What is Right with Marriage An Outline of Domestic Theory Robert C. Binkley and Frances W. Binkley 1929 Robert C. Binkley and Frances W. Binkley, What is Right with Marriage: An Outline of Domestic Theory (New York: D. Appleton, 1929) Digitized and edited by Peter Binkley Version: 2016-06-05 12:47:00 https://www.wallandbinkley.com/rcb/works/marriage To the extent possible under law, Peter Binkley has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to “What is Right with Marriage”. This work is published from: Canada. Generated with jekyll-book ¶ https://github.com/pbinkley/jekyll-book What is Right with Marriage 1 Front Matter [cover] What Is Right with Marriage An Outline of Domestic Theory ROBERT C. BINKLEY and FRANCES WILLIAMS BINKLEY [p.i] What Is Right with Marriage [p.ii] [p.iii] What Is Right with Marriage An Outline of Domestic Theory by Robert C. Binkley New York University and Frances Williams Binkley New York and London D. Appleton and Company 1929 [p.iv] COPYRIGHT – 1929 – BY D. APPLETON AND COMPANY PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [p.v] TO R. T. C. [p.vi] [p.vii] What is Right with Marriage 2 Preface IF some one denounces a butcher or grocer for giving short weight, the denun- ciation implies the existence of a system of weights and measures. If some one condemns the conduct of a neighbor, the condemnation implies the acceptance of an ethical standard which the neighbor is alleged to have violated. And if it is asserted that something is wrong with marriage, there is equally implied a standard of judgment, a criterium of what, with marriage, would be right. What then is the standard whereby marriage is to be measured? Keyserling writes as if it were character development; Hamilton plans his research as if it were primarily “sexual-reactive value”; the sociologists turn out their textbooks in the seeming conviction that marriage is to be measured by its contribution to social welfare. Is there then no standard of excellence intrinsic to marriage itself? The present essay purposes to explore the ground in search of such a standard. Since the book has such a purpose, there are a number of things it cannot be. It cannot be a sex book, like some recent productions, with hymns to contraception and a sexological interpretation of history, for marriage involves more than sex. Neither can it range, like other discussions of contemporary morals, through all fields of ethical interest; it must be confined to the problem of marriage. It cannot be a survey of marriage in America, [p.viii] such as resulted from Judge Lindsey’s long observation of the behavior of the youth of Denver, or from Dr. G. V. Hamilton’s scientific study of the lives of two hundred New Yorkers, or from the interesting study of “Middletown” made by the Lynds. The marriage phenomenon is more widely distributed in space than Denver, New York, or Middletown, and in time than the twentieth century. Just as the descriptive study of marriage and family life concerns itself with particular times and places, so the normative study searches for truths that will be universally applicable, irrespective of time and place. The descriptive method presents particular facts; the normative method sets up universal standards. Science is itself both descriptive and normative. Its product is organized knowledge. The organization of knowledge requires not only the collection of facts but also the setting up of classifications and categories. The facts are in the realm of the actual, the classifications in the realm of the ideal. Facts are tested by observation, classifications by logic. If marriage is to be treated as an object of science, these two kinds of exploration must go forward hand in hand. A science of marriage and family life can be expected to develop, as economics, political science, and sociology have already developed, in the interplay of theoretical speculation and statistical research. Research such as Dr. Hamilton’s study of what is wrong with marriage in contemporary America calls, therefore, for a complementary analysis of what is right with marriage in all times and places. Is it not strange that among all the multitude of sciences and academic disciplines which have set themselves up in independent state, there is none What is Right with Marriage 3 which constitutes a [p.ix] science or theory of the family? It has happened, quite by accident, that the study of family relations has been regarded as a province of sociology. Books on the family are classified as sociology, and the sociological point of view has dominated the academic discussion of family life. Our best organized thought upon domestic relations proceeds from purely so- ciological postulates and imputes to marriage and home primarily sociological standards of excellence – to perpetuate the race, to transmit the social heritage. But the point of view and the method of sociology may after all, be ill adapted to the investigation of the essentials of family life. Doubtless if family studies had happened to grow up as appendages to economics or political theory, the methods and presuppositions of these disciplines would have been equally inad- equate. May it not then be useful to experiment with sketching the outlines of a theory of the family which shall build itself up immediately from the facts and purposes that appear in marriage and home, without making use of the preconception that there are “social institutions”? Such efforts as this may lead ultimately to the creation of a new academic discipline which shall furnish more adequate cadres for the organization of thought upon this most pressing and intimate problem of human life. Acknowledgments are due to many friends whose thought has been lav- ishly lent to this work. Among them are to be mentioned Mervyn Crobaugh, Frederic Anderson, Malcolm McComb, Cecil Pearson and Joan Wilson Pearson, Kenneth Robertson and Sidney Hawkins Robertson, Conrad P. Wright, Dr. Es- ther Caukin, and Professor John Morris of New York University. Miss [p.x] Katherine Beswick and Edwin R. Clapp have been especially patient in reading and criticizing the manuscript. The underlying thought out of which the book grew we owe to the stimulating intellectual companionship of Professor Robert T. Crane of the University of Michigan. R. C. B. F. W. B. [p.xi] Contents PAGE Preface vii CHAPTER I. How It Came About That Domestic Theory Was Written Down 1 II. Diverse Theories of Marriage and of the Family which Now Prevail 7 III. The Place of Domestic Theory among the Social Sciences 20 IV. Of the Nature of a Personal Relationship 31 V. Of the Nature of Marriage 42 VI. The Natural Family 52 VII. The Family and Convention 63 What is Right with Marriage 4 VIII. The Family and Authority 78 IX. The Family and Self-Interest 89 X. The Domestic View of Human Nature 101 XI. Appreciation 123 XII. Time, Love, and Habit 128 XIII. The Function of the Family 134 [p.xii] XIV. The Four Types of the Natural Family 156 XV. Marriage and Children 167 XVI. Marriage and Sex Monopoly 188 XVII. Marriage and Art 219 XVIII. Marriage and the Individual 248 Index 259 [p.xiii] What Is Right with Marriage [p.xiv] [p.1] Chapter I: How It Came About That Domestic Theory was Written Down THE authors of this little book are married. They have been married for years. Having loved each other completely, they still do not venture to dogmatize upon the probability that this love will continue through an indefinite future, but they think that their marriage has been successful, and they expect it to continue so. And they recall with indulgent tenderness the caution and circumspection with which they made the decision to marry. They prepared the way with an extraordinary amount of preliminary thought and discussion. It was a curious argument, carried on in that spirit of mingled playfulness and earnestness which is natural to two young people who sit together in the moonlight. Their purpose was to clarify their own ideas on the problem and mystery of marriage. Their method was the method of the schools. For both of them had been long in the atmosphere of the schools. They were familiar with the quaint attitudes which professors take toward the practical problems of life. They had learned in their classes many of the intricate theories of human conduct which are held in university circles. The language of the social sciences [p.2] flowed easily from their lips. And yet they recognized that the question then uppermost in their minds – whether to marry or not to marry – was one which the textbooks evaded and the theories missed. They set forth therefore to write their own textbook and to construct their own theory. Upon What is Right with Marriage 5 their collaboration was shed not only the light of the student’s lamp but also the light of the stars. This outline of domestic theory is the result. It is not easy to view with scholastic detachment anything so intimately personal as one’s own courtship is while it is in progress. Moreover, there stands a wide-spread prejudice against such an attitude. It is generally believed that marriage should result from impulse rather than from reasoned judgment and decision. A cold calculating of consequences or a mathematical estimating of probabilities is thought to be foreign to the spirit of the institution. The only frame of mind which can decently be held by bride or groom is one of naive and unbounded optimism. An atmosphere of illusion is deemed as needful as a ring and a clergyman for the conventional wedding.