In each age, mankind has shaped the institution of marriage to fit the purposes of the times; and it is time for us to recognize the purpose of modern marriage. Marriage has seen an evolution throughout the ages. Each reincarnation of marriage has proven to be better than the last. Unfortunately, since we are in the early stages of this development, not all marriages fit the correct pattern for this time-period and we may never see 100% of marriages fit the pattern, but there is a very apparent formula for the modern marriage and the success of any couple, in this age, forming this institution depends on it.
\\\\\\\\\\\\PART ONE: EVOLUTION OF MARRIAGE\\\\\\\\\
When men were still living in caves, marriage was an assertion of power. It protected and promoted the development of offspring. Being joined together, living together as man and woman, meant that the best genetics were being used to create offspring. It also meant that offspring were protected at all times by one parent while the other was searching for food and shelter and it became a manifestation of power among the cave people. If another cave man or woman were capable of having intercourse with another cave person's mate, he would be seen as more powerful.
Eventually, the custom of marriage became a form of entitlement. Great family lines were established by formal marriage. If you were born in that household or married into it, you would be entitled to the respect designated to that household. Records were kept of marriages in order to prove who was part of that house and who was not. Family sticks together, and if you upset one member of the household he can easily enlist the help of his brothers and sisters, parents and cousins to get revenge.
Households quickly became a means for preserving not only social status but wealth as well and then tradition. If your household became wealthy, when you died your offspring received whatever you could not take with you from this life. If you were constructive enough, you could even pass traditions down for generations. Religions were established by households as a macro-political effort to boost a household's power (sorry, not the other around). Biblicly, the Levites were given charge over all religious rules and social laws. In egypt, the priests were given political powers along with social powers, and typically priests were born not raised from outside. Social classes were established to govern the rules behind who could marry who and why.
Jump forward several hundred years to Tudor England and you see that the marriage went through another reincarnation: it was too confining. If the king couldn't have a child with his wife he couldn't have an heir to the thrown, so he attempted to get a divorce. Marriage for a king can be explained as simply as a contract between a man in power who agrees to offer his wife and her offspring with all of her desires so long as she provides the king with an heir. Many kings and queens throughout ages even had affairs to meet their sexual desires and it was not always frowned upon.
With divorce and greater freedom among common peoples brought the notion (finally) to marry for love. Bards, including Shakespeare himself, presented the idea that one can and should marry for love--marry someone who they want to be married to rather than someone they have to marry in order to survive. Previously in Europe, if they weren't wealthy, they were forced into quasi-arranged marriages, a young poor girl to a "respectable" man with property. Studying Shakespeare's works you can see that these arranged marriages had their problems and society's response was that the man was either cuckled or tamed his wife violently. (Dear female feminists, please realize that this was the reason my sex has mistreated you for hundreds of years.)
In Puritan America, marriage became, yet again, a rigid institution without divorce and furthered the above gender roles (taming and cuckling). But America brought further freedom to marry or not marry whomever one chose. It opened the doors for the mixing of social classes--for there were new social classes and anyone could marry anyone so long as they brought their spouse into their social class with them (whether up or down). Though geographically centered in America, the ideas they brought forth spread across the globe.
It quickly became the norm for married couples to help one another remain faithful and to assist in progression. Though the gender roles created differences, men helped their wives in educating (or not educating them if he thought it was more important) and women assisted in the care taking of their husbands.
Eventually, in Utah, (though this isn't new, guys, come one) plural marriage was established under the explanation that it allowed for the care taking of elderly, widowed women who society was neglecting. I point this out so that you can see that marriage has always changed based on necessity. It isn't rigid, it's very fluid. Depending on the circumstances of the time the institution of marriage may change slightly to meet a need of an individual (such as a king or minority) or a society as a whole. As another example, elsewhere in the world, and for a very long time, there was a bartering aspect to marriage--women were the domestic workers, whether wife or daughter, and losing one meant a loss to the man of the house. To compensate, the groom was required to pay a dowry to make up for the difference. Most people don't do this today because there is no need. Daughters aren't expected to be domestic workers, and daughters have the freedom to walk out of the house at any time if they choose.
So that leads us up to the pre-modern time period...
Since the '50s and '60s America saw a major increase in the divorce rate. Among the military especially it became so high that it became a burden and the government instituted a law that denied a couple from divorcing while one spouse was on active duty. The significance of this increasing divorce rate is that men and women are comfortable breaking up a marriage at any time and for any reason, previously they were required to show proof of infidelity.
Entering and leaving marriage due to unhappiness or dislike has both, planted the fear of getting married, and the disgust of ever getting married, into the minds of later generations. It is becoming more common for people to say they never intend to marry, and it is also common for people to approach marriage with skepticism and mistrust and to request a prenuptial agreement. Prenuptial agreements were non-existent or incredibly rare even a hundred years ago, let alone a thousand.
The most recent conflict to put our thoughts on marriage into perspective is the push to allow gay marriage--marriage between two people of the same sex. We finally have something to make us stop and think about our beloved institution rather than blindly bumble through it and suffer because of it. I find it interesting that it is not the divorce rate that provokes us to think, but the possibility of other people being married--one of these affects us directly, the other only affects us indirectly based on our thoughts and perceptions of it.
As a society we are not quite into the mature stage of the modern marriage. Not everyone has embraced modern methods, in fact not even a majority of people have. Most people are still stuck in old ways of thinking. Some still think like the cavemen--that who you marry makes you look more powerful. Others follow the Tudorian approach and believe marriage is for getting offspring. With so many different types of marriages, it is no wonder that few people come to the correct conclusions about what marriage is all about in the modern world. So what is the modern marriage?
Read Part two to find out!
No comments:
Post a Comment