CHINDE PONCE LAURA ELIZABETH

ENGL 220
November 5, 2018

The Contract of Marriage

Jean Jacques Rousseau had the notion that being part of a society was analogous to

signing a contract where one stopped being a human to become a citizen. “What man loses by

the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and

succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses.”

(Rousseau 816). Civil liberty is one of the advantages obtained, he states, after conceding a

sample of our own individuality. After considering Rousseau’s perspective, we can think

about one of the most evident forms of social contracts: marriage. Whereas some are

convinced that one of the ways a developed society wields the right of choice is by allowing

its members to select a partner, others claim that the rate of success of such unions weighs

more on prioritizing long-term benefits instead of following one’s wishes e can find a defense

of this rational choice in Anjula Razdan’s writing What’s Love Got to Do with It. Razdan, an

editor of Utne magazine from Indian origins, where she “asks her readers to consider whether

arranged marriages might more effectively create lasting relationships than choosing mates

based on romantic attraction” (Razdan 406). This analysis was developed using resources

such as academic research, personal experience and a comparison of arranged marriages and

cyber-dating. Though I concede that hastiness undermines the possibilities of having a

prosperous marriage, I cannot accept Razdan’s assumption of arranged marriages as an

alternative for a long-lasting, successful relationship.

 One of Razdan’s resources to encourage the feasibility of arranged marriages is her

personal experience where she explains the variables with which such unions are set and how

these factors may encourage long-lasting relationships. The author provides her own parents’

experience to claim that love could be some type of process by saying that “yet both were

confident that their shared values, beliefs, and family background would form a strong bond

that, over time, would develop into love”. Though I concede that this example could illustrate

her perspective in some way, I find it difficult to sustain her whole argument under a single

case. In the one hand, she refers to arranged marriages in Europe during the Victorian Age as

some sort of trades where “love has nothing to do with it” (Razdan 407), while on the other

hand she determines that sometimes arranged marriages can actually “develop into love”

(Razdan 406). Therefore, Razdan’s claim seems misguided as her conclusions of arranged

marriages in the 1800’s west and in her family contain such discrepancies that they could

even nullify each other.

Moreover, the author’s analogies seem to be in a more dubious ground when

arranged marriages are compared with online dating services. My feelings on the issue are

mixed. Although I do support Razdan’s position that relying only in “proximity and attraction

(…) are terrible predictors of long-term happiness in a relationship” (Razdan 407), I am not

sure if online dating services can be compared to arranged marriages in the sense that online

dating servicbhes tend to be managed by the person who aspires to get married instead of a

relative who does the process by them. When comparing the matching system to a

“patriarchal grandfather searching for good matches…” (Razdan 408), Razdan overlooks the

deeper problem of free will as if it was irrelevant. Forced marriage is a delicate problem

present in several communities who practice arranged marriages. For instance, Gangoli, G et,

al. claim in their study that forced marriage “is a significant issue for all South Asian

communities in the North East of England” (32). Furthermore, the freedom of choice goes

2
beyond the act of marrying or not. Freedom involves being able to approve one’s future

spouse. Unlike arranged marriages, online dating sites use the variables we select and

processes them based in the data we previously gathered, and not always lead to nuptials. In

contrast, matchmakers may recur to their own perspectives, preferences and subjective

considerations even if they attempt to show impartiality. There is the possibility that what is

good for our parents may not be the most suitable thing for us. Online dating, instead,

provides the option of having an objective filter that no person could provide.

So far, we have overviewed a myriad of perspectives towards marriage. Although I

disagree with much that Razdan says, I fully endorse her view towards the need of adopting a

more conscious view about romantic relationships. As Razdan quotes “compatibility and

rational deliberation ahead of passionate impulse” (Razdan 408). could lead to an enduring

love. We need to reassess the popular assumption that love is the only important factor and

encourage the development of rationality as a complimentary element in our interpersonal

relationships. However, I must insist that perhaps arranged marriages are not the solution for

this issue as they contradict the individual’s freedom and exceed the limits of what is needed

to concede to belong to a functional society.

3
References (MLA)

Razdan, Anjula. “What’s Love Got to do with It.” The Bedford Reader. Ed. X.J Kennedy,
Dorothy M. Kennedy, Marcia F. Muth, and Sylvia A. Holladay. 7 rd ed. Boston: St
Martin’s/Bedford, 2005. 406-410.

Gangoli, Geetanjali, et al. “Forced Marriage and Domestic Violence among South Asian
Communities in North East England.” Amazon Aws, University of Bristol, June 2006,
s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31198335/ForcedMarriage_report.pdf?AW
SAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1541681665&Signature=XTV
8zddL3mdo I7EbYMIDnc8PU=&response-content-disposition=inline;
filename=Forced_Marriage_and_Domestic_Violence_am.pdf.