I posted a piece on the Jennifer Wilbanks ho-ha over at Blogsisters.
But if y'all don't want to read that one, here's the gist of it....
Most people don't get that marriage isn't just about proclaiming your undying love for another individual and living happily ever after. It is a huge social contract between families, friends and the community at large (the socio/political community and the community of faith, if you have one of those too).
I think Jennifer Wilbanks, whose fiance's father is a former mayor of Duluth, GA and whose wedding would have been attended by 600 people, got this little fact on some level and completely freaked out.
From a personal perspective (and not on the Blogsisters post)I never got the fact that marriage is a social contract until after I'd had friends from India (where weddings can last for days and be attended by thousands) and I studied Social Ethics. By that time I had two marriages under my belt and no idea why (although I knew how) they ended in divorce.
I never understood the whole idea of social contract because I was fixated on the idea of love. I'd never seen love in my home and I thought I'd found something my parents never had. I thought things with me would be different than it was with them--where there was no love at all, but some strange business arrangement and psychological co-dependency built upon massive layers of guilt.
I desired love, marriage and stability so much that I completely overlooked the overarching social contract that I was entering into--and the amount of stress and strain that social contract can put on the love that is purported to be the basis of modern marriage (love wasn't the basis for many centuries).
I thought my marriages would be different, that we could have a life together where we could be whomever we wanted to be, however we wanted to be it. While I wasn't in the first marriage long enough to freak, I was in the second one long enough to do so. One day it hit me about the social contract, and I thought I was going to die. I had to work that one thru in therapy, and became this all-sacrificing wonder woman, who burnt out at 33 and became the complete door-mat because I felt that it was my responsibility to support my husband.
Because there initially was no leader, I became the de-facto leader.
Knowing how much both my husbands allowed me to lead them, I understand, too, how my not totally knowing the social contract aspect of marriage worked into their ability to forget the social contract.
I don't blame myself totally though. They had opportunities to consider that marriage is a social contract, and didn't, and neither sets of in-laws bothered to mention it to my prospective ex-husbands--even though that's kind of what they're supposed to do to help newly marrieds.
I've been changed alot both by my studies and by my marriages....
So, as I see it now, the way my life is constituted--my inability to support myself, my free-wheeling nature, my a-politicalness, my wifty 'spiritual' ways that cause people to see me as a "beautiful spirit" who exists on nothing more than air, and the like--leaves me not well-suited for taking on the commitment of a social contract such as marriage. It leaves me with a sense of instability, like I'm living on shifting sands; a sense that I'll never be truly loved by anyone because I make no sense and am not practical in any way, and the fear that, because of this, I might die alone.
Yet I still return to the fact that there was never an example of the kind of love that could make an enduring social contract last, comfortably, into old age and raise children to be productive members of society (rather than vultures waiting to feast on their inheritance). There were battles and hatreds and fears and guilt shoring up a structure that was built on two people who had no social standing in their communities or within their respective families.
I did not want that for myself. But what I envisioned was itself built on nothing more than air and fairy stories.
So, while I feel quite sad right now, I don't blame myself for not running out like Jennifer Wilbanks did. I followed thru with those marriages, even though they were doomed because neither my husbands nor myself completely understood the social contract aspect of marriage. Perhaps I should have run away, but I wanted to see what would happen--I wanted to know if I could find love and live happily ever after (or some semblance thereof).
Well, I've learned that a marriage is somewhat more like a business than I ever understood it to be, and that maybe I'm not a very good businesswoman. I've learned that even though my motives for establishing long-term relationships come from a very good place in my heart they can't nourish a relationship over the very long haul.
I'm just not cut out for this marriage thing. Probably neither is Jennifer Wilbanks.
But if y'all don't want to read that one, here's the gist of it....
Most people don't get that marriage isn't just about proclaiming your undying love for another individual and living happily ever after. It is a huge social contract between families, friends and the community at large (the socio/political community and the community of faith, if you have one of those too).
I think Jennifer Wilbanks, whose fiance's father is a former mayor of Duluth, GA and whose wedding would have been attended by 600 people, got this little fact on some level and completely freaked out.
From a personal perspective (and not on the Blogsisters post)I never got the fact that marriage is a social contract until after I'd had friends from India (where weddings can last for days and be attended by thousands) and I studied Social Ethics. By that time I had two marriages under my belt and no idea why (although I knew how) they ended in divorce.
I never understood the whole idea of social contract because I was fixated on the idea of love. I'd never seen love in my home and I thought I'd found something my parents never had. I thought things with me would be different than it was with them--where there was no love at all, but some strange business arrangement and psychological co-dependency built upon massive layers of guilt.
I desired love, marriage and stability so much that I completely overlooked the overarching social contract that I was entering into--and the amount of stress and strain that social contract can put on the love that is purported to be the basis of modern marriage (love wasn't the basis for many centuries).
I thought my marriages would be different, that we could have a life together where we could be whomever we wanted to be, however we wanted to be it. While I wasn't in the first marriage long enough to freak, I was in the second one long enough to do so. One day it hit me about the social contract, and I thought I was going to die. I had to work that one thru in therapy, and became this all-sacrificing wonder woman, who burnt out at 33 and became the complete door-mat because I felt that it was my responsibility to support my husband.
Because there initially was no leader, I became the de-facto leader.
Knowing how much both my husbands allowed me to lead them, I understand, too, how my not totally knowing the social contract aspect of marriage worked into their ability to forget the social contract.
I don't blame myself totally though. They had opportunities to consider that marriage is a social contract, and didn't, and neither sets of in-laws bothered to mention it to my prospective ex-husbands--even though that's kind of what they're supposed to do to help newly marrieds.
I've been changed alot both by my studies and by my marriages....
So, as I see it now, the way my life is constituted--my inability to support myself, my free-wheeling nature, my a-politicalness, my wifty 'spiritual' ways that cause people to see me as a "beautiful spirit" who exists on nothing more than air, and the like--leaves me not well-suited for taking on the commitment of a social contract such as marriage. It leaves me with a sense of instability, like I'm living on shifting sands; a sense that I'll never be truly loved by anyone because I make no sense and am not practical in any way, and the fear that, because of this, I might die alone.
Yet I still return to the fact that there was never an example of the kind of love that could make an enduring social contract last, comfortably, into old age and raise children to be productive members of society (rather than vultures waiting to feast on their inheritance). There were battles and hatreds and fears and guilt shoring up a structure that was built on two people who had no social standing in their communities or within their respective families.
I did not want that for myself. But what I envisioned was itself built on nothing more than air and fairy stories.
So, while I feel quite sad right now, I don't blame myself for not running out like Jennifer Wilbanks did. I followed thru with those marriages, even though they were doomed because neither my husbands nor myself completely understood the social contract aspect of marriage. Perhaps I should have run away, but I wanted to see what would happen--I wanted to know if I could find love and live happily ever after (or some semblance thereof).
Well, I've learned that a marriage is somewhat more like a business than I ever understood it to be, and that maybe I'm not a very good businesswoman. I've learned that even though my motives for establishing long-term relationships come from a very good place in my heart they can't nourish a relationship over the very long haul.
I'm just not cut out for this marriage thing. Probably neither is Jennifer Wilbanks.
posted by Tish Grier at 3:34 PM
4 Comments:
So many young people get caught up in the romance, I believe, in part, because of the Wedding Industry. Yes, there's a HUGE Wedding Industry that makes its money by driving people nuts with the mantras of "It's *your* wedding!" and "It's *your* special day!" Yes, it's a special day, but it's also the beginning of a new life. The Wedding Industry's hyper-focus on The Day makes everything after something of a downer.
If you've raised caution to your son, that's a very good thing! (regardless of his pooh-poohing of it)
Marriage conveys position and social status to both men and women, and both give up something in the process. My interactions with Lucky Bastard, and with others over the year, both as friends and lovers, has shown me this. There is safety and stability in marriage, but there are limits to personal growth. Yet I feel not everyone needs the growth that some others of us might.
beautifully stated, Ed. you definitely capture the way in which marriage goes far beyond just the two individuals and into the respecive families.
Funny observation, too, on my "gender neutral" language re how the wedding industry markets its wares. Since I'm one of the many *yous* in those pitches, I tend to forget that they are disproportionately aimed at women. (and noted, too, how men's magazines steer their messages around how to get *out* of relationships before they even get to the point of marriage)
A very important point you allude to is how divorce pulls apart entire families. While the philosophies around divorce often speak exclusively about the two who no longer want to be married, there are so many casualties in a divorce. Between both divorces and the break-up of a live in relationship, I feel like I have made and destroyed three separate households. Torched them, like one burns bridges. I lost not just pots, pans and linens, but friends and familial relationships. While some of the family members I could care less about, I miss the friends. When I look at pictures, it's like looking at pictures of the dead. For me, there is little continuity between my old life and the life I have now. It's kind of creepy and unsettling.
Tish,
Oh my gosh I can SO identify with what you are saying, (and a lot of other things you say as well my dear)...
I was so innundated with going to weddings right after my breakup I thought I was going to die (I mean it was actually painful to me to attend these ceremonies). It was though the best medicine in some ways for me - because with tow of the weddings, I witnessed a marriage of equals - both were mature couples - second time around for 3 of the involved parties...
I have to tell you that that's when it hit me - that I had it right in my first marriage (and somehow *I* blew it) - but it was all wrong with my last marriage - and that was precisely BECAUSE he had no clue whatsoever about the social contract involved....he didn't get the family thing at all - hell he didn't get the responsiblility thing at all....
I too am sad these days, thinking I will never again find a partner I can live out my days with...but too many (men and women) I speak to (myself included) would probably never marry again - yet somehow I don't think there is anything wrong with that....
Perhaps between us (the blog sisters and sisters of the world in general out there) - we can carve out a new niche for relationships - give it a whole new feel and perhaps a whole new destiny for us all.
*hugs*
Colette
I've always been the hopeless romantic and, at one time, I had absolutely no doubt that I would be a wife and mother.
Now, here I am at 53, single and childless.
Right at this time in my life, I think that it's best that things turned out this way, because I have so many things going on in my life that I need the freedom that comes with being single.
Yet, had I married and had a family, I would have loved that, too, and never would have felt trapped or held back--that is, if I married a man who respected me as an individual.
I agree with what you said at the sisters blog that the townspeople weren't so much mad at her because she wasted their time and money but, instead, because she didn't accept this romantic dream of a lifetime called marriage.
Let me take that a step further to say that the people might have even been jealous of her. Perhaps, some of those women wished that they had been that courages and had really listened to their hearts when they were still single.
Perhaps, the men felt threatened because Jennifer might set some kind of example/give some kind of message that women had other choices besides "settling" for marriage.
On the other hand, everybody might have simply felt threatened by the fact that someone had stepped out of the confines of the community box and dared to be different.
One thing that bugs me is that she went to a mental hospital.
I don't have anything against mental hospitals in a blanket sort of way, because I think that, if the right things go on there, they can do people a lot of good.
There are people (e.g. pedophiles, serial killers, etc.) who need to be in a place where they don't pose a danger to others or themselves--and there are milder reasons why people could use confinement somewhere (e.g. kicking a drug or alcohol habit without distraction/temptation; becoming unsuicidal).
What I'm afraid of in Jennifer's case is this: She is in a mental health facility getting chemically-lobotomized by nasty pills such as thorazine and navane so that she will be "cured" by being "Stepfordized" into someone now ready to walk obediently into the institution of marriage.
Anyway, I'm so glad to find someone who thinks as I do about Jennifer!
Post a Comment
<< Home