Your articles are so thought provoking! I found this a really interesting read, particularly your discussion of family structures in the Balkans before WWII, and the Japanese concept of sotsukon - I had never heard of that before.
Here in the UK, I think society has become much more individualistic, and community ties have weakened and this places alot of pressure on marriages. Many people move around the country for work, so families and friends aren't living close by, and people no longer have the support networks that previous generations could rely on. Trying to raise children while both working full-time, often with little or no family help, is bound to test even the strongest of relationships.
I'm not sure what the answers to these problems are, but in terms of your article I think that any redesign of marriage as an institution can't be done in isolation. It needs to look at the wider societal context that shapes it. And what might work in one societal context may not necessarily work in another.
Thank you very much for reading. As you say, people are “reinventing” marriages all the time…they adapt and try approach that work for them…in the meantime there are all kind of different constellations…but the point is that legally, the system accepts only one one, perhaps old-fashioned version of the all possible ways… Take care.
Prior to same-sex marriage becoming a thing, one of the advantages when it came to queer relationships was that it was an open slate – there were no set template, so the rules were free to be defined. However, same-sex marriage brought with it heteronormative behaviour and expectations, so much of this freedom to determine the rules and boundaries for long-term relationships has now been lost.
Thanks Nick, I guess the institution of marriage (for same-sex and hetero couples) has, in a way, become a victim of its own success. Over time, people have come to expect more and more from it. It’s no longer just about building a family or sharing responsibilities. We also expect our partner to be our best friend, soulmate, biggest supporter, lover, and source of happiness.
First of all, thank you for this wonderful essay. It was a genuine pleasure to read.
As for the debate itself, it would probably require an entire academic conference. The question is vast, highly significant, and extremely complex. I am not sure how much I can contribute, but I would like to share a few thoughts while trying to approach the subject more as an outside observer. :)
Marriage as we know it today - or at least what we understand as its “traditional” form -developed within a very different social and historical context and was adapted to the needs of that context, although it has, of course, undergone many changes since then.
In this sense, the social transformations we are witnessing and actively participating in demonstrate that the age in which we live is qualitatively different. This certainly supports your argument that the most familiar form of marriage is no longer fully capable of responding to the needs of contemporary society.
We should also acknowledge, however, that marriage is an institution in crisis. Many people prefer not to marry and see little reason to do so, while a considerable number of those who do marry eventually divorce. In a sense, these tendencies can be understood as a crisis of the institution’s legitimacy.
To put it in less academic terms, more and more people no longer understand - or simply do not accept - the reasons why they are expected to marry. The very necessity of marriage begins to appear unclear or unconvincing to them. This raises the question of whether the institution can continue to exist in its current form or whether it will need to change in order to preserve its social significance.
Institutional change, however, is often accompanied by resistance. Personally, I am sceptical that marriage can easily undergo a fundamental transformation. Today, it has become not only a social institution but also a powerful political symbol.
When someone says that they support the “traditional family,” they are not merely expressing an opinion. Through this position, they construct an identity - including a political identity - distinguish themselves from other groups, and declare their belonging to a particular moral and political community.
In this sense, preserving marriage in the form in which we currently recognise it is not merely a private matter. It has become a politically significant issue - and this probably makes its transformation even more difficult.
First of all, thank you very much for reading this essay and, secondly, for your elaborate comment. I love the idea of a conference—that would be great. However, the modest budget of my pet project is very limited. :-)..and as you can see, my posts are not that serious, I tend to approach those questions with the pinch of salt.
I basically agree with everything you say. It is clear that the institution of marriage is in crisis. In fact, I think it has been in crisis from the moment of its inception, but it was (and still is, in many societies) impossible to question it. As said, there are more and more people who are in partnerships but did not choose marriage as an option. There is a high percentage of divorces among those who do marry, there are many single-parent families, and there are still children (in Bulgaria, but also in many other countries) who are raised by their grandparents because their parents work abroad. These are all facts, yet marriage as an institution is still seen as the only legally and morally legitimate form of family life. And because of that, it also continues to be politically useful.
Here in Sweden, after a divorce, both parents have equal custody of their minor children. The children typically spend one or two weeks with one parent and then one or two weeks with the other. In the interest of the children, it is becoming increasingly common for the children to remain in the same home while the parents take turns living there instead of the children moving between two homes. Each parent spends one or two weeks with the children and then one or two weeks alone or with a new partner. People find ways to make things work, but, as you say, I am "sceptical that marriage can easily undergo a fundamental transformation."
The part about marriages automatically expiring after seven years made me laugh because my wife and I have been joking about "renewing our marriage lease" every five years since we first got together. Fourteen years later and we're still happily renewing too.
Of course our actual process is more like:
"You happy?"
"Yep."
"You?"
"Yep."
I think that's why that section resonated with me. I like the idea of regularly checking in and consciously choosing each other again instead of running on autopilot.
Thank you for reading. Perfect, to be hones our annual "check" up is similar...so..."are we going for one more year.?"...Yes, sure, lets do one more year..husband gets a fancy bottle of something I got usually an Aperol..and life goes on..
I don't think any redefinition or re-imagining of marriage makes too much of a difference because I don't think it's marriage that is the problem, I think unfortunately the root problem is misogyny. However we try and change what "marriage" is, so long as misogyny gets the kinda free pass to run rampant as it does now, it'll just be another problematic definition and arrangement.
Thank you very much for that observation James, I cant agree more...i think misogyny and patriarchy seems to be two faces of the same coin. One enables the other....I have written about that in my Q7 and decided not to go into that direction again.
Oh, I remember them—the grumpy shoe seller and his wife with the impossible hairstyle. Apparently, love got mixed up with marriage sometime in the last century or so, at least in our part of the world. And I guess that has made marriage more fragile. Here in Sweden, I see people opting for a kind of serial monogamy, if that makes sense. They spend a few years with someone, separate, then find new love, separate again... As I said, loving someone is not effortless.
Your articles are so thought provoking! I found this a really interesting read, particularly your discussion of family structures in the Balkans before WWII, and the Japanese concept of sotsukon - I had never heard of that before.
Here in the UK, I think society has become much more individualistic, and community ties have weakened and this places alot of pressure on marriages. Many people move around the country for work, so families and friends aren't living close by, and people no longer have the support networks that previous generations could rely on. Trying to raise children while both working full-time, often with little or no family help, is bound to test even the strongest of relationships.
I'm not sure what the answers to these problems are, but in terms of your article I think that any redesign of marriage as an institution can't be done in isolation. It needs to look at the wider societal context that shapes it. And what might work in one societal context may not necessarily work in another.
Thank you very much for reading. As you say, people are “reinventing” marriages all the time…they adapt and try approach that work for them…in the meantime there are all kind of different constellations…but the point is that legally, the system accepts only one one, perhaps old-fashioned version of the all possible ways… Take care.
First of all, thank you for quoting me!
Prior to same-sex marriage becoming a thing, one of the advantages when it came to queer relationships was that it was an open slate – there were no set template, so the rules were free to be defined. However, same-sex marriage brought with it heteronormative behaviour and expectations, so much of this freedom to determine the rules and boundaries for long-term relationships has now been lost.
Thanks Nick, I guess the institution of marriage (for same-sex and hetero couples) has, in a way, become a victim of its own success. Over time, people have come to expect more and more from it. It’s no longer just about building a family or sharing responsibilities. We also expect our partner to be our best friend, soulmate, biggest supporter, lover, and source of happiness.
I find Gabriele Pauli idea almost brilliant - that marriages should automatically expire after seven years unless both partners chose to renew them.
Not sure how well that would work in case of children though…. 🤔
I also think it is a sensible, but yes, the devil is in the details.
First of all, thank you for this wonderful essay. It was a genuine pleasure to read.
As for the debate itself, it would probably require an entire academic conference. The question is vast, highly significant, and extremely complex. I am not sure how much I can contribute, but I would like to share a few thoughts while trying to approach the subject more as an outside observer. :)
Marriage as we know it today - or at least what we understand as its “traditional” form -developed within a very different social and historical context and was adapted to the needs of that context, although it has, of course, undergone many changes since then.
In this sense, the social transformations we are witnessing and actively participating in demonstrate that the age in which we live is qualitatively different. This certainly supports your argument that the most familiar form of marriage is no longer fully capable of responding to the needs of contemporary society.
We should also acknowledge, however, that marriage is an institution in crisis. Many people prefer not to marry and see little reason to do so, while a considerable number of those who do marry eventually divorce. In a sense, these tendencies can be understood as a crisis of the institution’s legitimacy.
To put it in less academic terms, more and more people no longer understand - or simply do not accept - the reasons why they are expected to marry. The very necessity of marriage begins to appear unclear or unconvincing to them. This raises the question of whether the institution can continue to exist in its current form or whether it will need to change in order to preserve its social significance.
Institutional change, however, is often accompanied by resistance. Personally, I am sceptical that marriage can easily undergo a fundamental transformation. Today, it has become not only a social institution but also a powerful political symbol.
When someone says that they support the “traditional family,” they are not merely expressing an opinion. Through this position, they construct an identity - including a political identity - distinguish themselves from other groups, and declare their belonging to a particular moral and political community.
In this sense, preserving marriage in the form in which we currently recognise it is not merely a private matter. It has become a politically significant issue - and this probably makes its transformation even more difficult.
First of all, thank you very much for reading this essay and, secondly, for your elaborate comment. I love the idea of a conference—that would be great. However, the modest budget of my pet project is very limited. :-)..and as you can see, my posts are not that serious, I tend to approach those questions with the pinch of salt.
I basically agree with everything you say. It is clear that the institution of marriage is in crisis. In fact, I think it has been in crisis from the moment of its inception, but it was (and still is, in many societies) impossible to question it. As said, there are more and more people who are in partnerships but did not choose marriage as an option. There is a high percentage of divorces among those who do marry, there are many single-parent families, and there are still children (in Bulgaria, but also in many other countries) who are raised by their grandparents because their parents work abroad. These are all facts, yet marriage as an institution is still seen as the only legally and morally legitimate form of family life. And because of that, it also continues to be politically useful.
Here in Sweden, after a divorce, both parents have equal custody of their minor children. The children typically spend one or two weeks with one parent and then one or two weeks with the other. In the interest of the children, it is becoming increasingly common for the children to remain in the same home while the parents take turns living there instead of the children moving between two homes. Each parent spends one or two weeks with the children and then one or two weeks alone or with a new partner. People find ways to make things work, but, as you say, I am "sceptical that marriage can easily undergo a fundamental transformation."
Take care.
Lilia,
I (as always) really enjoyed this article.
The part about marriages automatically expiring after seven years made me laugh because my wife and I have been joking about "renewing our marriage lease" every five years since we first got together. Fourteen years later and we're still happily renewing too.
Of course our actual process is more like:
"You happy?"
"Yep."
"You?"
"Yep."
I think that's why that section resonated with me. I like the idea of regularly checking in and consciously choosing each other again instead of running on autopilot.
Thank you for reading. Perfect, to be hones our annual "check" up is similar...so..."are we going for one more year.?"...Yes, sure, lets do one more year..husband gets a fancy bottle of something I got usually an Aperol..and life goes on..
I don't think any redefinition or re-imagining of marriage makes too much of a difference because I don't think it's marriage that is the problem, I think unfortunately the root problem is misogyny. However we try and change what "marriage" is, so long as misogyny gets the kinda free pass to run rampant as it does now, it'll just be another problematic definition and arrangement.
Thank you very much for that observation James, I cant agree more...i think misogyny and patriarchy seems to be two faces of the same coin. One enables the other....I have written about that in my Q7 and decided not to go into that direction again.
Some excellent books here…
As for redesigning marriage. Not sure. Maybe every couple gets a parrot? 🦜
Thanks, I would say a talking parrot :-)
I don't know why, but after I've read this post, I remembered about" Married with children" (Al Bundy, Peggy, Kelly and....something with B the boy) .
"Love and marriage,
Love and marriage,
They go together like a horse and carriage
This I tell you, brother
You can't have one without the other"
Oh, I remember them—the grumpy shoe seller and his wife with the impossible hairstyle. Apparently, love got mixed up with marriage sometime in the last century or so, at least in our part of the world. And I guess that has made marriage more fragile. Here in Sweden, I see people opting for a kind of serial monogamy, if that makes sense. They spend a few years with someone, separate, then find new love, separate again... As I said, loving someone is not effortless.