Introduction
The future of marriage evokes concerns of scholars who are trying to predict the trends. However, among the most common consequences of societal shifts in this regard, only several ways of its development are highlighted. Some people believe that it will either become similar to the traditional institutions of the beginning of the twentieth century, whereas others claim a high probability of its complete disappearance as a social arrangement (Cherlin, 2004). Meanwhile, these outcomes imply a drastic change in citizens’ perceptions and needs, whereas the progress in this area is relatively gradual. Therefore, the most likely path of development of marriage is its survival but in a different form.
Justification of the Stance
The principal factor contributing to this stance is the inevitability of a transition in the perspectives of men and women. According to scholars, institutional marriage is being replaced by companionate marriage, and the importance of personal choice and self-development is emphasized by present-day young adults (Charlin, 2004). These two circumstances reflect the same process, which is a gradual shift in the nature of families and their structure, rather than pose a threat to their existence. The former means the significance of new values, whereas the latter implies the orientation on self rather than partners. Nevertheless, none of these circumstances are sufficient for claiming that marriage can be destroyed as such.
Another condition explaining the likelihood of the shift in the meaning and form of this institution is the fact that some of the values underpinning it remain intact. For example, economic gains stemming from it and the fear of abandonment are still present in the decision-making process of people. Indeed, childbearing does not require one to be married these days (Charlin, 2004). However, it still allows parents to increase the chances for their offspring’s well-being when they combine their efforts in terms of financial matters (Hackman, 2018). In addition, the mental health of citizens significantly depends on their ability to rely on partners, which is better ensured in a marriage.
Evidence from Research on Non-Monogamy
The likely survival of marriage can be explained from the point of view of the evolution of relationship patterns, which, however, do not necessarily mean a negative outcome in this relation. For instance, at present, the notion of non-monogamy is connected not to one model but a variety of forms attributed to communication in couples (Sheff, 2014). People can demonstrate the preferences of polygamy, open relationships, swinging, polyamory, or polyfidelity in contrast to classical monogamy (Sheff, 2014). Nevertheless, there is no proof that their emergence affects the institution of marriage in any way. Since financial dependence and the desire to satisfy psychological needs are present in all of these types of families, it is likely to survive but be modified.
Moreover, the rules and guidelines, which structure the lives of married couples are applicable to the identified kinds of non-monogamy. Thus, swingers and polyamorists, as representatives of the so-called relationship anarchy, tend to resolve conflicts and manage affairs together, and they also deal with the hardships of ending relationships (Sheff, 2014). Even though they do not distinguish between friendships and romantic ties, the same mechanism works for these people, and it also contributes to the survival of marriage in different forms.
People’s Needs in Marriage
The high probability of the survival of this institution derives from the fact that it implies not only sex but also a number of other details connecting people. As follows from recent research, new sexual norms cannot replace it because there are various overlapping reasons for getting married (Hackman, 2018). Its participants viewed marriage as a partnership or almost a business as it included children and economic issues (Hackman, 2018). Consequently, its perception as a global project satisfying the needs of all parties indicates the chances for the existence of marriage, even though it is likely to be aligned with the shifting needs of citizens.
Meanwhile, a growing trend for young people to postpone this decision as long as possible is frequently misinterpreted. According to researchers, it is explained not by their attempts to devalue the significance of marriage as an institution but by the desire to avoid the mistakes of their parents (Hackman, 2018). Numerous divorces common for the previous generations led to the increase in the awareness of their children regarding the accompanying responsibilities, whereas this understanding does not eliminate the importance of pursuing common goals and mutual care.
Conclusion
In conclusion, even with consideration of the specificities of living in the age of individualism, the institution of marriage is unlikely to be completely destroyed since the underlying motivation of people remains the same. Their decisions in this regard are still guided by the desire to satisfy various psychological needs and gain economic benefits. These advantages can vary among population groups and citizens with non-traditional preferences in relationships, but they cannot be devalued. In turn, the modifications in these aspects do not necessarily mean a threat of the deinstitutionalization of marriage anticipated by scholars. Thus, the continuation of the current trend of changing patterns of romantic ties is more likely than the reemergence of traditional marriage or its dying as a social arrangement.
References
Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848-861. Web.
Hackman, A. (2018). Is marriage really on the decline because of men’s cheap access to sex? The Guardian. Web.
Sheff, E. A. (2014). 7 different kinds of non-monogamy. Psychology Today. Web.