The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love - Essay Example

The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love In the article “The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love,” the Stephanie Coontz revisits different cultures at different times in an attempt to show us that marriage and love have rarely gone parallel to each other, and people’s attempt to combine the two started just recently. The work begins with some kind of a mock to the people’s expectation of being strongly in love, a factor that is seen to contribute to a “happy marriage thereafter.” According to Coontz, this is one of the most unrealistic ideas when it comes to marriage and love, would sound totally absurd about the past two decades.

In the past, just like it is today, love reigned in the lovers’ hearts. However, unlike today, it was always seen as a phenomenon very distant from love and mostly a threat to the “societal order.” Precedence was given to the people’s obligation to not only their extended families, but also to the society in general and the creator. As such, love was perceived as a big interference. For instance, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Europe, there was a strict distinction between love and marriage.

Those with desires to express their true love or intimacy could only do that through adultery since marriage was purposefully instituted to fulfill obligations. There is a good example in one love story that involved a theologian (Peter Aberlard) and a mistress (Heloise). Heloise declined Aberlard’s proposal to marry her in secret because that would put her reputation in jeopardy. For her, “marriage would not only harm his career but also undermine their love” (Coontz, 132).In most societies (for example, Greeks, Romans, Christians, and Muslims), people despised those lovers who publicly expressed their love for each other.

Such an act was not only sinful but also drew people away from God. For Christian theologians, married partners who had too much love and affection for each other were seen idol worshippers. In addition, it is still considered bad, in Cameroon, to express intense love for your partner, since it is believed that this isolates couples from the rest of the society (Coontz, 132). And for those societies in India as well as Europe, it was believed that love could only exist after marriage. A well-matched couple and one with financial stability would eventually see partners experiencing a perfect love for each other.

Love was considered as a benefit, and therefore, any marriage built on it would inevitably lead to sadness in life. Today, an ideal marriage is totally different. It is one in which there is deep love, partners are best of friends, and the partners have to be not only loyal to each other but must each other’s sexual needs. Coontz argues that in the past this would be unrealistic since partners had not to fulfill all of a partner’s needs. However, in some societies, it is acceptable to have multiple legitimate marriage partners.

The Eskimos, for instance, accept shared marriages, while in Tibet polyandry is accepted among some women. For Americans, such practices are very backward. For Chinese as well as American societies, a marriage would be based on love, but close friendship among partners was not only unnecessary but also almost unacceptable. For these societies, precedence was given to extended family relations since such relations were considered to be irreplaceable. For instance, for Confucian society, there was a very strong bond between father and son, and any slight misunderstanding between a woman and her father-in-law would end her marriage.

In most societies, extramarital sex was acceptable and extramarital sexual partners were always respected and even, sometimes, seen as very important when it came to the survival of children. In South America, for instance, a pregnant woman’s sexual partners were considered to be the fathers of the expected child, and this was very necessary since the child’s future was somehow guaranteed. Therefore, a happy marriage would not be considered within the realms of a single model. Considering the Western model, it is seen that it has the biggest number unrealistic expectations, which would weaken the marriage institution (Coontz, 137).

The changes in this model were mainly influenced by two factors. First, there was the wage labor that made it easier for young people to gain independence and establish families. Secondly, there was the issue of equality and justice. Therefore, marriage was increasingly viewed as a private a fair. This further spread to other countries like France and Russia (in the 18th century. This transmogrification was also evident in literature of the century, with the stories of knights replaced by those of relationships and domestic events.

Since the marriage institution had, for many years, reflected many governments’ ideas of monarchy, changes in political models towards democracy automatically affected marriage models. The superior position of a husband changed in the 18th century, as scholars preached the equality between marriage partners and the idea of basing marriage on love and “mutual obligations” (Coontz, 140). The society, therefore, lost its control of the family, and people now chose their partners according to their own standards.

Many saw this as a threat to not only the marriage institution but also the societal order. Coontz explores different marriage models to show us the limitations of our “ideal” marriage concept. She wants us to realize that our current model of marriage is, no doubt, faulty.Work CitedCoontz, Stephanie. “The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love.” Writing and Reading across the Curriculum, Brief Edition. Brief, 3 ed. Ed. Behrens, Laurence, and Leonard J. Rosen. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009. Print.