The A+ Marriage; or, Why are we so disappointed?
Many of us, in stating our commitment to our partner, said, “til death do us part,” or some variation of that. Which sounds great! But let’s face it — most of us don’t really mean that. Most of us recognize that we will not tolerate abuse in a relationship, however we define that. Nor should we. But unless we are up against something big — like, I will be poked with hot pointy spikes in hell for an eternity if I divorce my spouse — we all have to, from time to time, answer the question, Is this relationship what I want? Do I still want it? Is it ... good enough?
The renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead has said that “the American marriage … is one of the most difficult marriage forms that the human race has ever attempted."(1)
Mead cites many cultural reasons for this — external stressors on our relationships, such as the fact that, in modern America, couples live largely in isolation, without the support of family and close community, and are expected to survive this life on their own four feet -- no small task!
Add to that the outrageous demands of our work culture, the absolute abundance of distractions and diversions, both good and bad, and the absence of any of kind of workable child care system and you have, some argue, a setup for disaster.
But we also have internal pressures that can put a great strain on our long-term relationships.
Researcher Eli J. Finkel, writing in The All or Nothing Marriage: How the Best Marriages Work, says that today we expect more from marriages than ever before. Furthermore, when marriages are good they are more responsible for individual happiness than they were before. If, however, they are anything less, they’re in trouble. Marriage has become pass/fail, where an A is pass, and anything less is a big fat fail. Finkel calls this the “suffocation” model of marriage, and, he says, “[t]hroughout American history, the fundamental purpose of marriage has shifted from (a) helping spouses meet their basic economic and political needs to (b) helping them meet their intimacy and passion needs to (c) helping them meet their autonomy and personal-growth needs.”
You can see that we are working our way up Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs. Once our basic survival needs are met, we start reaching for personal fulfillment, a meaningful life. (This is, of course, in marriages where subsistence level needs are met, so marriages with a certain amount of privilege.)
So, good news/bad news. Finkel says that we increasingly look to our long-term partnerships to meet needs he terms “idiosyncratic,” ie, individualistic and highly variable. I may want a partner, for instance, who will be willing to engage in deep conversations about the meaning of art and life. Or someone who shares my love of being alone, in silence. Or doesn’t mind that I need to put a big part of our money into my larping gaming lifestyle.
But the downside of looking to marriage to fill more and more of these needs? Fewer and fewer marriages can actually deliver. Of course, the marriages that succeed in meeting these needs are particularly fulfilling — more so, says Finkel, than the best marriages in earlier eras. “In tandem,” he summarizes, “these two consequences have pushed marriage toward an all-or-nothing state.“
Let’s think about cruise ships. It used to be that you’d take a cruise ship to get from point A to point B. Somewhere along the line, somebody discovered that cruise ships could serve as more than just transportation. They could be, well, many things: Vacations in and of themselves. A better means of island-hopping. They could be … entertaining! We can have dinner theater, magicians aboard! We can also build swimming pools, giant water slides, I don’t know, bowling alleys. One-stop shop, get all your vacation needs met here.
Cruises further evolved to serve niche communities. There are cruises for men who love motorcycles. Jazz fans who want to see the Mississippi delta. You can cruise with Kid Rock and his fans. There’s a cruise for ghost hunters, cat lovers (without, strangely, cats), psychics. You name it, there’s a ship packed full of the people who want more of it.
No longer does a cruise ship just get you from point A to point B. If you were on a ship that you expected to get you from, say, London to New York, safely, in the comfort level you paid for, you’d probably give it a passing grade as long as it delivered on those expectations.
But if I’m having a cruise experience which promises, where I’m expecting, great food, great sights, great day tours, people just like me, nobody not like me, and cats dressed like Hobbits, well, there are lots of opportunities for disappointments. It would be hard for the ship to earn an A+ on all those elements—but I’m paying for an A+, dammit! I want my A+ experience!
So, are you being a Karen, in your relationship? Are you always demanding to talk to management about the treatment you are receiving? Listen, poor Karen — not the racist Karen, just the demanding Karen — she did not come from nowhere. Our culture knows how to create and nurture insecure but savvy consumers. In fact our entire economic system is built on me thinking there are things very wrong with me — BO, how about — and my desperation to take care of it, paying whatever I must to get the promised result. This deodorant is not delivering on its promise! Karen yells. Well, can we blame her? What has she been taught, her entire life, as an American? Your investment entitles you to results! Karen is first of all panicking because she smells bad, and now, now, you’re going to tell her no money back for her useless purchase?
If we are not careful, this is the same spirit we can bring to our relationships. I talk about the all-or-nothing marriage more extensively in my 30-Day Relationship Experiment online course, which you can try for free on Teachable.com — just follow this link! I’d love to hear your thoughts – what do you think about the A+ Marriage? Are we valid for wanting it all, and then some? Or are we on a cruise to nowhere?
(1) Quoted in Schwartz, You Are the One You've Been Waiting For, p. 17
