I agree, we are no longer living in the Ougie-Bougie-society with life long marriage – so we have to make new marriage institutions. 12 months and a new contract.
Strange that society still klings to that old dogma of "to death". But of course, there are the issues of a radical change of marriage form: I think the birth rate would go even further down in a society like that. Then our species will be extinct.
Couples would be even more reluctant about having a baby. Birth rate in Norway is record low even with the Ougie-Bougie style of marriage. And there are a number of other sociological reasons why people marry and try to live with one partner. I could make a list of them...
But it is right what you said in the end of the tale. Most marriages are unhappy. But on Instagram they are happy. So, the young couple who believe in Facebook will do the same as others: Marriage. And why not in a church? (though they have never been inside one before).
Less people marry nowadays in Norway – so maybe young adults are aware of your tale, Randy. Before the corona our country had the lowest number of marriages since 1993. At the same time, the divorce figures are stable.
I think social proof plays a significant role in the marriage concept and spread. For me, it's all about feelings, but many people look for some status and approval. Churches are a separate discussion of how much we still live in the dark medieval times. This part is the most ridiculous one.
I am not worried about the birth rate, it is an artificial social and political index. As a species, we grow too fast. The only problem is that we grow mostly in economically less developed regions, while the wealthy old world is shrinking.
I agree that low birth rate might not be a problem for our species. But as you mention, the 30 countries with the highest birth rate are among the poorest - they are clan based not state based, with only Afghanistan outside of Africa.
Most societies have been polygamous. Polygami has historically been the norm.
Still I ask as Randy does: Why this monogami then, and why the "to-death" marriage?
The answer: Those in power must profit from this system.
Now, only about 2% of the global population lives in polygamous households, and in the vast majority of countries, that share is under 0.5%
That is also a pussle to me. Because polygami suit the high status men, those in power. So why would the men in power make a society norm that restricts them?
The answer is that monogamous societies are more productive (Max Weber theory). The men invest in business, not more wifes, like they still do in Senegal etc. Households with co-wifes tend to have more conflicts.
And lower crime rate since you don't have a pool of unhappy incels, men high on testosteron, low on responsibility (crime and gun deaths has to do with men low on responsibility, known from the places like Chicago today)
So monogami is the best for society. The playboys can still be on Tinder and that sort of places. But Tinder is bad for society, specially for women (but that is another discussion)
Good observation. I would add that when analyzing human relationships we need to look at the evolution of our needs and society. We went a long road from ownership to a partnership. So 360 degrees partnership seems to be the best option for a happily married couple.
And when I mention needs, it's not only climbing up Maslow’s pyramid from neolithic times to our days, but also an evolution of feelings, emotions and ties. Prehistoric people were driven by animal instincts, and satisfying their basic needs drove the birth process and species' survival. At that time polygamous relationships were a smart mechanism to diversify their tribal genome. Since people have learned a lot (not all of us, I must admit) and got more conscious (sadly, but also not all of us) we can avoid the mistakes of our ancestors and control our breeding process (needless to say that not all of us?).
Just a century ago we could have talked about the third stage – that marriage satisfies the need for love and social belonging. But since we have accepted our equality (damn, again not all of us) the marriage moved more in the direction of partnership and synergy. And this has raised the bar making family become an enabler for esteem, aesthetics and self-actualization. Unfortunately, not for all of us. But I believe we are moving in the right direction so far.
The modern family is distancing from traditional family values providing more freedom to people and building new social and personal values. From the conventional choice to marry because it’s time and common in society we slowly move towards a conscious partnership based on new norms, standards and expectations.
Then why most people are unhappy? That’s a whole new discussion, I think and it is far beyond the marriage theory.
Yes, marriage is not the same today as in the 50ies or 70ies. Or in the 19th century. A lot has changed, and to the better, I agree. Marriage has become a symbol of status. 12 years ago PEW published an interesting report on this: "Marriage rates have declined for all adults since 1970 and gone down most sharply for the least educated men and women".
Research also suggest that women prefer men with more education than they have. That is now hard to get. Now, in Norway, husbands with more education than the wife is rare among new married couples.
"Women’s earnings grew 44% from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men" in the US. Contrast is even bigger in Norway. So, this is all good probably. But what about roles in a relation? Are roles not important anymore? And not to speak about gender roles...
Knut Hamsun who was awarded the Nobel Laureate in Literature for his novel Growth of the Soil in 1920 - was very acurate when he described the roles of men and women in a marriage, the big point of the relationship. I still love that book! I can only relate to Isak, sorry! He is a happy man when his wife Inger looks at him in his hard work at the farm, when she gives him credit for what he provides for the farm and family. Without her doing that? What happens to Isak and his happiness then?
Good question about the roles. I think gender roles indeed dilute and become less relevant. You mentioned income, but we can also add here social and professional growth to see the full picture.
On the other hand, roles are still there, but they evolved. When people look at marriage as a partnership, they give support to each other, share and exchange roles. Speaking the language of your example, imagine Inger happy when seeing Isak watching her working at a farm. Imagine them working together and feeling happy.
Yes, I can imagine them working together. They do, but both cant do the same thing. I like to view it from evolutionary psychology, for instance, about a million years, our Ougies and Bougies had clear roles in their partnership. Not so in the urban experiment. Put ten years of SoMe experiment on top, I dont think it helps happiness.
Married people are happier than people who are not married and people who are never married (sorry Randy, that is true). And I think evolutionary psychology also can explain why marriage appears to make women happier than men. And why women who do a lot of dating (many one-nights), are not as happy as men who do a lot of dating.
Not so with all of us, but I think genes of happiness have to do with clear roles and functions divided among a small group of people who have a common goal. Well, a modern family COULD work like that.
I like this combination of serious analyses with the ironic observations that make this article fun and sad at the same time. I find it pretty motivating and this post pushes me to think about our relationships from the perspective of social factors around us and the perspective of someone older and wiser than me.
Probably what helped us to develop from biological species to humankind since neolithic times is the ability to learn from others and think things in advance, being proactive.
Well, I can be more romantic and cynical about human relationships simultaneously, but I believe we went far enough from Oogie and Boogie as our feelings and family ties climbed up Maslow's pyramid.
I like that tale a lot! Now you are spot on!
I agree, we are no longer living in the Ougie-Bougie-society with life long marriage – so we have to make new marriage institutions. 12 months and a new contract.
Strange that society still klings to that old dogma of "to death". But of course, there are the issues of a radical change of marriage form: I think the birth rate would go even further down in a society like that. Then our species will be extinct.
Couples would be even more reluctant about having a baby. Birth rate in Norway is record low even with the Ougie-Bougie style of marriage. And there are a number of other sociological reasons why people marry and try to live with one partner. I could make a list of them...
But it is right what you said in the end of the tale. Most marriages are unhappy. But on Instagram they are happy. So, the young couple who believe in Facebook will do the same as others: Marriage. And why not in a church? (though they have never been inside one before).
Less people marry nowadays in Norway – so maybe young adults are aware of your tale, Randy. Before the corona our country had the lowest number of marriages since 1993. At the same time, the divorce figures are stable.
I think social proof plays a significant role in the marriage concept and spread. For me, it's all about feelings, but many people look for some status and approval. Churches are a separate discussion of how much we still live in the dark medieval times. This part is the most ridiculous one.
I am not worried about the birth rate, it is an artificial social and political index. As a species, we grow too fast. The only problem is that we grow mostly in economically less developed regions, while the wealthy old world is shrinking.
I agree that low birth rate might not be a problem for our species. But as you mention, the 30 countries with the highest birth rate are among the poorest - they are clan based not state based, with only Afghanistan outside of Africa.
Most societies have been polygamous. Polygami has historically been the norm.
Still I ask as Randy does: Why this monogami then, and why the "to-death" marriage?
The answer: Those in power must profit from this system.
Now, only about 2% of the global population lives in polygamous households, and in the vast majority of countries, that share is under 0.5%
That is also a pussle to me. Because polygami suit the high status men, those in power. So why would the men in power make a society norm that restricts them?
The answer is that monogamous societies are more productive (Max Weber theory). The men invest in business, not more wifes, like they still do in Senegal etc. Households with co-wifes tend to have more conflicts.
And lower crime rate since you don't have a pool of unhappy incels, men high on testosteron, low on responsibility (crime and gun deaths has to do with men low on responsibility, known from the places like Chicago today)
So monogami is the best for society. The playboys can still be on Tinder and that sort of places. But Tinder is bad for society, specially for women (but that is another discussion)
Good observation. I would add that when analyzing human relationships we need to look at the evolution of our needs and society. We went a long road from ownership to a partnership. So 360 degrees partnership seems to be the best option for a happily married couple.
And when I mention needs, it's not only climbing up Maslow’s pyramid from neolithic times to our days, but also an evolution of feelings, emotions and ties. Prehistoric people were driven by animal instincts, and satisfying their basic needs drove the birth process and species' survival. At that time polygamous relationships were a smart mechanism to diversify their tribal genome. Since people have learned a lot (not all of us, I must admit) and got more conscious (sadly, but also not all of us) we can avoid the mistakes of our ancestors and control our breeding process (needless to say that not all of us?).
Just a century ago we could have talked about the third stage – that marriage satisfies the need for love and social belonging. But since we have accepted our equality (damn, again not all of us) the marriage moved more in the direction of partnership and synergy. And this has raised the bar making family become an enabler for esteem, aesthetics and self-actualization. Unfortunately, not for all of us. But I believe we are moving in the right direction so far.
The modern family is distancing from traditional family values providing more freedom to people and building new social and personal values. From the conventional choice to marry because it’s time and common in society we slowly move towards a conscious partnership based on new norms, standards and expectations.
Then why most people are unhappy? That’s a whole new discussion, I think and it is far beyond the marriage theory.
Yes, marriage is not the same today as in the 50ies or 70ies. Or in the 19th century. A lot has changed, and to the better, I agree. Marriage has become a symbol of status. 12 years ago PEW published an interesting report on this: "Marriage rates have declined for all adults since 1970 and gone down most sharply for the least educated men and women".
Research also suggest that women prefer men with more education than they have. That is now hard to get. Now, in Norway, husbands with more education than the wife is rare among new married couples.
"Women’s earnings grew 44% from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men" in the US. Contrast is even bigger in Norway. So, this is all good probably. But what about roles in a relation? Are roles not important anymore? And not to speak about gender roles...
Knut Hamsun who was awarded the Nobel Laureate in Literature for his novel Growth of the Soil in 1920 - was very acurate when he described the roles of men and women in a marriage, the big point of the relationship. I still love that book! I can only relate to Isak, sorry! He is a happy man when his wife Inger looks at him in his hard work at the farm, when she gives him credit for what he provides for the farm and family. Without her doing that? What happens to Isak and his happiness then?
Good question about the roles. I think gender roles indeed dilute and become less relevant. You mentioned income, but we can also add here social and professional growth to see the full picture.
On the other hand, roles are still there, but they evolved. When people look at marriage as a partnership, they give support to each other, share and exchange roles. Speaking the language of your example, imagine Inger happy when seeing Isak watching her working at a farm. Imagine them working together and feeling happy.
Yes, I can imagine them working together. They do, but both cant do the same thing. I like to view it from evolutionary psychology, for instance, about a million years, our Ougies and Bougies had clear roles in their partnership. Not so in the urban experiment. Put ten years of SoMe experiment on top, I dont think it helps happiness.
Married people are happier than people who are not married and people who are never married (sorry Randy, that is true). And I think evolutionary psychology also can explain why marriage appears to make women happier than men. And why women who do a lot of dating (many one-nights), are not as happy as men who do a lot of dating.
Not so with all of us, but I think genes of happiness have to do with clear roles and functions divided among a small group of people who have a common goal. Well, a modern family COULD work like that.
I like this combination of serious analyses with the ironic observations that make this article fun and sad at the same time. I find it pretty motivating and this post pushes me to think about our relationships from the perspective of social factors around us and the perspective of someone older and wiser than me.
Probably what helped us to develop from biological species to humankind since neolithic times is the ability to learn from others and think things in advance, being proactive.
Well, I can be more romantic and cynical about human relationships simultaneously, but I believe we went far enough from Oogie and Boogie as our feelings and family ties climbed up Maslow's pyramid.