Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage 855 lowers the transaction costs of enforcing agree- may even have increased.Marriage is at once ments between the partners (Pollak,1985).It al- less dominant and more distinctive than it was. lows individuals to invest in the partnership It has evolved from a marker of conformity to with less fear of abandonment.For instance,it a marker of prestige.Marriage is a status one allows the partners to invest financially in joint builds up to,often by living with a partner long-term purchases such as homes and auto- beforehand.by attaining steady employment or mobiles.It allows caregivers to make relation- starting a career,by putting away some savings, ship-specific investments (England Farkas, and even by having children.Marriage's place 1986)in the couple's children-investments of in the life course used to come before those in- time and effort that,unlike strengthening one's vestments were made,but now it often comes job skills,would not be easily portable to afterward.It used to be the foundation of adult another intimate relationship. personal life;now it is sometimes the capstone. Nevertheless,the difference in the amount of It is something to be achieved through one's enforceable trust that marriage brings,compared own efforts rather than something to which one with cohabitation,is eroding.Although relatives routinely accedes. and friends will view a divorce with disappoint- ment,they will accept it more readily than their How Low-Income Individuals See Marriage counterparts would have two generations ago. As I noted,cohabiting couples are increasingly Paradoxically,it is among the lower social strata gaining the rights previously reserved to married in the United States,where marriage rates are couples.It seems likely that over time,the legal lowest,that both the persistent preference for differences between cohabitation and marriage marriage and its changing meaning seem clear- will become minimal in the United States,Cana- est.Although marriage is optional and often da,and many European countries.The advan- foregone,it has by no means faded away among tage of marriage in enhancing trust will then the poor and near poor.Instead,it is a much depend on the force of public commitments, sought-after but elusive goal.They tell observ- both secular and religious,by the partners. ers that they wish to marry,but will do so only In general,the prevailing theoretical perspec- when they are sure they can do it successfully: tives are of greater value in explaining why mar- when their partner has demonstrated the ability riage has declined than why it persists.With to hold a decent job and treat them fairly and more women working outside the home,the pre- without abuse,when they have a security dictions of the specialization model are less rele- deposit or a down payment for a decent apart- vant.Although the rational choice theorists ment or home,and when they have enough in remind us that marriage still provides enforce- the bank to pay for a nice wedding party for able trust,it seems clear that its enforcement family and friends.Edin and Kefalas (forthcom- power is declining.Recently,evolutionary theo- ing),who studied childbearing and intimate re- rists have argued that women who have difficulty lationships among 165 mothers in 8 low-and finding men who are reliable providers might moderate-income Philadelphia neighborhoods, choose a reproductive strategy that involves sin- wrote,"In some sense,marriage is a form of gle parenthood and kin networks,a strategy that social bragging about the quality of the couple is consistent with changes that have occurred in relationship,a powerfully symbolic way of ele- low-income families.And although the insights vating one's relationship above others in the of the theorists of late moderity help us under- community,particularly in a community where stand the changing meaning of marriage,they marriage is rare.” predict that marriage will lose its distinctive sta- Along with several collaborators,I am con- tus,and indeed may already have become just ducting a study of low-income families in three one lifestyle among others.Why,then,are so United States cities.The ethnographic compo- many people still marrying? nent of that study is directed by Linda Burton of Pennsylvania State University.A 27-year-old mother told one of our ethnographers: The Symbolic Significance of Marriage What has happened is that although the practi- I was poor all my life and so was Reginald When I got pregnant,we agreed we would marry cal importance of being married has declined, some day in the future because we loved each its symbolic importance has remained high,and other and wanted to raise our child together.Butlowers the transaction costs of enforcing agree￾ments between the partners (Pollak, 1985). It al￾lows individuals to invest in the partnership with less fear of abandonment. For instance, it allows the partners to invest financially in joint long-term purchases such as homes and auto￾mobiles. It allows caregivers to make relation￾ship-specific investments (England & Farkas, 1986) in the couple’s children—investments of time and effort that, unlike strengthening one’s job skills, would not be easily portable to another intimate relationship. Nevertheless, the difference in the amount of enforceable trust that marriage brings, compared with cohabitation, is eroding. Although relatives and friends will view a divorce with disappoint￾ment, they will accept it more readily than their counterparts would have two generations ago. As I noted, cohabiting couples are increasingly gaining the rights previously reserved to married couples. It seems likely that over time, the legal differences between cohabitation and marriage will become minimal in the United States, Cana￾da, and many European countries. The advan￾tage of marriage in enhancing trust will then depend on the force of public commitments, both secular and religious, by the partners. In general, the prevailing theoretical perspec￾tives are of greater value in explaining why mar￾riage has declined than why it persists. With more women working outside the home, the pre￾dictions of the specialization model are less rele￾vant. Although the rational choice theorists remind us that marriage still provides enforce￾able trust, it seems clear that its enforcement power is declining. Recently, evolutionary theo￾rists have argued that women who have difficulty finding men who are reliable providers might choose a reproductive strategy that involves sin￾gle parenthood and kin networks, a strategy that is consistent with changes that have occurred in low-income families. And although the insights of the theorists of late modernity help us under￾stand the changing meaning of marriage, they predict that marriage will lose its distinctive sta￾tus, and indeed may already have become just one lifestyle among others. Why, then, are so many people still marrying? The Symbolic Significance of Marriage What has happened is that although the practi￾cal importance of being married has declined, its symbolic importance has remained high, and may even have increased. Marriage is at once less dominant and more distinctive than it was. It has evolved from a marker of conformity to a marker of prestige. Marriage is a status one builds up to, often by living with a partner beforehand, by attaining steady employment or starting a career, by putting away some savings, and even by having children. Marriage’s place in the life course used to come before those in￾vestments were made, but now it often comes afterward. It used to be the foundation of adult personal life; now it is sometimes the capstone. It is something to be achieved through one’s own efforts rather than something to which one routinely accedes. How Low-Income Individuals See Marriage Paradoxically, it is among the lower social strata in the United States, where marriage rates are lowest, that both the persistent preference for marriage and its changing meaning seem clear￾est. Although marriage is optional and often foregone, it has by no means faded away among the poor and near poor. Instead, it is a much sought-after but elusive goal. They tell observ￾ers that they wish to marry, but will do so only when they are sure they can do it successfully: when their partner has demonstrated the ability to hold a decent job and treat them fairly and without abuse, when they have a security deposit or a down payment for a decent apart￾ment or home, and when they have enough in the bank to pay for a nice wedding party for family and friends. Edin and Kefalas (forthcom￾ing), who studied childbearing and intimate re￾lationships among 165 mothers in 8 low- and moderate-income Philadelphia neighborhoods, wrote, ‘‘In some sense, marriage is a form of social bragging about the quality of the couple relationship, a powerfully symbolic way of ele￾vating one’s relationship above others in the community, particularly in a community where marriage is rare.’’ Along with several collaborators, I am con￾ducting a study of low-income families in three United States cities. The ethnographic compo￾nent of that study is directed by Linda Burton of Pennsylvania State University. A 27-year-old mother told one of our ethnographers: I was poor all my life and so was Reginald. When I got pregnant, we agreed we would marry some day in the future because we loved each other and wanted to raise our child together. But Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage 855