This Saturday I acquire my first kid-in-law, when one of my two sons marries. I’m supposed to be happy for the couple, and I am indeed happy. Not only that, I’m happy to participate in a ceremony wherein many of their associates create common knowledge about our willingness to spend resources to collectively declare our happiness about this marriage. But I wonder: what does this fact say?
I'd suggest part of the difficulty here is that there are multiple senses in which we can say X is the reason people do Y.
Speaking informally we often say X is the reason that people do Y when introspectively X is what comes to mind when people think about it, i.e., they aren't lying. I think in this sense the reasons mentioned above are a substantial reason that people have marriage ceremonies.
However, I suspect that you are more interested in a kind of causal/counterfactual reading, e.g., if X wasn't true than we wouldn't do Y. I think it's in this sense many of the signalling based explanations are true even if people are not consciousnessley aware of them.
I largely agree with your analysis but I don't think the happiness and joy expressed at weddings is evidence that we think it's a better choice generally. It's merely evidence that we think it's a better choice for those who are inclined to make it (the same way we can celebrate the choice to become doctors, priests and other professions without believing that people who choose a non-doctor profession are worse off).
I happen to think we do believe marriage is a better choice I just don't believe this particular behavior is evidence for that claim.
One should of course look carefully, but it goes too far to reject outright the reasons people give. Instead one should compare various possible reasons to the details of relevant behaviors.
When analysing why anybody does something shouldn't we reject outright the reasons they themselves give for doing so? When it is claimed that people invest significant capital in a wedding in order 'to collectively declare our happiness about this marriage' should we take that at face value? Wouldn't certain thinkers look for clearer economic or social benefits? When those same people make statements such as 'These feelings say that we see these events as very important, and we guess that getting married or having kids is on average a better choice than staying single or childless.' shouldn't we be very careful to think about what precisely a wedding is since it does not in any sense preclude having kids or not staying single? I suggest first looking at who decides a given marriage will happen, who decides what the marriage will cost and who pays for it. Is this the same person?
The problem many see with marriage is typically not to do with commitment, but rather that the state is in on the deal, dictating which marriages are allowed which are forbidden and their terms. Contract law ought to be enough to manage marriages. If the state wants levers, it could use subsidies and taxation. The state getting into bed with the couple can mute the enthusiasm.
I’d expect so, specifically because of the special ‘collective celebration’ nature of the event. There is a relatively large public involved, with which you have personal interactions. Some of those present are actually feeling joy. It’s a more-dangerous-than-usual social minefield, where a small misstep (possibly due to nudges or pushes) can be very damaging. “You ruined my wedding” is much worse than “you ruined my day out at the zoo”. I’d expect more than average display is required, expected and performed at weddings.
Huh, a positive signaling story. Both appropriate for this blog, and yet also quite different from the cynical interpretations we come here to read. Congratulations on the wedding and on briefly shining your spotlight on a positive aspect of human behavior.
It's a relationship, not a purchase; you need to continually invest in it for it to succeed. Do people not hear that, or similar themes, many times before committing to get married?
Perhaps my experience was atypical, but I was assured by many people that marriage would have times that would be hard. They were right about that, and right (so far, 8 years and counting,) that it would be wonderful and completely worth it if you worked at it.
Not at all to spoil your joy (of rationalising your joy), but I wonder why commitment is always stressed. I think nearly always people don't think there'll be emotionally hard times but they're ready to commit. Most of the time it's less commitment of this kind and more of a estimation that it will work - which it very well may. (For some, there is an element of general commitment to one partner rather than several, simultaneously or serially.)
Yay Marriage
I'd suggest part of the difficulty here is that there are multiple senses in which we can say X is the reason people do Y.
Speaking informally we often say X is the reason that people do Y when introspectively X is what comes to mind when people think about it, i.e., they aren't lying. I think in this sense the reasons mentioned above are a substantial reason that people have marriage ceremonies.
However, I suspect that you are more interested in a kind of causal/counterfactual reading, e.g., if X wasn't true than we wouldn't do Y. I think it's in this sense many of the signalling based explanations are true even if people are not consciousnessley aware of them.
I largely agree with your analysis but I don't think the happiness and joy expressed at weddings is evidence that we think it's a better choice generally. It's merely evidence that we think it's a better choice for those who are inclined to make it (the same way we can celebrate the choice to become doctors, priests and other professions without believing that people who choose a non-doctor profession are worse off).
I happen to think we do believe marriage is a better choice I just don't believe this particular behavior is evidence for that claim.
One should of course look carefully, but it goes too far to reject outright the reasons people give. Instead one should compare various possible reasons to the details of relevant behaviors.
When analysing why anybody does something shouldn't we reject outright the reasons they themselves give for doing so? When it is claimed that people invest significant capital in a wedding in order 'to collectively declare our happiness about this marriage' should we take that at face value? Wouldn't certain thinkers look for clearer economic or social benefits? When those same people make statements such as 'These feelings say that we see these events as very important, and we guess that getting married or having kids is on average a better choice than staying single or childless.' shouldn't we be very careful to think about what precisely a wedding is since it does not in any sense preclude having kids or not staying single? I suggest first looking at who decides a given marriage will happen, who decides what the marriage will cost and who pays for it. Is this the same person?
The issue of to what extent the state represents your community complicates many social topics.
The problem many see with marriage is typically not to do with commitment, but rather that the state is in on the deal, dictating which marriages are allowed which are forbidden and their terms. Contract law ought to be enough to manage marriages. If the state wants levers, it could use subsidies and taxation. The state getting into bed with the couple can mute the enthusiasm.
I’d expect so, specifically because of the special ‘collective celebration’ nature of the event. There is a relatively large public involved, with which you have personal interactions. Some of those present are actually feeling joy. It’s a more-dangerous-than-usual social minefield, where a small misstep (possibly due to nudges or pushes) can be very damaging. “You ruined my wedding” is much worse than “you ruined my day out at the zoo”. I’d expect more than average display is required, expected and performed at weddings.
They hear it and think it doesn't apply in their case, because they love their partner and will always etc.
Huh, a positive signaling story. Both appropriate for this blog, and yet also quite different from the cynical interpretations we come here to read. Congratulations on the wedding and on briefly shining your spotlight on a positive aspect of human behavior.
Is the difference between feel and display much more different here than in most other places we feel or display joy?
It's a relationship, not a purchase; you need to continually invest in it for it to succeed. Do people not hear that, or similar themes, many times before committing to get married?
Perhaps my experience was atypical, but I was assured by many people that marriage would have times that would be hard. They were right about that, and right (so far, 8 years and counting,) that it would be wonderful and completely worth it if you worked at it.
But the unparalleled joy and hope we feel at weddings
“But the unparalleled joy and hope we display at weddings”?
Not at all to spoil your joy (of rationalising your joy), but I wonder why commitment is always stressed. I think nearly always people don't think there'll be emotionally hard times but they're ready to commit. Most of the time it's less commitment of this kind and more of a estimation that it will work - which it very well may. (For some, there is an element of general commitment to one partner rather than several, simultaneously or serially.)
Yes, indeed. And congratulations!
You might want to add wedding anniversaries to your list, as celebrating a commitment both kept and continuing.