When did Marriages become about love?
For centuries, marriage was viewed as a practical arrangement between two families.
So, what changed to make love the basis for the institution of marriage?
So a lot of people across the U.S. have grown up thinking that “love and marriage go together
like a horse and carriage.”
But besides being the lyrics to the catchy opening theme song of “Married with Children”,
and a popular song by Frank Sinatra, I wanted to know: when did love become the primary
rubric for choosing a life partner?
Now, before we get started, I would like to point out a small disclaimer that this episode
isn’t intended as an endorsement of any particular type of marriage or as a negation
of the wonderful institution of love.
Rather, I wanted to do some deeper research into how “love matches” became the ultimate
sign of a healthy or strong marriage in the U.S. and when we started to see the shift from
marriage as the joining of two lives based on the choices of families and parents, to
marriage as a choice driven by love at the center.
Because even though love wasn’t always considered the central criteria for getting married,
today love is the key factor in how Americans choose to enter into marriage, with a recent
study showing 88% of Americans listing it as a very important reason to enter into marriage,
over the 81% who listed making a lifelong commitment as very important, the 76% who
listed companionship as vital, 49% who thought having kids was key, and the 28% who thought
financial stability ranked high marks.
But as you can see from these numbers, many of these considerations (love, companionship,
financial stability) overlap, so even if someone thinks love is key, that doesn’t mean that
they consider it to the exclusion of everything else.
So to start of this week’s topic, we should first ask ourselves:
When did marriage start and what were the primary rubrics for choosing a mate before
love came into the mix?
Well if you haven’t gotten a chance to watch our episode on the origins of the Nuclear
family, hint hint ;) Here is a short recap on the marriage portion:
Marriage is a custom that dates back thousands of years and is practiced in cultures the
world over.
And marriages haven taken a variety of forms, including the arranged marriages sanctioned
by parents, religious marriages, monogamous marriages, plural marriages, and marriages
that involved licenses and other legal documents issued through the state or government.
Also since divorce and annulment were considerably less common until recently, either due to
a lack of legal recourse or because of the social stigma, marriages often lasted longer
(although that doesn’t note whether they were more functional, happy, and harmonious unions).
But according to Stephanie Coontz author of Marriage, A History, the love match is a relatively
recent phenomenon in Western marriage customs.
She says that
“What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between
the man and the woman...It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding
the family labor force."
So not exactly hearts, roses, red boxes of chocolates, and warm fuzzy feelings.
But it brings us to our next question:
When did love start being considered the primary reason for marriage?
Well according to Dr. Aparajita Jeedigunta’s blog, some of that has to do with marriage
laws and property rights.
In early marriages in societies that established property laws through children, Jeedigunta
notes that monogamous marriages were a way of legitimizing children, with men claiming
their offspring and wives as part of their household and “property” (charming really).
This ensured that any family wealth was passed down accordingly.
But starting in the 10th century in Europe, the concept of consent in marriage became
more vital, with the idea that unions between two consenting parties should be approved
by a religious body and before God.
So love before the union began wasn’t considered the only focus, but consent and family approval
often were.
And the idea of a married couple growing to love each other or providing companionship
after years in a relationship wasn’t so outside of the cultural imagination.
It was just viewed as a potential part of married life, rather than as a prerequisite
of getting hitched.
But throughout history people have gotten married for a variety of reasons, and love
was sometimes one of them.
However it wasn’t such a common practice in the West that it became a well known truism.
That didn’t start until the 18th century when the idea of marriages based on romance
as an ideal started to slowly emerge.
And this trend continued into the 19th century.
Because businesses and factories weren’t the only thing that the Industrial Revolution…
well... revolutionized.
As people began to move away from family areas and into more densely populated cities, we
saw the rise of Enlightenment era ideals that focused on individuality and the happiness
of the individual.
As a result, in Europe and the US, some folks were picking their own partners for the first
time, rather than relying on, or considering the larger family structure.
So with people moving away from the influence and protection of their parents households
in order to make livings in large cities, all of this new fangled Enlightenment talk
about the individual as opposed to the group/collective is theorized to have impacted marriage trends
(which was followed by similar trends throughout the Romantic era that centered inspiration,
strong emotion, and the individual instinct).
As a result, during the 19th century in areas and countries such as Europe, the U.S., and
Australia we started to see the rise in the love match (and not just as words associated
with tennis).
Which wasn’t as long ago as we might originally think.
But this perspective isn’t universal.
For example, a contemporary study of populations’ attitudes towards marriage in India, Pakistan,
Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Australia, England, and the
United States by Robert Levine et. al found that love isn’t considered the number one
factor in choosing a life partner in some contemporary Eastern cultures, whereas it
ranked as the highest consideration in the West.
And arranged marriages aren’t a relic of the past.
They still exist widely across cultures, from Jewish and Hindu matchmakers to celebrity
matchmakers with reality TV shows.
So how does it all add up?
Well even though marriages being chosen based on love is a relatively recent occurence in
some countries, such as in the US, it still doesn’t remain the norm everywhere.
And while there is evidence that suggests that love matches are more likely to end in
divorce than marriages that are arranged, we should take both of those facts into careful
consideration.
Divorce rates alone cannot tell us about the happiness, or functionality of a certain relationships.
So just because a marriage is passionate at the onset doesn’t mean that it will last
forever or that it will fall apart.
And a marriage born out of love can become dysfunctional or breed a love that lasts a
lifetime.
And although arranged marriages tend to last longer, Coontz also notes that some arranged
marriages can be coercive or oppressive if both parties aren’t consenting.
So while many people in marriages that are structured around family approval, long term
security, and shared values can lead to supportive and loving arrangements and long term companionship,
there are also instances of bad matches in these cases as well.
So if love matches and arranged marriages both have their pluses and minuses, then,
where do lasting marriages come from?
Well this is a history show and not a love advice show, but it seems that early configurations
of parties giving consent is the easiest formulation to see how to build a marriage with the potential
to last.
Marriages built around consent and not coercion, where all parties have shared goals seems
to be the real ideal here, whatever form your actual marriage contract may take.
So what do you think?
Any evidence to weigh in on why or why not the rise of the love match happened in the
U.S.?
Drop them below, and see you next week!
Luckily everyone in our audience appears to be on board with hand washing (that’s a
big sigh of relief) so here’s what some of you had to say about last week’s episode:
Adam Marentes on Youtube pointed out that the story about the discovery of the effects
of the Helicobater Pylori bacteria on gastrointestinal problems and ulcers is a pretty good case
of the “Semmelweis effect”.
Check out the links below for more info on the two researchers who championed different
methods of treatment, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren.
Thanks Adam!
And Ryan the Raptor Guy (cool handle and page by the way!) notes that geologists J Harlen
Bretz’ theories and research about Lake Missoula and the Lake Missoula Floods were
often refuted by other geologists because they didn’t align with his contemporaries.
So the Semmelweis effect strikes again!
Read more about it in the works cited section and thanks for sharing Ryan!
That’s all for questions, like, share, and subscribe to all our content and remember:
rub a dub-dub, when it comes to hands, be sure to scrub, and we’ll catch you next week!