I’ve always thought that spouses got more than their fair share of time and affection. The other emotionally important people in our lives deserve more. What I never knew, until I started studying single life many years ago, is that it wasn’t always this way.
So what happened? I asked the historian Elizabeth Abbott, author of A History of Marriage, and she gave me the best brief answer to this question I’ve ever seen. That was a while back, but I just reread it and wanted to share it with you. So with thanks to Professor Abbott, here it is.
Couples Were Not Always So Intensely Focused on Each Other
Guest Post by Elizabeth Abbott
Except in rare polygamous communities, marriage has been the coupling of two individuals. Yet until well into the 19th century, marriages were generally accepted and appreciated as arrangements connecting families, business interests, members of the same social or economic class or other common denominators.
The husband and wife were not disregarded but, as a couple, were seldom the focal point of each other’s emotional, intellectual or social life. They had little domestic privacy and rarely spent time alone. Their deepest affections were often reserved for their siblings, relatives and best friends. Many of their activities and interests were gender-specific and, as such, excluded their spouses. Large segments of their life’s experiences were conducted independently of each other.
At the same time, their marital arrangement or interest took priority over each spouse’s individual needs and desires, and so unhappy relationships were tolerated. If intervention or reconciliation efforts failed, for example, the beaten or betrayed wife or the wretched husband were expected to endure their situation for the sake of the wider entity their marriage embodied.
Several developments converged to alter this situation and to transfer attention onto the couple, the man and woman at the heart of the marriage. Primary among these developments were: the evolution of the idea of love; the industrialization and urbanization of society; the swelling Rights movement that sought to empower workers and women; and the infrastructural accommodations that quietly permitted single citizens to live and, sometimes, flourish.
Historically, marriages were intended to benefit the spouses’ families, for example by advancing their business or vocational interests. Then, romantic love was scorned and even feared as an ephemeral and unstable foundation for marriage, and “love matches” were rare. But by the end of the 18th century there was growing acceptance of the notion that love between spouses mattered, though it was a more companionate affection than the all-consuming love we aspire to today.
The changing nature of the honeymoon gave evidence of this new regard for romantic love between spouses. Once, the honeymoon was a trip taken by newly-weds to introduce each other to relatives and friends, and it was common for parents and friends to go along. Afterward, the honeymoon became a more intimate event designed so that the couple, unchaperoned, could indulge in romantic and erotic love.
An even clearer sign of the shift in thinking about love was that more and more, spouses found their prime source of emotional support and deep connection in their marriage rather in friendships. This validation of romantic love made marriage the true home of passion and emotional sustenance. Today, this expectation has so intensified that our cultural gold standard is a spouse who is not merely loved and lover, but also a soul-mate. No wonder, then, that the couple has become such a formidable entity.
Yet the power of love alone could not have made this happen; the catalyst of individual rights was also necessary. The ideal of the right to personal happiness, love and satisfaction was fed by women’s expanding career and educational opportunities, the new labor unions’ vocal demands for equal rights, and growing prosperity. The existence of large numbers of single people – in some eras and places as many as one-quarter to one-third of the population – also helped by creating an infrastructure for individual rights; privileged single women, for example, were permitted to forge and maintain social, economic and family/dynastic relationships.
As women in particular gained more rights, more education, more vocational and professional opportunities, they gained as well the means to choose or accept a spouse who did not necessarily advance their economic paths but who fulfilled other needs and desires. Both men and women began to prioritize their own needs and desires about marriage as in other spheres of life. More couples self-selected on the basis of personal preferences and attractions rather than, as in the past, parental and family considerations.
Under the influence of these new standards, the impetus to marry became less an economic decision and more of a romantic one rooted in the belief that marriages should be grounded in mutual love. More and more, marriageable men and women subscribed to the ideal of marriage that required loving, supportive, loyal and compatible spouses deeply devoted to each other in their mission to complete each other’s existence: individual rights willingly merged for the greatest possible happiness and satisfaction as coupled spouses. In fantasy if not in reality, the couple represented the essence of personal fulfilment.
The empowerment of the couple has profoundly changed the role of the wife-as-mother. In the 19th century Good Wife model, the relationship between mother and children was paramount. But the rise of the couple as intensely interdependent individuals has created a conflict between the old and new ideals and pushed women to struggle with incompatible priorities and demands.
True, the advent of reliable birth control has tempered this by allowing spouses to plan their parenthood and, by limiting themselves to manageable and affordable numbers of children, to keep themselves available for each other. Even so, the fundamental dichotomy between competing responsibilities lingers.
Finally, with expectations so much higher than they ever were in the arranged, finagled or ‘settled’ unions of the past, the couple may judge theirs harshly, find it wanting, and resort to such apparatuses of redress as divorce, separation, or unresolved dissatisfaction within an intact marriage. In the latter case, friends and relatives may provide the intimacy and unconditional love that the spouses fail to. A century ago, those same spouses might well have tolerated such a marriage as no better but also no worse than they expected.