The changing American narrative- decade by decade, and what it means for marriage... | INFJ Forum

The changing American narrative- decade by decade, and what it means for marriage...

jupiterswoon

Permanent Fixture
Mar 30, 2012
967
180
587
MBTI
ISFP
Enneagram
3
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/14/143660764/when-it-comes-to-marriage-many-more-say-i-dont

I thought that this was a very interesting article, very much worth discussing....

In my humble opinion, it seems like America is finally taking a rational approach to understanding the nature of love, relationships, and healthy sexuality. This article of course has a more conventional slant, and doesn't mention what I am about to discuss- but it definitely incited me to write my own thoughts as a matter of course.

So, this article posits that now married folks only comprise 51% of the population - which in the eyes of the author is frightening, and means that society as a whole is much less stable than before.

In my eyes this makes so much sense that fewer people are getting married now. Some people, as I've observed over my life time, are not able to be monogamous, and others simply don't pursue relations. This being the case, I think that fewer people feel the pressure to get married, as culturally we begin to move away from more of a Christian paradigm. More and more people that I know tend to be comfortable in open-relationships, and proclaiming their open-relationship status. Other people are in very serious committed relationships, but really want to think about marriage before jumping into it, and committing themselves to one person for the rest of their lives. A lot of people saw the havoc that divorce can wreak on people's lives, and want to avoid the destructive nature that lies in false idealism. When we create unhealthy illusions we can potentially do much more damage, than if we take a realistic approach.

I might posit, and this is bold, that many people have a much more realistic idea of marriage now than they did before, and that you can't just get married and assume that you're life will be easy. Most people know now that marriage requires a lot of work, and that you can't take marriage for granted. I might argue that people who are getting married now, are much more aware of how to avoid pitfalls (such as money, lack of honesty, etc). A big thing that is new now is the idea of honesty- people being forthcoming about what they like sexually, instead of getting frustrated with sex (which in my opinion plays a huge role in whether or not a couple can maintain proper fidelity).

Also, people in our society, now rely on being much more autonomous than before. If the marriage fails, women need to be able to find jobs- hence more women are reluctant to become stay at home moms. From another perspective, many women who are stay at home mom's feel unfulfilled and would like to work at least part time. I feel split on the idea of staying home, part of me would love it (I could focus on my hobbies and interests), and the other part of me would crave interaction with people. Also I think when a woman stays at home, she feels more pressure to please her man, while at the same time feeling more isolated from society as a whole. The other part is that some women love to stay at home and raise their kids, and they are being questioned, or belittled and made to feel that they should be doing something more important. (The whole staying at home thing is so subjective- I'm going to stop here).

I think decade by decade we have created a cultural narrative defined by polarity. In the last 50 years society has seen the repression of the 50s, the reactionary "feely" openness of the 60s, the deluded washed up 70s, the materialistic 80s, and the depressed 90s- and has thought to themselves, how can we avoid these pitfalls. In the 50s- people were in what could be considered frigid relationships, sexually repressed and unfulfilling. In the 60s- people rebelled and free love was in the air- which lead to the STDs of the 70s (if you get my drift). After the 60s people realized that spirituality alone wasn't the answer (the 70s), and in the 80s they figured the answer must be materialism. The grungy "nothing matters" 90s was the answer to 80s materialism- and that answer was- "Hey this still isn't working." Now in the 2000s, people are like, let's just focus on ourselves, become autonomous differentiated beings, and focus on spirituality intermingled with materialistic reality. This might mean not getting married- but the one thing that our current generation seems to posit is that maybe the foundations of society is worth questioning- marriage being one of those things.

Can people have healthy beautiful relationships that are life-long and fulfilling without tying the knot? What is the significance of the reduced marriage statistics- when we take a look at the cultural narrative? Do you agree that some people can't be monogamous? Do you think that the culture will continue without the paradigm of institutionalized marriage? Do people really need to get married to have a happy fulfilling life?

One interesting thing to notice is which personality types tend to veer away from monogamy, and which ones are more monogamous.
 
Technically speaking society has never seen anything about the 50's in the past 50 years, except through television. :p

My personal view on the lack of marriages now is that society doesn't really care if you are married or not when you have kids or have sex now-a-days. Sure they pay lip service to it, but it is not as likely you are going to get kicked out of the family. I think talk shows have contributed heavily to todays disinterest in marriage. I can't count the times I've seen shitty marriages on Ricki Lake, Donahue, Richard Bey, Jerry Springer, etc etc etc. Being the man of the house isn't desirable anymore either. I can't think of any benefits besides just the fact that I like the idea of it all.

Can people have healthy beautiful relationships that are life-long and fulfilling without tying the knot?
Yes. relationship is such a broad term though and could mean anything.
What is the significance of the reduced marriage statistics- when we take a look at the cultural narrative?
Marriage is a lot of work and most people aren't willing to commit their possessions to a person who might change their mind later on down the road.

Do you agree that some people can't be monogamous? Do you think that the culture will continue without the paradigm of institutionalized marriage? Do people really need to get married to have a happy fulfilling life?
People can do whatever they put their mind to, but they will also do whatever they can get away with. I like the idea of marriage, but too often it seems to just be a governmental status so that we can be tracked in their many programs. I think its better to have marriage than to not have marriage.
 
Last edited:
Part of me cringes when I think of how people compare the present to the distant past. They can see it as negative or see it for all the positive things that have happened over the course of time. I feel it is comparing apples to oranges.

Homosexuals/transX/etc: In the past felt pressured to adhere to the norm of society ... get married, have kids, white picket fence. Presently they have the freedom to live their life the way they want.

Women: Didn't always have the option or financial support to go to college or work, parents wanted their financial burden to get married, settle down and raise children. They felt pressured to adhere to the norm of society b/c the options weren't there. Presently they have the freedom to live their life the way they want.

Minorities: Didn't have financial support to go to college, oppressed from white majority, could not fathom getting into competitive career fields. Presently they have the freedom to live their life the way they want.

Several factors create the instability of the present ... the demand for jobs, 2 income households vs. 1 income household. You would have to also look at the public dependency on the government (welfare, wards of state, unemployment collection) ... however you cannot compare the dependency to more than probably 20 years b/c eligibility/changes to those programs have significantly changed over time.

Basically women and homosexuals/transX/etc have screwed things up for the people who wish to live like the Cleaver family. :D I see options in happiness as a good thing for everyone. If it means less monogamous marriages, who cares?
 
Last edited:
Can people have healthy beautiful relationships that are life-long and fulfilling without tying the knot? What is the significance of the reduced marriage statistics- when we take a look at the cultural narrative? Do you agree that some people can't be monogamous? Do you think that the culture will continue without the paradigm of institutionalized marriage? Do people really need to get married to have a happy fulfilling life?

Interesting set of topics!

I think the shift in society is remarkable. It seems as though we are moving toward an ideology that values the well-being and fulfillment of each individual above the maintenance of a rigid and demanding institution, which I wholeheartedly support. And while I realize this stems from a political and economic context that bastardizes human lives the world over, I'm hopeful that on a larger scale the shift reflects a direction in which we are headed that will eventually find us creating a more just world.

The event of marriage -- the planning of a wedding, a ceremony, and a party -- do not (imho) dramatically shape or shift the dynamics of a relationship. Relationships are shaped by the small and large daily acts between the involved parties. The decision to enter into a marital agreement may arise from certain beliefs that continue to affect the relationship after the marital event, but such beliefs of commitment can also be present outside of the context of a marital agreement. There's nothing wrong with having one's relationship formally celebrated and recognized/labeled through the institution of marriage; likewise, there is nothing wrong in not doing so.

I don't know that I can comment on the significance of reduced marriage statistics, but I am inclined to believe people who say they cannot be monogamous as it's not possible for me to affirm or deny the validity of someone else's self-professed identity. I am guessing many more people practice open relationships than seems to be the case. I'd be curious to know how prevalent open relationships are (same with polyamorous). In any case, I think it's great if it's what all parties geniunely desire.
 
Marriage will remain at the forefront of these discussions as long as we thrive by the rule of possession and trade.
 
These complicated issues bother me.......what happen to simple, meaningful threads.........urrrhhhh.....*walks of mumbling*
 
I read the book on marriage by the author quoted in the article, Stephanie Coontz. A lot of what I read in there indicated that increasing divorce rates is not due to a collapse of values or anything like that. Rather, it's an extension of incorporating marriage and love where marriage is the ultimate indication of love, combined with the freedom to end marriages if love ends for whatever reason. Before the 20th century, marriage was an economic arrangement made out of necessity. Love really wasn't part of the point of marriage, so people stayed together because they had. This was especially true pre-Industrial Revolution. Increased productivity after the Industrial Revolution allowed marriage to become a loving/caring relationship; you could still make your way in life without marriage. In the 20s, marriage was pretty much on the decline. I even read about people who supported gay marriage back then, and plenty of people didn't find a need to get married. During the Depression, marriage became necessary, and changes from the 20s didn't start back up again until the 60s due to all the economic hardship. The 50s is a strange period, a time period when people were breaking out again out of economic stagnation in the 30s and 40s. Cohabitation is possible now, and if people choose, they can work or raise kids. Both options are fine. Marriage is no longer the only way to get by. Provided that economic progress can continue (arguable that economic progress is occuring, but look at technological progress at least), marriage will die out.

As a whole, I'm against the idea of marriage. I take it to be a government-sanctioned institution that prescribes the ways you can make legal family relationships. Marriage works based on monogamy, and existing as the only legal institution I know of for interpersonal relationships, is enforced as important by the government.

History and practicality aside... I'm against marriage for myself even. I would rather be with a person for my own interests; with marriage, there is always a pressure to be together forever, unconditionally. Relationships should be fulfilling things, while taking historical evidence earlier indicates that marriage is mostly a co-dependency. By codependency, I mean a loss of independence, and a loss of potential value pursuit. If anything keeps married couples together, it's a stable loving relationship in the first place, and nothing to do with marriage. Commitment to loved ones is important, but marriage is not synonymous with commitment.This is all on top of the fact that I don't even believe monogamy is an ideal way to look at life. I take a totally polyamorous viewpoint, which is incompatible with marriage and all that marriage means. Although, ceremonies of commitment are fine to me, as long as they're just ceremonies that don't emphasize "'till death do us part" stuff.

Marriage will remain at the forefront of these discussions as long as we thrive by the rule of possession and trade.
What discussions? I don't follow.
 
I think that beautiful romantic relationships can exist without marriage, but I also think it just makes more sense to get married, if you're straight or live in a state where gay marriage is legal, since beautiful spiritual connections can't fill out joint tax forms. I think low marriage rates are the natural result of the hatred of tradition we've experienced as a nation since the mid-'60's, and that the percentage of people getting married will probably start increasing within a decade or two.
 
I think that beautiful romantic relationships can exist without marriage, but I also think it just makes more sense to get married, if you're straight or live in a state where gay marriage is legal, since beautiful spiritual connections can't fill out joint tax forms. I think low marriage rates are the natural result of the hatred of tradition we've experienced as a nation since the mid-'60's, and that the percentage of people getting married will probably start increasing within a decade or two.

Agreed. In my opinion people are moving away from the institution of marriage, but people are rejecting the idea instead of redefining it. I weird for agreeing with your posts twice in a row...
 
I would also like to point out that the statistics on marriage could be skewed as a result of the birth rate. The baby boomer generation was/is a huge component of our population. BBoomers had a greater tendency to marry as well.

Of course the impetuous to marry is also impacted by the shift in women's rights in the US. At one point, it was a necessity for women to get married--they couldn't vote, didn't work, were tied to the home by pregnancy and birth....

Shifts in the social structure are generally measured in generations rather than years/decades. For instance, my mother can tell me about the time she was "allowed" to wear pants to work in the 1970's. Same way that there are those who still remember civil rights and a time when black people had their own water fountains (so as not to contaminate the white folk's water fountains). So our society will hopefully continue to redefine itself and as the generations turn, things that seemed important (socially) will fade and new things will replace those ideals. It is the natural cycle of things.