Thanks everyone for the responses to “A College Degree is Just a Piece of Paper?”
“nobody.really,” I agree that you’re right to shift the focus of the analogy from a “college degree” to a “college education.” I should have said “A College Education is Just a Piece of Paper?” The important point is that for certain kinds of jobs, we expect people to pursue higher education—and not just by reading things in their spare time or doing what they can to talk to learned people; we expect them to obtain higher education through an institution: an institution with its own norms (i.e. don’t plagiarize) and structure (i.e. professors teaching students). It is precisely those norms that enable a college education to be a transformative process. Through the books that one reads, the professors that one encounters, the conversations with students in class—they are intended to expand the student’s grasp of the world. As the student learns, his thinking undergoes a transformation and his skills are honed. This transformation and development of skills works so well because it works within the context of an institution. Again, for people who are pursuing particular kinds of jobs, we expect them to receive a particular kind of education—in an institution. And we expect them to do that—or at least this is the way it should work—not because of some arbitrary requirement, but because higher education is supposed to be a transformative process.
Just as a college education is supposed to be a transformative process, so marriage is supposed to be a transformative relationship. For instance, the norm to “love and cherish” the other person “for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part” spurs (or is supposed to spur) the married couple to constantly get outside of himself or herself and look out for the good of the other person. Just as one could try to get the equivalent of a college education through informal means, so a couple could try to live the marital vow through their own resolve and effort. But missing will be the public vow, the law reminding the couple of their promise, and the social expectation that you fulfill that vow. And in the absence of those public norms and the community’s expectations, the couple is left to do it on their own.
Of course, one will say “But those expectations are exactly what we need to change! We should create laws that recognize cohabiting couples and as a society we should expect more commitment from a cohabiting couple.”
My question to that retort is “How would that be different than marriage?” If many people agree (as Rosin does) that serial cohabitation is a problem, what is the alternative? And if the alternative is not marriage, how is that alternative different from marriage? That’s a question I’d like very much to hear a response to—so if anyone has an opinion, please do share.
La Lubu, as you can see from my thoughts above, we disagree about whether marriage creates stability or not. I would agree with you that marriage doesn’t create stability if marriage meant “as long as our love shall last” (and no matter what vows are said, I’m pretty convinced that’s that’s what a lot of people believe—that marriage should last only as long as feelings of love last). But if marriage means to love and to cherish for better or worse, etc. etc.—then marriage does create stability. And my understanding of marriage is the latter—so I argue that marriage can create stability if a couple (of course it takes two!) allows the marriage vow to shape their love into a sturdy and enduring love.
Of course, it needs to be always said that a married couple should not stay together in cases of abuse. And neither should we put a scarlet letter on anybody who is divorced—who can know what a person endured?
But despite all the divorce and abuse and cheating that young poor and working class people see, as I noted in my earlier post, statistics show that the vast majority of them still want to get married.
The million dollar question for me is “How can we ensure that if and when they do get married they are able to experience a loving, happy marriage?”
La Lubu, you believe that the best one can do is to get one’s financial independence absolutely staked out—and then get married. And then, it seems, basically hope that their marriage works out. If it doesn’t, the person always has his or her own career and financial resources to fall back on.
I’m suggesting we can do better than that. I completely agree that one of the greatest tasks of our time is how to create broader economic opportunity. But let’s not just focus on economics. Let’s do both/and. Let’s think about economy and culture.
I’m suggesting we can give women and men the option of a better marriage story—a story that says you can realize your dreams for lifelong love. Remember the marriage vow is not simply to stick with each other “for better or worse … until death do us part.” Rather, it is “to love and cherish” through sickness and health, through little and plenty. In other words, marriage rightly understood has a norm of marital friendship—and of lifelong marriage. The two are inseparable.
And because of the human person’s potential for greatness in the area of love, we can create a social expectation of lifelong, marital friendship, so that when our children get married they are entering something safe and good. In the name of the greatness of the human person, we must firmly reject any determinist assertion that people—or any particular group of people—are incapable of experiencing lifelong love.
That’s why Rosin’s suggestion that poor and working class people getting married “just isn’t gonna happen” is so insulting—it’s insulting to the aspirations and dignity of the human person. They long for lifelong love, and they are capable of achieving it.
