The Construction of Marriage: The Oldest Transaction of Order

Introduction

Since the 1980s, the U.S. has been constantly bombarded with statistics about marriage failures, most noteworthy being the common headline: “50% of marriages end in divorce.” While alarming and a bit depressing, the newest updates in these statistics are actually ‘promising’ for those interested and hopeful for marriage, as rates are decreasing to an uncoupling rate of about 39%. Recent data from the Covid-19 pandemic has shown an uprising in failed marriages and relationships, but this uptick is an outlier in the trajectory shown from the last few decades. There are plenty of theories suggesting viable reasons for more successful relationship outcomes: marrying later, prioritizing steady income before marriage, waiting to have children and/or not having children at all, or even more people cohabitating without the official documentation of marriage. While many interpret these progressions as evidence that we are ‘getting better’ at being married and monogamous, they actually suggest the opposite condition, that the institution is unnatural and only further failing to work as intended. Human evolution, the legal implications of marriage, and studies about human health and happiness suggest that institution of marriage and standardized monogamy are unnatural because they impose a set of discriminatory constraints, control, and socially constructed notions of success.

Part I: The Historical Evolution of Transactional Marriage

According to archeological reports by Brian Hayden in Stephanie Coontz’s book, Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage, the origin of the institution of marriage took place during the Paleolithic, band society era of human history. It was constructed with the main purpose to cohabitate and establish kinship ties to other camps or family groups. This method of networking proved to be the most viable and sustainable way to ensure alliance and reproduction in Australian Aboriginal groups, and candidates for this type of “marriage” were exchanged between groups in a trade-like manner and often lacked personal autonomy over partnership choices. North American groups operated differently, as the networks built by this era of marriage were more voluntary and open, and did not show evidence of interference if a couple separated. With waves of common conceptions about marriage, historians, sociologists, and philosophers have theorized about the purposes of marriage including the notion that marriage was intended to protect and provide for women. Since these theories have been debunked by archeological reports on women’s roles in hunter gatherer society, sociologists like Maria Mies and Marion Young have done significant research into the oppressive force of institutional marriage to mobilize, constrict, and control women’s reproductive powers, which have proven more historical significance and alignment with archeological evidence.

The point in these historical studies of early marriage is the theme that the more or less ‘official’ construction of marriage in very early (2350 BC) Human history was created for transactional survival purposes of networking. The establishment of the institution and norm of marriage actually suggests that male-female monogamous partnership was unnatural because there would be no reason to create mandates or enforcement of such a process if it were unanimously innate or required for reproduction. Despite threats of death, violence, and banishment (in some regions) for breaking the institution of paleolithic marriage commitments, official “bonds” were still broken by both men and women, as the shame in infidelity has only existed since the constructed value of monogamy. The biological necessity to reproduce, bond, and partner does not imply outright monogamy (and therefore marriage) despite the seeming misconception that the two are one and the same. However, the reinforcement of these adopted values through powerful political channels began much later than paleolithic band societies.

Marriage continued through history as a transactional tool for different purposes of human civilization development, not as a reflection of natural or innate human desire. After humans developed surpluses and less of a need to arrange networking partnerships between family units for survival, marriage agreements became a mechanism for accumulation and consolidation, not reciprocal resource-sharing. Economic differentiation and status establishment were now the major drivers of marriage relations and agreements between lineages, which only became increasingly gendered with women as the means of exchange for wealth, status, and resources. Lineage and kin preservation became an integral goal of marriage in the agricultural era. Perpetuating the perceived value in this institution was required to maintain the order of property and status exchange, so the wide adoption and increasingly harsh restrictions placed on monogamous partnership in marriage easily followed. These restrictions also continued to become increasingly harsh for women and penalties for adultery or premarital sex persisted through society. Again, these penalties, restrictions, and laws would not be required to be ingrained in the minds of society if such values were natural to the human condition, they were only necessary to preserve social and economic order.

The next era of marriage transaction is defined by its use for political transference and blocking of power. This was the next step from economic exchange and continued to employ subjugation and violence against women. Beginning with land transfers between father and son-in-law as a means of power in the feudal era, once again, marriage was utilized as reflection of ideology and structure, not instinctive purpose. While most widely adopted through Europe, there is evidence of versions of this system throughout China, India, Assyria, and North Africa.

Finally, the institution of marriage has most recently been used to reinforce societal inequities after its other transactional purposes became more obsolete. Marriage was framed as a privilege in the United States, and has been mobilized as a symbol for success, happiness, and accomplishment. This was primarily perpetuated through laws and plantation mandates which forbid enslaved people from marrying. For over a century after emancipation, interracial marriage was also illegal in the United States, further perpetuating white power structures and racial discrimination. Also, non-heterosexual marriages were banned legally (and did not become legal in all 50 states until 6 years ago). These three mobilizations of marriage under US law and history further the point that marriage was used as an institutional tool for various purposes (in this case preserving white, heterosexual power), none of which had to do with legitimate conditions of personhood, romantic or companionship preference.

Despite the long history of the transaction of marriage, various manifestations of partnership and companionship have existed throughout eras and regions of human existence. This is important because the main point of this argument is not that marriage is incorrect or wrong, but that a legal and social system that values it as central fails to recognize the fact that such relationships are only one version of the many ways humans can reproduce and collaborate. In rich and middle-income countries in 2021, most people technically have the luxury to make life choices based on fulfillment and happiness, not survival and necessity, which—if free of societal and legal pressure—would likely result in a variety of companionship relationships—some monogamous, some resulting in reproduction, others not. Encapsulating the diversity of human desire for companionship, commitment, parenthood, or lack thereof is essential in a modern examination of choice, and the institution of marriage fails to do this.

Part II: What is ‘Natural’

Since the institution of monogamous marriage has been around so long and become so ingrained and valued in modern society, the valid notion that this institution was born out of an innate human desire to be in a committed relationship with the person with whom we will reproduce is still widely adopted by the majority of society. While most people in 2021 accept many of the flaws, inequalities, and historically imbalanced power dynamics of the institution, they still believe there is an element that’s central and sacred to natural human relationships. Relationship desires that reflect values of the modern marriage may very well exist and remain genuine, but the value of marriage itself is a socially constructed priority.1 The idea of a wedding is the perfect example of this. Many if not most Americans look forward to planning and celebrating their wedding day and any tangential features of getting married (engagement, ring, honeymoon, white dress, etc.). This positive association exists because other members of a person’s social network (parents, family, friends) and/or the media they consume glamorize this particular event or life milestone and presents it as socially significant or important. While this notion of constructed importance is a very real feeling that rightfully drives our decision-making, it is inessential to our natural values which are more integral and raw to our survival and sense of fulfillment.

The institution of marriage is obviously much more about what it represents than what it is. This means that marriage as a label, event, or celebration is widely valued and celebrated even with our awareness of its construction because it signifies values that actually may be important such as commitment, love, belongingness, loyalty, friendship, security, family-building, etc. While any one individual can value one or all of these (and other important symbols of marriage), the act/institution of marriage is not required to experience them, even though we are groomed to believe it is. Commitment is innate—whether it exists for one person, for multiple friends, for tasks or jobs, or for family—it is required for human survival. Commitment however does not imply “lifelong” for almost anything, and is frankly unrealistic to promise. There are very few (if any) commitments that are truly lifelong, and this is because another natural human phenomenon is change. Even though there are many marriages in the current world that have and will continue to last “for life,” the ones that exist happily until death do not exist because of the “promise” of marriage or lifelong commitment, they exist happily because the people repeatedly choose to live alongside one another and likely change in ways that continuously remain compatible.

This argument also proposes the possibility that people who live their entire life in and out of romantic relationships with or without kids who ultimately die without a partner may be unhappy because society tells them that they are a failure, not because they are intrinsically unfulfilled. This is where spreading the fallacy that a traditional monogamist marriage is natural can be harmful and severely affect people’s sense of self-worth if they prefer to live outside these constraints. Also, people often believe that successful and long-lasting relationships make us happier and more fulfilled, but it’s difficult to measure people’s true fulfillment and happiness who will willingly admit their dissatisfactions in their current relationship circumstances.

A 2009 US Health and Human Services brief showed data that married people are more financially stable over a lifetime. This confirms many of the arguments about why marriage seems to be beneficial for stability and happiness. However, this argument says more about how the modern U.S. economy supports the institution of marriage with tax breaks and shared wealth and asset management than it does about the naturalness of the institution. Marriage is statistically, financially beneficial for people because the figures and systems that regulate the economy (ie. The Federal Reserve) support the institution of marriage for the same reasons stated in the previous paragraphs.

Finally, it’s also important to consider how the history of marriage has skewed our idea of control and possession. Human values are certainly shaped by generational adaptations of morality and priorities. Marriage has been used as a method of control and possession not only for men, but also for women. This is displayed through the deep pain and violence that still occurs from infidelity. While there are discussions of this throughout academia, the frequency of infidelity should give some insight into the illegitimate constraints of monogamy and pressures to remain in a committed relationship while maintaining other unofficial relationships which defy such commitments. Both sides of partnership can experience jealousy or tensions from the potential threat of outside romantic interests—which of course is one of the oldest tropes in human history. These feelings however suggest that a deeper personal agenda in marital relations is the control and possession of another human’s actions and desires. This is often where friendships and even familial relations differ from marriage, as this level of custody is less prominent. To gain more perspective, relationships in general are mostly intended for people’s own enjoyment and reciprocity of help for others, not to feel power over someone else’s choices. Marriage commitments and modern-day (often heterosexual) monogamy seems to stress this sense of control based on the unspoken “rules” of marriage and romantic relationships causing feelings of betrayal from infidelity. If rules of relationships were instead spoken and organized on a personalized basis for each partnership/companionship, betrayal may be less inevitable due to clearer mutual understanding. Marriage is not required for a sense of security—and most people who use it as a guarantee to lock in a secure partner can be subject for this exact version of betrayal. As generations continue to prove, humans will defy institutions and pressures to achieve what they want whether that is solitude, choosing not to have kids, or having multiple partners.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Relieving people of the pressures of one of the oldest institutions in human history is a centuries-long process, and this paper is not arguing that marriage is a bad creation for society. Marriage has allowed for civilization, technology, and social organization to propel humans to the most advanced species in our known history of the earth. The main goal for the next steps after widespread adoption and awareness of marriage as an unnatural institution is deconstructing the association between marriage and success, self-respect, and class achievement. Under this model, the legal system would eventually serve as a guide for child support disputes and personal preference of legal marriage documentation, but there would be other services provided that diversify ways to make relationship commitment “official.” Relationship celebrations and/or weddings would continue to be a positive milestone for people, but breakups, solitude, and shorter-term relationships would be less shameful and recognized as natural due to their extremely common occurrence. Finally, the outcome of this change and recognition would be a greater valuation of specific, personalized communication in relationships which identify the values that hold true to all stakeholders in the relationship. This would likely reduce conflict brought by the “unspoken rules” of monogamous relationships and marriage and provide contractual commitment that serves only the parties involved instead of generalizing or creating a standard for all different preferences of partnership.

Ultimately, just because something is technically unnatural, does not mean we shouldn’t do it, as there are plenty of choices which are considered “unnecessary” or a defiance of innate human values. There is nothing wrong with feeling personally connected to marriage and certainly exists validity in the societal component of that value. However, it’s important to consider that while that experience is genuine for some, it may not feel the same for others, and both are real and equally valuable choices in modern society. The unnaturalness of the institution of marriage does not invalidate marriage as a real commitment and partnership that results in millions of people’s fulfillment and happiness. It only emphasizes inclusion in validating the experiences of the vast population who do not consider themselves “happily married.” Knowledge of history will help people operate relationship decisions in the ways that make them satisfied and fulfilled with the understanding that they should never compromise under the pressures of a constructed institution.

Works Cited

Cadwallader, Mervyn. “Marriage as a Wretched Institution.” The Atlantic, no. November, 1966. TheAtlantic.com, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1966/11/marriage-as-a-wretched-institution/306668/.

Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a history: How love conquered marriage. Penguin, 2006.

Coontz, Stephanie. “The World Historical Transformation of Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, no. 4, [Wiley, National Council on Family Relations], 2004, pp. 974–79, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600171.

Corwin, Elise, et al. "Marriage Education, Financial Literacy, and Asset Development Roundtable Meeting Summary." Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (2008).

Everitt, Lauren. “Ten Key Moments in the History of Marriage.” BBC News, 12 March 2012, https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17351133.

Luscombe, Belinda. “The Divorce Rate is Dropping. That May Not Actually Be Good News.” Time Magazine, no. November 26, 2018. Time.com, https://time.com/5434949/divorce-rate-children-marriage-benefits/.