OneLov Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Interesting bit of research I thought I would share from Northwestern University. It is very long but detailed analysis of the historical and contemporary reasons people in the United States marry. It also offers a sobering explanation for the rise in divorce rates beginning in the mid-twentieth century. The research suggests not a break-down in the moral fabric of society, but society's prioritizing of cultural aspirations such as "self-realization" and "self-fulfillment" over social responsibility . I hope those who read the research paper find it interesting and helpful in making their own marriages stronger. http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/InPress_FinkelHuiCarswellLarson_PsychInquiry.pdf Abstract from the research paper pasted below: This article distills insights from historical, sociological, and psychological analyses of marriage to develop the suffocation model of marriage in America. According to this model, contemporary Americans are asking their marriage to help them fulfill different sets of goals than in the past. Whereas they ask their marriage to help them fulfill their physiological and safety needs much less than in the past, they ask it to help them fulfill their esteem and self-actualization needs much more than in the past. Asking the marriage to help them fulfill the latter, higher-level needs typically requires sufficient investment of time and psychological resources to ensure that the two spouses develop a deep bond and profound insight into each other’s essential qualities. Although some spouses are investing sufficient resources—and reaping the marital and psychological benefits of doing so—most are not. Indeed, they are, on average, investing less than in the past. As a result, mean levels of marital quality and personal well-being are declining over time. According to the suffocation model, spouses who are struggling with an imbalance between what they are asking from their marriage and what they are investing in it have several promising options for corrective action: intervening to optimize their available resources, increasing their investment of resources in the marriage, and asking less of the marriage in terms of facilitating the fulfillment of spouses’ higher needs. Discussion explores the implications of the suffocation model for understanding dating and courtship, sociodemographic variation, and marriage beyond America's borders. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Whoa, 109 pages I'm climbing Mount Maslow, suffocating from the lack of oxygen and pondering my marital bliss. OK, I'll download it and read. I left the marital coil a few years back but haven't totally put it out of my mind so getting an academic viewpoint is helpful information. What I've noticed a lot of in my age group demographic is folks going their own way and, while perhaps desiring human contact, not desiring it sufficiently to invest in any particular contact. They're content with a more loosely connected social milieu. Perhaps that makes sense since child-rearing is over and strides in my lifetime in the areas of equality and sexual freedom have enabled individual exploration to levels not previously considered or supported. IMO, a lot of folks are still coupling but choosing to couple without the formalities of marriage and growing their unions in a more personalized and free-form manner than in the past. Link to post Share on other sites
TX-SC Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Basically, a sociological discussion about young adults today being all about "me" and not giving to their spouse. Thus the rise in open marriages and poly relationships. "I love you, but I need some on the side." This gets explained away as "We are all different and have different needs." Or, as relates to recent discussions, "I think I might be bisexual so I deserve to see if I am, even though I'm married and committed." It's going to be interesting if things continue as they are. Many young adults are chosing to just not get married. Many more are opting to not have kids because, for one of many reasons, relationships are no longer stable. Who wants to have a kid, only see them every other week, and have to pay child support? It's just not worth it. We are very fortunate to have paternity testing these days. If not, the number of planned pregnancies would likely diminish even more. I almost think paternity testing should be mandatory. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
dichotomy Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I took a 5 mins browse. The impression I get is: - In the old days life was hard and marriage was about the working basics - food, security, lots of fundamental hard work - putting food on the table kind of thing. If that worked we were fine with our marriages. - Now in modern world - with safety and security and ease of food and care - we turn to wanting "higher needs" met by our spouses - the deep emotional, self worth, sexuality, and soul feeding. - Problem is we are not investing and putting in the time and effort to bond and become intimate with our spouse or others...well because we got other distractions and things we want to do - rather then invest that kind of time to deep diving into souls and spirits our spouse. So we are unfulfilled in marriages and suffocating. The higher the needs the more work and time and intimacy it takes. Maybe someone else can expand or correct me. Link to post Share on other sites
dichotomy Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Basically, a sociological discussion about young adults today being all about "me" and not giving to their spouse. . "But I don't feel like it, not in the mood, so why should I ?":rolleyes: Link to post Share on other sites
Author OneLov Posted January 28, 2016 Author Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) I took a 5 mins browse. The impression I get is: - In the old days life was hard and marriage was about the working basics - food, security, lots of fundamental hard work - putting food on the table kind of thing. If that worked we were fine with our marriages. - Now in modern world - with safety and security and ease of food and care - we turn to wanting "higher needs" met by our spouses - the deep emotional, self worth, sexuality, and soul feeding. - Problem is we are not investing and putting in the time and effort to bond and become intimate with our spouse or others...well because we got other distractions and things we want to do - rather then invest that kind of time to deep diving into souls and spirits our spouse. So we are unfulfilled in marriages and suffocating. The higher the needs the more work and time and intimacy it takes. Maybe someone else can expand or correct me. I think that is a great summation. In the past, we expected less out of our marriages but managed to give more. So we ended up with an emotional surplus (for lack of a better phrase). We did not expect our partners to complete us, so did not find fault in them for not making us happy if we were sad and actually turned to them for emotional consolation during those times. This was healthy in small doses. Now, we expect more out of our marriages but manage to give less. So we end up with an emotional deficit. We expect our partners to complete us and be "our everything's". So when we are not happy, we find fault in our partners during those times. And because it is their responsibility to complete us, we cannot turn to them for consolation because, in our minds, that is already their job and they're failing at doing that. I think we have two choices: We can either give more, or if that is not feasible because of the business of our lives, expect less. Either way, we will subconsciously feel more satisfied with our relationships. In turn, we would all report we are happier, and our relationships would be overall better. Edited January 28, 2016 by OneLov Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Also, comparatively, society is far more mobile than historically so unions are far more wide-ranging in scope today than ever in our history. Hence, with multitudes of cultures and various societies interacting and forming unions, diversity in union style, custom and practice is bound to result, either thinning the compatibility pool for any particular style or impelling more flexibility in union style, or both. Add in the relative demise of the social stigma of divorce, for marriages anyway, and the result is more shopping and more transiting from one union to another throughout life, something customarily reserved for pre-marital dating and socializing. Now, with divorce being OK and no fault, pay this and sign that, and people feeling free to move from partner to partner, more and more have. If I died tomorrow, of those I know who are alive, I'd be one of two people I know who've only been married once and, technically, since I'm divorced, really it's only one. Everyone else? Minimum two, some three. That's the state of unions around here. Link to post Share on other sites
dichotomy Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) I think we have two choices: We can either give more, or if that is not feasible because of the business of our lives, expect less. Either way, we will subconsciously feel more satisfied with our relationships. In turn, we would all report we are happier, and our relationships would be overall better. The problem is that this does not all ways work. There is an implied statement here in the paper is that if we give more - we get more back? If so - I don't see this evidence that this works. There are tons of stories here (including mine) of spouses who find lack of intimacy - giving more and more and more to their spouse (investing) hoping to get that level of connection (return) - and it never comes. My wife, one of my therapists, and several people here have said just give to give - and don't expect anything in return in your marriage. I think the article needs to go further (again apologizes for not reading it all) to talk about the fact that we are at a point in finding out that deep intimacy in a long term exclusive marriage is just rare and unusual - we (until now) just did not have the luxury or time to find that out because we were focused on the basics in the past in marriage. In other words - now we are free and have the luxury to go to the top of the mountain - but its not really in our nature within a marriage. Too my great dismay (and 40 years of thinking and feeling) I am having to begrudgingly accept - that monogamy and deep intimacy with just one person is not really working for the majority of human beings - and that the "alternate relationship styles" (as I used to think of them) being explored by us may be the way we as humans find happiness in our love lives. I think this is why we see (or hear) more about being "monogamish", lovers on the side (OM/OW), open marriages, swinging, polyamory, and even what I read about the millennials just kind of finding their own life satisfaction in a variety of ways and not having a ton of sex- or singular deep relationships I am tending to think most humans are just not mountain climbers but more field walkers.... if you get my meaning Sigh..my climbing gear has gone into the closet. Edited January 30, 2016 by dichotomy Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts