The world of present days is about to ignore the institution of marriage. I can say so because of a personal survey on the problem. The thing is that humanity coming forward towards technical and scientific advantages omits the moral part of its essence. The most needful values seem to have been trite totally and, what is more, the tendency is still in progress. Here fairly appears a question: Is the institution of marriage at risk, actually? For this purpose, the paper presupposes the contemporary authoritative opinion as for the issue with glimpses on previous times and manners of human beings living in a developed society. The main factors comprise the categories of family, home, and culture along with traditional background so that to evaluate the main framework of the paper on the whole.
First of all, it is necessary to admit the structural peculiarities of various communities maintained and developed in different parts of the world. It is apparent then, that the strongest and most endurable conditions for traditions and culture are observed in the most conservative and predetermined cultures, mostly due to the religious coloring and respect for what ancestors asked to follow after them. These cultures were presupposed to point out the fact that people should create people and, furthermore, it is necessary in order to impart the experience and the whole complex of approaches toward vital themes for human beings observed in every culture, but with the different evaluation of priorities. In small groups of people where there is a leader or counselor, namely those from central Africa, the institution of marriage is still stable in its spiritual destination. Also, the Islamic culture stands on the paramount principles of how the concept of family should emerge, develop, and be transferred for further generations. These principles seem to be more significant for people living in such communities than people themselves. The violation of any within prescribed traditions is like a crime which, for sure, will be condemned by elders in communities.
This cannot be noted for the European peoples and the people of the US due to the pluralism of opinions that is maintained inside society. Many researchers are united in the thought that marriage considers adulthood and sound-mindedness of both counterparts of this union (Guest, 2009). The attribute of adulthood is, of course, the ability to make decisions and take responsibility for the closest people and their well-being. A very disputable theme of love arises here as a stimulus for building relationships between men and women. However, the limitations concern in this point a lack of men’s leadership. This factor intends women then make what they are not supposed to do (taking up men’s duties). Looking at the cruelty of life and people individuals see no obligation in marital tradition implemented far earlier. This can be defined as extended freedom for anyone who once had increased the genuine understanding of democracy or other terms serving in this case as a slim excuse for amorality. There is one thing which can be pointed out with an outrageous outline, namely that the society is like the state: it falls into several principles and rules which encompass the whole structure of it for better control and efficacy, as a result. The institution of marriage then can also serve as a tool in a difficult mechanism of state formation.
In accordance with Andrew J. Cherlin, the reason for deinstitutionalization emerged after the Vietnam War in the late 1970s and was grounded due to two aspects: a perpetually changing distribution of work about the house and in the workplace because of social disturbances; and more and more cases of extramarital relations and births of children as well (Guest, 2009). The urbanization and demographic bang which is still making headway provide additional background for ignorance of marriage as it is by contemporary people and youth, in particular. The moral and economic approaches play an important role in the process of family formation and further development. When in a community there is a huge number of divorces overcoming the rate of effective and strong marriages with the aftereffect of a leadership and completeness lack for family. One question remains unanswered: Is a modern society of American people aware of the danger which is imposed in an indifferent attitude to marital status seen by many individuals as an ordinary stamp in a proper document without a moral and emotional framework. The extent of morality is not new for finding the way of the issue-resolving, but, nonetheless, people do not take into account this primordial factor. It is easier to adhere to the concept of permissiveness than to keep an ear open toward what was prescribed by predecessors in terms of the sacred nature of such concepts as love, marriage, family. Renjini Sooryamoorthy (2004) sees the efficacy of marriage revitalizing in the twenty-first century in direct cultivation of moral values from early childhood with striking examples as of the negativism of being alone if not marry. The religious approach is considered to have the primary meaning. The role of the church is significant when the church has capacities and appropriate advantages over society in terms of higher spiritual amenities written and implemented into practice of great believers and faithful men of the church.
Thus, the institution of marriage during the previous few decades was going to a gradual decline in the society of the United States. A lack of religious awakening is obvious in modern society due to the vogue tendency of rough-and-tumble relationships between man and woman after the Sexual Revolution. One more reason contemplates also the division of roles about the work and theme of earning money between male and female representatives of the society.
References
- Guest, Andrew M. (2009). Taking Sides Clashing Views In Lifespan Development ( Series – Taking Sides ). Mcgraw-Hill Higher Education, New York.
- Sooryamoorthy, R. (2004). Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35(3), 501+.