IQ Cafe Talk: Marriage in Modern Society

This was a topic introduction I shared at an event called Ideas and Questions Cafe held in Tokyo. These events are intended to promote discussion and exchange of diverse perspectives among participants. They also typically introduce a Christian perspective which is nearly always novel for most participants. You can also view this content in Japanese here.

Today we’re talking about what meaning, if any, does marriage have in current society. Anthropologist Carol Ember in Anthropology defines marriage as “a socially approved sexual and economic union, presumed to be more or less permanent, [which] entails rights and obligations between the married couple and any children they might have.”

Now obviously we can’t hope to cover the many ideas about marriage with much nuance in such a short time, but I want to look at three very broad ways to think about marriage. 

Traditional

The first is something I’ll call “traditional”, and by that I mean basically pre-industrial and pre-Enlightenment, and not associated with any religious tradition in particular. Ember notes that throughout history, virtually all cultures have had some form of marriage, and despite variability in customs, some common tendencies emerge. Just to illustrate, let me briefly list a few of these patterns:

• Means of producing offspring
  • Offspring are seen as a main purpose of marriage, and in conjunction with this idea, a childless marriage is seen as basically bad. For example, in the first and second centuries B.C. there are records of Roman politicians, including the Emperor Augustus Caesar, advocating forced marriage in order to produce children. By the second century AD, it seems to have been required for men over 25 and women over 20. And by the way, we do hear this sort of idea even from politicians now, often implying that women are especially at fault.
• Means of establishing paternity and regulating sexual behavior
  • In other words, marriage plays a major part in answering the question, “Whose kid is this?” The child belongs not just to the woman who gave birth to it, but to the man who is married to that woman. Traditionally, this also went hand-in-hand with the expectation that women only have sex in marriage. Expectations surrounding men’s sexual behavior is very complicated, but those expectations were not at the same level as for women.
• Social link between two families
  • While consent has been a theoretical part of nearly all forms of marriage throughout history, very often in a traditional society a marriage is something like a transaction between families, not a decision of two individuals. Marriage would ensure that the two families would then support each other in various ways.
• Rite of passage to adulthood
  • There are all sorts of examples, but here’s just one: “Any man who does not have a wife is not a man.” – from 1st century Jewish religious teacher Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah
• Means of gaining economic stability and other benefits
  • Especially in agrarian societies, choosing a mate (and having children) was simply better for improving the economic output of your household. I wanted to mention this because it’s nearly the exact opposite today. 
  • Marriage (and the offspring of a marriage) was also a way to control the flow of assets over generations

So to broadly summarize a traditional view of marriage, the emphases are on the good of family and society over the individual, and a concern for economic benefits. 

Modern

Next I want to look briefly at what we’ll call a “modern” view of marriage. This view seems to be based on Enlightenment ideas from the 1700s which took centuries to affect marriage to the extent that we see it today. Once again, let me run through several ideas which more or less characterize current ideas about marriage: 

• Primarily private and contractual
  • In other words, marriage is basically about individuals making an agreement between themselves. Professor of law John Witte argues that this was in contrast to ideas that some combination of nature, religious institutions, and, as we saw before, society played a role in what marriage should be. 
  • If you’ve ever heard the idea that marriage is just a piece of paper (for a contract), this is part of the modern view. 
• Significantly less expectation of permanence
  • The definition we first looked at said marriage is “presumed to be more or less permanent”, but a study showed that globally in 2022, for every 2.4 marriages there was 1 divorce. Witte argues that marriage is now seen as “a terminal sexual contract designed for the gratification of the individual parties.” In other words, the two people who are getting married essentially write a contract where either person can back out if they are not receiving what they want.
• Emphasis on two individuals
  • In contrast to older laws reflecting the ideas of joining families or merging one individual (very often the woman) into a household, married couples maintain a level of distance and autonomy. This is reflected in modern property law, in the common practice of separated finances, and even in how modern people search for partners. Many today value the ability to continue one’s current lifestyle with minimal interruption, and search for partners who fit that criterion.
• Does not regulate sexual behavior
  • Again in contrast to traditional ideas, modern marriage is not a way to regulate sexual behavior. Instead, it either is a result of sex, in other words, a couple has sex as part of their process toward a potential marriage, OR it is completely unrelated to sex at all. The private contractual emphasis in modern marriage implies that sexual activity is another optional aspect to be negotiated between the two individuals involved.
• Highlights status
  • Interestingly this is also a characteristic of traditional marriage, with the difference being that marriage now highlights the status not of the respective families involved, but of the individuals. The ability to find an attractive partner serves as a reflection of the worth of the individual. In other words, if you find someone really amazing who is willing to commit to you, it must be that you’re a real catch. 

Overall, marriage in a modern view has much less to do with society or families and places the responsibility to define its structure with the two parties involved. And most laws in effect today reflect that.  

Christian

Finally, I’d like to share a third view which I’ll tentatively call “Christian”. In reality, Christianity has influenced and been influenced by both the Enlightenment and many traditional cultures. But working strictly from the Christian Scriptures (the Bible), I’ll try to show some of the distinctiveness of a Christian outlook on marriage. 

• Validates singleness
  • Though Christianity is positive toward marriage, the Bible also highlights that marriage does not affect the value of the individual. They are not considered to be somehow degenerate or worse off. The most important person in the entire Bible, Jesus Christ, is never said to have married. And perhaps the most influential person in the initial spread of Christianity, the apostle Paul, was also single. In one of his letters, he remarks that in certain scenarios, remaining single is a better option than marrying.
• Does not require children
  • Though Christianity is positive about having children, the Bible does not hold children as a necessary purpose of marriage. That is to say, marriages are not evaluated as good or bad based on whether a couple has or attempts to have children. 
• Does not join families
  • In the very opening chapters of the Bible, in a passage about humanity’s origins, we find this conclusion:
    “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.” – Genesis 2:24
  • This highlights how 1) the marriage bond is a higher priority than prior familial bonds, and 2) how individuals are not merged into a previously existing household, but form an entirely new one. 
  • Both this and the above points about children and singleness stand in stark contrast to the traditional ideas of marriage which were pervasive during the times the Bible was written in.
• Modeled after God-humanity relationship
  • Marriage in and of itself is held up as a microcosm of the kind of relationship God has with his people, and of the kind of love Christ has for his followers, called “the church”. Just like Christ gave his life for the sake of those he loved, husbands and wives give their whole lives to each other.
  • From the first half of the Bible: 

“Indeed, your husband is your Maker—
his name is the Lord of Armies—
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer;
he is called the God of the whole earth.” – Isaiah 54:5

• The Apostle Paul (who I mentioned earlier) writes this about how married couples relate to each other:
  “This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church.” – Ephesians 5:32

• Self-giving love
  • Because marriage is meant to show something of what God is like, Bible places a high value on self-sacrificial generosity for the sake of the marriage partner.
  • In the same letter, Paul writes that “In the same way [as Christ loved the church], husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.”
  • In particular, this extends to sexual activity. Paul teaches elsewhere that married partners have actually given the rights to their bodies to each other, and that couples should not deprive each other of sex. By the same token, sexual activity apart from marriage is considered inappropriate and misplaced.
• Personal commitment
  • Jesus taught that marriage was meant to endure over the lives of the partners. Quoting the passage we read earlier, he concludes, “So [a married couple] are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” – Mark 10:8-9
  • Among other things, he was reaffirming the ancient teaching that a marriage involves individual, personal commitment from a man and woman, and in the same stroke was telling men not to casually divorce their wives.

So the very basic Christian perspective on marriage differs significantly from the modern conception as well as traditional ideas. It elevates marriage to the realm of the sacred, requiring a high level of personal investment from both partners. 

For the sake of time I’ve had to greatly simplify these viewpoints, so thanks for your understanding. I hope you now have some excellent discussions.