On Marriage and Individualism

This is another in a (sporadic) series of posts exploring how the decline of the traditional family occurred in America and what effect it has had on us. The previous post in this series can be found here.

I returned to reading James Q. Wilson’s book, The Marriage Problem and went through his analysis of how changes in our law reflected changes in our views on marriage and personal independence. Here’s a thumbnail sketch.

For centuries, marriage in the Western world has been a consensual affair. People have chosen their spouses. Personal freedom in this regard has always been central to marriage. In the past, marriage was considered more important than individual freedom. Over time, personal freedom has gained primacy to the detriment of marriage.

Leading figures in England and America at the end of the nineteenth century spoke of marriage as a “state of existence ordained by the Creator”…Each marriage, many said, affects not only the spouses, but all other persons. The Supreme Court described marriage as more than a “mere contract”; it was instead “a sacred obligation,” “a holy estate,” and “the foundation of family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

It is particularly striking to see the word “holy” come from the Supreme Court. If it was used in a decision today, members of the ACLU would spontaneously combust. I digress. Over the course of the 20th century, legal regard for marriage has declined.

A century later, virtually every one of these laws has been changed, some for the better, some for the worse, but everywhere in ways that denied that marriage and the family had any moral status…These changes are fully in accord with the rise of a modern, secular, individualistic state…

What is striking is not that there are so many divorces and so many cohabiting couples, but that there are any marriages at all…Simply living together provides the immediate benefits without any legal formalities…

(E)verywhere cultural expectations are vulnerable to the new individualistic ethos, as we can see from rising levels of cohabitation. Which leaves a desire for children and companionship (as the primary remaining reasons for marriage)…Some people can see far enough into the future to recognize that marriage offers long-term benefits. For them, marriage will be preferable. But many people do not see very far into the future…

And this, I think, hits the nail right on the head. Complicated undertakings such as building a car, designing an airplane or raising a family, are not things best done by an individual. Contrary to Hillary’s suggestions, it does not take a village, because villagers have only an indirect interest in the success of family members. Instead, it takes a team, in this case at least a two-person team, if not an extended family, to raise children with a high rate of success. Those who cannot see into the future, those who see single-parent families as equivalent to traditional families do not see the complex tasks involved in raising a family.

To a great extent, the simplistic, naïve pursuit of personal freedom has led to the breakdown of the teamwork required to perform what is in fact a very complicated task.

I would not want to construct this vehicle nor raise these children on my own.