The Changing Institution of Marriage
The institution of marriage has gradually changed in today's culture. A marital partnership has preserved the nuclear family. Marriage always had a specific purpose, whether it was for establishing a person's legal, societal, or financial stability, legalizing their relationship or procreation, expressing their love in public, fulfilling their religious obligations, or obtaining citizenship. Despite the fact that marriage has many benefits, one of its main goals was having and rearing children. A man and a lady were wed in this union. However, in more recent times, roles have altered, which has caused the structure of marriage to disintegrate. Women have become more empowered unlike in the past, and they see no need to having to depend or rather bow down to a man. This has made cohabiting a healthier choice for the modern generation which contrasts with the convention family set up. Increases in the divorce rates have negatively hampered the views on marriage. Two social scientists, James Q. Wilson, and Cherlin have presented their views in their respective passages, and this paper is going to critically analyze their perspectives.
Analysis of James Q. Wilson's Views on Cohabitation
In his book, "Cohabitation Instead of Marriage," James Wilson tries to persuade the audience on the importance of the institution of marriage. He asserts that cohabitation is the defilement of the marriage and its impact on the society. Wilson states that Americans have found a way of raising a family in an alternate way rather than the known traditional way. Wilson may have presented his views on the negative impacts of cohabitation; however, he falls short in his delivery, does not have opposing views from a person cohabiting with someone and additionally adds political bias in work. In spite of his poor delivery, however, his main intent is to explain how cohabitation negatively impacts the family unit (Wilson, 2008). The title of his passage is actually contradictory as the reader would assume that he is pro cohabitation.
The Detrimental Effects of Cohabitation
Most of Wilson tactics are straightforward which can negatively impact his argument. For instance, he claims, "Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve." (432). He attempts to convince they audiences o go with his viewpoint. Poor delivery as stated previously and lack of proper function and language hinders the audience’s comprehension of his arguments (Wilson, 2008). His tone of voice at times might sound patronizing especially to those in cohabitation. By contrasting the ideal family with that of those of cohabiting couple, he supports his hypothesis that marriage is very important albeit giving very minimal proof to back his point. Wilson is very spiteful of cohabitation as it is seen in the first paragraphs of this passage and he asserts his opinion throughout the passage.
The Importance of Marriage
He claims that if marriage is intended to permit people to stick together and form family, then there is no need of looking for help from the outside. Even though there are child care services as well as other places where individuals have a specific task to do implying that they can cohabit comfortably, it does not bring about the fulfillment that a nuclear family unit offers. People cohabiting are less likely to invest their emotions or finances into the union (Wilson, 2008). Therefore there is no satisfaction or fulfillment as one might be afraid that the partner might leave them any time. Additionally, there is no legal protection against investment and properties. One partner might just decide to take all the properties leaving the other one bankrupt.
Marriage, on the other hand as Wilson asserts, entails feeling mutually shared by the couple who share a bond and are committed towards one another. He defines marriage as "Marriage is a way of restricting the freedom of people so that investing emotionally and financially in the union makes sense" (430). In this case, trust can easily be built. Divorce is a long strenuous, pricey procedure which can be discouraging and those wanting to dissolve to walk away from marriage might change their mind and decide to work things out (Wilson, 2008). Marriage nurtures love. According to Wilson, for a majority of the cohabiting couples, each has their own bank accounts which tend to lead to separation compared to joint banks account in marital unions. When the finances are combined, no one sees the other as more superior than another.
The Impact on Children
Most families have been substituted by the societal and political viewpoints thus casing families to put invaluable things ahead of the families which result in high divorce rates. Wilson asserts that it is paramount to examine affection and childcare (Wilson, 2008). The problem today is that there are many things that single people can enjoy without necessarily being tied down to a union; therefore they see no need to being in a marriage institution. Marriage offers an excellent platform where children can be raised on. Children are the key focus in Wilson’s arguments. An example is custody, financial matters as well as parenting styles which are a lot easier in a marriage than in the alternative of cohabitation (Wilson, 2008). Additional in cohabitation, children might not meet the extended families.
Conclusion and Critique
Wilson references outside sources to aid in supporting his argument of the importance of marriage in the modern society. He however still acknowledges that marriage continues to degrade and slowly fade and cohabitation is becoming the most preferred alternative. In as much as cohabitation is slowly becoming a trend, it has resulted in many single parents families where children are raised by a single parent mostly the mother (Wilson, 2008). This severely affects the growth of the children as they lack role models to look up to. Wilson’s writing style combined with poor delivery might not be excellent, however; still, he manages to convince the readers of the importance of the institution of marriage. One challenge, however, is that he believes that love correlation can only be successful in a marital union and hence might be perceived as attacking those cohabiting instead of being objective about it. Therefore, some might disregard his opinion.
The Origins of Divorce and Non-Marital Parenthood
In "The Origins of the Ambivalent Acceptance of Divorce," Andrew J. Cherlin respond to Margaret Usdansky’s study on the portrayal of single parent families in the 1990s. Usdansky believed that single parenthood resulting from divorce was more permissible than that resulting from non-marital parenthood. Cherlin believed that even though divorce rates have drastically increased over the years, its elucidation is not complete (Cherlin, 2009). Divorce and non-marital procreation have become prevalent, yet divorce is still frowned upon. This according to Cherlin is as a result of an American tradition of mixed views on divorce, but there is none regarding non-marital child bearing. From a long time ago, there was a stern prohibition of non-marital child bearing; however, divorce also was not sternly prohibited even though it occurred in only a few instances, unlike today.
The History of Divorce Acceptance
Divorce was prohibited in religious organizations such as the Catholic Church; however, martin Luther king stated that even though divorce is unacceptable, it ought to be allowed in two instances such as abandonment or adultery (Cherlin, 2009). A majority of the states still frowned upon divorce. Some wanted the cases to involve mental cruelty and abuse. Therefore, it can be stated that single parenthood resulting from divorce was present all through the American history. Even though many complained about the rising numbers of divorce, it was the necessarily evil that cannot be eliminated in the society (Cherlin, 2009). Cherlin states that this is actually the concept that led to an acceptance of divorce. He states that it was only when California enacted a no fault divorce bylaw in 1969 that nearly all the states adopted the same and therefore a person can obtain a divorce simply when they cite irreconcilable differences, regardless of if the partner consents or not.
Shift in Attitudes Towards Non-Marital Parenthood
Personal wishes additionally gain a lot of importance on other facets of family bylaw like a right to join union with someone, right to rebuff unmerited sexual advances from a partner, freedom from abuse. The emergence of such right impacted the family correlations severely. Cherlin asserts that with time, marriage was viewed from an individualistic viewpoint; therefore it was all about personal satisfaction and growth (Cherlin, 2009). It was acceptable for a person to seek divorce if they are unhappy in their marriage. Looking at the non-marital bearing, on the other hand, it was frowned upon greatly by the society to some extent up to date. In fact, the children born from such circumstances had no legal privileges at all.
The attitude was that children ought to be born in marital union. These children could not receive damages in case of injuries. This stance went on for a long time. It is only in the recent past that non-marital procreation became prevalent. The laws also have shifted and become more tolerant of these children. They now have rights and privileges. Cherlin believes that criticism of non-marital procreation has greatly shifted and the society is now more tolerant and understanding. Both Cherlin and Wilson articulate their views in an understandable manner.
References
Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The origins of the ambivalent acceptance of divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(2), 226-229.
Wilson, J. Q. ( 2008). "Cohabitation Instead of Marriage". Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers. 6th ed. Eds. Mary Lynch Kennedy and Wilson J. .Kennedy. Upper Saddle River: Pearson 429-32.
