The Institutionalization and Deinstitutionalization of
Marriage
Advanced Psychology
Family Form: Section 1
Amato (2004) - Introduction
Historical trends
NCFR has not had a conference theme refer to marriage since
1958.
Change in marriage
Decline in marriage rate
Commonplace of nonmarital cohabitation
Rise in extramarital births
Increase in divorce rate
Marriage as focus of social policy
Implementation of covenant marriage (LA, AZ, & AR)
Oklahoma Marriage Initiative
Federal funding to support healthy marriages
Opening door in some states to gay and lesbian marriage
What role should government play?
The Marriage Debate
Marital Decline Perspective
Increasingly individualistic society
Decline in marriage and single-parent homes contributes to
social problems
Cure for problems is create a culture more supportive of
marriage
Marital Resilience Perspective
Argue that many marriages were/are unhappy; divorce provides
second chance
Changes in family life (freedom of choice and opportunities
for equality) have strengthened intimacy
Social problems are more serious threats than decline in
married two-parent families
From Institutional to Companionate Marriage
According to Burgess, industrialization and urbanization
weaken the institutional basis of marriage.
19th century: family farm marriages characterized by
patriarchy
1900: two-parent breadwinner/homemaker families
Movement toward companionate marriage, characterized by egalitarian rather than
patriarchal relationships.
Self-expression and personal development
Shift to no-fault divorce
Currently, spouses = soulmates; this emphasis on marriage as a vehicle of
self-development represents an even more individualistic form of marriage that
has replaced companionate marriage as the cultural ideal
Revisiting the Marriage Debate
Marriage decline: we need to reinstitutionalize marriage
Marriage resilience: value enhanced freedom and self-development
Fundamental difference lies in whether one looks at the world from an
institutional or individual point of view.
When unhappy couples wrestle with divorce, they are caught between their desire
to further their own personal happiness and their sense of obligation to others.
Should Marriage be a Focus of Social Policy?
Children with two happily married parents have a statistical advantage over
others.
Is it realistic to try to increase the proportion of children raised by married
parents with satisfying and stable marriages?
It makes no moral or legal sense to deny children the right to be raised by
married parents on the basis of their parents’ sexual orientation.
What is the Future of Marriage?
Alternatives to hierarchical, monogamous, lifelong marriage will become more
common.
Social policy will play a growing role in improving marital happiness.
Society has an interest in promoting positive long-term development for
children.
States will need to provide a variety of resources to enable couples with
children to marry and have healthy, stable unions.
State-funded services should include marital education, relationship skills
training, and parenting programs
Conclusion
To make marriages with children work effectively, it is necessary for spouses to
find the right balance between institutional and individual elements, between
obligations to others and obligations to self.
Cherlin (2004) - Introduction
Deinstitutionalization = weakening of social norms that define people’s behavior
in a social institution such as marriage.
New ways of acting must be established
Engenders disagreement
Breakdown of old rules could lead to creation of a more
egalitarian relationship between spouses
The Deinstitutionalization of Marriage
Changing division of labor in the home
Increase in child-bearing outside marriage
Growth of acceptance of cohabitation, creating greater
complexity in families
Fringe or avant garde phenomenon
Accepted as testing ground for marriage
Accepted as alternative to marriage
Becomes indistinguishable from marriage
Emergence of same-sex marriage
Two transitions in the meaning of marriage
Emphasis on emotional satisfaction and romantic love (early
in 20th century) = companionate marriage
Ethic of expressive individualism (last half of 20th century)
= individualized marriage
The current context of marriage
Individuals experience a vast latitude for choice in their
personal lives.
Individuals aim for personal growth and deeper intimacy
through more open communication and mutually shared disclosures about feelings.
Why do people still marry?
Gains to marriage: Enforceable trust – public commitment, less likely to break
Symbolic significance: marriage is less dominant and more distinctive
Low-income: lowest rate of all SES groups; importance of finances
Young adults: search for soulmate; private, spiritual union
Wedding as status symbol: statement that they had passed a milestone in
self-identity development
Marriage at Present
No longer as dominant as it once was
Remains important on symbolic level
Transformed from familial and community institution to individualized,
choice-based achievement
Marker of prestige and still somewhat useful in creating enforceable trust
Alternative Futures
Reinstitutionalization of marriage
Continuation of individualized marriage
The fading away of marriage
Discussion Questions
What do you think is the appropriate balance between institutional values, such
as society’s perspective of marriage, and individual values, such as
self-development?
Is it realistic to try to increase the proportion of children raised by married
parents with satisfying and stable marriages? Why or why not?
Do you believe same-sex couples should be given the right to marry? Why or why
not?
Do you agree with Cherlin’s (2004) evaluation of the current “state” of
coupling? Why or why not?
Critique the proposed individualistic view of current marriage. Discuss
positives and negatives based on your experience and opinions.
Which of Cherlin’s three options in the future of marriage do you believe is the
most likely? Why?
Think of an example of a happy couple. What are the components that most
strongly contribute to the couple’s happiness?