Natalie Miller Moore ponders what the institution of marriage would be like if nobody ever had a choice.
By Natalie Miller
210 west Content Editor [send email]
Do you, Bridget take Seamus, to be your husband because your parents said so?
I heard two women in their sixties talking about their children and how they still have no grandchildren. Even though all their children were in their mid-twenties or early thirties, no offspring have been produced. One is divorced, two never-married and one dating a woman who already has a child. For grandparent-hopefuls, the modern lifestyles of their children are stifling their reproductive agenda: namely, to make sure their genes are passed on to another generation.
I read a historical novel last fall called “Sarum” where they followed family lineages for hundreds of years. What if parents still had the option to arrange marriages? How different would the modern social and dating scene be? Would it solve this concern for the parents on the cusp of grandparenthood?
One of the advantages of arranged marriages has been historically that they are long-lasting, but I believe that can more aptly be attributed to the idea that marriage is permanent. This idea is quickly going out of style, although there does seem to be some pro-commitment backlash by children of divorce. Many proponents of arranged marriages have a different relationship from other marriages – one based on partnership and working together rather than on romantic love which is bound to fade.
I went to two weddings over Labor Day weekend. Although the couples seem very much in love, I doubt their parents would have chosen the match. One is moving to Northern Ireland to live now that she’s married, and the other has taken a military spouse, which will no doubt change his contact with his family in Puerto Rico, especially if they get sent overseas. Today, parents have very little say in their children’s choices and I believe that more than a few of them long for the days when they could say someone was “unacceptable” and that would be the end of it. Back when it was socially unacceptable to date people of another race, parents forbid even dating, because “what was the point?” – you cannot marry them. (I concede that this still happens, unfortunately.)
I know that if my father had his way I would be married to a policeman. My dad is a policeman. My mom’s dad is a policeman. My dad’s sister-in-law was a policewoman. My mom’s brother is a policeman. This is how the family history has unfolded. Public service jobs are the backbone of the Miller-Cooper union.
The other guess I would have as to an arranged marriage would be where my dad could get something for free. He used to try to set me up with Paul, the guy who worked at the auto repair shop and gas station. “I’ll trade my daughter for a lifetime of free oil changes, sure,” I can imagine him thinking. Also, he tried to get me to date our tax accountant’s son, probably with the same end in mind.
I wonder how arranged marriages could work in our modern society? Would it have to be at high school graduation or could people be trusted to go to college and screw around but not commit to anyone? Or would arrangements only be for people who hit a certain age with no prospects? In some ways, people who are still single in their thirties must feel like people are always trying to arrange things for them.
One thing that must be hard for modern parents to accept is that prevailing wisdom indicates that you should just let your kids make their own decisions. Some people still can’t deal with this, particularly those who feel successful directly through their children. I see it now as my friends get married and their moms try to meddle and cajole them to do it with their family, local and religious traditions represented. At some point, you reject some of your parent’s decisions. So maybe it would be a bad idea to let them decide your romantic fate.
Parents, on a very basic level, want to see their children succeed in a way that is as old as time: to reproduce successfully. This means not only having children, but being able to support them and ensure that they grow to healthy adulthood so they in turn can reproduce. I read an interesting book that breaks it down to the pure biology of it: “Beyond Choice” by Alexander Sanger, which I recommend if this topic interests you. He talks about how sexual and social choices are made with our own genetic interests in mind. Although parents could arrange your marriage, they still cannot make you have kids. Sure, they can nag and pressure and ask pointed questions, but they can’t make you reproduce.
If parents could still arrange marriages, perhaps they could feel more control and reassurance about their descendant’s prospects. They could pick a girl from a good family, maybe whose dad owns a business that their son could work his way up in. They could pick a smart boy with good prospects in his field. And, they can pick good genes to match with theirs, as determined by what they see as “good.” Usually people marry those with similar characteristics, in stature and coloring, on their own. But this is not always the determination of cultural stock; people with olive skin could be from anywhere. It’s important to some parents still that you marry someone from Puerto Rico, from Sicily or from the Ukraine. I would be married to a fair Irish boy, preferably from County Mayo, if my mother could decide.
When I did decide to get married, it helped that he was familiar stock, even if he wasn’t from the preferred location of Cleveland. He’s an Irish-German Catholic, so that’s close enough. My dad has expressed confusion as to why I did not continue to date the 200-pound football player/chemist, an ideal protector and provider. Because I could choose, I selected a more egalitarian arrangement. The reproductive success of that has yet to be determined.
This crucial key to the continuation of the human race has always been a part of marriage, but things have changed drastically in the past 50 years. Possibly the one-time monogamy of marriage has been weakened by longer lifespans. And the bearing of children has been changed by same sex couples, adoption, mixed families, surrogate mothers, egg-freezing technology and people who are married but just don’t want kids. Could the evolution be arranged marriages for reproduction only: raise the kids (or put them in extended day care to be raised by someone else) and do what you want the rest of the time? Does this violate your definition of marriage or reinforce it? Is this is ultimate in practicality or would it be the ultimate selfish act?
I feel for parents who think their children are making bad decisions but support them. And it can’t be easy for kids whose parents freely express that they think they are screwing up. But, it does work out in most cases. The hippie artist can turn into the responsible mom or dad. The two bookworm academics can move into better fields. The flighty twentysomethings can settle down and starting thinking about the future they want for their kids. So can you always count on parents to choose what’s best in the long run? Many would argue that you cannot, and I’m sure that’s why this system has fallen out of favor.
Parents do still pressure, cajole and manipulate their children to marry someone “suitable.” I think the outright rejection of marrying someone of another race, ethnicity or economic status has faded away. But there will always be the parents waiting for grandkids who pressure their kids to “do the right thing,” like they were pressured. I do believe that there is a deep biological need for people to know their family lineage and heritage will carry on. It does, just not always in the way people expect. And it may mean that they bear children but divorce, which succeeds in one way that parents want and fails in another.