I’m kind of cheating a little bit today. I’ve been thinking about a paper I wrote a while back about love and marriage, and I decided to share it with you guys. It got me an A in Peoples and Cultures, and I just really like it. It’s an essay question courtesy of Dr. Terry Prewitt at UWF. I lost the question, but it basically asked, “Explain how love is or isn’t an adaptive feature of developing societies.” I had to compare 3 schools of thought on adaption in society. I think it’s interesting, but that might just be the nerd in me. Hope you enjoy.
The representation of love as the cornerstone of marriage has not always been the scenario. In past eras, arrangement of marriage for financial family gain and the exchange of property played an important role in determining the marital availability of individuals. Even in the modern era individuals marry for reasons other than love. So the notion that love is synonymous with marriage can be highly debated. But does that necessarily mean that love based marriage is an adaptive feature of developing societies?
All evolutionary theory bases itself around the notion of development and advancement. These advances move from traditional to complex systems, whether those systems are organic or cultural. The ideals of materialists suggest that in this movement from simple to complex systems the social structure of relationships moves from moralistic to a non-moralistic adaptation. This adaptation removes the concepts of love and affection in place of self-preservation and a type of egocentrism. The concept of love in marriage to a materialist then would ultimately be a non-factor in choosing a spouse.
Humanist would argue against that point stating that for culture to advance, morals and values play a pivotal role in shaping their structure. Hence, a humanist would consider that a love-based marriage would be beneficial to the preservation of the individual as well as to the culture that it is involved in. This preservation bases itself on the morals presented as the interpretation of what it means to be human. Where humanists claim that humans are supposed to embrace their feelings and morals, materialists claim that humans are no more than animals and are locked in the “struggle to survive.” How then is love adaptive?
If love based marriages are adaptive to developing societies, then why are non love based marriages still found in complex society? Marriage is an adaptive ideology not found in all societies. Europeans, for many centuries, based their marriages around what material gains could be made by marrying in to certain families. Marriages often carried with them a dowry of some sort and an exchange of property. Women during these times were seen as a piece of that property that could be exchanged between two families in order to establish familial ties. Just because this type of system was used does not necessarily mean that love was not a factor in determining a spouse. It simply states that the primary reason for marriage was the exchange of property rather than providing a lasting love. It has only been in our recent times when the shift from the good of the family and the society has shifted to a more individualistic approach.
Marriage evolved from the exchange of property to the need for companionship. With the advancement of women’s rights and the promotion of the equality of all people, the ideal of women as property changed. Women are no longer viewed, on the whole, as property to exchange and barter with in complex society. However, in more traditional societies of the Middle East and Africa, men often take many wives and control them as property. But to keep focus on the relationship of love in American and European marriages a portion of the adaptation has to come in the form of industrialization and the evolution of the smaller household.
The need for companionship and affection goes along with the gradual move to a smaller household. During the initial years of, and introduction into, the industrial revolution households consisted of a nuclear family. The nuclear family was usually made up of siblings, parents and grandparents. The break down of this structure, with the developing industrial society, led towards a path that isolated the individual and created a need for affection from an outside source. Cultural materialists don’t necessarily agree completely with humanist but maintain that one of the basic needs of humans is affection and to a larger extent love.
Cultural materialism, promoted by Marvin Harris in his 1979 book, Cultural Materialism, still maintains the core materialistic qualities of individualism but adds that the need for affection helps to make the individual “feel secure and happy.” What cultural materialists, materialists and humanists all have in common is that they recognize the constraint that love places on the individual. What they each attempt to do is explain how and why love is such an important part of what it means to be human or to be an animal. No matter what the outcome of the analysis, love still remains the basis for modern marriages.
Although the path to marriage has developed into a formal statement of love between two individuals, marriages and the diversity of the cultural practices involved make love an adaptive ideology. Love, however, should be seen as a constant value of human culture. It makes no difference what the love is towards (love of country, love of spouse, love of car, love of self); it only matters that the love exists. When love is the basis of a relationship between individuals and the relationship advances to marriage, it becomes entangled in the ideology that love and marriage are synonymous. Love and marriage then are both adaptive ideologies that are not restricted to developing societies. They are both based solely on the socio-economic structures in place and the intentions of the individual seeking the relationship.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:54 PM
I like to think that the concept of marriage is becoming more of a personal arrangement between two people instead of the old fashioned definitons we have adhered to since the beginning. People marry for many different reasons in this day and time. It’s not so simple any longer. Social norms have changed so drastically in the past 25 years. So have the hearts of the people. Social implications have caused us to slightly stray away from traditional ways. It’s not about building a home and a family, but a reputation and a gateway for what’s to come. We have reinvented the social laws of matrimony. In this country at this time we have evoked a new sense of freedom. Everything seems to go…maybe not leagally, but so much more flies in the eyes of the general public. I want to marry for love and in doing so I wouldn’t mind being a part of a family that is successful. I define success not based on a monetary stance, but work ethic. I think about the types of genes that would be passed along. I want quality. I am a promoter of love. Love doesn’t always define the basis of marriage even when people think it does. I am adamant that a society cannot continue on a positive path without love. Standards and norms asside, love is a more excellent way. Get married or stay single? Divorce or misery? As a whole our society is moving into a new age of love and marriage. Marriage equals survial. Being unmarried equals survival. Either way, one must make it in life. A partnership whether it be financially based or based on the eternal devout premesis of love and trust is still a partnership. What works for one doesn’t work for all. I’m down for a marriage…when I’m equipt to make it work and when I have the right partner. I want to be in it to win it! Happy Friday. Thanks for taking the time to explore my fragments and half-thoughts if you have done so!
November 13th, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Excellent comment. I don’t really think of it in terms of looking for someone successful though. I would think of it being more on the lines of being secure. Financial success theoretically brings financial security. Having someone that comes from a good family, seems to have good genes, is a good person…all of those make you feel secure. Security is also one of those basic needs, right along side of love.
The big picture is that marriage has changed over time. Part of that reason is what I stated about…the movement out of a nuclear family, no longer treating women as property, etc. Another is the fantasy of marrying a “soul mate” or finding that “one true love.” Does it really exist? A lot of people believe that it does, but more people are concerned are finding that one person that you feel completely secure with: one that meets your needs, will be your companion, and will grow old with you. If that’s what a soul mate is then I guess it does exist. All of it is really about personal beliefs and personal expectations.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Well put.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:23 PM
I may not be nearly as educated as my friend Carter in regards to politics and history, but I would like to think I have some knowledge in the love and marriage department. If you do not know me, I was married for the first time at age 22 and got divorced a year later. I have been married to my 2nd husband for 4 years and we have a beautiful daughter together. He was also married previously. In both marriages I have faced trials and challenges. Some of the issues I have dealt with include chronic illness (me), military deployments (my husband) infidelity, a surprise pregnancy, and baggage from past relationships.
I believe that love and marriage can be synonymous, but there are things a person needs to know about themselves before that can happen. I think that in order to have a marriage where love is present, a person needs to clearly understand how he/she interprets the word “love” and what he/she expects “love” to look like. In today’s society, many people believe that love, in regards to a relationship with a partner, to be a passionate, all-consuming emotion. Although it can be that some of the time, most relationships go through ups and downs in regard to passion and emotion. I believe that this is one of the reasons that people cheat, get divorced, etc… They expect the relationship with their partner to always be hot and steamy, when in reality it isn’t always going to be that way. Another love and marriage expectation problem I often see is that when two people get married, they feel that their partner should be the only person they need in their life. Many people choose not to nurture their other relationships (friends and family) and then feel like their relationship is failing when their partner cannot meet all their needs. I have personally made both of these mistakes in relationships and they have caused me to re-think what I think of as love. So before deciding that you want to marry someone because you “love” them you need to know what you believe about love and understand your own expectations for your relationship with your partner. I know that is easier said than done!!
Think about it this way – in 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7 the Bible says that “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” I hear people use this verse often and it is truly beautiful, but have you ever really thought about all of those requirements! Love and marriage are wonderful and a true blessing, but can also be difficult and challenging. So if you want love to be a part of your marriage, make sure you know what you need to do to make that happen!!
Wow, that turned out to be really long! Hope it makes sense to someone!
November 13th, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Another excellent, excellent comment.