 |
| Just another couple on the internet |
It can be discomforting to learn that a section of society has been denied rights that are so central to the lives of the rest of the country. Out of 132 countries that have decriminalized homosexuality, only 32 have legalized same-sex marriage, and yet the ramifications of the same are larger for a country like India. However, when I put this news in the context of the heated discussions on the 'decreasing relevance of marriages in today's world', my eyebrows finally get to relax and then ready for further brooding.
Why worry so much about the right to marry, when marriage itself is losing its color and relevance?
Let's get the facts right, right in the beginning. Are people marrying less? Yes. Is marriage losing its relevance? No. Here's my Why -how.
90% of the population lives in countries with a decreasing rate of marriages. The decline is mostly seen in the middle-income and working-class populations of China, Japan, the USA, and the UK. The reasons are much more economic, political, and social, than ideological or related to some 'emotional retardation' (as they say) in the youth.
In the capitalist and consumerist world, all celebrations and institutions have massive material attachments, and so does marriage. Weddings are seen as one big splurge of money, be it on the destination, guests, grooming, or even the courtship. A lot of expenditure is also required to sustain the marriage and even more to expand the family unit through children. A significant section of the conscious population chooses not to go down that road while many cannot afford to. There is uncertainty, unemployment, inflation, and wariness if the marriage is really going to be an investment in one's long-term happiness and fulfillment or just another responsibility after a soul-crushing day at work.
Marriage, when not supported by social and policy measures also becomes a deterrent to the careers of women due to unequal share of responsibilities. It is an unfortunate direct correlation, but greater female participation in the labor force and better career trajectories of women have corresponded with lower rates of marriages and higher rates of divorces, even in the developed world. Childcare responsibilities inevitably fall on women and even if men participate in the shared responsibility, it takes a great toll on the household. Giving a child an education, proper healthcare and a fine upbringing also involves a great deal of sacrifice in terms of personal growth, money, and time. Today people are also becoming more responsible towards parenting as new studies on how big an impact can childhood have on one's future trajectory keep coming, day after day. Maybe, Millenials and post-millennials who themselves have been teenage rebels already realize the pain in the ass they have been to their parents and can forsee what's coming ahead for them.
Before discussing the Indian scenario and that of similar South Asian countries (in an upcoming part 2), another important disincentive to marriage in the developed world is the overall utility of being married. There is fair social acceptance of relationships outside of marriage, given how 51% of children are born to unmarried couples in the UK. The data for the same in the EU and US is 42% and 40% respectively.
Does this indicate that we are becoming 'rational', 'practical' beings, devoid of the human emotional foolery which kept us going all these years? What about our primal tendency to love, bond, and, form a secure sexual and social partnership, that we have evolved in all these years. In fact, isn't unity a strength? Most married couples in America have greater wealth than any cohabiting, single, or separated units of individuals. There is this economic term called DINKS (Dual Income No Kids), about people who are living their best lives, with all the dull and sacrificing bits of a life cut out. You work, travel, have fewer expenses than 2 singles, have more disposable income, and enjoy a great sex life throughout your life! Isn't marriage more rational than we thought? Being in a healthy and stable relationship undoubtedly leads to a fall in stress levels and equips one with a strong support system, in the form of a family, in one's low phases. A friend once shared that he wanted to get married so that he could focus on more important things in life, without having to waste time in the pursuits of sex, friendship, partnership, and a reliable company whenever he needed it (Good luck brother).
Unity is certainly a strength. Humans started ruling the planet, not because they had any physical or cognitive advantages over other animals but because they could show effective cooperation collectively with much more flexibility (unlike the rigid cooperation seen in ants or bees). This is exactly where the conventional meaning of marriage, as we understand it, is failing this generation and will continue to do so in the future. The terms of modern marriage do not allow this flexibility in most cases. Another reason why humans rule the world is that they can imagine, trust, believe, and effectively communicate ideas. Marriage is one such idea, we all hold a collective belief about. Monogamy, romance, emotional support, heterosexuality, ownership and 'sexual rights', social status, cultural exchange, joint parenting, collective property ownership, familial bond or nucleated family, and most importantly 'the happily ever after' are some important ideas that we collectively started associating with marriage over time. The legal status of marriage in most countries is still usually based on these ideas (the legal definition of marriage mostly starts with "a union between a man and woman..").
The author of the path-breaking book 'Sapiens' and one of the coolest and most creative historians in the world, Yuval Noah Harari, argues that our biological software isn't compatible with such ideas. The communities we formed in the prehistoric age were much more flexible as well as egalitarian which helped us progress into the civilization we have made for us today. In a band, a woman could have sex with multiple partners (men and women), and the commune practiced collective fatherhood (still seen in the Bari tribe of India). It was before we had discovered that the progeny belonged to one man and we thought that more sex with different males would incorporate diverse qualities in the progeny like being intelligent, strong, sensitive, cute, etc. An alpha male too, would inseminate as many females as he can, siring a large population of his troops young.
Now, I am not saying we should get back to the primal stage of bonding and all modern ideas associated with marriage should be shredded, and neither Dr. Harari who has a husband, insinuates so. The only thing we need to understand is that the present concept of marriage has never worked collectively for all of us and we still continue to subscribe to it. In fact, institutions based on celibacy have fared better than marriages in the world, for example, catholic priesthood, Buddhist monastic order, Chinese eunuch bureaucracies, etc. The holy idea of monogamous marriage we have been continuously forcing on ourselves is often plagued with adultery, the practice of keeping concubines, polygamy, encouraging prostitution, etc. In the medieval ages, marriage was a holy sacrament of god and could only be authorized by parents on earth. Most marriages were based on political, social, and economic considerations. Women were betrothed to men, even before they could understand what it would entail. The coming of romanticism and the freedom to choose one's own partner has only added more pressure on the relationship where the individuals are supposed to feel much more loved and provided for their needs all the time.
Dr. Harari writes-
"Today people marry for love, and it is their inner feelings that give value to this bond. Hence, if the very same feelings that once drove you into the arms of one man now drive you into the arms of another, what’s wrong with that? If an extramarital affair provides an outlet for emotional and sexual desires that are not satisfied by your spouse of twenty years, and if your new lover is kind, passionate, and sensitive to your needs – why not enjoy it? But wait a minute, you might say. We cannot ignore the feelings of the other concerned parties. The woman and her lover might feel wonderful in each other’s arms, but if their respective spouses find out, everybody will probably feel awful for quite some time. And if it leads to divorce, their children might carry the emotional scars for decades. Even if the affair is never discovered, hiding it involves a lot of tension, and may lead to growing feelings of alienation and resentment."
To sum it up
“Today, people still expect to be married ‘till death us do part’, and much of life revolves around having and raising children. Now try to imagine a person with a lifespan of 150 years. Getting married at forty, she still has 110 years to go. Will it be realistic to expect her marriage to last 110 years? Even Catholic fundamentalists might baulk at that. So the current trend of serial marriages is likely to intensify. Bearing two children in her forties, she will, by the time she is 120, have only a distant memory of the years she spent raising them – a rather minor episode in her long life. It’s hard to tell what kind of new parent–child relationship might develop under such circumstances.”
The declining trends in marriages only show the dysfunctionality of the conventional ideas we associate with them, which, unfortunately, are the only ideas that enjoy legal recognition. People are merely making meaningful bonds with much more fluidity which has always been our natural course of evolution, i.e., cooperation with flexibility. We now prefer quality and depth of relationships over their length or societal approval, which I believe will only help us evolve for the better again.
The faith in the value of deep commitment and connection is far from over and the death of marriage can never be equated with the death of romance, love, or commitment. The social and anthropological changes we see around the institution of marriage are only the result of having the freedom to be more honest with ourselves, our needs, and to each other. The freedom that Justice Deepak Mishra quoted to be 'who they really are' over what we collectively want to impose on them as a society, is crucial for holistic human development. This generation is only reinventing the concept of marriage in new ways of loving and making connections, be it through non-heterosexual relationships, cohabitation, live-in, sologamy, casual and contractual romantic partnerships, open relationships, polyamory, throuplehood! or even happy and healthy singlehood for life with infinite space for platonic connections!
The institution of marriage has not lost its relevance as the desire to marry, be accepted, and get recognized by society as a couple is still as important for any individual as it has ever been. Marriage is still a promise and a commitment in front of the world to stand by the person and face the world together as long as you are connected with them throughout. A commitment when made in front of a larger audience is more likely to be fulfilled and so is the case with marriage. The problem of the generation I represent with marriages is the 'set template' of the terms of marriage (most of which are still patriarchal, like all the religions of the world) provided to us, which might not suit our needs, desires, and expectations.
Everyone in the post-millennial generation has seen enough number of dull, dysfunctional, distasteful marriages to develop an aversion towards it. I have been fortunate enough to have known and witnessed a few phenomenally beautiful monogamous life-long marital bonds to always remain optimistic about it. Even the set template that different religions, cultures, and communities provide to their stewards can work wonderfully for some. It is just not for everyone and the politics of the world isn't allowing enough innovation on that front. Even the defects we see in marriage can be the accommodations made by the couple to make it work and thus a reform, so that everyone can do it with more honesty and in a legalized way is certainly needed.
The universe of marriages in South Asia and especially in India is yet another narrative of grilling Western influences on individuals under the barbeque of state interferences and community policing (upcoming Part 2), all credits to globalization. We also get to see white brides clad in saree, their foreheads filled with vermillion residing with their Indian in-laws and accepting all the terms that the Indian brides have been resisting all along. Many call it cultural appropriation, but I prefer to call it a globalized self-assertion. All I have to argue is that songs like, "Love in Times of Socialism", " na ye chand hoga, na tare rahenge, magar hum humesha tumhare rahenge" and "Your Heart for takeaway" and "Thousand years" and "Shape of you" and "Flowers" and "How do you sleep when you lie to me" and "Na jao saiyan, chuda ke baiyyan" and "When I am 64" and "Krystal" and "Sau saal pehle" should be legally, socially and politically be allowed in one playlist.
Other References :
Harari, Yuval N., & Harari, Y. N. (2018). Parts on marriage. In Homo Deus: A brief history of Tomorrow. essay, Harper Perennial.
Harari, Yuval Noah. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind (Vol. 1). Vintage Publishing.
Karsit, I. (2023, July 21). Why are people not getting married anymore?. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2023/07/19/why-are-people-not-getting-married-anymore.html#:~:text=Almost%2090%25%20of%20the%20world’s,big%20factors%20here%20in%20play.
Zimmermann, A. C., & Easterlin, R. A. (2006). Happily ever after? cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and happiness in Germany. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2006.00135.x
Bujalka, E., Rich, T., & Bender, S. (2022). The Manosphere as an online protection racket: How the red pill monetizes male need for security in Modern Society. Fast Capitalism, 19(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.32855/fcapital.202201.001
Comments
Post a Comment