Top of a Portis - "It Could Be Sweet"

I've rediscovered some music on my computer. Actually, I had no idea it was on my computer. Thus, like so many others, I decided to go through and take a listen. I found myself surfing on the cool croons of Portishead's Dummy album. There are a few songs on that album that resonate deep in my chest. Today, nothing is more perfect than 'It Could Be Sweet'

My father recently attended a lecture about Gen Xers in churches. The information, though applied to churches in that setting, could be applied to any and all. Gen Xers are low on the commitment scale. They are cautious when considering marriage, and are much more comfortable in a co-habitation arrangement. Gen Yers are even more so. Why is this the case? Well, as time has gone on, the family unit has become exponentially less stable. About 50% of all marriages end in divorce. And of course, when you're on your second or third marriage, you are increasing your chances of ANOTHER divorce.

Then people wonder why commitment levels are so low?! It's not just the institution of marriage that comes into question, but all institutions. Skepticism is high, and blind acceptance of established structure - extremely low. But for the purposes of my thoughts, let us stay on the marriage concept, because I am fascinated by it.

Marriage is one of the only universal institutions. Ergo, there is a major reason for the thing. As anthropologists would tell us, most institutions are created to exist in a particular cultural context - they don't move across cultures. So what is the purpose of marriage?

Well, there are a few reasons.

1) Children: Children need a stable environment. Take one look at my and my younger brother's generations and you'll see why. We're a couple of psychological messes as generations. Stability makes the difference. With two adult role models (ideally one male, one female should be present so children can learn how to interact with both sexes - though I would argue that these can be substituted by other family members and/or family friends) children learn how to act in the world.

2) Economics: It was only recently that love came into the picture. Love as a purpose for marriage, is over-rated and frankly, quite mythical. Traditionally, marriage has been seen as a merging of families. It was a way to pass on inheritances as well as an conduit for 'national' or 'communal' stability within kingdoms, fiefdoms, and the like. Economics remains a purpose for marriage. Just replay some of your mother's favorite marriage lecture - 'Oh! That family is wealthy. They own property in X country and in Y county. Their son/daughter is around your age, cute, AND single....'

3) Class maintenance: I think this deserves a separate segment, though it is definitely related to the above (However, we now have the strange class of academics who are poor yet know their silverware, and classless New Money who care not whether they expose themselves to tabloid ridicule. It is for this reason I have a separate category.).
This one is a sore subject for Americans, but it is, absolutely true. It is a BIG no-no to marry across class lines. We have some beautiful Hollywood movies telling us it is possible, but I must confess, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Summa cum laudes do not marry cum laudes. It is more acceptable for like to marry like. The son of a mechanic does not often marry the daughter of a lawyer. It's just not done. Of course, beauty can help you go across class lines, and will certainly sway some parents a little, but charisma and knowledge of the use of the shrimp fork will carry you MUCH further.

3b)Cultural maintenence could be tagged in here as well - religion, ethnic custom, language...
These are all aspects that could come under these maintenence categories.

4) Love/companionship: I don't think that love is an adequate reason for marriage, especially when using the word in the 'lust' or 'attraction' sense. Long term attachment, or companionship, is a reasonable purpose in marriage if it is combined with one of the above. I say this because, although modern mythical love is 'all you need,' mythical love is just that- a myth. It is not enough to maintain a house, a family, or other practical considerations. Long-term attachment combined with the desire to raise children, class maintenence, or economic interdependence is much more practical, and much more of a stable institution.

So, what's all this talk about marriage? What does it have to do with that Portishead song? Honestly, I am a romantic at heart. I am easily swept up in the idea of that mythical love - I've been raised on it. Disney was my visual milk-bottle as a little girl. I've had my share of boyfriends. And I've gone through and thought 'yeah... I could spend my life with this one' based on the idea of mythical love. If attraction was enough to sustain a relationship, I could have been married several times over. Yet, this is not the case. I remain attached to one particular man, despite attempts to thwart this attachment (I hesitate to say, on both sides). And as life would have it, distance prevents a greater exploration of this relationship at this time. In fact, I would speculate that on his side, the commitment is light and extremely wary, because as I stated before - it was thwarted for many reasons in several instances.

I am, though a Gen Xer/Yer (1982), a product of a happy 30+ year marriage, and he is likewise. These kinds of long term commitments are becoming more rare - especially when considering our dads have been present our entire lives. I'm not saying that I'll be marrying this guy, because that would be fool-hardy. But as a product of a healthy marriage, I look longingly into the relationship landscape for a shade of real commitment in a person who I can genuinely like, with whom I can spend oodles of time and not be absolutely annoyed by the sight of them. It would help if they also knew how to fix small appliances, moderate plumbing, and basic car issues.