 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----------
Support
Indiebride! Your optional subscription fee helps keep the site up
and running. -----------
Kamy
Wicoff Susan
Shapiro Barash Susan
Maushart Rachel
Safier Marg
Stark Elizabeth Freeman An academic deconstructs the wedding Eva Unger Bowditch and Aviva Samet on how to survive your mother-in-lawStephanie Rosenbaum Lisa Miya-Jervis Nancy Cott Sheryl
Nissinen -----------
|
 |
t h e . i n d i e . i n t e r v i e w . : . n a n c y . c o t t
By Priscilla Yamin August 2001 | Marriage is thought of as the ultimate expression of devotion and intimacy. But is it truly a personal matter between two people in love? No, says Historian Nancy Cott - at least not entirely. In her new book, Public Vows:: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Harvard University Press) Cott explains the history of marriage and how it is intertwined with public policy. Property rights, tax benefits, welfare, citizenship and civil rights are just some of the areas where marriage and government collide. (For example, from 1907 to 1934 an American woman would lose her citizenship if she married a foreign national, and interracial marriage was illegal in many states until 1967.) From the era of the American revolution to present, assumptions about the importance of marriage and the practice of it as a lifelong, monogamous -- and for now, heterosexual- --union have been deeply rooted in our policies and laws. Why did you write Public Vows? There is a tendency to view marriage as completely private and that eclipses the aspect of marriage as a public institution. In some ways, it seems a banal subject -- obviously marriage is a legal institution. Yet we don't always think of it that way. There has been a lot of work done on the personal experience of marriage and how it affects husbands and wives. But the history of marriage as a political institution hadn't been put together. I focused on how marriage related to the question of the nation and national identity. Questions such as who belongs to the nation, how do we determine that, and what are the rituals and symbols that support it. A particular form of marriage--monogamy on a Christian model, with the husband as the primary provider-- has been embedded and supported in the national political framework of the United States, and has thus shaped who "the people" are. Marriage comes with many assumptions, particularly when it comes to monogamy. Where did the idea of monogamy come from and how is it political? Monogamy comes from Christianity, and as far as its political function, monogamy was a notion of governance (husband over wife and children) that became established by the medieval period and has been very important in Western political theory. In U.S. law, monogamy has defined sexual morality. Until the beginning of the 20th century, sex outside marriage was considered immoral and so monogamy was the dividing line between morality and immorality--the legal view of this stayed the same until the 1940s. The larger public meaning of monogamy is hard to discern because it's so deeply imbedded in our political system-- but at the time of the American Revolution, statesmen saw direct and positive parallels between monogamous marriage based on the couple's mutual consent, and republican government based on the people's consent-- so that governance between a husband and wife was similar to the governance which takes place between an elected politician and the public. The pairing of monogamy and representative government (both assumed to be highly desirable) was contrasted with the pairing of polygamy and despotism (both assumed to be very reprehensible). That's why there was a federal government campaign against the Mormons for practicing polygamy in the 19th century--for political, not only religious or moral reasons. The deep revulsion against polygamy stills exists today and even people who consider themselves sexually emancipated feel hostile towards polygamy. I think this has something to do with monogamy being so deeply embedded within our western political (as well as cultural) framework, though it goes unacknowledged as such. Marriage has been important in race politics and citizenship. In the book, you discuss how the government used marriage to "Americanize" and control ex-slaves, Native Americans, and immigrants. Can you talk more about that? In terms of the racial aspect of the story, it is interesting how consistently I found that the national government held coercive policies on marriage towards groups designated as nonwhite. This was certainly true for African Americans, Native Americans and immigrants, primarily Asians, but also true for Mormons. Because the Mormons practiced polygamy (which was seen as characteristic of Asia and Africa), they were figuratively "nonwhite". Today, restrictions on marriage are not pronounced with regard to race but may fall more heavily on nonwhite groups. For example, the federal income tax requirement for married couples makes husbands and wives who both earn nearly equal incomes pay more tax than if they were single, but gives a tax advantage to married couples with highly unequal incomes, or with only one income -- those that look more like a traditional family with the husband as breadwinner. Since black married couples are more likely to fall into the first category, they suffer proportionately more from the "marriage tax penalty" than whites do. (This is never mentioned in the public lament over the lower rate of marriage among African-Americans.) Do you support same-sex marriage? If so, do you see it changing the institution? I think gays and lesbians should have the right to marry. I even went to Vermont to testify before the Judiciary Committee of the legislature to explain the historical background. I emphasized how far marriage in this country has always been a legal institution subject to change, and that it has changed in major ways over time. Some examples include: interracial marriage, economic issues between husband and wife, divorce. Marriage is a civil right that should be open to same-sex couples. I am, however, skeptical that the change would alter the institution of marriage itself. In fact, it will probably reinforce continuities, because same-sex couples will be joining the ongoing institution of marriage. I understand those critics who see same-sex marriage as reinforcing rather than challenging heterosexual norms. But since marriage is a civil right, I'm for it being open to all-- but I don't necessarily advocate marrying. What do you think the future of marriage is? I think it is here to stay despite the alternatives out there and the high rate of divorce. (I just saw statistics that show that boththe rate of marriage formation and the rate of divorce in the U.S. are way higher than in the European Union --a combination that Europeans find perplexing!) People divorce and get remarried. Marriage is still very desirable. Getting married is a major goal for many people. It's seen as an end point and the wedding industry does play a large role in that. And there are strong cultural incentives that can act coercively in a symbolic and literal sense. Marriage is a mainstream institution, and getting married is a part of the American dream. There are also economic incentives which are very real. Given the legal and social changes in marriage why is it still desirable and why do so many women want a traditional wedding? Not only women but men too. There are a lot of expectations in marriage. I think people still believe that marriage because it offers security, community and stability. There is also a belief in the rightness in marriage, a belief fostered by government and cultural and social institutions. People see marriage as adulthood and achieving success in life. It means growing up and getting real. What's happened to the institution of marriage in recent history?
At the end
of the book, I talk about a shift in the view of marriage over last 25
years as more and more private. Marriage appears to offer emotional and
economic security along with personal freedom, which is a very seductive
combination even though it's paradoxical. It seems to provide an arena
where you have protection from the assaults of outside forces and where
you can act and be yourself; you don't have to perform. That's a combination
that seems unbeatable. And maybe it is. At the same time, if that combination
is achievable it should be possible without the legal marriage. But you
don't get as much material security (by government and private employers'
provisions, for instance) if you're not formally married. Given
its political history, what do you want every Indiebride reader to understand
about marriage? There is
a lot of ignorance around the legal components of marriage, and men and
women should educate themselves. It's more than just rights to medical
insurance - there are economic considerations, especially if the marriage
breaks up. Couples could also consider writing up their own contracts
before they get married, detailing their expectations and obligations
to each other. I'd also say couples should keep a skeptical stance on
marriage. It's an institution, so keeping a critical attitude is important.
I remember when I was in California in the spring of 1999 an assemblywoman
drafted a bill to require the state of California to give out a list of
the state laws on marriage along with a marriage license so that couples
would be aware. It produced an editorial column in the San Francisco
Chronicle, by a woman upset that the proposed bill would discourage
people from marrying. All that was being proposed was providing factual
information! She implied that really knowing what marriage was, would
be a disincentive! I don't scorn anyone for marrying. People who choose
to marry should just know their decision is more than private-- that in
doing so they continue the priority for marriage over other ways of living. ----------- Priscilla
Yamin is a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at the New School for
Social Research. She is writing her dissertation on marriage policy in
the US. |
|
Home| IndieEtiquette |
Links | IndieMom
| Books | Essays
| Columns | Kvetch
Contact us | Press | Submissions | Email updates Copyright 2008 Indiebride.com | ||
