The latest Prospect has a nice piece on Durkheim by Michael Prowse, arguing that we should take him seriously as a critic of free-market capitalism. I was, however, struck by this paragraph concerning Durkheim’s views on the advantages of marriage for men:
Durkheim used the example of marriage to illustrate the problem of anomie or inadequate social regulation. You might think that men would be happiest if able to pursue their sexual desires without restraint. But it is not so, Durkheim argued: all the evidence (including relative suicide rates) suggests that men do better when marriage closes their horizons. As bachelors they can chase every woman they find attractive but they are rarely contented because the potential objects of desires are so numerous. Nor do they enjoy any security because they may lose the woman they are currently involved with. By contrast, Durkheim argued, the married man is generally happier: he must now restrict himself to one woman (at least most of the time) but there is a quid pro quo. The marriage rules require the woman to give herself to him: hence his one permitted object of desire is guaranteed. Marriage thus promotes the long-term happiness of men (Durkheim was less certain that it helped women) because it imposes a sometimes irksome constraint on their passions.
No comment from me, except that it reminded me of a dialogue between Gabrielle and her boy-gardener lover during a recent episode of Desperate Housewives . It went something like this:
He: So why did you marry Carlos?
She: Because he promised to give me everything I desired.
He: And did he?
She: Yes.
He: So why aren’t you happy?
She: It turns out I desired the wrong things.
Cue Aristotle stage left?
Pretty much all the research by demographers and life-course people confirms that Durkheim was right, by the way. Despite conventional wisdom about the benefits of not being tied down to the ol’ ball and chain, etc, etc, married men are much better off than single men on a whole variety of indices of well-being and health. Marriage is also a much better deal for men than for women. They get the benefits but do less work.
Though, if I remember right, marriage is a better deal than single-ness for women, just not as much better a deal as it is for men.
Alright, that does it. I succumb. Tonight I will watch Desperate Housewives.
This helps to explain why there is so little adultery among the marrieds.
… that show. Even on Crooked Timber, there is no escape from that show.
And does anyone ever ask, is Carlos happy? Is he, too, perhaps desperate in his own way?
I didn’t think so.
You should pitch Desperate Carloses to the networks.
Desperate Car Loses Race, Enrolls in Accountancy School
Oh, that wasn’t a typo?
Durkheim was very worried by one of his nephews, the famous Marcel Mauss, who married very late. Durkheim wrote him letters urging him to marry, writing things such as “you’re radiating coldness around you” (my bad translation). Durkheim really believed in his theories and really feared “anomie”.
My, does Prouse work hard to note that, okay, Durkheim is good, but sociology? Feh!
Fred Lapides:
“This helps to explain why there is so little adultery among the marrieds”
HL Mencken:
“It is, indeed, the secret scandal of Christendom, at least in the Protestant regions, that most men are faithful to their wives. You will travel a long way before you find a married man who will admit that he is, but the facts are the facts, and I am surely not one to flout them.”
Apparantly, the major problems are: lack of courage, lack of money, and presence of a conscience.
On the other hand, contra Durkheim:
“Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who would want to live in an institution?”
As bachelors they can chase every woman they find attractive but they are rarely contented because the potential objects of desires are so numerous.
Ahem, so more choice doesn’t necessarily always lead to better results. Just can’t help thinking of the modernisation arguments being offered by some New Labour folks over public services!
By contrast, Durkheim argued, the married man is generally happier: he must now restrict himself to one woman (at least most of the time) but there is a quid pro quo. The marriage rules require the woman to give herself to him: hence his one permitted object of desire is guaranteed. Marriage thus promotes the long-term happiness of men (Durkheim was less certain that it helped women) because it imposes a sometimes irksome constraint on their passions.
This reminds me in an odd way, of a colleague of mine; much taken with Lacanian psycho-analysis and the applications it can have in social theory. From what I could understand (and I didn’t really grasp the whole theory despite repeated explanations) the economy of desire operates in certain specific ways that resemble language; part of which involves that for desire to exist there much be a lack which it seeks to fulfil and obstructions which prevent its realisation. Like any system with consistent rules, the aim is to reach some sort of working balance, which allows desire to exist but never for it to be satisfied. Marriage in this sense, provides one such mechanism whereby a man can still desire other women; while having this desire governed by a set of nominal prohibitions; so rather than chasing after an Obscure Object of Desire; a series of distant objects now exist to arouse and motivate it while a proximate object is also there for more substantial fulfilment. Of course, the ‘system’ isn’t perfect and breaks down when prohibitions are crossed or the proximate object ceases to be desirable. I suppose using a Freudian analogy; the real problem is that one cannot ever, enjoy secure access to the object of desire and if one could it would no longer be all that desirable. I am not an expert or even well-versed in these theories so I have probably mangled their representation; but what I like about them is the fact that constraint and repetitive obstructions are seen as very much intrinsic to the way desire itself works and part of what sustain it.
Pessimistically, it suggests that we almost always ‘desire the wrong things’ (retrospectively, of course).
Tomorrow, a new medicine is introduced with at reasonable cost extends the human lifetime to 300 years and maintains the body in the condition of today’s 30 year olds.
Do men still agree to marry one woman for life? Do women agree?
Cranky
Of course, one could also argue that attaining marriage gives one an excuse to no longer compete for and fail to achieve the object of one’s desire. Let’s face it, body of a 30-year-old or not, most people aren’t going to win the singles bar sweepstakes!
I’ve always had a soft spot for Durkeim’s theories, though. . . .
Heterosexual monogamy is the defining spiritual practice of the West. (Abelard and Heloise, Chretien de Troyes and all that.) In short, not only is marriage an alchemical discipline, it is the only one recognized and supported, albeit invisibly, by Western secular society. Hence the benefit to individuals.
Durkheim’s analysis above is an earlier generation’s version of today’s specious popularized arguments based on “evolutionary psychology”.
Maybe I could have made the same point while still leaving the odious spectres of several cans of worms unturned.
Try this:
Durkheim: “… there is a quid pro quo. The marriage rules require the woman to give herself to him: hence his one permitted object of desire is guaranteed.”
Oh really???
Upon reflection I realize I could have made the same point while introducing much less danger of controversy. Like so:
Durkheim: “… there is a quid pro quo. The marriage rules require the woman to give herself to him: hence his one permitted object of desire is guaranteed.”
Oh really???
Aw, crikey. Apologies for the double post.
Pierre,
You beat me to it.
Durkheim seems unaware that there are two basic forms of sexual dissatisfaction in long-standing human partnerships - tired of having sex with your partner and tired of not having sex with you partner. In rare cases, one can suffer from both simultaneously.
An overwhelming majority of men choose to marry. If the marriage fails, a large percentage marry again though the odds of success are not in their favor. Assuming men enjoy free will and instituions (including marriage) are shaped by men, Durkheim’s theory seems plausible.
An overwhelming majority of men choose to marry. If the marriage fails, a large percentage marry again though the odds of success are not in their favor. Assuming men enjoy free will and instituions (including marriage) are shaped by men, Durkheim’s theory seems plausible.
Its a sign of the times that Durkheim has been rehabilitated and all his thinly disguised jeriamiads about what really threatens social life are now taken as undiscovered mines of wisdom. Sociological hackdom and moral authoritarianism never had as good.
“But how do you know what you want till you get what you want and you see if you like it?” - Cinderella, Into The Woods
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review