America 's Expansion Of Individualism And Materialism

In Caitlin Flanagan’s Is There Hope for the American Marriage, she establishes the foundation for what the American Marriage means in today’s world by arguing that marriages are likely to collapse over time. With this being said, Flanagan goes on to depict the fragility of marriage during times of adversity, and how susceptible the couples can be when searching for alternative bonds from people other than their own partner, even if it means making moral sacrifices. Through a series of anecdotes from sources like herself to politicians, she further expands on this idea that the ideal marriage is nothing but a hoax for the likelihood of publicity. Flanagan includes sources from sociologists, such as Andrew J. Cherlin and Maria Kefalas, both whom

The bar charts illustrate changes in marriage and divorces levels, during 30 years, from 1970 until 2000 and also the more detailed look at American’s demographic in the beginning year and the year end. Overall, it is clear that population of marriage was declining during the period, although it received the highest rate with mark difference in each year. We can see that marriage achieved a peak of 2.5 million during two first decades, while this figure was not stable in the further years. It tailed off before reaching around 2 million in 2000. However, divorce rate rose steadily from 1 million in 1970 to a peak of just under 1.5 million in 1980.

In Andrew J. Cherlin’s essay “American Marriage In Transition”, he discusses how marriage in America is evolving from the universal marriage. Cherlin’s definition of the universal marriage in his essay is the man is the breadwinner of the household and the woman is the homemaker. In the 20th century according to Cherlin, the meaning of marriage has been altered such as the changing division of labor, childbearing outside of marriage, cohabitation, gay marriage and the result of long- term cultural and material trends (1154). During the first transition of marriage, Cherlin discusses how in America, Europe, and Canada the only socially accepted way to have sexual relations with a person and to have children is to be married (1154). The second change in marriage occurred in 2000, where the median age of marriage in the United States for men is 27 and women is 25 (1155). Many young adults stayed single during this time and focused on their education and starting their careers. During the second change, the role of law increasingly changed, especially in the role of law in divorce (1155). It is proven in today’s research marriage has a different definition than what it did back in the 1950’s. Today marriage can be defined as getting married to the same gender or getting remarried to someone who already has kids. The roles in a marriage are evolving to be a little more flexible and negotiable. However, women still do a lot of the basic household chores and taking care of the

The article "American Marriage in Transition" was written by Andrew J. Cherlin. Cherlin is a sociologist who studied at Johns Hopkins University, he is a published author, and this article originally appeared in The Journal of Marriage and Family. The author claims that there are two transitions in the meaning of marriage from the traditional institutional meaning. The first is a companionate marriage and that is more focused on the relationship. The final definition he describes a more individual relationship where people focus on personal satisfaction more than in previous marriage definitions. Then he claims people are often more invested in their individualism rather than getting satisfaction from playing the traditional marriage. The

They surveyed 115 cohabitators from working lower and middle classes. The article describes how the economy effects marital decision making, it also shows how these people perceive financial issues as important to marriage. Also, that people think that marriage will change their lives, people think marriage should only occurs once finically set. The investigation and methods they use to complete this article was in-depth. They use racially and ethnically diverse people of both genders. Manning, Smock and Porter take in different aspects like education, personal income, and employment statuses. Findings show that income varies significantly by race/ethnicity and gender. The survey is adequate for gathering

Within a generation, America has seen drastic changes in the home. My mother was raised in an era where the nuclear family was the norm. Now, it has become largely acceptable for children to be born out of wedlock and into single parent homes. I’m guessing the question as to why it has become so widely accepted, is on your mind as well. June Carbone and Naomi Cahn have set out to see why this is happening in their new book, Marriage Markets: How Inequality Is Remaking the American Family. Carbone and Cahn are well-known for their work in the field of family dynamics due to their previous book, Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture; a book discussing the effect political parties had on family morals and values. Marriage Markets is essentially a sequel, using much of the same data while adding more contemporary findings. Using quantitative research methods, Carbone and Cahn were able to assess the changes America has seen in recent years. They have hypothesized that “economic inequality is remaking the American family along class lines, and families are not going through the same changes together” (Carbone 1). . Based on the reading, there is strong evidence that supports their thesis, including statistics from the Census. In the following review of Carbone and Cahn’s work, I will summarize the book’s contents and survey its major strengths and weaknesses.

They bring up the risks and rewards of marriage for a couple with and w/out economic advantage to try to put the reason for marriage decline into practical perspective. Families changing is often blamed on things like same-sex marriage and children born out of wedlock when they aren't the problem. The authors stress that it is economic inequality and the increase of dysfunctionality in our society together that are hindering

When we are young we play house and we play doctor, we pretend we are husbands and wives to the kids we play with. Marriage is imbedded into our minds at a young age and we value marriage as we get older. We see examples of marriages through personal experience, the TV, and through the media, but how much has marriage changed now compared to the 1950’s? The idea of marriage has been altered and improved since the 1950’s because of feminism, views about individualism, and views of same-sex marriage.

In over half a century, marriage has transformed from being a social requirement to simply being an option in today’s society. What has caused this change? Many institutions in our society have changed drastically along with marriage. Although these institutions have not caused marriage to be optional, they do strongly correlate with the decreased value. The economy, education, religion, and government have all altered since the 1950s. When any institution encounters a change, all other institutions are affected. Family is a major institution in society, and I believe that marriage is an important aspect of this institution. Cohabitation, religion, women in the work world and divorce have all effected the way marriage is viewed today.

     In years past, the American Dream for most young girls’ is to grow up and be married to Prince Charming and to “Live Happily Ever After!” Although this may be expected - it is rarely fulfilled. Marriage is the legal and binding union between a man and woman. Yet when couples marry, they vow to stay by their partner’s side ‘till death do us part.’ Currently that vow seems to have little or no value in today’s society. The current statistics for survival of marriage are quite grim. The divorce rate in the United States is somewhere between 50 percent and a startling 67 percent. (KSL News) One contributing factor the growing epidemic of divorce is the parting of different family

When asked the question, "How is Individualism as a value in the United States compared to other democracies." one can produce many answers. But, the most logical reason by far is due to the heightened opportunities for Americans to better themselves as opposed to other democracies.

Cohabitation is a relatively new form of union formation in the United States that is much more likely to occur among younger individuals than older ones. Estimates suggest that about 35 percent of persons born in the early 1960s will live with someone of the opposite sex before they reach their 25th birthday. This is compared to less than 8 percent of those born in the early 1940s. This form of living is becoming a norm in the world (Marin, Stolzenberg and Waite, 1995). One study found that, in 1997, almost 3.7 American households were composed of unmarried couples. Demographers comment that cohabitation has become an acceptable form of union. It is even viewed as a stage, the first phase in marriage. Many perceive cohabitation as a trial

Marriage is steady and stable for the highly educated Americans; marriages are still weak for the lower class, but according to the State of Our Unions, middle American marriages are in trouble. This article stresses that marriage is not just important for two people who are in love with one another, it stresses that marriage is important for America to thrive. The article separates Americans into three different groups: poor, middle class, and highly educated Americans. Marriage has always been feeble for citizens that are labeled as poor. The middle class, which is fifty- eight percent of America, are defined as a person who did attend high school and wasn’t a drop out. Middle class Americans are also defined as a person who has some form of college or training the goes beyond high school. The middle class is most people and since there are so many this is why we have to find out why are marriages are failing in this groups. This article also talks about the highly educated, thirty percent of our population, who have at

Burgess delves into understanding the diversity and instability of the American family, through the context of social change. During the early parts of the 20th century, he notes a trend in which viewpoints regarding marriage began shifting away from it being something founded on customs and public opinions (what he deems “contractual”) to “companionship.” In other words, marriage was becoming an arrangement based on mutual interests and personal reward. As such, couples no longer felt obligated to remain married even if they were no longer in love. In fact, they shifted over to the opposite side of the spectra in that they virtually demanded divorce unless they remained in love. Comparing this to modern times, in which divorce rates are at an all-time high, one could say his reasoning stands stronger than ever. Although seeking reward is not inherently a negative thing, societies have become fixated on and misguided by the wrong type of reward, namely something external and meaningless. Because relationships lack depth, people go in thinking they’re rewarding themselves only to be rudely awakened by what’s on the other side of the altar.

Over the past five decades, the number of couples who cohabitate before marriage in the United States has increased by 500%. In a survey conducted in 2007, 27% of Americans voiced their disagreement with premarital cohabitation. Society’s views and positions on romantic relationships and marriage have significantly evolved throughout the past couple decades and still are rapidly changing. Due to low resistance to cohabitation and great extent of its consistency, it may seem as though there are only fragile remnants of opposition to it remaining. However, the weight of the decision to cohabitate is a serious one and it is necessary to recognize that it will result in difficult and typically unforeseen consequences. Over 12 million unmarried partners live together in the US and it's likely that nearly