Rethinking Life Partnership
The paradigmatic life partnership in American society is a romantic relationship, typically expressed through marriage. This paradigm particularly affects cross-sex relationships, as relations between men and women often carry the expectation for romance. Men and women go on dates with the hope of finding a long-term romantic partner, one who they may eventually marry. In short, romantic ideology predominates, with romanticism valued throughout American culture. However, this has not always been the case, with the romanticization and eroticization of marriage only truly occurring in the early 20th century. There is a strong argument to be made for once again making marriage independent of romance, in order to create more stable, truly supportive life partnerships.
The issues with the current culture surrounding life partnership are obvious. Perhaps the most glaring is the simple reality that the prevalence of romantic ideology actually makes it less likely that people will form long-lasting, stable relationships. Consider the fact that approximately half of American marriages ultimately end in divorce, with many Americans marrying multiple times during their lives. Stress factors such as economic anxiety and long hours spent working certainly contribute to instability. Yet even putting aside these factors, one must recognize that relationships built primarily on romance are inherently constructed to fail.
During the courtship or dating process, each party is putting on their best appearance, trying to make themselves as attractive as possible to impress the other person. Meanwhile, the settings in which people traditionally date (restaurants, movies, events) limit the amount of time one is able to see the other simply living their day to day life. However, as the relationship deepens, to cohabitation, engagement, and eventually marriage, the facade begins to come down. Having started out with an idealized vision of the other person, the only trajectory of perception is downward. Romantic relationships set each partner up for disappointment once the reality of who the other person really is starts to come into focus.
Romantic love, therefore, is conditional. People fall in love with an inherently unrealistic idea of the other person. Once that idea is challenged, the conditions under which the love formed fall apart. This is not to say that romance should play no role in a life partnership. However, romance should not be the primary basis, and cannot be the only basis, for a truly successful, loving long-term relationship. Only relationships in which the love is for the other person themself, not the idea of that person, can survive; this, of course, is unconditional love.
Given these realities, perhaps it is not surprising that younger generations are beginning to challenge the existing romantic paradigm. People are marrying later in life than in the past, and many are eschewing marriage altogether. Young people, college students in particular, are turning away from dating, instead "hooking up" to meet other people. However, as Lisa Wade adeptly points out in American Hookup, "hookup culture" carries its own issues. For our purposes, it is worth noting that hooking up is often inherently based on a lack of mutual respect, focusing instead on "meaningless" sexual encounters. This is hardly the proper pathway to finding unconditional love, especially considering that a majority of young people still harbor a desire for caring, committed relationships.
The most common relationships people form based on unconditional love are friendships. Usually friendships occur between members of the same sex (a product of the so-called "homosocial norm"). However, it is also becoming increasingly common to acknowledge the prevalence of cross-sex friendships, even in the face of conventional wisdom that states that men and women can't be "just friends". Friendships constitute far more genuine personal relationships, as they do not carry the expectations inherent to romantic relationships. Even within romantic relationships, the most successful are usually the ones in which partners view each other as friends and not just lovers.
Rarely do we consider friends (especially those in whom we have no romantic or sexual interest) as potential life partners. This, again, is a product of romantic ideology. It is unthinkable for a marriage to not feature romance; marriages from which the romantic attraction has faded are generally regarded as failures. Meanwhile, romantic pursuits outside of marriage, specifically affairs, are looked down upon. They are further signs that a marriage is falling apart and frequently serve as grounds for divorce. In our culture, marriage and romance are intrinsically connected.
It is worth noting that aside from romance, another feature of marriage has historically been bearing and raising children. In other words, even absent genuine romance, sex is still viewed as a requirement for marriage. However, the childbearing role of marriage has begun to decline significantly. First of all, people are losing interest in having children in the first place, with birthrates falling across the Western world. Marriages that do not produce children are increasingly common, and are far less frowned upon than in the past. The advent of same-sex marriage has also been a major factor; in fact, opponents of marriage equality often cited the inability of same-sex couples to have children of their own. Overall, there is an increasing ability to detach sex from childbearing. Sex is now commonly viewed as a pleasurable activity in and of itself. The expansion of access to prophylactics, contraceptives, and abortion services also reduces the expectation (and risk) that sex will lead to pregnancy. On the flip side, there are alternatives to having children aside from sex, including in vitro fertilization (IVF) and adoption.
With all of this being said, I think it is time that we radically rethink life partnership, including the institution of marriage. Evidence shows that dating and hooking up are poor pathways to the unconditional love relationships that lead to healthy, stable long-term partnerships. Instead, we should look at friendships, cross-sex and same-sex, as the most viable relationships that can produce these partnerships. Although romance and sex can certainly play a role in a life partnership, friendships built on unconditional love should serve as the inherent basis for them.
Under this revised culture, friends would do many of the same things that married couples currently are expected to do (and which are already features of many friendships): spend time together, cohabitate, provide emotional and financial support, support each others' academic and career goals, essentially share each other's lives. They may even do so in a formal marriage, enjoying all of the legal and financial benefits. Even if sex is not a characteristic of the relationship (which in many cases it likely would not be) the partners would still have the option of raising children, particularly through fostering or adoption - something many same-sex couples already do.
If the partnership does not also feature a romantic or sexual component, each partner would be free to pursue other relationships. These relationships, of course, could come without the expectation of commitment or life partnership. They would be similar to affairs, without the inherent stigma or secrecy. In fact, the partners could serve as confidants for each others' romantic and sexual lives - as many friends already do.
The benefits of arrangements like these could be enormous. As Marie Crosswell argues: "If you want a stable, warm, low-maintenance, loving, caring home life; if you want someone there for you who accepts you and likes you exactly as you are; if you want someone to share your life with who will take care of you and be loyal to you and still give you the freedom to be who you are and connect with other people—then be life partners with a best friend, if you’re lucky enough to get one. And you can still have sex and you can still have romantic relationships, and if those romantic-sexual relationships prove to be consistently short-term or troublesome, at the very least, you still have a home and a steady companion and a source of love and support that doesn’t break down, when your sexual relationship of the moment does."
In addition to these benefits, I believe that a culture of life partnership built along these principles would be far more feminist than our current romanticized marriages are. First of all, such a culture encourages the development of stable, healthy relationships between men and women that do not have to be inherently sexual. Second, it allows for both romance and casual sex to occur outside of the confines of a traditionally defined relationship, while simultaneously normalizing non-childbearing relationships (including within marriage). Third, it allows both partners to maintain greater independence than under current marriage arrangements, while still enjoying the benefits of both life partnership and the institution of marriage itself. Finally, it encourages a greater balance of power within relationships, challenging traditional gender roles and treating both partners as genuine equals.
Ultimately, the key is to break through the stranglehold of romantic ideology, the notion that romance must be the inherent component of marriage. We must stop treating our stable, loving friendships as being secondary to our romantic relationships. We must reject the idea that the paradigmatic relationship between a man and woman is a romantic one, and that being "just friends" is inferior, if not even impossible. We must also continue to dismantle the concept that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, one with the inherent goal of producing and raising children. If and when we do this, we can start to create more stable, healthy, loving relationships and life partnerships.
Further Reading
The issues with the current culture surrounding life partnership are obvious. Perhaps the most glaring is the simple reality that the prevalence of romantic ideology actually makes it less likely that people will form long-lasting, stable relationships. Consider the fact that approximately half of American marriages ultimately end in divorce, with many Americans marrying multiple times during their lives. Stress factors such as economic anxiety and long hours spent working certainly contribute to instability. Yet even putting aside these factors, one must recognize that relationships built primarily on romance are inherently constructed to fail.
During the courtship or dating process, each party is putting on their best appearance, trying to make themselves as attractive as possible to impress the other person. Meanwhile, the settings in which people traditionally date (restaurants, movies, events) limit the amount of time one is able to see the other simply living their day to day life. However, as the relationship deepens, to cohabitation, engagement, and eventually marriage, the facade begins to come down. Having started out with an idealized vision of the other person, the only trajectory of perception is downward. Romantic relationships set each partner up for disappointment once the reality of who the other person really is starts to come into focus.
Romantic love, therefore, is conditional. People fall in love with an inherently unrealistic idea of the other person. Once that idea is challenged, the conditions under which the love formed fall apart. This is not to say that romance should play no role in a life partnership. However, romance should not be the primary basis, and cannot be the only basis, for a truly successful, loving long-term relationship. Only relationships in which the love is for the other person themself, not the idea of that person, can survive; this, of course, is unconditional love.
Given these realities, perhaps it is not surprising that younger generations are beginning to challenge the existing romantic paradigm. People are marrying later in life than in the past, and many are eschewing marriage altogether. Young people, college students in particular, are turning away from dating, instead "hooking up" to meet other people. However, as Lisa Wade adeptly points out in American Hookup, "hookup culture" carries its own issues. For our purposes, it is worth noting that hooking up is often inherently based on a lack of mutual respect, focusing instead on "meaningless" sexual encounters. This is hardly the proper pathway to finding unconditional love, especially considering that a majority of young people still harbor a desire for caring, committed relationships.
The most common relationships people form based on unconditional love are friendships. Usually friendships occur between members of the same sex (a product of the so-called "homosocial norm"). However, it is also becoming increasingly common to acknowledge the prevalence of cross-sex friendships, even in the face of conventional wisdom that states that men and women can't be "just friends". Friendships constitute far more genuine personal relationships, as they do not carry the expectations inherent to romantic relationships. Even within romantic relationships, the most successful are usually the ones in which partners view each other as friends and not just lovers.
Rarely do we consider friends (especially those in whom we have no romantic or sexual interest) as potential life partners. This, again, is a product of romantic ideology. It is unthinkable for a marriage to not feature romance; marriages from which the romantic attraction has faded are generally regarded as failures. Meanwhile, romantic pursuits outside of marriage, specifically affairs, are looked down upon. They are further signs that a marriage is falling apart and frequently serve as grounds for divorce. In our culture, marriage and romance are intrinsically connected.
It is worth noting that aside from romance, another feature of marriage has historically been bearing and raising children. In other words, even absent genuine romance, sex is still viewed as a requirement for marriage. However, the childbearing role of marriage has begun to decline significantly. First of all, people are losing interest in having children in the first place, with birthrates falling across the Western world. Marriages that do not produce children are increasingly common, and are far less frowned upon than in the past. The advent of same-sex marriage has also been a major factor; in fact, opponents of marriage equality often cited the inability of same-sex couples to have children of their own. Overall, there is an increasing ability to detach sex from childbearing. Sex is now commonly viewed as a pleasurable activity in and of itself. The expansion of access to prophylactics, contraceptives, and abortion services also reduces the expectation (and risk) that sex will lead to pregnancy. On the flip side, there are alternatives to having children aside from sex, including in vitro fertilization (IVF) and adoption.
With all of this being said, I think it is time that we radically rethink life partnership, including the institution of marriage. Evidence shows that dating and hooking up are poor pathways to the unconditional love relationships that lead to healthy, stable long-term partnerships. Instead, we should look at friendships, cross-sex and same-sex, as the most viable relationships that can produce these partnerships. Although romance and sex can certainly play a role in a life partnership, friendships built on unconditional love should serve as the inherent basis for them.
Under this revised culture, friends would do many of the same things that married couples currently are expected to do (and which are already features of many friendships): spend time together, cohabitate, provide emotional and financial support, support each others' academic and career goals, essentially share each other's lives. They may even do so in a formal marriage, enjoying all of the legal and financial benefits. Even if sex is not a characteristic of the relationship (which in many cases it likely would not be) the partners would still have the option of raising children, particularly through fostering or adoption - something many same-sex couples already do.
If the partnership does not also feature a romantic or sexual component, each partner would be free to pursue other relationships. These relationships, of course, could come without the expectation of commitment or life partnership. They would be similar to affairs, without the inherent stigma or secrecy. In fact, the partners could serve as confidants for each others' romantic and sexual lives - as many friends already do.
The benefits of arrangements like these could be enormous. As Marie Crosswell argues: "If you want a stable, warm, low-maintenance, loving, caring home life; if you want someone there for you who accepts you and likes you exactly as you are; if you want someone to share your life with who will take care of you and be loyal to you and still give you the freedom to be who you are and connect with other people—then be life partners with a best friend, if you’re lucky enough to get one. And you can still have sex and you can still have romantic relationships, and if those romantic-sexual relationships prove to be consistently short-term or troublesome, at the very least, you still have a home and a steady companion and a source of love and support that doesn’t break down, when your sexual relationship of the moment does."
In addition to these benefits, I believe that a culture of life partnership built along these principles would be far more feminist than our current romanticized marriages are. First of all, such a culture encourages the development of stable, healthy relationships between men and women that do not have to be inherently sexual. Second, it allows for both romance and casual sex to occur outside of the confines of a traditionally defined relationship, while simultaneously normalizing non-childbearing relationships (including within marriage). Third, it allows both partners to maintain greater independence than under current marriage arrangements, while still enjoying the benefits of both life partnership and the institution of marriage itself. Finally, it encourages a greater balance of power within relationships, challenging traditional gender roles and treating both partners as genuine equals.
Ultimately, the key is to break through the stranglehold of romantic ideology, the notion that romance must be the inherent component of marriage. We must stop treating our stable, loving friendships as being secondary to our romantic relationships. We must reject the idea that the paradigmatic relationship between a man and woman is a romantic one, and that being "just friends" is inferior, if not even impossible. We must also continue to dismantle the concept that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, one with the inherent goal of producing and raising children. If and when we do this, we can start to create more stable, healthy, loving relationships and life partnerships.
Further Reading
- “Life Partner” Is Not Synonymous with “Romantic Partner”
- The Romanticization of Marriage
- Talking about love and marriage
- Should We Believe in Romantic Ideology?
- Sexless Marriage Is Surprisingly Common
References
- Wade, Lisa. 2017. American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus. New York: W.W. Norton.
- Werking, Kathy. 1997. We're Just Good Friends: Women and Men in Nonromantic Relationships. New York: Guilford Press.
0 comments:
Post a Comment