They go together, so the song tells us, "like a Horse and Carriage". Janus has always thought that this was a very poor simile; after all horses and carriages spend most of their time apart and are only brought together for special occasions. However considering what many believe to be the parlous state of the institution of marriage in the "western" world, perhaps it might be more apt than at first sight! The dichotomy that Janus is going to consider in this article is not the difference between horses and carriages, but the often distressing difference between two distinct views of marriage: The "western" view of marriage which can perhaps be summed up as by the phrase "love is all you need", and the "eastern" type of arranged marriage. Janus must take a slight diversion to apologise for the geographical labelling used here. Attitudes towards marriage are determined by culture rather than geography, and cultures are now spread worldwide; however the terms "western" and "eastern" are so commonly used and understood that sheer convenience comes into play and Janus will use them despite their shortcomings, and henceforth without quotation marks. Janus would also like to make clear that the term marriage is used to denote a long-term committed relationship between two people of the same or different gender and whether or not officially sanctioned by state or religion.
The western institution of marriage is based around the ideals of romantic love, which is a Victorian invention to avoid talking about sexual attraction. This, of course, ignores the tradition of arranged marriages among the aristocracy, both the old European nobility and the modern transatlantic kind based on power and money. Western arranged marriages almost always hide behind the pretence of a love match; though there can be a modicum of truth as people will often restrict their friends and aquaintances to their own class and hence the opportunities for finding a strong mutual attraction will also be similiarly restricted. The cases where an aristocrat has married "beneath them" are usually quietly forgotten except where they are spectactularly successful in which case they are turned into fairy stories and paraded as examples of how little class matters. Most western marriages, though, result from meetings where a strong sexual attraction becomes apparent, which remains for long enough for the pair to "take the plunge" and launch themselves into a life together with very little idea of what is involved. It is perhaps not surprising that there is such a large failure rate among such marriages; a rate that would be much higher without a strong feeling that it is a failure and something must have gone wrong when a marriage ends. In fact most people can feel strong sexual attraction to more than one person during their life, and such attraction may not last very long, so that unless it is replaced by something else the bonds holding people together can quickly grow weak. The whole business has also become precisely that, a business, with massive industries such as fashion and cosmetics which purport to help in the original attraction, others such as finance based on helping the couple along and of course cinema and books to provide the fantasy that married life really can be a romantic idyll. However Janus, along with most other people, holds freedom of choice to be a basic human right. The choice of a life partner must be up to each individual, so who should they choose other than someone for whom they hold a strong desire?
The intrusion of consumer-oriented business into the formation of a relationship gives us a clue to one of the major intrinsic problems with this attitude to marriage, which is the ease with which the initial mutual attraction can be faked or forced. The view of one human being by another is based on the inputs from the five senses. All five are important, though the role of smell and the influence of pheromones is often given less emphasis than it should. The extensive use of cosmetics along with makeovers and fashions that are determined by people whose sole aim is to make money, all contribute to what is effectively a disguise. It is often not possible to tell immediately the nature of a person, at least not at the intimate level necessary for the formation of a close relationship. What you see is all too often not what you get, it is what someone who has long been bombarded with other people's ideas of perfection thinks you might like to get. The level of disguise may be such that it is not until well past the wedding before the true self emerges.
The other major problem with this view of marriage is, as in many other situations, the pernicious influence of religion. Janus, you will not be surprised to hear, is no fan of organised religions. In fact he regards them as the major source of violent death, hatred and unhappiness in the world. In this particular area they have taken a natural human function, reproduction, and a natural sociological imperative, to control who mates with whom to avoid anarchy and inbreeding, and claimed it as their own. Their views however are based on dogma rather than rational thought and follow many years, centuries even, behind real life. The concept that a youthful attraction is sufficient to maintain a relationship through the whole of life may have had some validity when life was short and full of toil but is far less valid in times when lifespan has been expanded and there is much time for leisure. To be fair most religions will make some token attempt to emphasise the extended scope of marriage beyond the satisfaction of desire, but not to such an extent that it may damage a major source of power and revenue.
The eastern tradition, along with western aristocracy, has eschewed the idea that the feelings of the direct participants have any relevance to a marriage and instead concentrate on the suitability of a match. This may be measured in terms of relationships between extended families, class and/or caste, financial status, religion and education. Often there will be some financial settlement involved, commonly in the form of a dowry or payment for the female. The arrangements may be made without any reference at all to the couple, and often while they, or one of them at least, is still a child. Clearly to western eyes this is an infringement on the individual's freedom of choice. However, there are advantages to this system. Firstly the pressure is taken away from the couple; they do not have to dress up or cover themselves with expensive perfume in order to attract a mate. They can be free to be themselves and hopefully enjoy more of life. Secondly some thought is given to the way in which the couple can live together for the long term, beyond the stage of immediate sexual attraction. There will also be a support network; the success or failure of the marriage becomes the responsibility of more than just the couple. Certainly the rate of marriage breakdown seems to be much lower among the cultures that believe in arranged marriages, and not just because the couples are forced to stay together.
The idea of love is not, of course, entirely missing from this tradition. One has only to watch a Bollywood film to see this. However the ideal here is that the arranged marriage should turn out to be a love match after all, either immediately or after a while. This shows one of the strengths of this form of marriage, which is that often love can grow between people who are "forced" to spend their lives together.
A further, though far from ideal, way to bring love into an arranged marriage is to have other relationships outside marriage. This was/is particularly prevalent in western aristcocracies, where marriage was thought of as simply a business arrangement to provide one or more heirs in a bloodline and one or both partners would satisfy the other requirements of relationships elsewhere.
Having looked at the opposing traditions, Janus now attempts to provide the all-embracing composite, and to those who have read The Power of Three", it will come as no surprise that it is based on the stability of the triad. No, Janus hastens to say, the solution is not going to be a classic ménage à trois. Instead the solution is based on the three basic principles that form the foundation a successful marriage:
The enunciation and enumeration of principles is all very well, but where human beings are involved there has to be something else, some means of obtaining understanding and acceptance of these principles. Janus now provides the remaining ingredients which are time and the involvement of other people. One of the eternal paradoxes of human life is that many of the major decisions in life, such as the choice of a life-partner, are taken while young; before the experience required to make such a profound choice is obtained. Another is that an essential quality of being young is the confidence to make profound decisions quickly and without reference to older and hopefully wiser minds. Nevertheless Janus, knowing that he does not have to actually implement the solutions he proclaims, does suggest that before any final commitment is made a reasonable length of time should pass. First, people should be encouraged to have relatively casual relationships, bearing in mind of course all the necessary safeguards for physical and mental health; this gives at least some experience on which to base a final decision. The couple should then take their time before taking the final step. They may well choose to live together during this period, but they should refrain from taking any steps that commit them for too long a period. This gives a chance for greater understanding of the other person and the chance to involve others. Other people cannot make the decisions but they can offer advice, and even if it is rejected it may prove useful. This is where those cultures which still have a tradition of an extended family have an advantage. In the western world where this is less common the replacement is all too often a professional of some kind, but there is no real reason why this should not also be helpful. Janus has often wondered why marriage counsellors are only consulted when a marriage is on the point of failure when some form of guidance at earlier stages might have much more benefit. Any external involvement must, of course, be initiated by the couple themselves; anything that smacks of interference will almost certainly do more harm than good. Given time to reflect, time to learn and gain experience and good advice, more marriages would be successful.
At last, Janus has actually reached the stage of mentioning the main reason for marriage and the major interest of most couples. Janus is not trying to say that children are just an unimportant afterthought, far from it, however Janus does maintain that many problems are caused by the appearance of children in an unstable relationship. The presence of a stable marriage should be a necessary prerequisite for having children. All too often children are the cause of a marriage rather than the consequence, and the pressures of society and relatives may force a couple to take a premature decision to have a child. In the "developed" world we have moved far beyond the problems of short lifespans and high infant mortality; it is one of the greatest of the world's failures that so many are still in this state. However there is or should be no rush to have children and therefore time can be spent forming a stable family unit to give a child the best chances. This is why Janus has left them to the end and spent so little time on them.