Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage 853 (1991.1992)in Britain and Ulrich Beck and a partner,or sequentially with several partners, Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim in Germany (1995, without an explicit consideration of whether 2002)also have written about the growing indi- a marriage will occur.One may have children vidualization of personal life.Consistent with with one's eventual spouse or with someone the idea of deinstitutionalization,they note the else before marrying.One may,in some juris- declining power of social norms and laws as reg- dictions,marry someone of the same gender ulating mechanisms for family life,and they and build a shared marital world with few stress the expanding role of personal choice. guidelines to rely on.Within marriage,roles are They argue that as traditional sources of identity more flexible and negotiable.although women such as class,religion,and community lose still do more than their share of the household influence,one's intimate relationships become work and childrearing. central to self-identity.Giddens (1991,1992) The second difference is in the nature of the writes of the emergence of the "pure relation- rewards that people seek through marriage and ship":an intimate partnership entered into for its other close relationships.Individuals aim for own sake,which lasts only as long as both part- personal growth and deeper intimacy through ners are satisfied with the rewards(mostly inti- more open communication and mutually shared macy and love)that they get from it.It is in disclosures about feelings with their partners. some ways the logical extension of the increas- They may feel justified in insisting on changes ing individualism and the deinstitutionalization in a relationship that no longer provides them of marriage that occurred in the 20th century. with individualized rewards.In contrast,they The pure relationship is not tied to an institu- are less likely than in the past to focus on the re- tion such as marriage or to the desire to raise wards to be found in fulfilling socially valued children.Rather,it is "free-floating,"indepen- roles such as the good parent or the loyal and dent of social institutions or economic life.Unlike supportive spouse.The result of these changing marriage,it is not regulated by law,and its mem- contexts has been a deinstitutionalization of bers do not enjoy special legal rights.It exists pri- marriage,in which social norms about family marily in the realms of emotion and self-identity. and personal life count for less than they did Although the theorists of late modernity during the heyday of the companionate mar- believe that the quest for intimacy is becoming riage,and far less than during the period of the the central focus of personal life,they do not institutional marriage.Instead,personal choice predict that marriage will remain distinctive and self-development loom large in people's and important.Marriage,they claim,has construction of their marital careers. become a choice rather than a necessity for adults who want intimacy,companionship, WHY DO PEOPLE STILL MARRY? and children.According to Beck and Beck- Gernsheim(1995),we will see "a huge variety There is a puzzle within the story of deinstitu- of ways of living together or apart which will tionalization that needs solving.Although fewer continue to exist side by side"(pp.141-142). Americans are marrying than during the peak Giddens (1992)even argues that marriage has years of marriage in the mid-20th century, already become "just one life-style among most-nearly 90%,according to a recent esti- others"(p.154),although people may not yet mate (Goldstein Kenney,2001)-will even- realize it because of institutional lag. tually marry.A survey of high school seniors conducted annually since 1976 shows no decline in the importance they attach to mar- The Current Context of Marriage riage.The percentage of young women who Overall,research and writing on the changing respond that they expect to marry has stayed meaning of marriage suggest that it is now situ- constant at roughly 80%(and has increased ated in a very different context than in the past. from 71%to 78%for young men).The percent- This is true in at least two senses.First,individ- age who respond that "having a good marriage uals now experience a vast latitude for choice in and family life"is extremely important has also their personal lives.More forms of marriage remained constant,at about 80%for young and more alternatives to marriage are socially women and 70%for young men (Thornton acceptable.Moreover,one may fit marriage into Young-DeMarco,2001).What is more,in the one's life in many ways:One may first live with 1990s and early 2000s,a strong promarriage(1991, 1992) in Britain and Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim in Germany (1995, 2002) also have written about the growing indi￾vidualization of personal life. Consistent with the idea of deinstitutionalization, they note the declining power of social norms and laws as reg￾ulating mechanisms for family life, and they stress the expanding role of personal choice. They argue that as traditional sources of identity such as class, religion, and community lose influence, one’s intimate relationships become central to self-identity. Giddens (1991, 1992) writes of the emergence of the ‘‘pure relation￾ship’’: an intimate partnership entered into for its own sake, which lasts only as long as both part￾ners are satisfied with the rewards (mostly inti￾macy and love) that they get from it. It is in some ways the logical extension of the increas￾ing individualism and the deinstitutionalization of marriage that occurred in the 20th century. The pure relationship is not tied to an institu￾tion such as marriage or to the desire to raise children. Rather, it is ‘‘free-floating,’’ indepen￾dent of social institutions or economic life. Unlike marriage, it is not regulated by law, and its mem￾bers do not enjoy special legal rights. It exists pri￾marily in the realms of emotion and self-identity. Although the theorists of late modernity believe that the quest for intimacy is becoming the central focus of personal life, they do not predict that marriage will remain distinctive and important. Marriage, they claim, has become a choice rather than a necessity for adults who want intimacy, companionship, and children. According to Beck and Beck￾Gernsheim (1995), we will see ‘‘a huge variety of ways of living together or apart which will continue to exist side by side’’ (pp. 141–142). Giddens (1992) even argues that marriage has already become ‘‘just one life-style among others’’ (p. 154), although people may not yet realize it because of institutional lag. The Current Context of Marriage Overall, research and writing on the changing meaning of marriage suggest that it is now situ￾ated in a very different context than in the past. This is true in at least two senses. First, individ￾uals now experience a vast latitude for choice in their personal lives. More forms of marriage and more alternatives to marriage are socially acceptable. Moreover, one may fit marriage into one’s life in many ways: One may first live with a partner, or sequentially with several partners, without an explicit consideration of whether a marriage will occur. One may have children with one’s eventual spouse or with someone else before marrying. One may, in some juris￾dictions, marry someone of the same gender and build a shared marital world with few guidelines to rely on. Within marriage, roles are more flexible and negotiable, although women still do more than their share of the household work and childrearing. The second difference is in the nature of the rewards that people seek through marriage and other close relationships. Individuals aim for personal growth and deeper intimacy through more open communication and mutually shared disclosures about feelings with their partners. They may feel justified in insisting on changes in a relationship that no longer provides them with individualized rewards. In contrast, they are less likely than in the past to focus on the re￾wards to be found in fulfilling socially valued roles such as the good parent or the loyal and supportive spouse. The result of these changing contexts has been a deinstitutionalization of marriage, in which social norms about family and personal life count for less than they did during the heyday of the companionate mar￾riage, and far less than during the period of the institutional marriage. Instead, personal choice and self-development loom large in people’s construction of their marital careers. WHY DO PEOPLE STILL MARRY? There is a puzzle within the story of deinstitu￾tionalization that needs solving. Although fewer Americans are marrying than during the peak years of marriage in the mid-20th century, most—nearly 90%, according to a recent esti￾mate (Goldstein & Kenney, 2001)—will even￾tually marry. A survey of high school seniors conducted annually since 1976 shows no decline in the importance they attach to mar￾riage. The percentage of young women who respond that they expect to marry has stayed constant at roughly 80% (and has increased from 71% to 78% for young men). The percent￾age who respond that ‘‘having a good marriage and family life’’ is extremely important has also remained constant, at about 80% for young women and 70% for young men (Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). What is more, in the 1990s and early 2000s, a strong promarriage Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage 853