Marriage and the Self

In the NYT's Week In Review Section, there is a piece on marriage, curiously titled "The Happy Marriage is the 'Me' Marriage."  The marriages that are most likely to last, "studies" show, are those in which each partner experiences "self-expansion" through the relationship with her/his partner.   "For centuries, marriage was viewed as an economic and social institution, and the emotional and intellectual needs of the spouses were secondary to the survival of the marriage itself.  But in modern relationships, people are looking for a partnership, and they want partners who make their life more interesting."  Some of the relationship researchers quoted in the article insist that "while the notion of self-expansion may sound inherently self-serving, it can lead to stronger, more sustainable relationships."   

Ok, I "get" what the researchers are trying to say.  It's exceptionally important not to "lose oneself" in a marriage, and in fact, attention to and care for one's needs is an essential ingredient in a healthy relationship.  But I have to admit that the article--and especially its title, which is what many will remember--made me feel a bit uncomfortable.   I worry that too strong an emphasis on "self-expansion," and crudely put, "the me-marriage" might not ultimately contribute to its sustainability.   Rather, I suspect that it might contribute to some prevalent ideas about marriage that are, in fact, destructive to it.   

One of my favorite books is A Daring Promise: A Spirituality of Christian Marriage, by Richard Gaillardetz., a theologian at the University of Toledo.   In one very interesting chapter, focused on "Marriage and Conversion," Gaillardetz mentions a university colleague who begins his course on marriage in the following way:  "'It is a fundamental axiom of marriage that we always marry the wrong person.'"  He intends, of course, to shock his hearers into attention,  but his basic insight is that as marriage progresses, some "basic marital expectations and relational needs [will] go unmet."  This is to be expected and is quite natural, but we tend not to want to let go of the myth that there is such a person, "the one," who can fulifll our every need.  As a result, we sometimes end up convincing ourselves that we've made a mistake.  This feeling is exacerbated when a third party, who seems to possess the qualities we find missing in our partners, enters the scene.   Granted, Gaillardetz is not saying that we shouldn't look for an interesting partner or hope that our chosen partners will help to expand our world, but what he does emphasize, and what is left entirely out of the picture in the above-referenced NYT piece,  is this "steely-eyed. understanding" of the nature of marriage, and indeed all relationships.  No one person can fulfill all of our needs--that is a fact.  But we expect this, even if unconsiously, of our marriage partners.  But most often, the source of unhappiness in our relationships lies not in our spouses but within ourselves.  Gaillardetz suggests that it is precisely in the moments when we feel, deeply, the "wrongness" of our partners that the possibilities for personal growth and transformation arise.  Gaillardetz would most definitely agree that marriage can be the source of "self-expansion," but the self-expansion of which he writes is of a very different kind, I think.        

Further, should it really be said that the "happy" marriage is the "me" marriage?  As if we don't already pay enough attention to "me," one of the great gods of our culture?  My feminist leanings caution me against too strong an emphasis on self-sacrifice in relationships (historically, women have too often sacrificed themselves in entire and unhealthy ways for the sake of their husbands and children, and we are right to emphasize mutuality in relationships); however, culturally, we seem to have lost--to our detriment, I think-- a sense of the importance, even necessity, of sacrifice--in relationships...in just about everything.  I have been married two and a half years, so I am obviously a novice, but I've learned from happy veterans of marriage that there are so many times when the "me" must be secondary to the "us." 

Marriage is a very "fragile bond," as one writer called it (one of the best recent films which illustrates just how fragile it is, especially when the social supports for it are weak is The Kids Are All Right--I encourage you to see it).  But I'm often frustrated by the facile findings of relationship "experts."  Such a fragile bond, I think, requires much more wisdom than they are capable of offering.