Why Marriages Last

This was not the kind of link I expect­ed to get from Slash­dot, but I appre­ci­at­ed it. Very inter­est­ing arti­cle about why mar­riages last.
http://www.aifs.org.au/institute/pubs/parker2.html


Task 1. Sep­a­rat­ing from the fam­i­ly of origin
This chal­lenge requires devel­op­ing an inde­pen­dent unit in which the pri­ma­ry rela­tion­ship is with the spouse and the pri­ma­ry iden­ti­ty is as a hus­band or wife, not a son or daugh­ter. Simul­ta­ne­ous­ly redefin­ing old bound­aries and forg­ing new ones is a dif­fi­cult process, par­tic­u­lar­ly at the out­set of the mar­riage, and one that is like­ly to be re-vis­it­ed at lat­er stages of the mar­riage such as the birth of a child.

Task 2. Build­ing togeth­er­ness and cre­at­ing autonomy
The sense of ‘we-ness’ is the key to a strong mar­riage. It involves cre­at­ing a com­mon view of the mar­riage while at the same time allow­ing room for each spouse to retain some sense of auton­o­my — not in the sense of retain­ing the lifestyle of an indi­vid­ual before mar­riage but in allow­ing each spouse their sense of self as an indi­vid­ual with­in the sphere of the mar­riage. Cou­ples in three of the stud­ies out­lined above (Klags­brun 1985; Lauer and Lauer 1986; Park­er 2000) made spe­cif­ic ref­er­ences to find­ing, main­tain­ing and adjust­ing the bal­ance between indi­vid­ual and cou­ple. A recur­rent theme in these and oth­er stud­ies is that the mar­riage is seen as almost a sep­a­rate enti­ty in and of itself, the needs of which take prece­dence over the spous­es’ indi­vid­ual needs and some­thing for which com­pro­mis­es and sac­ri­fices are worth­while. How­ev­er, if com­pro­mise and sac­ri­fice are inte­gral to achiev­ing a bal­ance between togeth­er­ness and auton­o­my, there must be a shared sense of fair­ness that allows each spouse some degree of gratification.

Task 3. Becom­ing parents
While par­ent­hood was a defin­ing ele­ment of mar­riage for many of the cou­ples in all the stud­ies described in this paper it may not be as salient for many young cou­ples approach­ing mar­riage or new­ly mar­ried. Adding the new role of par­ent brings both pos­i­tive and neg­a­tive changes to the mar­i­tal rela­tion­ship. The chal­lenge from this time for­ward is to bal­ance the needs of the cou­ple rela­tion­ship with the needs of the child — both require nur­tur­ing. As par­tic­i­pants in the Insti­tute’s Mar­i­tal Per­spec­tives Study not­ed, this is increas­ing­ly dif­fi­cult in the cur­rent envi­ron­ment where work­ing long hours is required to advance one’s career or sim­ply to put food on the table. In real­is­ing that each role feeds the oth­er, cou­ples in Waller­stein’s study told how they man­aged to take time out from par­ent­ing to nour­ish the part­ner rela­tion­ship, which they knew would, in turn, nour­ish the par­ent-child rela­tion­ship. Aware­ness of the poten­tial harm in neglect­ing the cou­ple rela­tion­ship, not only to the cou­ple but to their chil­dren’s views of mar­riage, was appar­ent in the dis­cus­sions engaged in by par­tic­i­pants in the Mar­i­tal Per­spec­tives Study.

Task 4. Cop­ing with crises
Whether nor­ma­tive or non-nor­ma­tive, long-term or acute, crises affect each spouse dif­fer­ent­ly and have the poten­tial either to strength­en or erode the mar­riage. The cou­ples Waller­stein inter­viewed (all of whom had expe­ri­enced at least one per­son­al or fam­i­ly tragedy) coped with the tragedies they expe­ri­enced in ways that pro­tect­ed the core rela­tion­ship. They kept the cri­sis in per­spec­tive, con­tain­ing their fears as much as pos­si­ble to the actu­al event rather than allow­ing it and their fear, anger and anx­i­ety to intrude on and over­whelm either their mar­i­tal rela­tion­ship or oth­er parts of their lives. They tried to be real­is­tic about the cri­sis and gath­ered infor­ma­tion to inform their respons­es, acknowl­edg­ing and sup­port­ing (some­times not until a cri­sis had passed) each oth­er’s indi­vid­ual ways of cop­ing. Attribut­ing blame either to them­selves or their spouse was avoid­ed and, just as impor­tant­ly, they tried to pre­vent their spouse from self-blame. Where there were signs of an impend­ing cri­sis (for exam­ple, increas­ing depres­sion or sub­stance use) they took action to pre­vent it or min­imise the effects, not allow­ing a poten­tial­ly dif­fi­cult sit­u­a­tion to get out of hand. And as with many cou­ples in the oth­er stud­ies described in this paper, mak­ing it through crises togeth­er came to be seen as help­ing to fur­ther for­ti­fy the foun­da­tions of the marriage.

Task 5. Mak­ing a safe place for conflict
The mar­riages Waller­stein observed were not with­out con­flict but the spous­es indi­cat­ed that, soon­er or lat­er, they had learned over time that con­flict did not mean the mar­riage was over. The knowl­edge that express­ing anger did not threat­en the mar­riage per se cre­at­ed a space in which spous­es felt safe enough to vent their anger with­in cer­tain agreed para­me­ters. Waller­stein had no evi­dence to lead her to assume these par­tic­u­lar cou­ples were high­ly skilled com­mu­ni­ca­tors; rather they had learned which con­flicts to fight over and which to ignore or accept, and even when fight­ing they remained wary of how their behav­iour was affect­ing their spouse. There were rules that may have been clear­ly artic­u­lat­ed at some point in the rela­tion­ship or that had evolved over time, that reflect­ed the pri­ma­cy of car­ing for the spouse even dur­ing con­flict. One prin­ci­pal rule was that phys­i­cal vio­lence was com­plete­ly unac­cept­able. There was also an aware­ness that attack­ing par­tic­u­lar vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties was unac­cept­able. Con­flict may be an inevitable part of being mar­ried, but cou­ples in Waller­stein’s and oth­er stud­ies stressed the need to be hon­est but tact­ful (for exam­ple, Alford-Coop­er 1998; Lauer and Lauer 1986; Mack­ey and O’Brien 1995).

Task 6. Explor­ing sex­u­al love and intimacy
Sex and inti­ma­cy, either sep­a­rate­ly or togeth­er, played a more or less cen­tral role in the mar­riages of Waller­stein’s par­tic­i­pants, although for some cou­ples there was also an empha­sis on sim­ple touch and affec­tion. Many cou­ples had expe­ri­enced prob­lems in their sex­u­al rela­tion­ship at one time or anoth­er and they spoke can­did­ly of how they had helped each oth­er over­come those dif­fi­cul­ties, evi­dence of the great trust and good­will in these rela­tion­ships. For some cou­ples sex was less impor­tant than the bonds of inti­ma­cy and friend­ship. In Mack­ey and O’Brien’s study, psy­cho­log­i­cal inti­ma­cy was more impor­tant than phys­i­cal inti­ma­cy in their lat­er years. That inti­ma­cy grew over time, based on mutu­al trust, love and under­stand­ing, and deep­ened through shared expe­ri­ences and over­com­ing obsta­cles. In Waller­stein’s study, cou­ples report­ed that their sex life had suf­fered dur­ing times when their lives became more stress­ful, how­ev­er they learned to adapt to the changes in lev­els of desire and activ­i­ty expe­ri­enced by one or both spous­es and gen­er­al­ly it did not become a source of con­flict. While the fre­quen­cy had dimin­ished for most cou­ples as they grew old­er, the excite­ment and enjoy­ment seemed not to have abat­ed at all, espe­cial­ly for those cou­ples whose mar­riages Waller­stein described as ‘roman­tic’.

Task 7. Shar­ing laugh­ter and keep­ing inter­ests alive
The con­tri­bu­tion of humour to a hap­py and last­ing mar­riage is men­tioned so often as to be almost con­sid­ered a giv­en (along with love, trust and respect). Humour pro­vides an emo­tion­al con­nec­tion that goes beyond sim­ply trad­ing jokes. In the every­day light­heart­ed repar­tee in which cou­ples engage there is an inti­ma­cy that strength­ens the bond between them. It is a part of their dai­ly lives to which Waller­stein’s hap­py cou­ples attend­ed, using humour to defuse con­flict and hos­til­i­ty, salve wound­ed egos, or add a spark of play­ful­ness. These cou­ples also expect­ed and pre­pared for change on a range of lev­els. They shared some hob­bies or pas­times and had oth­ers they enjoyed sep­a­rate­ly, both of which help to main­tain their inter­est in each oth­er. Added to their indi­vid­ual engage­ment in the world out­side of their mar­riage, whether in the work­place, edu­ca­tion or some oth­er sphere of life, their sep­a­rate and joint activ­i­ties con­tribute to the sense of know­ing and under­stand­ing anoth­er, and being them­selves known and understood.

Task 8. Pro­vid­ing emo­tion­al nurturance
The mar­riages of the cou­ples in Waller­stein’s study, like those of the par­tic­i­pants in the Mar­i­tal Per­spec­tives Study, pro­vid­ed a haven for each spouse, a place of com­fort and affir­ma­tion. In the sanc­tu­ary of the mar­riage each spouse can find a space to feel and express the full range of emo­tions. These cou­ples had learned over time to suc­cess­ful­ly read their spouse’s moods, their body lan­guage, and had devel­oped respons­es that pro­vid­ed relief, sym­pa­thy, encour­age­ment or sup­port. As par­tic­i­pants in the Mar­i­tal Per­spec­tives Study not­ed, this ’emo­tion­al refu­elling’ can be very dif­fi­cult in a fam­i­ly where there are com­pet­ing demands of two careers and chil­dren. The hap­py cou­ples in Waller­stein’s study devised ways of allow­ing each spouse the time and space to recharge, in the way that worked best for them indi­vid­u­al­ly and as a cou­ple. Joint hol­i­days or time alone, escape from the phone or the chil­dren, or help with work or school assign­ments are some solu­tions they found.

Nur­tur­ing of the spouse was not done with the expec­ta­tion of it being returned in equal mea­sure, for as indi­vid­u­als they would each have dif­fer­ent emo­tion­al needs, nor was it seen as a com­pe­ti­tion in which each kept score. Sim­i­lar­ly, in Alford-Coop­er’s study, cou­ples talked about the need to be pre­pared to give more than receive. Each spouse recog­nised that look­ing after the emo­tion­al needs of their spouse was an inte­gral part of mak­ing the mar­riage work for both of them.

Task 9. Pre­serv­ing a dou­ble vision
‘Dou­ble vision’ refers to the two images of the mar­riage the cou­ples held in their minds: that of images from the past and of the real­i­ties of the present. In sev­er­al of the stud­ies dis­cussed in this paper, cou­ples spoke of mem­o­ries to which they returned reg­u­lar­ly, images that remind­ed them of par­tic­u­lar times or events from their shared his­to­ry, that con­nects their past and present. They were often ide­alised images or mem­o­ries but, as Waller­stein points out, being able to draw on these visions serves to soft­en dis­ap­point­ments and remain opti­mistic when the mar­riage is expe­ri­enc­ing dif­fi­cult times. Hold­ing on to these rosy rec­ol­lec­tions did not mean cou­ples were delud­ing them­selves about the real­i­ty of their spouse and their mar­riage, but for some cou­ples the bond pro­vid­ed by their shared past kept them from tak­ing steps to end the mar­riage (Alford- Coop­er 1998). Part­ners’ views of their spous­es remained cog­nisant of their flaws as well as their strengths, but the dual vision was cru­cial to main­tain­ing the marriage.

Cyn is Rick's wife, Katie's Mom, and Esther & Oliver's Mémé. She's also a professional geek, avid reader, fledgling coder, enthusiastic gamer (TTRPGs), occasional singer, and devoted stitcher.
Posts created 4241

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top