The
End of Marriage? Individualism and Intimate Relations
Jane Lewis
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2001.
£49.95 (hc), viii + 235 pages, ISBN 1-84064-287-4.
Myriam Boussahba-Bravard
Université de Rouen
Jane Lewis is Barnett Professor of Social Policy at the University
of Oxford. Her book Marriage, Individualism and Intimate Relations
is an outstanding contribution to current debates inside and outside
academia. Her encyclopaedic knowledge of past and current historical
and sociological works, and her own field research make for a study
which is clearly presented despite the multiple interplay of variables
that she looks at. It certainly remains widely accessible to keen
readers, as she offers an exceptionally comprehensive and balanced
account of the state of research and adds her own results and questioning,
an achievement mirrored in the invaluable 33-page bibliography set
across several research domains.
Her study is divided into three parts and eight chapters which lead
the reader to the ultimate question: “What is to be done: what
should be the role of private law and family policy in respect of
intimate relations?” The first part is about setting up facts,
concepts, and methodology. Chapter 1 (“Introduction: the debate”)
offers a perspective on the current and past debates on marriage and
equips the reader with concepts and theories that are necessary to
understand the terms of the debate, but also to become aware of the
limits of the multiple variables mentioned above. Yet, this richly
referenced chapter is also packed with significant questioning and
impeccable scholarly problem setting. The second chapter assesses
“Changing patterns” that are mainly “the decline of
marriage and the rise of cohabitation” and prolongs the factual,
statistical and conceptual information already present in the preceding
chapter.
In the second part of the book, Lewis shows how the decline of “the
male breadwinner model family” (chapter 3) has been accompanied
by a shift from “public to private morality” (chapter 4)
inside the couple, whether married or cohabiting. Having proved the
novelty of the self-defining moral authority of the couple she switches
back to “The Law of marriage and divorce”—collectively
elaborated and so usually accepted by all (or most)—to question
the commonly-held assumption that the relaxation of divorce laws have
led our western societies to worrying instability, or as she puts
it, to “privatisation and deregulation” (Chapter 5). Thus
the dynamics of change is carefully monitored and analysed, paving
the way to the mostly, but not exclusively, qualitative approach of
the third part.
In “Inside Relationships” (chapters 6 and 7) Lewis shares
the results of her qualitative research; contrasting the behaviour
of married and cohabiting couples, she studies their “decision
to marry or cohabit and the nature of the commitment” (chapter
6). Then she looks at “individualism and commitment” and
“the investment of time and money” (chapter 7). Having rounded
off the individual level—along with some mentions of collective
policies, she deals with the role of the State in the final chapter,
discussing what “the role of private law and family policy in
respect of intimate relations” should be.
In the 1960s, sex became accepted outside marriage; in the 1990s,
parenthood took place outside marriage. These developments have been
deemed worrying, since marriage is still seen as an institution that
guarantees stability. Today the dissociation of marriage and parenthood
generates new accusations; men are condemned as irresponsible because
many walk out of a relationship even when there are children; working
mothers are blamed for jeopardising their families with their careers.
Beyond this simplistic vision of the couple of parents lurks the idea
that individualism or one of its facets—selfishness—is at
the heart of family changes. Indeed, in one generation the number
of marriages has halved, the divorce rate has trebled and children
born outside marriage have quadrupled. From a statistical perspective,
these facts cannot be ignored, and their causes and effects have modified
family politics. Does it mean though that changes of attitudes towards
marriage, divorce, cohabitation and working mothers have modified
family values? In other words, does it mean that current family changes
equate family breakdown? This commonly held assumption relies on one
of the main outcomes of these changing attitudes, which is the increase
of lone mother families. Yet, as Lewis underlines, there have been
few studies on the changes in marriage itself, whereas marriage shelters
enormous changes, in terms of ideas about the way it should work and
in terms of the division of Labour within it.
For Lewis the argument of ‘selfishness’ is a dubious explanation
for changes in family values, an explanation based on uncertain grounds.
Besides, that intellectually lazy analysis cannot account for sociological
studies for example of working mothers in paid employment. Although
their numbers have indeed increased, female employment still offers
a gendered work profile, with women accounting for the majority of
part-timers and low-wagers: thus their supposedly economic independence
is far from being achieved, generating new expectations on the Labour
market and family law on their part. It shows that changes at the
level of the family cannot be accounted for without examining the
much broader social context, and ‘individualism’ has to
be discussed at the collective level, too.
For most of the 20th century the male breadwinner model
dominated and engendered expectations and arrangements as well as
a set of attitudes in the family and outside the family. The “erosion
of the male breadwinner model” has consequently modified the
whole pattern and the accompanying expectations. Lewis argues that
there should be a review of all standpoints. For instance, some wrote
that because women were usually the partners who petitioned for divorce,
they used their newly won economic independence to refuse what former
generations had to accept. Bearing in mind what the female employment
profile is, Lewis states that it is much more likely that being still
the weaker partners economically speaking women have to get the protection
of the state to fend for themselves and their children. The meanings
of change have to be carefully assessed before coming to hasty conclusions.
Indeed Welfare and government positions have been and still are essential
actors in family law. The shift here has been from a prescriptive
institutional attitude—what marriage ought to be—to managing
relationships when the divorcing couple have children. The official
position has had to evolve along with most couples’ self-definition
of marriage. At the end of the 20th century, marriage in
western countries is based on romantic love, away from traditional
prescriptions or even prescriptions of any kind. This makes marriage
or cohabitation more vulnerable to breakdown but at the same time
more open to negotiation inside the couple. In other words, it strengthens
individual partners but raises the expectations of both. According
to Lewis, this denotes “the erosion of an externally imposed
moral code”; the change at the individual level has entailed
legal changes, and it is interesting to find out how they relate.
The author’s view is that although marriage is still an institution,
it “has been disengaged from other social structures such as
the law” (page 23), or as many sociologists now write, marriage
has moved from institution to relationship. In any case, it is worth
wondering about the effect of legal reform on family changes. Its
direct effect still has to be proved, although it makes things easier
when divorcing. Can it be the cause of divorce? It is not likely,
but it undoubtedly legitimates behavioural changes and so secures
the stability of the 1990s’ pattern of marriage and divorce.
It leaves us to ponder the complicated relationship between law and
social norms. Whether the top-down or the bottom-up approach—or
both—play a major part remains to be seen. But the angle chosen
could lead to questions such as ‘should the relaxation of divorce
laws be seen as deregulation of family law?’ In the 1990s, writes
Lewis, this view is no longer convincing as the current divorce law
is pregnant (!) with individualisation and practically regulates men
and women as fathers and mothers (see the 1991 Child Support Act).
“Thus just because divorce has become easier, does not mean that
moral debate and personal responsibility have been eliminated”
(page 28).
Because of the veil of ‘selfishness’ or increasing individualism,
the growth of individualism inside personal relationships has been
neglected, although individualism has been linked to changes in individual
behaviour (for instance the increasing number of women on the labour
market) or mentalities (for example the objective of personal growth
for both individuals in the couple).
Remarkably, the answers of the couples and individuals who have been
interviewed do not vary much according to whether they are married
or merely cohabiting. Most share the same views on living as a couple,
although the cohabiting ones—with the notable exception of couples
who use cohabitation as the immediate most “interesting”
solution—show on the whole more commitment to their couple, in
the sense that they have thought about marrying or not marrying, they
have considered all the implications, and made a careful choice.
The pattern of marriage in the 20th century and the old
system of coverture until the end of the 19th century both
stemmed from the classical idea of marital unity, that is ‘2
makes 1’. Lewis suggests that Irène Théry’s
‘1+1 makes 2’ is more adequate to current conceptions of
marriage: two individuals having a say, assessing and maintaining
their individuality through negotiation. Why should it be selfish?
The author writes that academic research across disciplines and political
positions has proved that contrary to the shortsighted convenient
‘selfishness’ notion, moral issues and moral viewpoints
are more essential than ever to couples of individuals and individual
couples.
The End of Marriage? Individualism and Intimate Relations is an
impeccably researched book, which shows that the picture of change
substantiated by extensive research is optimistic and has to be taken
into account by family law and public policy. Everyone should read
it, especially “those who seek to use the law to put the clock
back”, as Lewis puts it at the end of her first chapter.
Cercles©2002
All rights are reserved and no reproduction from this
site for whatever purpose is permitted without the permission of the
copyright owner. Please contact us before using any
material on this website.
