Some comments.
The authors tried to control for multiple variables including religiosity, previous divorce, income etc. However one of the really strong risk factors for infidelity was age of first marriage.
This is an interesting graph, open to a lot of different interpretations. My personal view is that it is a graphic illustration of the the "grass is often greener syndrome" with those who got married wanted to dabble in what they missed out on. Anecdotally, I have a few female patients who married in their late teens and early twenty's who have have never strayed, but have expressed some regret at not having "had some fun" before they got married. Still, the culture they were surrounded in was actually hostile towards divorce and infidelity so I imagine it is this which may have helped keep them in check. I think that a combination of today's strong cultural emphasis on sexual hedonism in conjunction with an early marriage would provide a strong temptation to stray. I imagine that the high risk of infidelity amongst the married young is probably motivated by this factor to a high degree.
The second graph which I found interesting was this one.
What we see in this graph is just how powerful hedonic satisfaction is in keeping partners on the straight and narrow. Now I'm a big proponent of religion, but it's dispiriting to see just how much "hedonic" considerations seem to override religious commitment.
I think this graph says a lot about the reason for marital instability and its decline as an institution; marriage has become another vehicle for "personal happiness" instead of a fundamental societal unit. Our forefathers were quite perceptive and recognised that, even in their time, there were many unhappy marriages. Yet they made it very difficult for the couple to part because of both religious imperative and societal considerations. They were big believers in doing one's duty regardless of the cost, our age has far less commitment to sticking it out for the bigger picture; everyone is in it for themselves.
Marriage is no longer seen as a commitment to one another, or even the children, rather, it's a vehicle justified in how much happiness it gives to the participants. It's over once the fun stops.
8 comments:
>Marriage is no longer seen as a commitment to one another, or even the children, rather, it's a vehicle justified in how much happiness it gives to the participants
Something tells me that I've linked to this before, but you would enjoy reading "The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage" by Andrew Cherlin. The author is a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins and makes precisely this point. It's easily googled.
Stephanie Coontz also comes oh-so-close to making the same point in her widely read, "Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage"
It's true. Gradually over the last half-century marriage has become more of a "hedonic agreement" than "social obligation". The assumption of its institutional quality for a more efficient means of economic production, for child rearing, or as social obligation has been supplanted. A young person today is more likely to ask himself, "Marriage? What's in it for me" than ask, "What? Me without marriage?"
Not to get OT, but this transition on the purpose of marriage is today most readily seen in the arguments in favor of gay marriage. Regardless of one's political stance here, what's interesting is how the argument is framed: it's about not denying one class from the "rights", "privileges", "benefits", and happiness of marriage. In other words, marriage is framed as primarily a hedonic collection of emotional, tax, legal, and hospital visitation benefits. What's entirely missing is any mention of the onus, responsibilities, and obligations of the institution itself or on the parties involved.
"Now I'm a big proponent of religion, but it's dispiriting to see just how much "hedonic" considerations seem to override religious commitment."
That is because all of christianity is no longer a religion with any teeth in it, but is itself a vehicle for personal satisfaction. Christianity does not require any commitment.
You may find it dispiriting, SL, but it shouldn't be surprising -- at least as an American it isn't surprising to me. The reason is that marriage, as an institution, is a hybrid -- it has a religious aspect to it, depending on one's tradition, and a "larger/shared" social/societal aspect to it. Everyone, regardless of their religious tradition and commitment to it, partakes to a large degree in the larger/shared social aspect/definition of marriage *unless* they are actively and rigorously countercultural (and even there, the influence is still there, but it can be somewhat blunted or muted).
And the larger/shared social definition of marriage is plainly hedonic. It just *is* so. Priests and pastors who are counseling married couples are not generally reminding them of their commitments and their duty to work through bad patches or at least endure them, but rather are, for the most part, trying to get one or the other to be able to make the other partner "happier" -- because this is the only real way to avoid divorces in our current climate. The social definition of marriage largely determines the expectations one has of marriage, regardless of religious commitment -- at least in the US. There is a smallish group of hypercommitted religious people who will suffer through non-hedonic marriages, but it's pretty small, across the board, whether Catholic or Protestant.
Marriage is now hedonic. The ante has been upped (or downed, depending on your perspective) -- people have to make sure their spouse is happy if they want to avoid a damaging divorce.
Interesting – albeit sad – reading. It seems to me that you have presented a sort of Catch-22 over the last three posts of yours. On the one hand there are the dangers of waiting too long to get married, of having too many partners over the years, which makes it hard for bonding and intimacy to develop once one does get married. Yet on the other there is the problem of marrying too soon, of not having lived (so to speak), which can create feelings of regret (hence the greater possibilities of affairs for the young, and presumably also divorce down the road). Which choice is the better one to make then? Which side would it be better for individuals to error on? My sense is that all things being equal, it is still better to get married at a fairly young age (i.e. during one’s 20s), since the sacrifices are in general going to be less, not to mention the dangers will be less potentially severe (e.g. not being able to find and love a quality spouse as one gets older – that is devastating).
The problem though, is how does one encourage early marriage, when culture so overwhelmingly encourages sexual fulfillment, autonomy, and choice? I think it is a really tall order. Honestly, the Zeitgeist is so against early marriage and commitment that young people will probably only be able to receive and process that message of marrying young from 1) family members, who must show not only through their words but also their actions that a stable family life and marriage is the most important thing worth having (well, if you’re religious, the 2nd most important thing), and 2) religious communities and perhaps a few secular mentors here and there, who again have to show not only rhetorically but also practically the wisdom of early marriage. Needless to say, since 1) and 2) are declining precipitously, early marriage will continue to be neglected, at least in the near-term. Only when life becomes really rough in the West will people realize how necessary a stable marriage and family life is, and along with this the necessary corollary of marrying early (in order to find and keep a good partner).
At least it shows religiosity has an effect. That's a good thing. As Christians we shouldn't be surprised that "tares" make it in amongst the wheat.
Wow. This is a very informative post. Of course we've always known that those factors have an effect on unfaithfulness. But it's good to have hard data to back it up.
Thanks everyone for the good comments.
@GKC.
There is some hope in that religion has some effect, unfortunately it is dwarfed by hedonistic considerations.
@Arvin.
Thanks for dropping by. More data in the next post.
@Jason
not being able to find and love a quality spouse as one gets older – that is devastating)
I think that the problem is far deeper than just finding a quality spouse, rather, its how we love that determines the quality issue. I think it is the "hedonistic" understanding of love that is to a large degree responsible for the phenomenon of alienation in our society. This is the topic I want to explore in the post following the next.
I think that the only thing a young man can do is this age is hang around groups where the quality women are. In the U.S. its probably far more easier than here or in Britain. The "stew like" nature of your society means that the there are lumpy bits of good Christianity to be found in it, the more homogenous nature of Australia and Britain make finding a good woman so much harder.
I think that the serious Christians of the world have got to go "Amish" and tell the modern world to piss off. I don't mean literally Amish in the rejection of technology, rather in drawing a strict moral fence between them and runting masses.
@Brendan
And the larger/shared social definition of marriage is plainly hedonic. It just *is* so
I think this has come about because of the romantic cultural movement, which elevates the primacy of the emotions over reason. Christian apologists have long been battling the enlightenment but been pretty silent on the romantic movement. Christianity was outflanked.
But I agree, given the cultural climate, modern pastors would be better to take the hedonic approach, the problem is that modern Christian pastors have taken an approach which ignores hypergamy and in their own special way contributed to the problem.
@mnl
but this transition on the purpose of marriage is today most readily seen in the arguments in favor of gay marriage.
People who understand marriage as a hedonic arrangement aren't really going to see the problem with gay marriage. To them marriage is about "love" and nothing else. It's an inherently solipsistic way of looking at love.
@Country Lawyer.
That is because all of christianity is no longer a religion with any teeth in it, but is itself a vehicle for personal satisfaction.
Nice jesus lets you do whatever you want, Good Jesus is more demanding.
Post a Comment