Blog 5 - Marriage, Cohabitation, & Partnership

Question: What does it mean when sociologists say, “marriage is an institution”? According to Stephanie Coontz, what are the indicators of the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage? Explain what problems Coontz finds in the proposals to “reinstitutionalize marriage.” According to the articles by Harris and by Gerstel and Sarkisian, what are the benefits and disadvantages of marriage for women and men? According to Brown, what are the different reasons people cohabit, and what are the effects of cohabitation on well-being? The findings of the research on benefits and disadvantages of marriage and cohabitation can be affected by selection effects. Explain what that means.

In the Stephanie Coontz article, “The Future of Marriage”, she discusses the phenomenon of people, mostly Americans, supporting alternative methods of organizing parenthood and marriage. However, many people, like members of groups such as the Council on Families in America, are worried that these new methods will not provide an adequate nurturing environment for children and have thus pushed for re-institutionalizing marriage.
Marriage, in the fist place, is viewed as an institution by sociologists because it comes from “a well-understood set of obligations and rights which are backed up by laws, customs, rituals, and social expectations” (78). Marriage is in fact one of America’s most important and valued institutions. As a result, many people want to maintain marriage as life-long commitment and obligation to others.
However, over time, this institution has been becoming more and more deinstitutionalized. There are many indicators of this trend in today’s families. For example, “marriage has become an option rather than a necessity for men and women, even during the child-rearing years” (79). The high rates of divorce, cohabitation, remarriage, and single motherhood in America are also other factors that contribute to marriage’s deinstitutionalization. Furthermore, “social institutions and values have adapted to the needs, buying decisions, and lifestyle choices of singles” (80). For example, Coontz points out that “elders increasingly depend of Social Security and private pension plans, rather than the family, for their care” (80).
Marriage is not what is used to be; neither men nor women need marriage as much as they used to, and “asking people to behave as if they do just sets them up for trouble” (81). In the many proposals to ‘reinstitutionalize’ marriage Coontz finds many problems. First, she makes the point that we could stabilize marriage by making divorce harder to get; enforce marriage like any other contract. However, by making divorces harder to get it “would often exacerbate the bitterness and conflict that are associated with the worst outcomes of divorce” (83). Furthermore, by making divorces harder to get does nothing to prevent separation of desertion. In fact, “divorce rates are the product of long-term social and economic changes, not of a breakdown in values” (85).

As pointed out in the Harris and Gerstel and Sarkisian articles there are both advantages and disadvantages for married men and women.
Waite and Gallagher have found that marriage causes more positive benefits than either living alone or cohabiting with a boyfriend or girlfriend (Harris, 26). Marriage is a bargain, for both men and women, and few of us can afford to pass it up. It is “good for one’s pocketbook, health, happiness, sex life and kids. [In addition], both men and women who are married tend to have higher incomes, more wealth, better health, and more property than those who are not” (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 16). Many studies have proven that marriage has health benefits towards married men and women. For example, “cancer-care providers have long known that having a spouse vastly improves a patient’s chance of survival” (Harris, 28). Furthermore, “both married men and married women seem to be less prone to clinical depression, anxiety disorders, and suicide than the single or divorced” (Harris, 28). Marriage has also been proven to have economic benefits. For men, “married men earn between 10 and 40 percent more than single men” (Harris, 29). On the other hand, it is believed that the “one of the greatest benefits marriage offers women is economic: flexibility in their work lives” (Harris, 31). In addition, marriage also increases men involvement in church and religious life.
Although there are evident advantages to marriage there are also some disadvantages. When a marriage is categorized as bad “marriages are hazardous to mental and physical health, increasing suicide, stress, cancer, and blood pressure – and even slowing the healing of wounds” (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 17). For women, housework usually tends increases after marriage and poor women usually never see the benefits of marriage. It also seems that marriage, “competes with, and even undermines, relations in the wider community. Married people are less involved with their parents and siblings. The married are less likely to visit, call, or write these relatives” (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 19).

According to Susan Brown’s article, “How Cohabitation is Reshaping American Families,” she highlights the different reasons why people cohabit and what the effects of cohabitation are on well-being. In a specific study conducted by Lynne Casper and Liana Sayer they found four main reasons why people cohabit. The first was categorized as precursor to marriage “characterized by definite plans to marry one’s partner and satisfaction with and commitment to the current relationship” (Brown, 34). People also cohabit because it offers an alternative to single-hood; “people who were uncertain about marriage and the quality of their relationship” (34). Trial cohabitors “were those who were not committed to their relationship but believed in marriage and hoped to marry someone someday” (35). The fourth reason to cohabit was found to be an alternative to marriage; “they were committed to their partners but less sanguine about the institution of marriage” (35).
Although cohabitation is becoming more and more popular people may want to rethink their plans and take a look at cohabitation’s effects of the well-being. Overall, “the well-being of cohabitors tends to be lower than that of married couples across a variety of indicators” (35). For example, it was found that couples who cohabit report more psychological distress than married couples. In addition, “cohabitors report engaging in sexual activity more frequently than either married couples or singles, but married couples are happiest with their sex lives” (35). Although these are only a few indicators it seems obvious that cohabitation seems to negatively affect one’s well-being.

The different effects that marriage and cohabitation have on particular people are discussed in the majority of all these articles. However, these findings can be, and probably are, manipulated by the selection effects, specifically the different social and economic standings of the people. Taking these socio-economic factors into account, however, can be very difficult, almost impossible to test. Harris brings it up in her article when she states, “does marriage make people healthier, happier, and richer, or do healthy, happy, rich people get (and stay) married more often than the sick, miserable and poor do?” (30)