Lately I have been pondering the business side of marriage. I have been attempting to take apart this institution and look at it objectively, ripping away any of the social nuances that our society places on it. What does a marriage mean? The definition has definitely changed since the 19th century. The definition of marriage certainly does not mean the same thing in America as it does in India or Ghana. What are the rules, the boundaries, the collective goal that constitutes this thing that so many of us strive for? And what happens when we attain this goal?
In my British Literature class, we are discussing The Subjection of Women by John Stuart Mill. The premise came from his wife, Harriet Taylor's work, The Enfranchisement of Women. In it, he compares British women's status during the Victorian age to slavery. Neither he nor Harriet agreed with the idea of marriage in the first place, and he composed a legal document stating that he, in no way, wanted any part of laws of his time that gave him the right to become the owner of Harriet's possessions (which included her own body). He said that he did not think that any of these things were his, and he would not participate in such oppression. That's my kind of prenup.
Now, our society is faced with a severe contradiction: The value of a woman is found in her independence and her attachment in a marriage. Women expect other women to step outside of the kitchen and do something with themselves. Men expect women to be their companion and take care of the brunt of domestic matters. You don't believe me? Think about someone who is single, unattached, and without any prospects. If it is a man, he is footloose and fancy free. If it is a woman, she is pitied because she seems to have been discarded as undesirable, unwanted. I, myself, have fallen victim to the idea of my worth will increase if I am married.
This skewed social discourse, as Marx would see it, is false consciousness. I have convinced myself that this way of thinking is good for me. The same way that some newly-freed slaves were reluctant to leave their masters. How could that happen, one might ask? Because there is a burden and responsibility that comes with freedom. That is why we feel safe when we create laws and boundaries. These self-created laws and boundaries limit your choices so that your decisions are easier. If these are even considered decisions, because the word "decision" implies a choice.
How does this tie in to the business of marriage? Because when we expect our value or worth to increase when someone commits their future to us, the expectation of a life-altering change for the better is inevitable. Is this reality? Consider the rate of divorce, the cost to put on a wedding, the social implications that are attached to a wedding, and the modern dating relationships that Americans have, and it doesn't add up. It is all a big sham.
The truth of the matter (as I see it) is this:
We have an elevated expectation of marriage as a way to increase our value or position in society.
Society judges the wedding ceremony as a indication of the worth of a newly-married woman, and that is why there is a huge market for anything related to weddings.
With the way that our current dating relationships are set up as way more intimate than 19th century England, it seems that the only real thing that changes when you get married is that you gain a roommate and merge your finances. Sometimes this happens outside the bonds of marriage, so then there are no real clear lines.
Does this make me a skeptic of marriage? Definitely not. I love the idea that you can be free to explore every angle of another human being, to be a constant friend to someone and to be totally supported in everything you dream to do and to be. I love watching elderly couples who still hold hands and talk about their grandkids as they slowly walk the aisles of the grocery store. I love watching new parents make fools out of themselves to get a laugh out of their baby, and to hear them argue about how much their baby looks more like their partner. I love the idea of making a promise to someone else and to God, and watching that promise be sustained through hard times and good times, knowing that there is a constancy of love in this usually-bitter world.
Someone asked me once if I would rather have a life-long relationship with someone who doesn't understand me at all or a short-term relationship with someone who really gets me. I won't say how I responded, but I will say that the two options are two types that are found all of the time. The hope of marriage is neither of these two, but the almost impossible chance that it can be a life-long relationship with someone who really gets you.
And that sounds good to me.
3 comments:
Sounds good to me, too.
I've thought about this a lot, too. When I was in high school, I used to think I'd never get married because it was an irrelevant institution (and I was currently in my anarchy stage). I still think that marriage itself is more for the family of the couple than it is for the couple itself. But it's also a means for security. Especially if you add kids to the mix.
Marriage has crappy societal implications, but don't forget that it is a bond sanctified by God. I try not to think about all the stupid things that society puts on marriage--though it is very difficult at times--and focus on the fact that it is a blessed union. There's something satisfying about knowing that you and your husband are only for each other.
Lauren- I was partially thinking about you when I was writing this. I am going to turn all of these thoughts and research into an essay that I will submit to some literary journals. If you know of any other thinkers that discussed commitment, I would love the recommendation.
Kirsten- I think that the only thing that makes me excited about weddings is the simple fact that it is a God-given institution with the purest of intentions attached. I agree with the satisfaction that comes from promising yourself to someone else and receiving a whole-hearted response in return.
Post a Comment