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.
Hey Great post Nancy! Very Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI cannot say much about the religion part but I find that having a ‘greater goal’ in a marriage or friendship or any interpersonal relationship seems to make that relationship better and stronger.
moral-social institution marriages and their partners may devote their marriage to a ‘greater goal’ be it serving God, doing business, saving the environment e.t.c it seems to make the newlyweds partners in a mission to do something which takes a lot of the pressure and focus off the ‘marriage’ itself.
In utilitarian-expressive individualism type marriages where there is no mission or bigger goal, it seems like the whole point of the marriage is to try to make the marriage ‘work’ or last as long as possible. When this becomes the goal it becomes much like aiming to get a B in a class- you most likely will get a C+ or a B-(if you’re lucky). When you aim high say for an A+ you may get an A- or a B+. In either case, you got higher than the B.
This is what a goal in a marriage, friendship or relationship does I think. It sets a higher mission in your relationship than just “being happily married” It seems to give people that A+ to strive for . Even if you fail at that thing, be it religion, or charity, or the arts atleast you will still get your ‘B’ – your marriage, friendship or relationship.
Thanks Nancy for that post!
Hi Mwamba, I found these two articles very interesting especially after last week’s in-class discussion. I was not familiar with Leslie Baxter, but I enjoyed the new perspective and understanding she gave me on communication and society.
ReplyDeleteYou seemed to have a good understanding of the moral-social vs utilitarian-expressive individualism marriage types. Maybe you are a communication major? I appreciate how you point out that having a greater goal in marriage makes the relationship stronger. I think if a couple has a vision or focus on something “out there” it keeps the relationship more stable and grounded. With a greater goal, it requires more responsibility, determination and creativity to navigate communication differences. Also, the relationship is not just a private affair, but becomes a public function in society as others become reliant on the outcome of your goals.
This greater goal brings potential to the relationship. It brings something that is greater than both individuals separately and combined. It brings in a third object, whether it is God, a business, or the environment, like you said. This creates synergy; a whole new object to focus on and strive for.
Happy Thanksgiving Mwamba. Enjoy the week’s vacation!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNancy,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. You mention that faith is a part of the our relationships and then you talk about being filled. I think I understand that these are two different things. Which is going on in the midlife? Are the things you talked about relating to all relationships or just the one you are interested in? The other thing I was think about - are they mutually exclusive? Can I have faith and also be filled? Do you think our current social evironment (all about being individual) is without faith? Do you think that faith - tha is mutally shared between those in the midlife marriage helps or hinders?
I love dialogue! How would you describe it? Is it different than discourse? What about it is special? To me, dialogue is something more than just words, it is something that includes a type of emotional connection. I am listening to someone speak to me, but I am also engaging and hearing with my heart and mind. What do you think?
Teresa
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks Teresa—I really put you in a spot, but I really appreciate you quickly giving me a comment. You gave great comments by the way. I take the “potential to be filled” to refer to the possibilities within us to give to others, to create something, to help, to feel fulfilled in life, to have purpose—we need to find whatever it is that gives us passion in life. This could be our family, work, gardening, and/or social outlets. Part of this potential involves other people around us with whom we are in relationship. Maybe we are working on a project together, i.e. a community garden or raising a family, caring for elderly in-laws or our own parents.
DeleteThese articles did not specifically refer to midlife marriages, but to marriages and relationships in general. I just wanted to study a little on communication, since I am not a communication major (or minor), so I could reference it in my final paper. Communication is in all relationships. Communication, dialogue, discourse—all involves speaking, listening, hearing, attention, eye contact, non-verbal, verbal, heart strings, emotions and a willingness to be engaged.
I do not think that having faith in God or a higher power is in conflict or mutually exclusive to developing your potential. However, in contrast to this is the individualistic view that puts “self” at center focus. You are not looking outward, but inward. It seems to me that much of our social environment is without faith in anything outside of self.
Thanks so much Teresa for your interesting conversation with me. Love conversing
Hi Nancy, Allow me to make a suggestion on your research question. I think that "what does it mean to be in midlife marriage" is too broad/vague. Given your introduction, it seems like what you mean more specifically is: "What external influences affect midlife marriages?"
ReplyDeleteNow, to your articles. I'd like to see a little more connection between the Seymour article and your research question. Seemed like a little bit of a stretch, but maybe I'm missing something. I'm a Baxter fan, so I'm glad you ran across her article. It seems a little more connected, but again would be great for you to really make that case. I want to make sure you have a strong set of articles that answer your question going into the final papers- woot!
Thank you Dr. Reeder for your advice. I was wondering about the RQ myself. I noticed my sentence in the first paragraph and it sounded like a good question itself. The Seymour article was probably a stretch in regard to marriage, but the article was soooo interesting. However, I did think the two articles related because they both deal with goals outside of ourselves. As married couples goes through midlife together, goals often change, potential in life changes as finances or health changes, etc. This requires creative dialogue and adjustments in the midlife relationship.
Delete