 1 brought up earlier:

(2)The concept of marriage is socially constructed and one probably created to preserve lineage or legacy

So this is one concept of marriage that applies strongly to most marriages in our society, I think (not sure, as I haven’t surveyed many couples), and Dynasty 5 was essentially getting at my thoughts in his post. The way I see it, the reason why marriage exists the way it does in our society is because of the legal implications and ramifications that come along with it, and ultimately the issue of record keeping. Allow me to preface a little bit.

Writing was invented to solve a particular problem: information only existed if someone remembered it. Once it was gone from memory, it was gone for good. As human societies grew and became more complex, those attempting to control and govern them found that their memories were overtaxed – what they needed was an external storage device of some sorts, and Western Digital wasn’t a company yet. Essentially what they came up with was writing.

Let’s say I owed Dynasty 1 five bucks. If I say “I will repay you in April”, the words are gone the instant I utter them. They exist only in my memory, and in the memory of anyone who heard me. And who will say that I will continue to remember them? Obviously, Dynasty 1 is going to want more lasting evidence of my promise, even though we boys.

And so I extend the example to marriage – obviously it’s difficult for me to forget that I am married to somebody, but in the interests of running a state, you need a way to keep track of the myriad of marriages that are created, annulled, and those which currently exist. Moreover, there are a host of legal issues that come with inheritances, legal rights, lineage and legacy etc – each of which are kept track through writing and documentation in government records. Similarly, when you get a divorce, it needs to be recorded with the state so that the appropriate rules apply etc – the books need to be current and updated, and marriage is a somewhat neat way to keep track of that.

Like Dynasty 5 was saying, the pedophile and the preteen could probably marry in a lawless place – but then again, the point of getting “married” would be quite purposeless, as what Dynasty 1 was saying

I also believe that love can exist outside of a legal marriage, but I also believe that two people in love or two people who care about each other already enter in a contract with each other.  Close friends have obligations to each other, and if one violates their obligation their friendship can be at risk.  Hence, couples, non-legally married, are more or less married in an unspoken contract and they more or less make a commitment to each other not to violate the sanctity of their bond

Marriage exists whether or not a government exists. The government is only there to record the legal marriages, and prevent the “illegal” ones from occurring, irrespective of love or anything emotional like that.

Why does the state need to keep track of marriages? Probably a little of what Dynasty 5 said – control – and of course governance.

Extending this to what marriage means religiously, I would stick to the same reasoning – at least with the Abrahamic religions (and perhaps others), which bring with them rules and codes which they posit a civilization should follow, in order to bring around and live in a “Holy Society”, or as that is referred to in the Old Testament. Salvation and reaching heaven are of course then linked to how well we contribute to the holy society, ie: sticking to the religious marriage rules, etc.

In regards to marriage being a symbol, what exactly is it a symbol of? Hearing “X and Y are married” instantly triggers many presumptions in our heads, and that sort of kills any symbolic nature it had because it means so much in the face of the law and in our society. I’ll say that definitely the rings are a symbol, and the more important function of them is to be like “Hey, move on, this person’s a no-go”.

No, marriage is not a symbol for love or a promise or a full commitment “till death do us part”, but the rings seem to be an effective symbol for the marriage and the contractual promise that one person has to another. Don’t you even have to sign a marriage contract when you get married?

Dynasty 1: Registration and Government Control of ‘Marriage’: Another Theory

All marriages, whether religious or legal should be made a record of, and the state/society should take an invested roll in cultivating that marriage and representing and helping vulnerable parities who may be abused.  I was thinking about this, and I thought, a couple who is together for thirty years decides to go their separate ways because of some serious issue.  Now, one party will walk away with nothing, who decides how the assets which were shared over 30 years is divided and who ensures that they will be divided?  That’s where the state jumps in and creates laws and rules that in a worst case scenario, all parties walk away with dignity not compromised.  I am assuming too much when I say that love will work things out.  It won’t.  If a woman gets pregnant and the man decides to leave, who will ensure this child’s protections and that the woman has enough resources to adequately care for the child?  Even couples who are dating for X amount of time should have their relationship registered, and if they decide to absolve it and not pursue governmental intervention, they can just break up like couples break up these days.  There is a benefit to vulnerable parties in a relationship that need protections, and sometimes they are incapable of offering those protections themselves.  So high school kids dating for X amount of time should have their “marriage” registered in the state.

Edited by: Abbas R

Advertisement