1

Term Paper

One summer vacation in Italy, after six years of dating, my father asked my mother to

marry him. He slipped the question into casual conversation without so much as a ring, and it

took about two weeks consideration before she officially accepted. Nearly thirty years later, the

unorthodox proposal seems to have worked out. But after learning in class about the ideal

conditions for a successful marriage, Ive noticed a variety of inconsistencies and contradictions

in my parents marriage, including the presence of both individualistic and institutional values,

and frequent, seemingly invalidating interactions. Thus, Ive come to wonder what exactly about

my parents marriage has been the key to said success.

Both of my parents were born into relatively liberal households, each with two still-

married parents. My grandparents on my mothers side have always had extremely progressive

views. My maternal grandmother was the only woman to graduate from her prestigious graduate

school program, and has since been an active speaker in the feminist community. Needless to

say, she raised my mother to value independence and equality. My father came from a slightly

more conservative family, but still learned the same basic values that my mother did.

It should come as no surprise, then, that my parents have never had a traditional or

institutional relationship. When they met, my mother was still earning her bachelors degree,

and trying to orient herself as an independent adult in society. In accordance with her

individualistic values, my mother refused to exclusively date my father until she had graduated

from college. She explained to me, We werent serious because I was like, Im twenty-one

years old, we cant be exclusive. Having grown up in a time when individualism and the Me

Marriage were on the rise, my mother valued her own self-growth over that of her relationship.
 2

She did not want to commit to a partner or prepare to settle down until she felt comfortable with

herself as an individual.

Once my mother had completed her undergraduate degree and gotten her footing in the

workforce, my parents moved in together, cohabiting for years before they were married.

Through cohabitation they pursued the emotional intimacy associated with a companionate

relationship, rather than jumping into marriage just because it made sense from an institutional

perspective. When I asked my mother what her expectations were when she entered her

marriage, she replied, Someone to support me emotionally I never thought about someone

supporting me financially. The institutional husband as breadwinner system does not line up

with my parents individualistic and egalitarian values. Instead, my parents both work full time

jobs, and have divided the household chores and childcare responsibilities between the two of

them. Though they aim for an egalitarian, companionate ideal, their relationship has not reached

complete equality. Both of my parents earn decent livings, but my father makes about two-thirds

of the household income. He works longer hours than my mother does, so my mother must often

default to the institutional role of the wife, taking care of the house and children while the

husband is at work.

In questioning my parents further, I began to recognize more remnants of the institutional

marriage system than I had expected to find in their relationship. When I asked my parents why

they chose to marry, as opposed to just maintaining a long-term exclusive relationship, they said

there were two main reasons: to have a family, and because it was expected of them. Marriage

helps to solidify and frame the family, my mother said, marriage holds a family together.

Despite their individualistic tendencies, my parents agreed that they would not want to raise
 3

children without being married. In fact, children was my mothers first response when asked

what she had expected marriage to give her.

The expectation of marriage as a social and economic institution is rooted in the origin of

marriage itself. Stephanie Coontz, in her book Marriage, a History, recounts a time when,

centuries ago, marriage existed primarily to organize a community, and to create economic ties

between two families. In the mid-twentieth century, people began to abandon marriage as a

vehicle for economic security, and instead began to view it as a commitment to love and

companionship above all else. Given my parents backgrounds and their insistence on marriage

as a partnership, it surprised me that they were so quick to admit the heavy influence social

expectation had on their decision to marry. Wed been dating too long to keep doing that and I

didnt want to break up, my dad told me, So it was time to get married.

When I asked, then, what role love played in their marriage, my dad said that of course

love is important, but it doesnt make a marriage. In a lot of ways marriage is like a business

partnership, he said, you have a goal and youre trying to accomplish it. These business-like

aspects of marriage, along with the main goal of forming a family, reflect the institutional values

around which marriage was first formed. In the institutional marriage, the spouses work

together, not towards their own satisfaction, but instead towards the betterment of the family and

the community. These values contradict those of the individualistic marriage, and represent one

of the inconsistencies in my parents relationship.

I then asked about conflict resolution, an often-controversial topic amongst my

immediate family. Both parents were reluctant to answer, my mother admitting, We hold

grudges we stomp our feet, and my father conceding finally, We yell a lot. Ive watched

this sort of invalidating interaction play out between my parents since my childhood. My mother
 4

is often the first to express dissatisfaction, and is almost always the first to begin yelling. The

argument escalates, both parents yell for a while, and rarely if ever does this interaction bring

the disagreement any closer to a resolution.

John Gottmans Love Lab experiment identified various forms of negative interactions

between couples, which were often indicative of divorce. My mothers main method of arguing

is what Gottman would call flooding, overwhelming my father with negative emotion until he

resorts to stonewalling, a reaction to conflict in which one partner shuts down and refuses to

interact with the other. Both of my parents reported finding many of their arguments

counterproductive, and even feeling less appreciated or understood after this sort of verbally

aggressive interaction. Belsky and Hsieh would label my parents arguments invalidating

interactions as they promote distance and disengagement rather than emotional closeness.

Amato and Hahoman divide married couples into three different groups Fighters,

Quiet and Continuously Married based on their interactions and the likelihood that they

will divorce. Given the aggressive and invalidating nature of their communication, Amato and

Hahoman would likely place my parents in the Fighters or High Conflict group of couples at

risk for divorce. These couples experience frequent arguments and decreasing levels of marital

satisfaction, leading to eventual divorce. Additionally, stonewalling is often indicative of a

deteriorating relationship and usually represents the last step in a progression towards divorce.

The research of Gottman, Belsky and Hsieh, and Amato and Hahoman indicate that my

parents exhibit the most destructive form of arguing, as most of their conflicts lead to

disengagement. However, my parents have interacted in this aggressive manner for the majority

of their thirty-year marriage, and claim never to have seriously considered divorce. Whether this
 5

is true or not, the fact remains that my parents marriage has lasted three decades despite the

high conflict mentality that they have expressed.

I think, in part, this sort of aggressive communication has not been detrimental to my

parents marriage because growing up, my parents watched their own parents communicate in

aggressive ways as well. When I was a kid, your grandfather yelled at least as much as I do

now, my mom told me. In much the same way that children of divorce tend grow up thinking

that divorce is acceptable because it worked for their parents, my parents saw my grandparents

relationships recover from flooding and stonewalling, and thus developed the mentality that such

invalidating interactions do not have to destroy a marriage.

When I asked my mother how her relationship has survived such negative forms of

communication, she said, You only behave that way or tolerate the other person behaving that

way if you know the other person isnt going anywhere. This sentiment seems to represent the

sense of trust inherent in companionate relationships, and may represent the difference between

my parents successful relationship and failed marriages that exhibit similar patterns of

aggressive conflict.

My roommate, Dani, has been a child of divorce since adolescence. When I asked her

about her parents marriage she described a household with a great deal of anger and resentment.

Her parents experienced frequent and aggressive conflicts, which yielded little to no sense of

resolution. Like my own parents, Danis parents argued with flooding and stonewalling, as well

as other indicators of what Gottman calls the bad argument, including criticism, in which each

partner would attack the other with black-and-white accusations. On the surface, I saw many

similarities between the way Danis parents communicated and the way my own parents

communicate. However, when I asked Dani what finally led her parents to divorce, she said,
 6

Being married was emotionally harmful to both of them. It became clear that this negative and

lasting emotional impact was the biggest factor that distinguished Danis parents marriage from

that of my own parents.

Social Exchange Theory outlines the primary reasons that most couples choose to

maintain or end their marriages. In terms of Social Exchange Theory, experts define

Attraction as the rewards of a relationship minus its costs. When Danis parents argued, the

hostility and stress in their relationship increased, and they lost sight of the rewards, such as

companionship. Thus, the high levels of conflict in Danis parents relationship led to the

absence of attraction, contributing to their eventual divorce. In contrast, the aggressive conflicts

between my own parents, though not necessarily productive, do not detract from the overall

levels of attraction they experience in their relationship. This remaining sense of attraction

seems to be a key distinction between the success of my parents relationship, and the failure of

similar marriages, like that of Danis parents.

I found my parents attitudes towards divorce and divorce culture the most surprising part

of the interview. When I asked them if divorce culture has affected their relationship in any way,

both of my parents agreed that the prevalence of divorce in todays society has altered the way

they think about their own marriage. My mom spends most of her leisure time with a group of

four other women. When the women became friends, roughly ten years ago, all five of them

were married to their first husbands. Now, three of the five women are divorced, and have begun

exploring new relationships. When the women go out together, my mother watches from the

sideline as her now-single friends flirt with men and meet new people. It definitely puts the

idea out there, my mom told me when I asked what she thinks when she sees her divorced

friends, [Divorce] is one of the choices on the table, and its a doable choice. Even my father,
 7

who does not have many close divorced friends, expressed similar sentiments, admitting that

divorce culture can begin to make divorce look like a good idea.

Going into the interview, I had expected my parents to be relatively accepting of divorce

in theory, as they have always been relatively liberal and open-minded. However, given the

success of their own parents marriages and the stigma of divorce when they were growing up, I

was surprised by how easily they could see divorce as an option for themselves. In fact, my

parents attitudes towards divorce closely resembled Danis. When I asked what they think are

acceptable circumstances for divorce, my parents and Dani said essentially the same thing: when

the partners are no longer happy together. This attitude is a big leap from the way people

thought about divorce only a couple of decades ago, when state laws refused to accept this idea

of no fault divorce. I was not surprised that Dani saw divorce as a viable option for unhappy

couples because, not only did she grow up in time when divorce was becoming more common

and losing its stigma, but she also saw immense improvement in the quality of her own family

when her parents got divorced. However, I had trouble reconciling my parents openness to

divorce, with their insistence on working through their marital issues, given the many

inconsistencies Id identified in their marriage.

According to the framework that Social Exchange Theory provides, my parents have very

few barriers to divorce; they are both capable of financial independence, and have few concerns

about any stigma attached to divorce. Because she goes out with single friends, my mother

likely has available alternatives if she wants them, as well. However, after examining the

contradictions in the ways my parents think about and interact in marriage, I believe that their

common goals, values and expectations have acted as the overarching glue thats held their

relationship together. Both of my parents entered marriage with what Sternberg describes as a
 8

coordination love story in mind; they each expected marriage to provide them with a partner

above all else, someone with whom they could do and share everything. The homogony of their

marriage has likely contributed to its success as well, as their similar economic and educational

backgrounds have instilled in them similar values, upon which theyve formed a relationship and

a family together. My parents have worked to form a relatively companionate relationship based

on emotional intimacy and commitment, as depicted in Sternbergs Triangular Theory of Love.

The mutual trust this has bred, coupled with their similarly aligned expectations, likely accounts

for the success of my parents marriage.