1. What does it mean when sociologists say, “marriage is an institution”? According to Stephanie Coontz, what are the indicators of the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage? Explain what problems Coontz finds in the proposals to “reinstitutionalize marriage.”
2. According to the articles by Harris and by Gerstel and Sarkisian, what are the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for women and men?
3. According to Brown, what are the different reasons people cohabit, and what are the effects of cohabitation on well-being?
4. The findings of the research on benefits and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation can be affected by selection effects. Explain what that means.
Is Marriage a Dying Institution?
The articles explore the future of marriage as an “institution,” defined as a custom characterized by specific obligations and rights which are backed up legally and socially by a society. All four writings examine the complexity of society’s gradual letting go of a previously highly valued and once necessary institution.
According to Stephanie Coontz’ article, in which she evaluates the status of marriage in our society, she finds that Americans support a variety of options in arranging parenthood and marriage. Opting for a two-parent family in today’s world is not necessarily confined to a traditional union as it was in the past. A rise in cohabitation often replaces formal marriages.
Conservative “family values” advocates offer a variety of solutions to save the institution of marriage, but Coontz finds major flaws in each. To begin, marriage is no longer viewed by men and women as an economic necessity. Women not only have an easier time of entering the workforce, but also have the option of leaving an unsatisfactory marriage because they are financially independent. Marriage, which traditionally came along with a built-in housekeeper and cook, is likewise no longer as indispensable for men as it once was because domestic chores have become less arduous and fast food is readily available.
Coontz points out that women who quit their jobs or compromise on career aspirations to raise children take a risk if the marriage doesn’t work out. When divorce does occur, a woman who has sacrificed a career opportunity to raise children should be guaranteed compensation if the marriage falls through, no matter whose fault it is primarily. In answer to conservatives’ suggestions to make divorce less acquirable, the article notes that it is an important option for women in abusive situations and should remain easily accessible.
Like divorce, unwed motherhood is on the rise, which can be explained in part by women’s economic independence and in part by society’s greater acceptance of it. In answer to conservatives’ take on an existing correlation between welfare and unwed motherhood, Coontz points out that illegitimacy rates in America have been lower in states with the highest welfare benefits and that those mothers return to work more quickly on the whole. The idea that new welfare rules will restore a “culture of lasting marriage” is ludicrous to Coontz. She maintains that the rise in divorce and children born out of wedlock has come about independently from the welfare program and that the trend is here to stay no matter how punitive the “family values” proponents wish to get with the poor.
In addition to new trends in women’s career goals, rising divorce and unwed motherhood, a final roadblock to regaining the institution of marriage is the “reproductive revolution.” Technology has allowed for a separation of reproduction from marriage by IVF, which Coontz points out can mean a minimum of five “parents” for a child thus conceived. Marriage re-institutionalization advocates have suggested forbidding unmarried women access to sperm banks and artificial insemination. The author indicates that it would be difficult to set the clocks back once the methods already exist.
“American Values” advocates may mean well, even with their antiquated idea of bringing back “stigmatization” for divorce and unwed motherhood, but Coontz counters that life and societal change is more complicated than what they propose. I agree that it is necessary to look ahead, not back.
The articles by Harris and by Gerstel and Sarkisian present benefits and disadvantages of marriage for men and women. Referring to Waite and Gallagher’s book, Harris says that they find that a main benefit of marriage comes from economics in that a couple can live together for the cost of 1.6 persons. In addition, if the marriage lasts, a woman will be more affluent on average than a single woman. In fact, Waite and Gallagher believe that one of the greatest benefits for women is economic because of the offered flexibility in their work lives. Also economically related is the specialized division of labor in the household offered by marriage. Waite and her co-author contend that couples who cohabit out of wedlock avoid specialization and lose out on the interdependence that gives rise to many of marriage’s biggest benefits.
A second benefit of marriage according to Waite and Gallagher is better physical and mental health. Marriage provides a woman with better financial resources and therefore improved access to health care. Married men drink less than single men, and both sexes are less prone to clinical depression, anxiety disorders, and suicide than single or divorced counterparts.
Gerstel and Sarkisian reiterate the benefits of marriage for both men and women–higher incomes, more wealth, better health and more property than non-married counterparts. They also bring up the fact that it tends to keep men away from crime and increases their involvement in religious and political life.
Gerstel and Sarkisian review the negatives of marriage, including increased housework for women and domestic violence targeted toward the woman, and that marriage brings fewer benefits to the poor than to the affluent. Bad marriages can be detrimental to physical and mental health by bringing stress and depression. Additionally, a main focus of their article explores how a marriage is “greedy,” in that it usurps time and energy, ultimately isolating the couple from community and family. The addition of children, however, often reinvolves the married couple into networks of friends and community.
Harris brings up the fact that married women tend to become mothers, so they voluntarily cut back on paid work and make career sacrifices in order to handle the job of child-rearing as well as outside work. If the marriage fails, she assumes more financial risk than her husband. On the positive side, she and the children will be better off economically than if she had children out of wedlock.
Brown’s article addresses the phenomenon of cohabitation as it replaces traditional marriage and how it affects today’s American families. Statistics reveal that forty percent of cohabiting unions involve children, compared to 45 percent of married couples with children.
It is not as common for cohabitation today to be a step toward marriage as it was formerly. Divorced people are more likely to cohabit than remarry. Cohabitation, like marriage, provides companionship, sexual intimacy, and a place to raise children. Often cohabitors claim that financial instability prevents them from marrying. While a primary reason people cohabit is to test compatibility, it is found that people who cohabit and then marry are more willing to divorce.
Reasons for cohabitation in current society include a prelude to marriage; a long-term alternative to marriage by committed partners; an alternative to dating in which the individuals are not sure about marriage and their relationship; and trial cohabitation in which the persons are not committed to their relationship but hope to marry someone someday. Cohabitors planning to marry report positive quality relationships similar to those of married couples, while other cohabitors reportedly experience more conflict than married counterparts. Sexual activity is more frequent in cohabitation but married couples are happier with their sex lives. Cohabitors’ economic situations are not as stable as those of married couples. Finally, as compared to married families, children do not fare as well in cohabitation unions.
Interpretation of the research findings on benefits and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation is complex because they may be affected by selection effects. In other words, people who choose to marry possess certain characteristics that people who choose to cohabit may not. The apparent marriage benefit may be a result of a sample of people who are already happy, healthy, career motivated, and well-adjusted, because such people are more likely to get married and stay married than those who do not fall into these categories.
Americans have choices- material, ideological, and now more than ever, marital. It is up to the individual couples to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of marriage versus cohabitation. Marriage is a commitment between two people who care for one another that provides companionship, intimacy, emotional support, sharing of financial responsibilities, and an environment in which to welcome offspring. It is formalized by law and often by religion. The recourse to a bad marriage is divorce. Cohabitation is a similar but impermanent situation in which two individuals may or may not be committed to each other but are not bound legally. Claims have been made that children are happier where the parents are in traditional marriages. Only time will tell if children raised in cohabitative environments will perpetuate the alternative family life in which they were raised or hate it so much that they resolve to bring children into a traditional marriage family. In any case, we need to accept that the changes in society that have brought about cohabitation are here to stay, and whether couples choose marriage or cohabitation, it is just that–a choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment