Introduction
Many would agree that there is no one type of healthy or good marriage, as they come in different sizes and shapes. However, (Sells & Yarhouse 23) asserts that healthy or good marriages have many things in common, which include satisfaction, a commitment to children, communication, faithfulness, conflict resolution, and emotional support. This paper compares and contrasts Cuber & Harroff's 5 types of "enduring marriages" with Wallerstein & Blakeslee's 4 types of "good marriages" and their built-in "antimarriages".
Discussion
In their book The Good Marriage, Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee identified four different types of good marriages: romantic, rescue, companionate, and traditional (Wallerstein & Blakeslee 23). A romantic marriage is a union with characterized by passionate sexual memories. Couples in romantic marriage usually share a belief that they were destined to be together. The second type is traditional marriage, which maintains a more traditional view on marriage where the husband is the breadwinner and works outside the home while the wife has responsibilities as a homemaker and responsible for childrearing. Companionate marriage on the other hand views happy marriage as a union where the couples have mutual interests in their lifestyle and careers. The couples view their roles as interchangeable and believe in the equality of women and men as providers and parents. Rescue marriage refers to a union where both or one of the spouses experienced server trauma proceeding to the relationship and benefit from a kind of healing.
John Cuber and Peggy Harroff in their research found out that couples are so diverse. They identified five different types of marriages based on different patterns of communication, including conflict-habitual marriages, devitalized marriages, passive-congenial marriages, vital marriages, and total marriages (Newman & Grauerholz 70). Conflict-habitual marriages are manifested by constant and pervasive air of tension, as the couples tend to engage in constant arguments and fight. An outside observer may view the constant conflict as a sign of failure of marriage even though the couples might not intend to end their marriage (Newman & Grauerholz 67). A devitalized marriage on the other hand characterizes couples who were once truly in love, but who have lost interest over time. In such marriages, couples keep communication at minimal and usually devoted to specific tasks. Passive-congenial marriages share similarities with devitalized marriage, except that the couples have behaved this way from the beginning. This type of marriage provides space and stability to the couples so that they can direct their energy somewhere else. Vital marriage on the other hand characterizes couples who truly share intimacy in all aspects of their life, although the couples do not lose their separate identities (Newman & Grauerholz 67). Finally, total marriage is similar to vital marriage; the only difference is that the couples are completely absorbed in each other’s lives.
Wallerstein & Blakeslee view marriage from the mirror of love and roles of couples while Cuber & Harroff approaches marriage from the communication styles employed by couples. Cuber & Harroff ‘s five types of marriages represent intact and enduring relationships while Wallerstein & Blakeslee’s four types of good marriages gives the types of marriages that last but fail to realize that even romantic marriages end in divorce. However, the authors highlight both positive and negative sides of the types of good marriages.
Works Cited:
Newman, M. David & Grauerholz. Sociology of Families. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press, 2002, Print.
Sells, N. James & Yarhouse, A. Mark. Counseling Couples in Conflict: A Relational Restoration Model. Westmont, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2011, Print.
Wallerstein, Judith & Blakeslee, Sandra. The Good Marriage: How and Why Love Lasts. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 1995, Print.
