[intro music] (host) When did marriages For centuries, marriage was viewed as a practical arrangement between two families, so what changed to make love the basis for the institution of marriage?

So, a lot of people across the U.S. have grown up thinking that love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage, but besides being the lyrics to the catchy opening theme song of "Married... With Children" and a popular song by Frank Sinatra, I wanted to know: When did love become the primary rubric for choosing a life partner?

Now, before we get started, I would like to point out a small disclaimer, that this episode isn't intended as an endorsement of any particular type of marriage or as a negation of the wonderful institution of love.

Rather, I wanted to do some deeper research into how love matches became the ultimate sign of a healthy or strong marriage in the U.S. and when we started to see the shift from marriage as the joining of two lives based on choices of families and parents, to marriage as a choice driven by love at the center.

Because even though love wasn't always considered the central criteria for getting married, today, love is a key factor in how Americans choose to enter into marriage, with a recent study showing 88% of Americans listing it as a very important reason to enter into marriage, over the 81% who listed making a lifelong commitment as very important, the 76% who listed companionship as vital, 49% who thought having kids was key, and the 28% who thought financial stability ranked high marks.

But as you can see from these numbers, many of these considerations-- love, companionship, financial stability--overlap.

So even if someone thinks love is key, that doesn't mean that they consider it to the exclusion of everything else.

So, to start off this week's topic, we should first ask ourselves: When did marriage start?

And what were the primary rubrics for choosing a mate before love came into the mix?

Well, if you haven't gotten a chance to watch our episode on the origins of the nuclear family-- hint, hint--here's a short recap on the marriage portion.

Marriage is a custom that dates back thousands of years and is practiced in cultures the world over, and marriages have taken a variety of forms, including the arranged marriages sanctioned by parents, religious marriages, monogamous marriages, plural marriages, and marriages that involve licenses and other legal documents issued through the state or government.

Also, since divorce and annulment were considerably less common until recently, either due to a lack of legal recourse or because of the social stigma, marriages often lasted longer, although that doesn't note whether they were more functional, happy, and harmonious unions.

But according to Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage: A History," the love match is a relatively recent phenomenon in Western marriage customs.

She says that "What marriage had in common "was that it really was not about the relationship "between the man and the woman.

"It was a way of getting in-laws, "of making alliances, and expanding the family labor force."

So, not exactly hearts, roses, red boxes of chocolates, and warm, fuzzy feelings, but it brings us to our next question: When did love start being considered the primary reason for marriage?

Well, according to Dr. Aparajita Jeedigunta's blog, some of that has to do with marriage laws and property rights.

In early marriages in societies that establish property laws through children, Jeedigunta notes that "monogamous marriages were a way of legitimizing children," with men claiming their offspring and wives as part of their household and "property."

Charming, really.

This ensured that any family wealth passed down accordingly, but starting in the 10th century in Europe, the concept of consent in marriage became more vital, "with the idea that unions between two consenting parties "should be approved by religious body and before God."

So, love before the union began wasn't considered the only focus, but consent and family approval often were.

And the idea of a married couple growing to love ach other or providing companionship after years in a relationship wasn't so outside of the cultural imagination.

It was just viewed as a potential part of married life rather than as a prerequisite for getting hitched.

But, throughout history, people have gotten married for a variety of reasons, and love was sometimes one of them.

However, it wasn't such a common practice in the West that became a well-known truism.

That didn't start until the 18th century, when the idea of marriages based on romance as an ideal started to slowly emerge.

And this trend continued into the 19th century because businesses and factories weren't the only thing that the Industrial Revolution, well, revolutionized.

As people began to move away from family areas and into more densely-populated cities, we saw the rise of Enlightenment Era ideals as a focus on individuality and the happiness of the individual.

As a result, in Europe and the U.S., some folks were picking their own partners for the first time rather than relying on or considering the larger family structure.

So, with people moving away from the influence and protection of their parents' household in order to make livings in large cities, all of this newfangled Enlightenment talk about the individual as opposed to the group or collective is theorized to have impacted marriage trends, which was followed by similar trends throughout the Romantic Era that centered inspiration, strong emotion, and individual instinct.

As a result, during the 19th century, in areas and countries such as Europe, the U.S., and Australia, we started to see the rise in the love match, and not just as words associated with tennis, which wasn't as long ago as we might originally think.

But this perspective isn't universal.

For example, a contemporary study of populations' attitudes towards marriage in India, Pakistan, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Australia, England, and the United States by Robert LeVine et al, found that love isn't considered the #1 factor in choosing a life partner in some contemporary Eastern cultures, whereas it ranked as the highest consideration in the West.

And arranged marriages aren't a relic of the past.

They still exist widely across cultures from Jewish and Hindu matchmakers to celebrity matchmakers with reality TV shows.

So, how does it all add up?

Well, even though marriages being chosen based on love is a relatively recent occurrence in some countries, such as in the U.S., it still doesn't remain the norm everywhere.

And while there is evidence to suggest that love matches are more likely to end in divorce than marriages that are arranged, we should take both of these facts into careful consideration.

Divorce rates alone cannot tell us about the happiness or functionality of certain relationships.

So, just because a marriage is passionate the onset doesn't mean that it will last forever or that it will fall apart.

And a marriage borne out of love can become dysfunctional, or breed a love that lasts a lifetime.

And although arranged marriages tend to last longer, Coontz also notes that some arranged marriages can be coercive or oppressive if both parties aren't consenting.

So, while many people in marriages that are structured around family approval, long-term security, and shared values can lead to supportive and loving arrangements and long-term companionship, there are also instances of bad matches in these cases, as well.

So, if love matches and arranged marriages both have their pluses and minuses, then where do lasting marriages come from?

Well, this is a history show and not a love-advice show, but it seems that early configurations of parties giving consent is the easiest formulation to see how to build a marriage with the potential to last.

Marriages built around consent and not coercion where all parties have shared goals seems to be the real ideal here, whatever form your actual marriage contract may take.

So, what do you think?

Accessibility provided by the U.S. Department of Education.