Marriage is one of the fundamentally important aspects of any nation’s development. While particular individuals have a distinct and differentiated definition of marriage, the general tendency might always be traced throughout the sociological analysis. Many sciences, such as economy or law, significantly influenced the modification of marriage in any country, especially in the U.S. However, sociological studies played a pivotal role in defining the main tendencies of marriage as a social institute development from the end of World War II to the current realities.
On the one hand, the main differences are spotted in the same-sex couples’ legislative procedures. While in the 1950s, having LGBTQ relationships was prohibited on both social and legal levels, in today’s world, same-sex couples are protected from social criticism as never (Regnerus, 2020). Moreover, many people are encouraged by their freedom of choice even though the marriage institute has experienced a significant decrease in its stable development. These dynamics lead to the other explicit trend: single-parent families (Regnerus, 2020). The general income level has positively changed, but the work pressure demonstrated an even more dramatic increase. Consequently, many people decided to stay alone since they did not have enough time for marriage and further raising children. In particular, this tendency is demonstrated more specifically in the business-concentrated regions, such as New York or California.
On the other hand, the second tendency, cohabitation, is by far the most affected aspect of marriage institute. While analyzing the after-war tendencies, it becomes clear that some particular factors influenced the general dynamics, which might be considered as the application of sociological perspective into practice. More specifically, in the 1950s, the U.S. society became known for experiencing a baby-booming trend due to the high density of marriages after the long period of war. In addition, the economic policy made it possible for the USA citizens to buy a multi-room house for a reasonable price. These two aspects explicitly influenced young couples to give birth to more children and unite with their ancestors to share the costs of living. Even though this practice brought some difficulties in terms of joint cohabitation, the extended family had a significant advantage concerning the possibility of raising the offspring representatives (Regnerus, 2020). When compared to these days’ tendencies, the current cohabitation is characterized by nuclear family living. This is due to the fact that low-interest rates gave the opportunity for a cheap mortgage, while the general level of financial freedom has significantly augmented so that there is no need for cost-sharing.
For instance, I live in a common house with my two monogamous parents and two brothers. Our family has explicitly characterized bilateral descent, which is also a common practice in today’s realities. On the contrary, one of my friends has a more exceptional family structure. He lives in an extended polygyny family, which is the polygamy brunch, characterized by the one man who has two or more wives. Even though it is illegal and incorrect from society’s perspective, the family does not have problems since they have unilateral descent, provoked by some fictive same-sex marriages, which is legally possible in certain states. However, it is impossible to derive the general tendency from two different examples. On the contrary, sociologists use logical and statistical approaches to correctly define countrywide tendencies from the set of particular cases, representing the importance of applying sociological perspective correctly into practice.
Reference
Regnerus, M. (2020). The Future of Christian Marriage. Oxford University Press.