Why did marriage evolve? There are two basic answers to this
question. One is that down to very recent times it was mostly a response 
to
economic necessity. The competing view is that it developed mainly as a way to encourage
men and women to raise their children together.
An article [1]in the current issue of The Atlantic sets out the first
view. Citing ‘Marriage, A History’, by Stephanie Coontz, it says: “For
thousands of years, marriage had been a primarily economic and political contract
between two people, negotiated and policed by their families, church, and
community. It took more than one person to make a farm or business thrive, and
so a potential mate’s skills, resources, thrift, and industriousness were
valued as highly as personality and attractiveness. This held true for all
classes.”
In her book, subtitled, ‘How love conquered marriage’, Coontz
argues that today men and women are not so bound together by economic necessity
and therefore are much more likely to marry and stay together out of choice.
But notice what is missing from this analysis; children.
The
third edition of ‘Why Marriage Matters [2]’ makes
amends and offers the alternative view of why marriage evolved. Acknowledging
that marriage takes different forms in different cultures, it nevertheless says
it has a common core, and it is this:
“As
a virtually universal human idea, marriage involves regulating the reproduction
of children, families and society. While marriage systems differ (and not every
person or class within a society marries), marriage across all societies is a
publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union that creates kinship
obligations and resource pooling between men, women, and the children that
their sexual union may produce. “
Which explanation of the ubiquity of marriage strikes you as
being closer to the truth? If Coontz’s is correct (Marx and Engels had a
similar view), then it would mean that there has never existed a social
institution that had the care of children as its primary concern because
economic well-being was the primary concern of marriage.
But since the mating of men and women does in fact produce
children – almost unavoidably before the advent of effective contraception –
doesn’t it make perfect sense that a social institution would evolve in
response to this enormous fact?
Wouldn’t it be very strange if human society did not devise
a social institution aimed at ensuring – insofar as possible – that men and
women would raise their children together, rather than leaving it to other
people, or to no-one at all?
Today, of course, we have gone a long way towards convincing
ourselves that children don’t really need their biological parents. As a result
we are ever more inclined to redefine marriage so that it has nothing much to
do with children and their welfare, and is much more about adults and their
feelings for one another.
Coontz’s book is subtitled ‘How love conquered marriage’,
but more accurately it should have been subtitled, ‘How adults put themselves first’.