|
|
Property, know-how, fertility. What’s love got to do with it? (Source: The
Guardian, 10/2/1982)
The most striking omission in the debate over the crisis in marriage and family
life today is the almost total lack of any historical perspective. Too often we
see things as new which are not new, while failing to appreciate how profoundly
the changes in society and economy of the last 50 years have undermined some of
the basic props of the traditional family morality.
Let us consider first what is not new; already in pre-industrial Britain we find
references to battered wives and children and to adultery by those who thought
they could get away with it undetected. Premarital chastity is certainly not
part of our cultural tradition; pre-marital sex was normal in some parts of
eighteenth century Britain, and the chances of a child being born illegitimate
were almost as high in mid-Victorian Britain as they are today.
Frequent marital dissolution is not new either, though in the past death was
more likely to be responsible than personal preferences - not that they did not
sometimes play a part as well. Indeed, in most areas of Europe before the
present century marriages were almost as likely to be broken in their early
years as they are in the present divorce boom, and the proportion of children
affected before the normal age of independence may very well have been larger.
As far back as we can go, we also find something else familiar; couples, on
marriage or very soon after, typically set up households of their own, the
household consisting of husband, wife, children and, in some cases, one or more
servants. Behind this outward similarity, however, were concealed fundamental
differences in the social and economic contexts of marriage and in what
sociologists would call its functions.
The first priority of all but the most affluent had to be to organise their
household economy so as to avoid starvation now and, if possible, in old age.
Survival would require the interdependent work efforts of all family members -
husband, wife and, as soon as they could do anything useful, children.
Historians are still arguing about whether, or when, most couples "fell in
love", in the sense that we understand it, but what is clear is that there
were several considerations in choosing a spouse and in the timing of marriage.
One was the property - dowry, land, tools, a few pieces of linen or household
equipment - which the partners had gradually managed to assemble. A second was
the agricultural, industrial and domestic skills they had gradually learned. A
third was the likely fertility of the wife (she should be fertile - but not too
fertile). The results were that marriage had to be delayed so that the property
and skills could be assembled - the average age was around 28 for men and 26 for
women in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries; though many had to wait much
longer.
Older wives were often popular; they had more skills and property, and were
likely to produce fewer children. If a spouse died, remarriage could be very
rapid ( a few weeks in some areas) - the household economy could not long
survive without two adults at its head. In spite of continual opposition from
the Church, premarital sex continued - there were important advantages in
knowing that your intended spouse could have children.
Once married, social controls could be severe. Small communities, thin house
walls and the frequent presence of non-relatives (servants, workmen or lodgers)
in the house made keeping any secrets difficult. Until the eighteenth century,
Church courts had sweeping powers of investigation and sanction - in England
they included for a time the power to break into any house in which adultery was
suspected. The local community, by public ridicule and abuse could readily
sanction the wife beater or those whose morals were considered too loose.
Over the past 250 years, at an accelerating pace, these social and economic
props to marriage and family living have gradually weakened, while the demands
we have made on marriage have steadily increased. In the peasant household the
marital couple organised the household’s production, using its own labour and
co-ordinating the contributions of all family members.
But under our kind of capitalist system of production, work is rewarded on an
individual basis. One or more household members daily leave the home and are
paid by outsiders in a way which seldom takes account of his or her family
situation. The wage has become the personal property of the individual,
dependent on his or her own activities and paid in private, leaving to
negotiation between family members the question of how it is to be divided and
used.
Today where both spouses enter the labour force and each receives a private
reward for labour, their work is not naturally seen as co-operative productive
activity or even, often, as one involving a complementary division of labour.
When career paths conflict, as they often do, work can become a source of mutual
antagonism, rather than mutual interdependence rooted in the need to survive.
In addition, the aspirations of those entering a modern marriage are much more
susceptible to change over time than those of pre-industrial European couples.
Basic survival, together or often even alone, is not usually their first
concern. Love (or whether or not it is fun to go on holiday together or out for
a drink together) is largely a matter of personal taste.
Outsiders could play a mediating and advisory role if a dispute occurred about
farming skills or domestic capabilities necessary for survival. But outside
mediation, even by trained counsellors, can only play a lesser role if the
conflict involves what one or both see as personal incompatibility, failing to
"turn each other on", or the fact that being together isn’t fun
anymore.
Outsiders can play a much less authoritative role over the timing of marriage
and the choice of spouse if the main problem likely to arise is one of whether
the couple will be happy together. Modern contraception, by separating the
pleasures of sexual activity from the risk of conception has seriously
undermined what was once an almost certain link between extramarital sex and its
consequences and has thus taken away a principle prop of the Christian morality
of premarital - and indeed marital - chastity.
From an historical perspective, therefore, the family today lacks many of the
social supports which it had even in the not too distant past. But other changes
are important too. Younger ages of marriage and an increase in life expectancy
among adults have combined roughly to double the average duration of marriages
unbroken by social dissolution. "Till death do us part" now means not
far short of 50 years.
The fall in family size and the fact that most couples have their children soon
after marriage means that, for the first time, most of the life span of marriage
does not involve the care of small children. What was once the prime familial
role of women has shrunk in its significance. At the same time increased leisure
has increased further the potential time available for unhappiness, in the one
relationship in life which has increasingly become seen to have "being
happy" as one of its central functions.
Far more so than in the past, we live in a society which emphasises the rights
and freedoms of the individual and which sees personal relations as influenced
by personal advantages. Increasingly it seems that these ideas have been carried
over to family life with family relationships being seen as slightly special
ordinary social relationships, to be evaluated in terms of their contribution to
individual welfare and interests and to be made and broken on the same basis as
other friendships.
Externally and superficially, then, the family and marriage today may look quite
similar to the patterns of 300 years ago. A closer look suggests that their
nature has changed in many subtle but important ways which are a direct
reflection of the changed position of family and marriage in the wider society.
We have inherited a set of expectations about marriage which have become
increasingly unsupported by the social and economic context in which family life
is lived.
The lesson of history seems to be that we could go back to a strict conformity
with the morality of the past - a conformity which has never in fact existed
totally - only by reverting also to the economic and social relations of the
past. That is clearly impossible. We thus have to develop new institutions and
new expectations to cope with new situations.