Comparative Critique Claims

Ray 2

Kelci Ray

Ms. Wells


3 Oct. 2019

Comparative Critique Claim

There are so many ways on how to interpret marriages. Marriages go all the back

to around 2350 B.C. in Mesopotamia. In the following hundred thousand of years,

marriages have evolved dramatically. All religions have different ways they interpret the

meaning of marriage. No one depicts marriages the same way. In some religions two

people get married even before they know each other and then they hopefully do fall in

love with one another.

While both authors address modern marriage and past

marriages, Stephanie Coontz focuses on what went into marriages, while Andrew

Cherlin emphasizes how marriages evolved and what their roles are.

During the time, the importance of marriage has changed. The purpose of this

change is a direct result of social patterns, for example, division of work, living together,

and gay marriage. In the article “American Marriage in Transition”, Andrew J. Cherlin

clarifies how this progresses, which happened in the public arena between the

nineteenth and twentieth centuries, changed the importance of marriage.

He classifies

the various kinds of relationships into three particular sorts; institutionalized,

companionate, and individualized. All through the article, Cherlin gives different

Ray 2

instances of how it has changed. Like he discusses the Great Depression, which is an

example of a “companionship marriage”, and how the “Division of Labor” became

effective. Women began to work the jobs in the city and did men work and when the

men returned home, the women had a sample of the work-life and they did not want to

surrender it. Then on to what Cherlin considers institutionalized marriage, this is where

the men were mostly the providers and the ladies stayed home with the children and do

tasks around the house. Last of all, he goes on to individualized marriages, which it’s

more common for both men and women to have jobs and have kids outside of marriage.

Cherlin was strong in many parts of his article and gave a sufficient amount of examples

to support his claim. But he was weak in describing why marriages are being

“deinstitutionalized” throughout the years.

In the article “ The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love”, by Stephanie Coontz, she

gives a historical backdrop of marriage all through the world, uncovering it’s authentic

purposes and the methods of reasoning encompassing it. Coontz clarifies how after

some time and through the changing thoughts regarding love and the genders that

individuals currently wed for affection, friendship, and individual satisfaction. Prior to the

current time, marrying for affection was disheartened. Coontz gives many examples

throughout her article, for instance, in many cultures they believed that love develops

after marriage and that your spouse is not your top priority.

Cite this page

Comparative Critique Claims. (2019, Nov 29). Retrieved from

Comparative Critique Claims
Let’s chat?  We're online 24/7