Book Review: Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage

Let me cut to the chase: you don't want to read this book.

This doesn't mean that "Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage" by Stephanie Coontz isn't terrific: I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars. It's just long, and academic, and more of a lit review than a compelling story.

So, here is what you need to know from this 432 page fascinating b00k (which includes over 100 pages of bibliography and index) that you'll probably never take the time to read:

- Household economy: From the pre-historic era until sometime in the 1700s, marriage was an economic proposition. Attraction was based less on romance and more on resources. Love developed after marriage, if the couple was lucky.

For the wealthy, marriage was a way to develop allies that expanded your families influence and wealth. Cleopatra and the Kings of England are the classic examples of this: it was practically standard operating procedure to kill or otherwise dispose of your spouse in order to marry a better connected lover. Are your children from a previous spouse preventing the development of a more influential family line? Off with their heads!

For the poor, marriage was about survival: it took more than one adult to farm, weave, cook, clean, serve in the king's army, carry water, etc. Marriage gave you a workmate, and you looked for the most equipped partner: the strongest husband, the hardest working wife, the maid whose father had fertile farm land, the bachelor with an established apprenticeship in a trade.

For reasons we're all familiar with, women often drew the short end of the stick in these relationships. Wealthy families usually passed wealth from father to son - a daughter's best service was to marry well, to connect her brother to another wealthy family. Unhappy and dangerous marriages were an unfortunate result, and were meant to be lived with rather than remedied. A poor woman who left her husband had no economic recourse, so staying was often the only option.

- Transferring affection from house to home: As wage labor became more popular, younger people were no longer as dependent on their parents at the establishment of their working lives. This, along with philosophical changes, gave young people more freedom in choosing their own partner. And, as life expectancy was rising, it became more reasonable to marry someone you wanted to spend a life with.

In the pre-industrial world, people felt warmth and affection toward their house: the lineage from which they came, the long line of ancestors, noble or not. Marriage choices were made to advance the house. As societies developed, generations became more independent of their ancestors: the focus of affection moved to the home a couple created.

As couples took time to develop affection before marriage, frequency of premarital sex increased. To counter this, the Victorians established a "cultof female purity" that made sex distasteful for women and guilt-ridden, at least when with a respectable woman, for men.

This focus on the couple also decreased rates of domestic violence as women had more choice in who they married. But marriage was not always a safe place for women.

- Natural Reactions: Marrying for love had some natural consequences. In addition to increased sexual activity prior to marriage, it also led to increased rates of divorce: if you married someone because you loved them, why stay married when you are unhappy?

In the 1920s, many also began to question the sexual double standard for men and women. The "cult of female purity" (that women should not enjoy sex) began to subside as, well, everyone got a little better at admitting that sex just feels good. A more casual approach to sex became acceptable (in some circles) for "good girls."

Marriage as an institution changed rapidly in the 20th Century, thanks to the Great Depression, World War II, the boomer generation, and the sexual revolution. Marriage was most idolized in the 1950s and early 60s - and it was in this era that our "ideal" of the husband as the economic engine and the wife as the heart of a family emerged. Yet even as this was emerging as the ideal, women began to fight against the trappings: those who had worked to support the war effort now missed the engagement of a job outside the home. And conveniences of modern life - washing machines and pre-cooked meals - made caring for the home easier than ever. More and more women were being educated as well.

Ironically, the young parents of the 1950s, and their children, who so idealized this nuclear family model, ended up having the highest divorce rates of the century.

- Toward a more egalitarian future: Coontz, a sociologist, proposes that the future of marriage is freer of the labels and restrictions of the past. Marriage may become uncommon in some cultures (and sub-cultures). Many states are moving to recognize civil unions or marriage for same-sex partners. And male-female marriages that do occur often represent relationships that look very different from the past: dual-breadwinners, stay-at-home-dads, child-free unions.

Perhaps the greatest value of this book is a reminder that marriage cannot be defined. Or, at least, its definition is not static: it changes with each generation. The ideas of those who hold too closely to any rigid definition of marriage are unlikely to survive the test of time.

"Marriage, A History" is fascinating. But thousands of years of written history - and some basic assumptions about our pre-history - is tough to summarize, especially around a topic as complex as marriage. I would have liked more stories, and a stronger look at non-Western cultures. Just the same, a sociology and marriage nerd like me, it was a page-turner: the only problem was the number of pages that needed turning.