The MSU Reflector recently published an opinion piece titled “Modern Marriage in U.S. suffers from Frivolity.” I would like to offer some comments in response to the author’s publication and expand the conversation on marriage a bit.
Elliot Terrell (the author) cites “women’s rights, civil rights and shifts in moral values” behind the dramatic decrease in marriages, from 92.3 percent of every 1,000 women in the 1920s to 31.1 percent presently. Terrell focuses his commentary on three reasons for the decline in the relevance of marriage that are in the “shifts in moral values” domain. I believe his commentary bypasses important cultural and political changes that may be helpful in explaining why fewer men and women are married now than nearly 100 years ago and why divorce is more common now than in the 1920s.
First and foremost, let’s not overstate the decline of marriage in the US. The age at first marriage has risen for men and women since the 1920’s, to a high of 26 for women and 28 for men in 2011. While a smaller proportion of Terrell’s peers may be currently married than in the past, when we look at the proportion of adults who marry, rates remain high. A large majority of adults in America are currently partnered in some way and the vast majority of young adults today report desiring to marry at some point in the future. There has indeed been a decline in marriage and an increase in divorce since the 1920s but the institution of monogamy/marriage is not in crisis.
The decline in marriage and increase in divorce we see may be linked to the fact that women are no longer under intense pressure to conform to the demands of men and forced family. What were women doing in the 1920s? Nearly all of them were marrying and staying married. It did not matter if they loved their spouse. Women were having children they may not have wanted and worked around the house whether they wanted to or not. Talk about marrying for the wrong reasons. Marriage today is an informed choice. It is no longer the sole expectation for women (as it was in the 1920s) and it is not the only way women can ensure they and their children will be embraced by society. To this point, I found Terrell’s to return to the “dedication, compromise, and sacrifice of marriage” disenchanting.
The fact that men and women marry less frequently and divorce more often than in the 1920’s undoubtedly coincides with a dramatic increase in the quality of women’s lives. Birth control and other reproductive technologies have significantly decreased the number of marriages out of unplanned pregnancies. Access to education and the rise in earning-potential for women means women can support themselves and their children. Sexuality and relationships are more fluid, which means women (and men) have the option to explore what a life-partner they want looks like, feels like and acts like. These shifts in technology, opportunity and cultural norms have ultimately given more autonomy to women and more choice in the direction of their lives.
Marriage in and of itself is not the cornerstone of a moral and productive society. The benefit to self and society of marriage is based primarily on the impact marriage has on routine activities. Marriage keeps men (and women) in the house and away from drugs, alcohol and delinquency. For a number of reasons, marriage increases per-household income and encourages people to contribute more to the economy. More per-household income means two people will be likely to seek health care, leisure and other things that increase quality of life. More income also means rearing young citizens in a way that prepares them to live productive lives (e.g., money for extracurricular activities, stable housing, quality education and access to healthy food and health care). These positive outcomes commonly associated with marriage can and are emulated by millions of unmarried American citizens. Again, it’s ultimately the routine activities of citizens that create a moral and productive society. While marriage encourages two people to practice positive routines, marriage is not the categorical precedent to them.
Finally, to suggest that today’s marriage/divorce rates reflect a rise in self-serving individuals (as Terrell does) lacks consideration of the millions of unmarried men and women who commit to social justice, public administration, policing/firefighting, teaching or other greater good careers. It is also inconsiderate of unmarried women or men who commit to raising children alone instead of with an abusive partners, unmarried men and women who commit themselves to the care of sick or dying family members, men and women who are partnered and are not allowed to be married, men and women who are partnered but simply choose not to put the state’s handprint on their love and so on. Marriage and divorce rates in America reflect a number of cultural and political truths and one should not chalk the decline of marriage and increase in divorce up so easily to selfish citizens. Selfish citizens have always existed and we should be wary of invoking buzzwords and popular phrases to explain social facts. It is quite popular to accuse Millennials and Gen-X of being more individualistic and self-centered than their parents and grandparents. I think it is more complicated than it is matter of fact.
As I understand it, the upshot of Terrell’s commentary is that society is wayward in the pursuit of life and loving. I find his commentary incomplete. My contribution here is to note a few reasons why people marry less often and divorce more, and to expand the conversation around marriage for interested readers and thinkers.
