The marriage relationship forms a subsystem within a system of extended family members

CHAPTER 8 The Transition to Marriage The New Marital SystemChapter OverviewThe marriage relationship forms a subsystem within a system of extended family members. This chapterexamines the developmental tasks that confront this newly established family subsystem. The tasks ofthe marital system parallel those that must be executed by the larger family system. As such, newlymarried couples must deal with the identity transformations that accompany marriage and, in theprocess, establish marital themes, negotiate marital roles and responsibilities, and establish acongruence of conjugal identities. In addition, marital couples must establish boundary strategies thatregulate distances with the extended family, friends, and work. Internal boundary strategies betweenmarital partners also must be established such that a comfortable and satisfying balance of individualityand intimacy can be achieved. In addition, all couples must establish strategies for managing thehousehold and finances. Finally, couples must enact strategies that effectively manage the emotionalclimate of the marriage. In particular, couples must establish intimacy and support strategies, develop amutually satisfying sexual script, and evolve strategies for the management of conflict. It should be clearthat, from a developmental perspective, the stress associated with the transition to marriage emanatesfrom the wide range of strategies that must be negotiated over a short period of time.A Postmodern Perspective on MarriageIn the 1980s an important book American Couples (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983) was published thatexplored the experiences of individuals in intimate relationships. The study revealed the existence of acontinuum of relationships within the United States. At one end of the continuum were traditionalmarriages, while at the other end were what Blumstein and Schwartz called “experimental forms” ofmarriage. They labeled the experimental forms “voluntary marriages” (based on love with thecommitment to marriage periodically renewed), “trial marriages” (in which a marriage-like relationship isexperienced as a prelude to formal marriage), “cohabitators who plan to never marry,” and “same-sexcouples.”It is fair to conclude that since the 1980s many of these so-called experimental forms of marriage havebecome more common. For example, census data demonstrate that over the past decades cohabitationrates have increased in America while marriage rates have declined. Specifically, the number ofunmarried couples living together in the United States increased 72 percent between 1990 and 2000(U.S. Census Bureau, 2005b). Over half of all first marriages are now preceded by living together,compared to virtually none fifty years ago (Bumpass & Lu, 2000).Furthermore, although it is impossible to document whether the number of same-sex households hasincreased over the past decades, it is clear that there have been remarkable changes within this timeperiod in the sociopolitical context surrounding lesbian and gay families (Laird, 2003). In the 1990s thevisibility of gays and lesbians within the society increased in unprecedented ways (Walters, 2001). As aresult of this increase in visibility, the rights of domestic partners to employer benefits and the rights ofgay and lesbian couples to legally marry have now become prominent social and political issues.This chapter applies a family systems theory and multigenerational perspective to the study of marriageand marital issues. The chapter embraces, as well, a postmodern perspective on marriage. For us, theterm marriage refers to a specific family subsystem comprised of adults from two different families oforigin who have bonded together to form what they intend to be a stable and long-term cohabitingrelationship. A postmodern perspective on marriage assumes that all marriage-like relationships,regardless of their legal status, are similar when it comes to the relationship issues and tasks that theymust manage. This generic definition of marriage allows us to discuss common tasks that must bemanaged within any intimate relationship during the transition to marriage—when this newly formedsubsystem is integrated into an extended family system. Our decision to define all “lifetime relationships”as a marriage is based on the findings of the published research comparing couples residing in thesevarious types of marriage-like relationships. As we will see, this research generally supports theconclusion that the different types of marriage-like relationships are similar in terms of the system issuesand ordinary challenges that they must contend with. To illustrate how a generic, postmodern definitionof marriage applies equally well to the patterns and dynamics found within diverse couple relationships,we will look more closely at gay and lesbian couples.Gay and Lesbian RelationshipsIntimate same-sex relationships have existed throughout history. It is estimated that about 1 percent ofadult women self-identify as lesbian and 2 percent of adult men self-identify as gay, and it is estimatedthat about 40 percent of gay men and 50 percent of lesbians, between the ages of eighteen and fiftynine, are currently living with a same-sex partner. In comparison, about 60 percent of heterosexualswithin this same age group are living with an other-sex partner (Carpenter & Gates, 2008). Theexperiences of same-sex couples in the United States are influenced by the social stigma ofhomosexuality. Although social attitudes are becoming more tolerant, it is common for gay and lesbiancouples to report incidents of social rejection, prejudice, and discrimination. In national polls, only half ofAmericans say that same-sex couples should be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions ordomestic partnerships (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). Clearly the topic of same-sex marriage continues tobe a source of heated controversy.Despite the differing social contexts for same-sex and heterosexual relationships, there are manycommonalities in the relationships of all couples. For example, the research of Blumstein and Schwartz(1983) reported the results of over 12,000 questionnaires and more than 300 interviews with gay,lesbian, married heterosexual, and cohabiting heterosexual couples on issues related to money, work,power, and sex. The Blumstein and Schwartz study provided one of the first opportunities to comparedifferent forms of heterosexual and homosexual relationships. They essentially concluded that therewere more similarities than differences among all of these relationship types in terms of (1) lifestylepatterns; and (2) the patterns of adjustment found within their relationships. This basic conclusion hasbeen supported by the research done since the early 1980s. For example, the longitudinal research doneby Kurdek and his associates with gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married couples (Kurdek & Schmitt,1986a, 1986b) concluded that gay and lesbian relationships operate on essentially the same principles asheterosexual relationships and that the correlates of relationship quality are similar for heterosexual,gay, and lesbian couples. This is to suggest that lesbian and gay couples are no more likely to have goodor bad relationships than are heterosexual couples (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007).Furthermore, the research comparing the patterns of communication and interaction within same-sexand heterosexual couples supports the existence, once again, of many similarities (Haas & Stafford,2005). For example, according to Haas and Stafford, couples in heterosexual and same-sex relationshipsdeal with a similar range of issues that create tensions and conflict within their relationships. Couples, inother words, regardless of their sexual orientation, fight about similar issues. In addition, Haas andStafford report that couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, structure and maintain theirrelationships in similar ways. For example, they found that the most prevalent “maintenance behaviors”reported across both the heterosexual and same-sex relationships were shared tasks (e.g., paying bills,cooking meals, cleaning, doing laundry, and performing household maintenance). Clearly, couples,regardless of their sexual orientation, feel that such behaviors are one way of communicating theircommitment to their partners and relationships.This is not to suggest that there are no differences noted in the research comparing heterosexual andhomosexual married partners (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek, 2004; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007).Compared to married partners, gay partners reported more autonomy, fewer barriers to leaving, andmore frequent relationship dissolution. Compared to married partners, lesbian relationships reportedmore intimacy, more autonomy, more equality, and more frequent relationship dissolution.Furthermore, the research of Gottman, Levenson, Seanson, Swanson, Tyson, and Yoshimoto (2003)suggests that conflict management processes may differ for heterosexual couples when compared tosame-sex couples. Gottman and colleagues found that the start-up of conflict within homosexual coupleswas characterized by greater positivity and acceptance when compared to that of heterosexual couples.Specifically, homosexual partners, during the start-up of a conflict, were less belligerent and lessdomineering than heterosexual initiators. In addition, Gottman and colleagues found that there was lessfear and tension, less sadness, and less whining in homosexual initiators than in heterosexual initiators.Their data also showed that homosexuals’ throughout conflict situations demonstrated more positiveemotions when compared with the heterosexual initiators: more affection, more humor, and more joyand excitement. Gottman and colleagues attribute considerable significance to these findings as thestart-up of conflict is highly predictive of relationship stability within heterosexual married couples(Gottman, Coan, Carrère, & Swanson, 1998).Lastly, Haas and Stafford (2005) found that partners within both same-sex and heterosexualrelationships differed in the degree to which they engaged in open and direct discussions of the currentstate of their relationship. Haas and Stafford suggest that this finding may be a reflection of same-sexcouples lacking a legal bond to hold the relationship together. Unlike heterosexual marriages, emotionalcommitment is the sole bonding force in same-sex relationships. It appears that to some degreeheterosexual married couples may take for granted that they are bound together through legal marriage,whereas gays and lesbians must frequently “take the pulse” of the relationship to assess its status.Given the available evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that intimate ongoing relationships, regardlessof their form, have consistent issues that must be managed to promote the well-being of therelationship. While there are some differences in the patterns and dynamics found within same-sexrelationships when compared to heterosexual relationships, it appears to be the case that there aremore similarities than differences when it comes to how these relationships are structured andexperienced. Furthermore, the differences that are noted have to do with the strategies employedwithin the relationships to manage conflict or promote cohesion and do not support the conclusion thatthe relationship issues confronted within these relationships are fundamentally different.At the same time, it is important for us to point out that our endorsement of a postmodern view ofmarriage and our generic definition of marriage should not obscure the fact that the form of themarriage still has consequences for how married life is structured and experienced. The sociopoliticalcontext of all of these marriage-like relationships differs. This means that the connections of the couplesto the mainstream of the society and the degree of social support available to them will differ, which ofcourse can have an impact on how married life is experienced (Laird, 2003).Put another way, the different forms of marriage-like relationships that exist in the United States aremore or less culturally endorsed and accepted. For example, the increase in the visibility of homosexualpeople within the society has been accompanied by a paradox that reveals an underlying ambivalenceexisting within the country when it comes to the acceptance of homosexuals. That is, while lesbians andgays are depicted as chic and pioneering, they are simultaneously depicted as a major sign of socialdeterioration and the source of the destruction of the family as we know it (Laird, 2003; Walters, 2001).Furthermore, even among heterosexual couples there are varying degrees of social support andacceptance experienced by traditional couples when compared to those residing in less conventionaltypes of marriage-like relationships. Couples who have been previously married and divorced operatewithin a society that seems to blame many of our societal problems on broken homes. Certainly, in thepast, and perhaps still today, the support for and social acceptance of mixed race couples differed whencompared to the support and acceptance of marriages among couples of similar races.The point here is that the structure and experience of couples is influenced at any moment in time by acombination of micro- and macrolevel factors (Sabatelli & Ripoll, 2003). There is no doubt that culturalattitudes and the policies and practices found in the political, economic, educational, medical, andreligious institutions of society play a role in how married couples experience their lives. Our inclinationto adopt a postmodern view of marriage is based in large part on our belief that all married couplesexperience a similar range of issues and concerns. We nonetheless feel that it is important to note howthe prevailing attitudes and policies found within the country at any point in time create a different set ofrealities for couples residing in less conventional or legitimate types of marriages as they then deal withthe ordinary difficulties that all couples must manage.The Tasks of the Newly Married CoupleThe tasks of the newly formed marital subsystem parallel those that all families must execute. All maritalsubsystems must establish themes and identities, define their boundaries, maintain a household, andmanage the emotional climate within the marriage. Clearly, what makes the beginning of a marriagechallenging is that each couple must develop a broad array of rules and strategies for the execution ofthese tasks.Establishing an Identity as a Married CoupleWhen we marry, our personal identity is altered. With marriage comes an acknowledgment that we areready to assume the roles and responsibilities of adulthood (Rapoport, 1963). This critical identity shiftchanges how family members and friends relate to us. We are expected to have a “life plan,” “have ouract together,” and be able to plan and organize our lives in a way that enables us to succeed as adultmembers of society.Establishing Marital and Family Themes.Moving into the world of adult roles and responsibilities places pressure on newly married couples todevelop marital and family themes. These themes reflect the ways in which the couple wishes torepresent itself to the outside world. Themes provide the couple with a framework of meaning thatserves to guide behavior and orient the couple to extended family, friends, and community. Therefore,the couple’s themes become the blueprint for the establishment of basic values, priorities, and goals.As mentioned in Chapter 2, the choice of family themes is not random but purposeful and goal-directed(Kantor & Lehr, 1975). Themes often reflect the ethnic, religious, and moral convictions of the family.They may also guide the couple’s strategies for using its physical and psychological resources. Forinstance, a couple that wishes to be seen by others as upwardly mobile and achievement-oriented mayestablish a goal of owning a nice home and possessing quality furnishings as a means of communicatingthis identity. Couples who adopt a “working-class family” theme, in contrast, may rent a modestapartment when first married, buy used furniture, and set aside money for the future.Marital and family themes also reflect the manner in which the couple maintains a sense ofintergenerational connectedness with the families of origin (Hess & Handel, 1985). By adopting themesthat have been central in the family of origin, the couple conveys a willingness to remain identified withand connected to past family experiences. Such themes might be reflected in the perpetuation ofcherished holiday customs and traditions or in the reenactment of long-standing shared beliefs such asthe “importance of children in families” or the “value of performing public service.” Adopting the family’swell-established ethnic or religious orientations also maintains intergenerational connectedness. Theestablishment of such themes not only solidifies the couple’s ties to the families of origin but alsodefines the new couple’s identity to family and the community.Finally, themes also reflect ways in which couples see themselves as unique and different from familyand friends (Hess & Handel, 1985). One factor here is the role or personal identity each partnerdeveloped within his or her family of origin. For example, the rebel within the family may detest his orher family’s emphasis on materialism and adopt a counter-theme of “the simple and rustic life,” which isthen brought into the marriage. The rebel might, on the other hand, reject the “old world” ethnic valuesof the extended family in favor of a more modern approach to marriage and family life. Such shifts inthemes and values can stress the relations between generations.A major factor that can influence whether couples emphasize separateness over connectedness inrelation to the family of origin is the extent to which each partner experienced their families asfunctioning successfully. Partners are generally more willing to incorporate major elements of theirfamily’s themes into their own marriages when they view their families as having successfully met theirown and other family members’ needs. When the family of origin is viewed as inadequate, flawed, or inneed of repair, young couples are more likely to disengage from the family and reject its basic themes(Wamboldt & Wolin, 1989). In other words, the legacy each partner has incorporated from the family oforigin also influences the themes that are (at least consciously) retained or rejected. Partners whosefamily legacy included themes of fairness, equity, and trust are more likely to remain intergenerationallyconnected with the extended family than are those whose family legacy involved themes of deprivation,mistrust, neglect, or exploitation (Wamboldt & Wolin, 1989).Although some of the themes that are established in a new marriage are passed down from generationto generation, the establishment of these themes within the marriage requires considerable negotiation.Each marital partner seeks to integrate into the marriage the legacies that he or she brings from his orher respective family of origin. In some instances, these negotiations result in one legacy taking priorityover the other. This occurs, for example, when spouses from different ethnic or religious origins assumethe ethnic or religious identity of only one family of origin. In other instances, there is a blending andcompromising of themes and identities that result in the emergence of novel themes. In still otherinstances, despite conscious intentions to the contrary, partners may reenact themes that perpetuateunresolved conflicts with the family of origin in the present marriage (Bagarozzi & Anderson, 1989;Napier, 1988).The challenge confronted by newly married couples, therefore, is not only to establish themes but tointegrate the legacies and themes from their respective families of origin. The pressures that couplesmay experience as they set about this task center around the need to negotiate their marital and familythemes in ways that promote harmony both within the marriage and within the extended family system.This is a delicate negotiation, to be sure!The Negotiation of Marital Roles.Marriage brings with it the acquisition of a new role, that of being a spouse or long-term partner. Duringthe transition to marriage, couples must negotiate how they intend to act in accordance with this newrole. This may seem like a relatively straightforward issue. After all, most heterosexuals have some ideaof how husbands and wives are expected to behave. However, there is considerable ambiguity aboutwhat is expected of husbands and wives in contemporary society, and certainly even more ambiguitywithin same-sex relationships about how to organize these role relationships (Blumstein &Schwartz, 1983). This ambiguity amplifies the stress couples experience at the point of marriage.It is useful at this time to discuss the concepts of roles, conjugal roles, and counter-roles. Simply defined,a role is the shared prescriptions for behavior associated with a social position (Heiss,1981). A conjugalrole is the prescriptions for behavior associated with the social position of a spouse. Individuals entermarriage with preconceived notions of how they and their partners should act as marital partners. Rolesprovide predictability and enable the occupants of social positions, and others with whom they interact,to anticipate behavior and maintain order or regularity in their social interactions (Turner, 1970).Roles can be understood only in relation to complementary or counter-roles (LaRossa & Reitzes,1992).The role of husband, for example, is complemented by the counter-role of wife. Each role carries with itexpectations for behavior that superimpose expectations for behavior on the other in the counter-roleposition. When a man acts in accordance with his beliefs about how he is supposed to behave as ahusband, he (1) assumes that his wife will share his expectations; and (2) anticipates that his wife will actin a particular way toward him in return.To illustrate, when a man believes that husbands should not do housework, implicit in this set ofexpectations is the expectation that his wife (1) will agree that husbands should not have to dohousework; and (2) will accept the responsibility for doing the housework. This expectation, and thebehavior that follows from this expectation, does not create conflict in the relationship so long as thereis a congruence of expectations and behavior (Burr, Leigh, Day, & Constantine, 1979). In other words, weare likely to be satisfied with our partner’s behavior when that behavior is consistent with our ownexpectations. Conflict, stress, and dissatisfaction ensue, however, when one partner’s expectations andbehavior are not consistent with the other’s expectations and behavior.Our identities as marital partners are clearly embedded within our own unique conceptualization of howmarital roles should be enacted. When expectations are shared, interactions flow smoothly, and we tendto feel satisfied with our partners and our relationship with them. We also tend to feel good aboutourselves because the fit between expectations and behaviors confirms our own identities as individuals.In short, the fit between our expectations for our partner and our partner’s actual behavior influenceshow we feel about our partner, our relationship, and ourselves. Thus, a primary task for newly marriedcouples is the development of a relationship reality that makes concrete the expectations that we havefor ourselves and our partner in the role of spouse (Berger & Kellner, 1985). Implicit in this process is theneed to evolve a clear vision of the prescriptions for behavior associated with these conjugal roles. Thesetransition times are clearly made easier when the norms for roles are clear and shared within the society(Burr et al., 1979; Wiley, 1985). Lack of role clarity and consensus about how roles should be enactedcreates the stress of role conflict, which brings with it the need for negotiations.Because family of origin and socialization experiences are different for men and women, it is likely thathusbands and wives will have different views of how conjugal roles should be enacted. The stressexperienced by newly married couples may be further amplified because the roles of husbands andwives within contemporary American society are undergoing change. The main point here is thatconjugal roles are generally not altogether clear, nor is a consensus between partners guaranteed. Forinstance, if a woman v…