This thoughtful guest post is provided by Joseph A. Kohm, III, Regent Law 2L, current Family Law student, and former RSG Oxford program student.
What directs a person most when determining whom they are
going to marry? Understanding and manipulating these underlying directions is
the key to restoring many virtues to society. What drives matrimonial decisions
may be how each party perceives utility; this makes a society’s concept of
utility critical to creating good marriages.
Charles Wheelan makes eminently
clear through his book Naked Economics
that individuals are driven by what they believe will maximize their utility,
or their happiness. Charles Wheelan, Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science (2002).
Consequently, marriage has always been a method of maintaining and increasing
our happiness, and therefore our utility. Perhaps this seems self-evident, but
what has changed about marriage is how we define our utility.
Two concepts of utility through
marriage are most helpful in this context: financial stability and romantic
love. Jane Austen’s beloved works illustrate this well, but none do so better
than Pride and Prejudice. Austen
accomplishes this by giving the character of Elizabeth Bennet a fierce
conviction that she will not marry without affection. In holding fast to this
conviction despite the lure of family and fortune stability through a marriage
to the absurd Mr. Collins, Lizzy is shown to be a drastic anomaly to the
popular ideas and purposes for utility in marriage of her time. Austen expertly
illustrates her society’s ideas of utility by giving her readers an exception
to those ideas and then showing the ridicule that such an anomaly would be
exposed to, even from her own family. Jane Austen, Pride & Prejudice (1813).
Research today shows that women still consider a man’s financial
stability to be one of
the most important factors in their determination of his marriageability, while
romantic love is generally the stronger driving force in marriage utility. In
today’s Western world, and increasingly in the Eastern world as well, romantic
passion is generally the chief driving force behind matrimonial decisions.
Women have increasingly gained more rights (rightfully so) since Austen’s
time. This increase in women’s liberty
is something to be celebrated. What has been lost, however, is the fact that
each increase in liberty for any group brings with it an increased price of
internal and external vigilance and responsibility. The West has linked
romantic love with sexual satisfaction, and the family has potentially been put
on the altar as payment. We seem to have hung marriage and the family itself on
the constantly and wildly swinging pendulum of our present desires. The utility
created through happiness in marriage has failed to maintain a strong sense of responsibility
which fosters virtues and family strength.
Western culture’s linking of marriage to sexual gratification can also
work to equate sexual frustration with marriage failure. This is consequently
the reason why so many couples are having sexual relations prior to marriage:
they want to be sure that their potential spouse can sexually gratify them
before they commit to what could be a lifetime with that person. Admittedly, it
is not improper to seek sexual gratification in one’s marriage. The error has
come in that we have hung all of marriage on what is essentially only one piece
of a very large pizza pie. In fact, sex is simply one (very wonderful) slice of
a glorious pie designed for us by our Creator.
There are of course, other
significant pieces of the “marriage pie,” but the essential point is that people
need to derive and shape the utility they get from marriage based on God’s
precepts and design, and not from anything culture dictates. Culture emphasizes
sexual fulfillment at the expense of quite literally everything else, including
other people. God, by contrast, opens one’s eyes to the reality of all the glory
and satisfaction that marriage can be. Young people need to work for this
perspective and base their matrimonial decisions on it. Financial stability is
a great thing to consider when making marriage decisions. So is physical
attractiveness. However, the only lasting and meaningful solution that will
allow us to properly comprehend the purposes of marriage and derive our utility
from it is a relationship with God.
Each person is able to determine the utility he or she
derives from marriage. With that ability comes the responsibility to properly
derive from marriage the utility that God had designed for us to enjoy in
matrimony. Through this proper utility, the sanctity of sexuality can be
restored and the full glory of marriage realized.
So what really directed Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy in their marriage decision? I will leave that for you to decide – for them and for yourself.
Excellent post. You said, “The utility created through happiness in marriage has failed to maintain a strong sense of responsibility which fosters virtues and family strength.” Well said. I agree that we enter marriage in hope and expectation that we will find happiness. But, as a Christian, I believe marriage and a family is also the place where God leads us to die to self. When expectations are not met, do we cut and run? Or do we stick it out based on real commitment? The disciples believed in a Messiah, but there idea of him and God’s idea were different things. They were ready to take up swords. Jesus called them to lay down their lives for a greater purpose and a more lasting, eternal kingdom. Likewise, I think marriage, and anything God call us to in life, must be tempered with the reality that things may not always work out as we planned, but, if we follow Him, as God plans, and God’s plans are better.
ReplyDelete