RQ: What does it mean to be in a midlife marriage?

This week’s blog:  Communication & Dialogue

     Ok, I changed my research question. Did you notice?  Originally I asked, “What are the issues in midlife marriage?”  However, I believe my new research question better reflects potential changes that take place in the relationship because of external influences.

     I read two fascinating articles this week on communication. The first article discussed premodern, modern and postmodern communication theories. The author, Seymour, (2011) suggests that there is value and a “unique space” (p. 289) for examining the contributions of the premodern communication theory in today’s world. He is not attempting to disregard the modern and postmodern communication models, but he gives examples how these theoretical models do not hold the all-inclusive answer to communication theory.

     Seymour gives examples from six modern and postmodern models of communication and discusses their limitations. I will give one example from a postmodern communication model.  It is the Gender, Feminism, and Intimacy model. I thought this model was very interesting and applicable to intimate marriage relationships.  This model is based on the assumption of male dominance in Western culture.  In this feminist model is the “pure relationship”, named so by sociologist Anthony Giddens (1992). This “pure relationship” exists only “within itself” with no societal, cultural or family connections. Giddens suggests that from “pure relationship” emerges sexuality he terms “plastic sexuality” (p. 303). This sexuality is “de-centered, de-naturalized, de-socialized, and bound in individual subjectivity” (p. 303). This type of relationship and sexuality is “accessible to the development of varying life-styles…a malleable feature of the self” (p. 303). Seymour reports that other scholars, like Hall and Zhao (1995), have agreed with Giddens and added that “pure relationships” and “plastic sexuality” produces “expectations and conditions of intimacy…that perpetuate fractured and isolated interpersonal relationships and practices” (p. 303). Studies show that “individuals who adopt an overly inclusive and accepting ethic in terms of relational identity and practices are more likely to find themselves isolated in their preferences and unable to be relationally responsive” (p. 303).

    We are in a postmodern society which is preoccupied with individualism and everything is subjective to the individual. Seymour wants us to consider some of the elements of the premodern model of communication that may be useful to understand and consider in today’s postmodern environment. The main difference between postmodern, modern and premodern is that the premodern model had allowance for faith, or connection to God, or “some notion of ultimate reality” in the public spaces. (p. 304).     The premodern model of interpersonal communication allows for the existence of a created and coherent order. This gives a foundation to the relationship and makes the relationship and the persons in the relationship significant. The premodern presumes an intimate relationship of three, the triadic model, self, other and God.  Seymour points out that there are medieval philosophical models that work with these same assumptions i.e.”Credo ut intelligam” (“I believe in order to understand”) (p. 305). The premodern model gives recognition to the “potential to be filled” in your true self. It views communication as a “moment of extension” (p. 305); not of negotiation, control or identification as modern and postmodern models view communication.    

     Seymour concludes that individuals have this space within them for potential. This space can be filled with the divine, or a space of separation. Seymour also recognizes that some people are unnerved by the thought of a divine order. He quotes Taylor, (2007) that there is a third condition. It is a stable, ordered, and good position that allows us not to be drawn toward the divine or separated, but is a process that draws us toward a place of fullness over the years. (p. 306).

     Modern and postmodern communication theories leave out the possibility of the existence of God or an ultimate truth in the public sphere. Since the “notion of an ultimate reality” is not existent in public, it has been also limited in interpersonal communication.

   Another article I read this week was by L. Baxter (2010). This article discussed creative communication and the meaning of marriage. There is conflict in many marriages today because married individuals view the meaning of marriage differentlyScholars have identified two conflicting views of marriage in the United States. One view of marriage is that it is a moral-social institution with obligations to hold traditional values and lifelong commitment. The other view is a utilitarian-expressive individualism concept of marriage. This type of marriage is seen as only obligated to the two married individuals for “self-development and self-gratification” (p. 373). If the marriage no longer provides this, it can be ended.  I see premodern theories of the meaning of marriage in conflict with the postmodern culture of individualism.

     This article opened my eyes to a new perspective on communication, and the meaning of marital quality. A common way to look at marital quality is how stable, satisfactory, adjusted and committed the couple is. This article discussed that marital quality really has to do with being able to be creative in communication. The meaning of marital quality can vary among couples, between couples and even change over time and circumstances. Using a creative approach in communication takes the pressure off the individuals in conflict and puts it on managing and embracing conversation and understanding. Dialogue is the goal, along with a focus on meanings.

     Both of these articles have given me new insight into the importance of communication and how it can bring us closer together.  As married couples, it is easiest to take the shortcuts and not seek the common ground. These articles have pointed out that struggles in conversation and understanding are not problems, but a process to be nurtured, an opportunity for creative communication, listening, and the give and take of ideas.

References:

Baxter, L. A. (2010). The dialogue of marriage. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, (Dec 2010), 370-387. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00067.x

Seymour, C. G. (2011). A place for the premodern: A review of modern and postmodern intimate interpersonal communication frames. The Review of Communication. 11(4). 286-309.