Chronosynclastic Infundibulum

Given that marriage is an institution of great importance across many (if not all) cultures, it is not unreasonable to expect some sort of a definition of marriage. Ironically, anthropologists are yet to agree on such a definition! So when I am told that its time I got married, I am genuinely confused as to what exactly does that entail. Of course, it does not help that the institution itself has been constantly changing over time (Here is a hypertext document that tracks such changes in the western hemisphere, and in the east, especially India, marriage has undergone many changes ranging from abolition of the Sati practice; legalization of marriage across caste and religion; and the change in the inheritance and alimony laws). So my query is the following: What exactly is the institution of marriage?

The it-is-how-you-choose-to-interpret-the-term answer to the foregoing question is (1) a cop-out, (2) an unsatisfying response, and (3) exposes an inherent flaw in the nature of the institution. Yes, marriage, much like other institutions created by humans is flawed, and the way I see it, it is flawed in a very interesting way. This flaw was not problematic for a very long time in the human society, but I think the cracks are beginning to widen right about now in the human history. But what do I mean by that? I have given you two (potentially provocative) sentences with no information in them. Although I would like to expand on my conjecture, I cannot do it without proving you with a background on what I view Marriage to be. So this post will focus on my view of the institution of Marriage, and a future post will defend my position that marriage itself is flawed (but not in an irredeemable fashion).

The institution of marriage, in my opinion, has conflated three different, but related, institutions: (1) a personal institution, denoted pMarriage, (2) a social institution, denoted sMarriage, and (3) a legal institution, denoted lMarriage. A lot of the hoopla about the disintegration of Marriage in the society is, I think, because we have not been able to understand how these three institutions interact to maintain Marriage. Let me define these three institutions before proceeding further.

• pMarriage: A personal institution.
  • In general terms, a personal institution is one that exists solely within the confines of the participating individuals. It can be viewed as a personal contract between the two people. pMarriage is a specific form of personal institution that has romantic and/or sexual component in the personal contract to which the participating individuals have affirmed. Note that many marriages carry pMarriage within them; and Marriages in which pMarriage has ceased to exist are often termed ‘loveless’ marriages. These are marriages that are ‘surviving’ on sMarriage (the social institution) and/or lMarriage (the legal institution) alone. Such Marriages are common in societies where divorce carries a social stigma.
  • But can pMarriage exists in isolation? If so, then can it still be called a marriage? The answers are ‘yes’, and ‘no’, respectively. We have many terms to describe pMarriage (in isolation) depending on the specifics of the contract within each instance. Popular examples of pMarriage are couples who are ‘just dating’ (Note that this does not include couples who are in a ‘committed ‘ relationship, because that includes the social institution sMarriage) and ‘friends with benefits‘. The more unpopular examples of pMarriage are extramarital affairs and emotional affairs. Note that in none of the foregoing examples would you consider the individuals ‘married’.
• sMarriage: A social institution.
  • In general terms, a social institution is one that plays a role in maintaining the stability of the society. There is tendency of equate Marriage and sMarriage simply because Marriage is often seen as a social institution with legal support for its perpetuity. sMarriage can be seen as a contract in which the individuals within the marriage (specifically, sMarriage) present themselves, and are seen by other members of the society as, a unified entity. Clearly, many Marriages embed sMarriage within them. But this may not be the case in all Marriages. A classic example of a Marriage devoid of sMarriage is couples who are ‘separated’. Note that couples who are separated often do not have pMarriage between them either (their Marriage is often just the legal institution of lMarriage, and for social purposes they are seen as divorced, but for legal purposes, they are still viewed as being married).
  • Now, can sMarriage exist without pMarriage? It seems very unlikely that individuals in the social institution would not be in a personal institution as well. However, there are cases where this could be true. For example, you could have individuals of opposite sex who are both gay (and still in the closet about it) and marry each other because they are tried of everyone in the family setting them up with ‘potential’ spouses. This placates the families because the families see the sMarriage (in conjunction with the legal institution of lMarriage) as Marriage, and it allows the individuals to pursue their own personal institutions of pMarriage with different individuals. I could give you a more common example of an individual marrying someone due to family pressure while having an affair with someone else, but in this case the status of pMarriage between the married couple is unclear and I’d rather not muddy the waters here. I am trying to get a concept across here, not the nuances.
  • We saw how sMarriage could exist without pMarriage, but in the example I gave, sMarriage was ‘propped’ up by the legal institution of lMarriage. A natural question is: can sMarriage exist in isolation then? I think it could, but I cannot substantiate it with hard evidence. One such situation could be the following: In orthodox and conservative societies, it is plausible for two individuals who are married, to has irreconcilable differences, get a divorce, but for the sake of the children and the extended family (i.e. the social stigma), continue to live together and be a ‘family’. Here is an example (albeit fictitious, at least to my knowledge) where pMarriage and lMarriage (the legal contract of Marriage dissolves with a divorce) no longer exists, but sMarriage continues to thrive in isolation.
• lMarriage: A legal institution.
  • lMarriage, is perhaps, the easiest one to understand. lMarriage is the legal marriage contract signed between two individual that grants them certain rights and responsibilities (unless explicitly forbidden under a prenuptial agreement). Such rights and responsibilities include inheritance, visitation rights, tax exemptions, alimony, entitlement as ‘next of kin‘, and such.
  • lMarriage is often used to recognize Marriage in the contrapositive. That is, you might not be necessarily perceived as ‘married’ if you are in an lMarriage (e.g. you are separated from your spouse), but are defined perceived as ‘NOT married’ if you are NOT in an lMarriage. Needless to say, an individual could be in an lMarriage with some person regardless of whether or not the individual is in a pMarriage or an sMarriage with that same person. In other words, lMarriage could exist in isolation, or in combination with pMarriage and/or sMarriage.

While I admit that I may not be completely accurate in my characterization of Marriage, I think this is yet a useful tool to understanding the institution. However, this does raise many questions. For instance, when you say that you are ‘married’, which institution(s) are you referring to? All three? Only a subset? A more nuanced and difficult question to answer is: when would you consider a marriage to have failed? Often, the success or failure of a marriage is determined solely bases on the integrity of the lMarriage within the Marriage. In fact, this forms the basis for the argument that Indian marriages (often arranged) are more successful than marriages in the west. What about the role of Marriage towards fostering a healthier individual and a healthier society? How successful are today’s marriages in this regard?

On more question to end this post. Has our conflation of multiple institutions into a single institution of Marriage contributed to the continual failure of Marriage as perceived by many [here, here, and here], and if so, then does treating Marriage as a combination of multiple institutions enable it to be adapted and morphed according to changing needs of the society and thereby continue to be successful and relevant?