…Haag notes that marriage has undergone a dramatic transformation from the “traditional” partnerships of the nineteenth century, when marriage was “a social institution and an obligation,” to the “romantic” marriages of the twentieth century, when the practice of choosing a partner for reasons of love rather than practicality first became widespread. Now, she argues, we are moving into a “post-romantic age.” People have become far more likely to marry in mid-life, when they already have established careers and friendships; and they are having children much later than their counterparts did 50 years ago. But they continue to organize their marriages around the same assumptions””assumptions that, possibly, no longer work. “The facts, circumstances, and shell of marriage have changed so breathtakingly in the post-liberation era, yet the soul of marriage””its dreams, conscience, ethics, and rules””hasn’t necessarily evolved to keep up,” Haag writes. “Instead we follow viscerally many of the same premises and orthodoxies as our parents, as if marriage is a Procrustean structure to which we must confine ourselves, rather than the other way around.”
The result, Haag argues, is a widespread dissatisfaction with romantic marriage, evident in an epidemic of “low-conflict, low-stress unhappy marriage.” The couples in these marriages are basically cooperative and compatible””they don’t beat each other, abuse drugs or alcohol, or gamble away all their savings””but they are nonetheless plagued by the feeling that their relationship isn’t everything it should be. They haven’t caught up with the times: They’re trying to live out a romantic paradigm in a post-romantic age. Such marriages look stable on the outside, but they’re astonishingly fragile: Haag quotes a study that finds that they account for up to 60 percent of divorces. Unsurprisingly, she includes her own marriage in this group….
If Ms. Haag doesn’t understand the value of monogamy vis-a-vis the social, anthropological, sexual, sacred, and even romantic – why, oh why, should anyone be interested in her opinions?
Nary a mention of children or of poverty. Perhaps the readers of the New Republic never have to consider such afflictions.
This is as irritating as it is tiresome and repetitious. We have heard ths all before often. Moreover, we can see one more reason to whack homosexuality on the head, for this “open marriage” business is the customary behavior for homosexuals, it is widely known, and, given the pandering to homosexuality that marks American daily life, now widely influential. The author argues, as we have heard so often before, that marriages are weak and the partners untrustworthy so therefore: the definition of marriage MUST change, not the behavior of those involved! Ta-Daaa! You justify slimy behavior by redefining the context and behold! It’s not slimy any more; it’s normal.
Argument: Hey, Weiner is not to be blamed. Sexting is a common occurance. This is the NEW definition of socially acceptable. The problem is that those who are SHOCKED are simply behind the times.
Always those weathervanes whose lives change with the way the wind blows. Larry
FrCarl, I don’t see her dissing “the value of monogamy.” She is simply pointing out the changing and unrealistic expectations of marriage. The fact of the matter is that many people are too immature and or selfish to successfully marry yet society still says everyone has to marry. Hence, failure and disconnect.
Marriage used to be much more pragmatic, not based so much on looks, status, and bank accounts. As such, it deserves to fail. People want a reliable trophy on the arm and upward mobility out of marriage. I don’t feel the least bit sorry for them — or for this big lamentation over how marriage is suffering in society. You reap what you sow.