The Case for a "Marriage of Convenience"
A 40-something acquaintance is married, with two children. She’s been going through a job transition, so she and her husband are both working out of the home, and it’s not as if it doesn’t show. They’re on each other’s nerves. “I tell you,” she despaired, “if I don’t get back in an office with other people soon I’ll have a marriage of convenience only.”
We both laughed. But I thought to myself, what’s wrong with that?
By its narrow, original definition a marriage of convenience is for purely financial, practical or political motivations. The mariage de convenance got popularized in English in the 1700s and 1800s, just as romantic ideals gained momentum. A marriage of convenience could only be named, and criticized, when an alternative emerged. Before, a “marriage of convenience” would have been redundant.
In modern times, the phrase has broadened into an opposition between marrying “for love” on the one side, and for “some reason other than love,” for “expediency rather than love,” or for any non-love motive, on the other.
You probably know a marriage of convenience. Some of them are of the mildly depressed variety that interests me in my book. The partners don’t appear to have much of a connection, and they’ve probably contemplated divorce, but decided to stay together, perhaps because of parental duty, or for the comforts of habit, or just because they can’t sell their home or afford to divorce. Research finds that divorce rates have dropped because of the recession.
The marriage of convenience is treated like a sad punch line. Still, there’s a case to be made for it.
On the “pro” side, the best thing about a marriage of convenience is that it’s convenient. And convenience is an ever more exotic attribute in our stressed-out times.
If you’re thinking of divorce, it might be the best path. There isn’t a generic right answer to the heart’s complexities, although we’re advised often that there is. But, before you divorce from the marriage of convenience, look around your shared dwelling, and life, and imagine the post-marriage world. Notice the things, routines, and banal conversations you have with your partner. Things will need to be divided, sold, and/or replaced; chores handled easily will have to get discussed and coordinated. Hassles fulminate where none existed before over violin lessons and immunizations. Discussion to resolve picayune matters now involves excessive texting. Pets, to say nothing of children, don’t split 50/50. Costly new households get established, and some never recover financially.
Maybe the homely quality of convenience isn’t such a lame foundation for marriage after all.
And are you ever free from the offending Marriage in Name Only? Not really. You’re free from the marriage, but not from your spouse, if you have children. I chatted with a therapist who warned, “there’s no divorce after children.” You’re still involved with your ex, all the time.
Much to the dismay of the spouse who dreams of a bright-line freedom on the other side of marriage, the divorce proves to be less of a clean break than an unraveling, with persistent, dense entanglement.
Children are usually the most heart-wrenching question. Peer-reviewed divorce research finds that in “high-conflict” marriages, kids are usually better off after divorce. With “low-conflict” unions, they may be better off without divorce. “Our kids don’t give a shit about our happiness,” a friend of mine said before she divorced. They don’t care if we’re “really” in love. If you can get along, that’s good enough. Then again, sociologist Stephanie Coontz observes that having children in a lifeless marriage isn’t great role-modeling, either.
So divorce might still be the best option.
Because, to argue the “con” side, isn’t a marriage of convenience like dragging the carcass of a necrotic relationship on your back for years?
It’s not selfish to want more than that. Some marriages of convenience are nothing short of soul-killing. People use the phrase as a slur is because it implies that the spouse is giving up on life and reasonable standards of happiness, all because they don’t want to move furniture or find an apartment. The incriminating suspicion is that they’re sacrificing what a friend of mine calls their “adult humanity” for flimsy consolations, or to save face.
A friend of mine from grade school grew up gloomily with parents who simmered in resentment and hostility. Anger seemed like a layer of dust in their house. The home was convenient, but it was also quietly, invisibly toxic. The parents didn’t argue, so they would have qualified as low-conflict by research criteria. Instead of arguing, they let their bitterness eat away at them from the inside. My friend and her sister used to dream that their parents would divorce, secretly beseeching them to.
Whether mildly or monumentally sad, a marriage of convenience means this: You’re not going to have all the main aspects of your life fulfilled in one relationship and place. Your marriage isn’t going to be passionate, perhaps, or you’re not going to enjoy intellectual camaraderie with your spouse.
The romantic dream of marriage isn’t going to be your dream, after all. You’ll have to find another dream. Or, you’ll have to find another person.
Or, maybe you’ll find a third way: A marriage of convenience may indeed be worth saving, if--and it’s a monumental if—the spouses are willing to give each other some accommodations and freedoms so that they can meet other vital needs elsewhere, and still enjoy a companionate marriage.
Maybe that would mean marriage sabbaticals, to pursue different interests. Maybe it would mean that spouses aggressively develop other friendships, hobbies and networks, apart from the spouse. It might even entail having a non-monogamous marriage that permitted mistresses or lovers, within rules. Historically, it was precisely these tacit, collusive accommodations that made the marriage of convenience not only tenable but pleasant enough. Women found intimacies in close friendships; men sought mistresses; husbands and wives had parallel, not overlapping, lives in several respects.
If you’re willing to change your idea of marriage, rather than your dream or your spouse, you might be able to stay semi-happily married, for the time being.
It wouldn’t be easy. But neither are the alternatives.
Sharon Salzberg, world-renowned mindfulness leader, teaches meditation at Big Think Edge.
- Try meditation for the first time with this guided lesson or, if you already practice, enjoy being guided by a world-renowned meditation expert.
- Sharon Salzberg teaches mindfulness meditation for Big Think Edge.
- Subscribe to Big Think Edge before we launch on March 30 to get 20% off monthly and annual memberships.
The 21st century is experiencing an Asianization of politics, business, and culture.
- Our theories about the world, even about history or the geopolitics of the present, tend to be shaped by Anglo perspectives of the Western industrial democracies, particularly those in the United States and the United Kingdom.
- The West, however, is not united. Canada, for instance, acts in many ways that are not in line with American or British policies, particularly in regard to populism. Even if it were united, though, it would not represent most of the world's population.
- European ideas, such as parliamentary democracy and civil service, spread across the world in the 19th century. In the 20th century, American values such as entrepreneurialism went global. In the 21st century, however, what we're seeing now is an Asianization — an Asian confidence that they can determine their own political systems, their own models, and adapt to their own circumstances.
Research has shown that men today have less testosterone than they used to. What's happening?
- Several studies have confirmed that testosterone counts in men are lower than what they used to be just a few decades ago.
- While most men still have perfectly healthy testosterone levels, its reduction puts men at risk for many negative health outcomes.
- The cause of this drop in testosterone isn't entirely clear, but evidence suggests that it is a multifaceted result of modern, industrialized life.
Can sensitive coral reefs survive another human generation?
- Coral reefs may not be able to survive another human decade because of the environmental stress we have placed on them, says author David Wallace-Wells. He posits that without meaningful changes to policies, the trend of them dying out, even in light of recent advances, will continue.
- The World Wildlife Fund says that 60 percent of all vertebrate mammals have died since just 1970. On top of this, recent studies suggest that insect populations may have fallen by as much as 75 percent over the last few decades.
- If it were not for our oceans, the planet would probably be already several degrees warmer than it is today due to the emissions we've expelled into the atmosphere.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.