The Marriage Postulate

Nearly twelve years ago, I wrote this piece. My marriage was a good two and half years away, but the thought had started bothering me a little. My parents were anxious to get me married off and 'settled' in life. Here I was, with so many questions and confused thoughts. I decided to make sense of that turmoil through this article. Writing about it made me feel somewhat more comfortable, I remember. Ultimately, I don't think I was guided by a 'rational' decision into marriage -- I just plunged into it, like everyone else!

Having reached a “marriageable” age, it is only natural that the thought should now be consistently nagging my mind. My thinking has left me confused - clarity on the matter seems like the mirage. What does it mean to marry, after all? And why am I so bothered by the question?

A friend of mine, who’s evidently happily married, said as a matter of fact, “You are needlessly being consumed by this question because you look at it as a major decision in your life. Why should it be so? Just marry!” If only it had been just as easy!

To begin with, the thought of staying with somebody all your life is frightening. Suppose we get bored of each other? What if we begin to dislike each other intensely? In this sense, isn’t marriage some thing that “makes” or “breaks” our lives? The latter phenomenon is being observed with increasing regularity. The standard reply to this would be, “Well, everything depends on how you make it work, the extent of give and take, the ability to adjust...” I can only nod my head in vague, cerebral agreement.

The institution of marriage is as old as the hills. It’ll be interesting to see how it began. Perhaps this will provide us with insights into the issue of why one should marry at all, or say, what the advantages may be, if one marries.

Prehistoric people were primarily nomadic. They must have operated with some division of labour. Quite understandably, the men-folk would have done the roaming, hunting etc., while the women were relatively less mobile, rearing children and so on. With the advent of agriculture, the mobility of men must have reduced, as their work profiles changed.

In the initial stages, I suppose there were no restrictions to mating freely within a particular community. The issue of pair bonding may have come about in relation to taking care of the young ones. Thus, it seems to me that, over a period of time, the bonding must have become “institutionalised” and ritualised because of this reason, i.e., proper care for the offspring, and the propagation of the species.

I’m sure there was a realisation that this would be a socially stable arrangement. Also, it ensured some sort of security for the individuals involved, physically and emotionally.

How were mates chosen? I do not know, but I believe that the process was more instinctual, and not governed as such by the intellect. There must have been the problem of separation, if “everything did not go well”. How did it operate then?

Today, the essential argument for marriage being the same, the process has become vastly complicated. No longer does it cater only to the issue of species propagation - the central problem of marriage is the problem of compatibility.

In this connection, the study of astrology is interesting. Scientific scepticism does not deter the astrologers who cling to the belief that our fate is linked to the movements of the stars and planets. This is somehow related to the psychological attributes of the person. Presumably, horoscope matching is nothing but the matching of these attributes.

Well, this is one side of the story. While astrological predictions are considered to be important, marital harmony is seen to be very much linked to (that oft used word) compatibility. Physical, emotional and intellectual matching, to various degrees, is the crux of the matter. Add to this the matching of social and economic status. Nowadays, these two seem to have taken precedence over the others as necessary criteria for a “good” marriage. Marriages are increasingly beginning to look like business propositions. Thousands of years ago, the processes leading to a bonding for life must have been much simpler.

What are the arguments for marriage? My supposition is that humans have to grapple with loneliness and insecurity - this is our fundamental predicament. Many are the efforts that are expended to overcome this condition. My own understanding is that this predicament invariably leads to, in all of us, a universal hunger and longing for love. Marriage is one of the ways by which this incompleteness can be filled. In this context, the essence of marriage is that it is a process of sharing our lives (with our husbands and wives…) -- joy, sorrow, pleasure, ideas, feelings, sunsets and sunrises, the trees, hills and vales, rivers, oceans, butterflies, babies and indeed, the entire gamut of existence. It is this sharing that helps us to transcend our aloneness and vulnerability and become stronger. The creator has perhaps intended in the cosmic scheme of things that man and woman be complementary to each other, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

Having put forward my case for marriage, let’s look at the flip side of things. Marriage, in my opinion, is a ‘construct’ of the human mind. In this sense, it is artificial, perhaps unlike the natural theory of selection of Darwin. It is not ‘naturally’ intended as a process in nature. Barring the issue of insecurity and safe propagation of species, I do not see any other worthwhile reason for marriage. Custodians of marriage may reproach me for being ‘anti-marriage-establishment’. Let that be. This is precisely how I feel. There may be a few exceptions, where individuals have managed to live with each other for several years, and yet the experience is enriching and meaningful. By and large, many couples whom I have met indicate that their relationships have become routine. The rejoinder to this may be that it is entirely up to the individuals to “make it work”. But when I see a widespread breakdown of sorts – divorce, suicide, extra-marital pre-occupations, even couple ‘swapping’ and an overall lack of purpose and meaning in marriages, I am inclined to believe that a re-thinking is needed. These are manifestations of a ‘gross mismatch’ of the different compatibility criteria that contribute to a good marriage. Something is therefore wrong.

I must address the issue of matching and compatibility in greater detail now, after having touched upon it so far in a somewhat casual manner. All conditions of compatibility operate as a whole, and not separately by themselves, and each condition is linked to the other. It is only because some (or few) of these criteria are met that people are looking elsewhere for fulfilment. The outlook is not holistic, and does not cater to the soul. The nourishment is only partial: “I’d like to marry somebody who’s earning at least 20,000/- per month (so that our combined earning is at least 30,000/-),” or, “My wife should preferably be a software engineer working in a multi-national corporation.” I do not wish to be unjustly critical, but these are statements indicative of a trend that doesn’t promise healthy, enriching marriages. While I do appreciate that there are practical difficulties especially in an age of spiralling costs, these parameters should not be allowed to take precedence over other, more important factors that will ultimately contribute to human wellbeing. If happiness in marriage is what one aspires for, it is puzzling that we’re choosing routes which will only take us there tangentially, or may not even take us there at all.

Translated into simpler terms, one way of looking at marriages is that they are need-based. Every individual has many needs, apart from just finance – sexual needs and their fulfilment, for instance. Emotions need proper expression; their suppression only leads to frustration. Thus, it seems that need fulfilment is closely linked to compatibility, and comes before it. But how can needs get fulfilled when two individuals may have very different sets of needs, priorities and expectations?

We finally then arrive at the matter of ‘compromise’ and ‘adjustment’. These are words that are used more than they are implemented. They essentially refer to the giving up of space in order to create space for the other. Its almost like saying, “Well, we may have several needs – can we learn to express them; can we also agree upon which of these needs can be met, how they can be met; can we agree upon what may not be possible, and why so?” This dialogue is necessary to keep the relationship going, and needs a considerable amount of time, effort and perseverance.

I’m still not convinced that this is possible by and large throughout the human species. Is it humanly possible for men and women to stay meaningfully and purposefully with each other throughout their lives, rear children, and look after each other? To many this may be a redundant question. I ask it with all sincerity and passion, for it relates to the overall quality of life, and not, on the other hand, a mechanical, routine exercise of living.

By nature, there are various impulses operating within us, which may not find an expression in marriage. What is to be done about them? Forget them, suppress them, or, find fulfilment and gratification for them discreetly elsewhere? How does one look at the issue of loyalty in a marriage?

I’m still confused, but I’d rather believe that the creation of the institution of marriage might not be in consonance with certain fundamental, natural qualities and tendencies in human beings. It is only the fear of chaos that has ensured the endurance of the institution.

My imagination recoils at the thought of the resultant disorder that would prevail in society if it not were for marriage. Perhaps, we can make it work if we set our own inner houses in order.

November ’97