November 7, 2006

Are married people too taken up with each other?

History prof Stephanie Coontz thinks we've become too dependent on marriage as our source for personal happiness and have neglected our other social relationships. Here's the historical background:
St. Paul complained that married men were more concerned with pleasing their wives than pleasing God. In John Adams’s view, a “passion for the public good” was “superior to all private passions.” In both England and America, moralists bewailed “excessive” married love, which encouraged “men and women to be always taken up with each other.”

From medieval days until the early 19th century, diaries and letters more often used the word love to refer to neighbors, cousins and fellow church members than to spouses. When honeymoons first gained favor in the 19th century, couples often took along relatives or friends for company. Victorian novels and diaries were as passionate about brother-sister relationships and same-sex friendships as about marital ties.

The Victorian refusal to acknowledge strong sexual desires among respectable men and women gave people a wider outlet for intense emotions, including physical touch, than we see today. Men wrote matter-of-factly about retiring to bed with a male roommate, “and in each other’s arms did friendship sink peacefully to sleep.” Upright Victorian matrons thought nothing of kicking their husbands out of bed when a female friend came to visit. They spent the night kissing, hugging and pouring out their innermost thoughts.

By the early 20th century, though, the sea change in the culture wrought by the industrial economy had loosened social obligations to neighbors and kin, giving rise to the idea that individuals could meet their deepest needs only through romantic love, culminating in marriage. Under the influence of Freudianism, society began to view intense same-sex ties with suspicion and people were urged to reject the emotional claims of friends and relatives who might compete with a spouse for time and affection.
And so married people turned to each other. To excess. This peaked in the 1950s, and after that, there was some healthy skepticism of the overly insular family. But somehow we're drifting back into an excessively marriage-focused way of living.

The problem, in Coontz's view, is not only that we deny ourselves the happiness to be found in friendships, but also that by expecting so much from one romantic relationship, we can put so much pressure on it that it breaks. What's worse, if the marriage was our source of happiness, we have nothing.

27 comments:

TJ said...

Kurt Vonnegut has said that when married couples fight, what they're really saying to each other is, "You're not enough people!"

MadisonMan said...

I don't see how the view of the 19th century can be surprising -- how many marriages back then were for love, vs. convenience, tradition, family advancement, or duty?

If we went back to arranged marriages, things would all sort themselves out.

goesh said...

I had been with alot of women before meeting Wifey and have had no need to be with any but her since....for what its worth. Familiarity has never bred contempt nor boredom, or predictability. The active, engaging mind can thrive in monogamy as well as in polygamy but nothing anchors the soul like a good mate.

bearing said...

Does this reduce to "Emotionally healthy people have stronger marriages?"

Brent said...

It is not a "complaint" of St. Paul that Married men are dedicated to their wives. It is statement of the freedom to move quickly in other areas while single or unattached vs. the responsibilty of marriage - not a better/worse contrast. It has nothing to do with the level of love for committment to God. It IS an example of Professor Coontz taking something out of context.

When someone mistates a premise at the beginning of a paragraph, it's hard to give credence to anything else that follows.

KCFleming said...

Re: "...we need to restructure both work and social life so we can reach out and build ties with others"

Uh oh, I smell a social engineer at work. Someone stop that man before he kills again!

Seriuosly, what utter crap. Isn't just possible that people invest more in spousal relationships by choice, having found the transient nature of friendships at work and community less reliable?

In my town, it's simply not worth investing in long-term friendships, as people seem to move every 2 to 5 years. Gone.

The "face-to-face ties that build social trust" aren't possible when balkanization by race and gender are enforced in Great Universities from the first week of class.

Anonymous said...

First, it could sensibly be argued, since Paul was writing during turbulant times where persecution and death were distinct possibilities, that marriage might not be the smartest endeavor (widows, orphans, whole families killed). Hence, his "however, if you must" marry, "better to marry than to burn."

Second, I agree with this history prof in the sense that society is so fractured (people moving all over the country and world for jobs so no roots) now that the expectations for a spouse are enormous and irrational. No one person can be everything to a marriage partner, yet that is just what marriage is billed as these days. Remember Jerry Maguire's, "you complete me"? Blech.

That being said, marriage between mature, compatible people can be soul satisfying in ways that friendships can't. And I can assure this prof that I've never confused my husband for God and I'm quite certain the converse is also true.

As an aside, John Adams was utterly devoted to his wife Abagail. Perhaps its more accurate to say that those who have passion and devotion apply it to everything they love.

goesh said...

Edward, you keep repeating yourself

MaxedOutMama said...

Well now....

The marriages I have known which were successful over a lifetime had romantic fluctuations but were founded on a deep, solid friendship with components of admiration, respect, fascination, watchful tenderness and frustration!

I think that having one good friendship makes it more likely that one will have other good friendships, so I disagree with the prof's suggestion.

We may be a mobile society, but we have methods of communication that mean we need not be out of touch with our friends (although we may not be sharing beds with them).

Anyway, it's hard for me to phrase this properly, but I really do not have the same physical connection with my friends that I do with my spouse. Hug them, sure, but I'm not prepared to spend the night draped around them.

KCFleming said...

Re: " I’m not criticizing Pogo for repeating himself."
He only meant you double-posted.

KCFleming said...

As for, "You play these kinds of sick games..."
"...intellectually reckless jerk.",
You're probably right.

Freeman Hunt said...

I just think his verbal creativity could be put to much better use than to push his ideas beyond all credibility.

No doubt he deeply appreciates your magnanimous advice.

Coontz rather sounds like someone who's mostly had trouble with marriage rather than someone who actually knows something about it.

Joan said...

Edward, don't be dense as well as stuffy! Goesh was ribbing you because your reply was posted twice.

Ann said: by expecting so much from one romantic relationship, we can put so much pressure on it that it breaks. This is so true. My first marriage failed largely because my ex-husband insisted I have only very limited contact with anyone but him.

But in healthy marriages, the spouses recognize that no one person can fulfill all of anyone's needs, something my mother told me a long time ago.

Freeman Hunt said...

I know a lot of married couples, but none of them fit Coontz's description. All have friends outside of their marriages. No, none spend the night in the arms of their friends, but I think MadisonMan probably nailed the source of that.

Meade said...

Trevor Jackson said...
Kurt Vonnegut has said that when married couples fight, what they're really saying to each other is, "You're not enough people!"

An so... one grows up, sets aside one's narcissism, and raises a family. If healthy and balanced, social life expands exponentially.

The main thing legal marriage should do is to protect the welfare of children. All other things being equal, two individuals ought to be able to take care of themselves.

Anonymous said...

I assume that Professor Coontz is single. If she isn't, well, how do you think her husband feels right now?

Balfegor said...

Victorian novels and diaries were as passionate about brother-sister relationships and same-sex friendships as about marital ties.

Hmm . . . makes me think of . . . Lord Byron. Haha.

I don't see how the view of the 19th century can be surprising -- how many marriages back then were for love, vs. convenience, tradition, family advancement, or duty?

If we went back to arranged marriages, things would all sort themselves out.

Yes, yes. Lets! But there are problems in societies dominated by arranged marriages too -- romantic love leads to adultery, betrayal, and serial heartbreak in such societies just as it does in modern America. And marriages that take place in a full family context can also put strain on the husband and wife -- the wife particularly -- as they struggle to fulfill their new roles in the family hierarchy.

Anonymous said...

I for one enjoy Pogo's intemperate language. I don't think he's hateful, just delightfully uninhibited. If you want hateful, there are other commenters who come more readily to mind. Personally, I'd love to buy Pogo a drink.

Coontz exaggerates, of course, but there's something there. I blame 19th Romanticism and its popular expression in movies and music. "I need you! I can't live without you! You're everything to me!" Coontz rightly diagnoses an internal weakness but provides the wrong prescription.

As others have noted, the problem isn't marriage, but weak, empty, and immature people seeking identity and purpose in a relationship.

altoids1306 said...

Hmm, since this is the NYT, I'll assume hostile intent. But aside from a few laughable statements here and there ("Women working makes men have more male friends"), it seems pretty neutral. A small miracle.

It's defintely true that previous ages handled same-sex relationships better. Holmes and Watson would probably be under attack by social conservatives for gay undertones if published today. On the other hand, actual homosexuals used to be executed all the time, so in that sense, count your blessings.

Other than that, it's just more "it takes a village" bullshit. The irony is, expanded social programs have reduced the economic incentive for extra-marital friendships. People are simply responding rationally.

Freeman Hunt said...

Is it against the rules of the Althouse threads to say that you know a lot about a certain subject?

No, but it's silly in most cases. Your arguments rest on their validity, not on your laurels.

Balfegor said...

Holmes and Watson would probably be under attack by social conservatives for gay undertones if published today.

I'm sure there is slash fanfiction about Holmes and Watson. And speculation about whether close male friends are gay is rampant today -- on Slate, in their "Blogging the Bible" feature (which is very fun) you can see one of their writers struggle to wrap his head around the idea of a deep male-male friendship that is somehow not sexual. And with Lord of the Rings, all kinds of people looked at Frodo and Sam and thought "gay couple."

Red said...

Re: our fractured world, it will be interesting to see how the generation of social networking grows up:

“It isn’t that adults aren’t invited,” Ms. Cohen says. “It’s just they didn’t grow up with [social networking websites], so it doesn’t seem necessary. Sometimes I’ve wanted to say, O.K., imagine if everyone you knew sent you a Christmas card all on the same day. You wouldn’t actually see them but you’d have that comforting sense of being surrounded by the people you have known. Then maybe grownups wouldn’t be so lonely, and that is really the thing with us: Getting older, we are not going to be a lonely group.”

Fitz said...

Stephanie Coontz basic approach is fundamentally flawed. In her book (Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage) she collapses thousands of years of human history into 448 pages of agenda driven obfuscation. It is standard operating procedure for scholars in the contemporary academy to elevate the particular over the universal. By examining the institution of marriage through this lens, Coontz distorts its core meaning and value.

Of coarse marriage has always served a variety of social functions; this or that culture or class has sought to harness its power for this or that end. At this particular time, it is the agenda of gay & feminist activists to harness its power to normalize homosexuality, promote androgyny, and (in many cases) weaken marriages normative power.

None of this says anything about marriages essential purpose. She continually ignores its primary function of bringing men & women together in stable households for the successful rearing and education of their children. By focusing instead on the particulars of everything from the 16th century aspirations of romantic love, to feudal landed aristocracy’s ambitions of greater wealth and power, Coontz is able to distract the reader away from these universal timeless truths. In much the same way Coontz previous book (The Way Never Were: American Families and the nostalgia Trap) was able to use the straw man of 1950,s Ward & June Clever imagery to convince her audience that marriages essential features are a fanciful shibboleth of mere nostalgia.
Feminists assertions to the contrary, marriage has never failed to promote this core normative function.

Coontz has dismissed intellectual integrity and moral vision by using her work to foment an evolutionist paradigm that views progress as whatever happens next. She is merely another apologist for contemporary family breakdown. Coontz attempts to shift attention from the grave problems of modern society in its struggle to bring men and women together in lifelong monogamy; for the good of themselves, for the good of their children, and for the good of all society.

Having said that… Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Her latest piece in the NYT could be read to challenge romantic love versus marriage as an institution. I do believe we look to marriage to satisfy to much adult emotional need, and not enough about its status regarding childrearing and stabilizing society.

"My real objection to Coontz’s NYT column is that she doesn’t take gay history into account sufficiently."

That’s because everything in your world seems to come back to gay’s. A (by definition) heterosexual institution, has very little to do with homosexuals. Coontz only brings up homosexuality as a reason same-sex friendships grew less intimate. That’s the extent of this columns concern with the issue. Yes, I’m sure you would be happy if everything ever printed made its focal point homosexuality.

knox said...

No, none spend the night in the arms of their friends, but I think MadisonMan probably nailed the source of that.

talk about word choice!

Revenant said...

The guys I know who've gotten married suddenly seem to have no free time anymore. Not because they don't *want* to have free time anymore, but because their wives don't like them spending a lot of time elsewhere.

Overall, it doesn't seem very appealing. I'm planning to stay single.

Kirby Olson said...

Kurt Vonnegut should have married Sybil.

One nice person is more than enough for most of the rest of us.

Fitz said...

"Fitz, meet the functionalist fallacy."

Nowhere in Coontz critique (nor in the "falacy" you point to) does it refute that marriage fails to serve this function.

This is hardly a "fallacy" in the sense of a logical proof.

I do however subscribe to the notion that it performs other function and has been honed over time.