Age-Dissimilar Couples and Romantic Relationships

Ageless Love?

L. McKenzie

• Editorial: Palgrave Macmillan
• Año: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137446770
• Categoría: Ciencias sociales
• Categoría: Matrimonio y sociología familiar

There has been a widespread fascination with age-dissimilar couples in recent years. This book examines how the romantic relationships of these couples are understood. Based on qualitative research, McKenzie investigates notions of autonomy, relatedness, contradiction, and change in age-dissimilar relationships and romantic love.

1

Researching Age-Dissimilar, Romantic Couples: Trends, Concepts, and Methods

As was discussed in the Introduction, a great deal of the media discussion surrounding age-dissimilar couplings suggests that these relationships are now more acceptable than they have been in the recent past. This view was mirrored by the people I spoke with while conducting my research, for whom this appeared to be common knowledge. Some theorists have agreed with this sentiment, suggesting that romantic relationships (and people, more generally) are decreasingly constrained by partners’ chronological ages (Bordo 1997; Featherstone 1995; Nettleton & Watson 1998). Here, age is viewed as being subject to a higher degree of individual variation and malleability than in the past, and as no longer determined by biological, social, or cultural forces.

In this chapter I outline some features of existing research into age-dissimilar couplings, as well as the trends and patterns revealed through such studies. I introduce and define the key concepts employed throughout the book, including age dissimilarity, romantic love, contradiction, cultural understandings, cultural themes, as well as autonomy and relatedness. I then outline the research methodologies used for this study, and the practical and methodological issues that arose.

Researching age-dissimilar relationships

Age-dissimilar, romantic relationships have rarely been subject to qualitative inquiry (Berardo et al. 1993; for examples see Leahy 1994, 2002; Proulx et al. 2006; Pyke & Adams 2010; Yuill 2004). Of the small body of research that does exist, the majority of enquiries have been located within the disciplines of sociology and psychology, and make use of qualitative interviewing as a research methodology. However, there has been mention of age-dissimilar relationships – most frequently male-older ones – within some ethnographic studies, often as part of broader discussions about marriage and kinship (Lee 2013; Radcliffe-Brown 1953). For instance, many decades ago marriages between ‘alternate generations’ were observed among some African tribes: that is, marriages between grandparents’ and grandchildren’s generations (Radcliffe-Brown 1953). Although more recent anthropological studies have occasionally focused on differences within couple relationships, these are much more commonly oriented toward inter-cultural and inter-racial intimacies (Bulloch & Fabinyi 2009; Cole 2014; Constable 2003). Even when age differences appear in tandem with cultural and racial ones, they are not often analysed.

Rather, the bulk of research into age dissimilarities has been quantitative. Such research tends to be largely descriptive, and based on census data, national statistics, or surveys (for examples see Atkinson & Glass 1985; Bytheway 1981; Pixley et al. 2007; Veevers 1988). Contexts in which research has been undertaken include the United States, Canada, England, Wales, and Australia. Although this research helps to identify general population trends, it tells us little about the understandings and lived realities of those involved in age-dissimilar relationships. This is better explored through the use of qualitative methods, such as participant observation and interviewing. Yet, as I have already established, such research is rare.

Furthermore, most quantitative studies of relationships examine only married couples, and exclude de facto partnerships, particularly when those couples do not live together (Wood & Duck 1995: xi). This is problematic, as research suggests that unmarried couples are more likely to have age dissimilarities than married ones, and that those in short-term relationships are more likely to have age dissimilarities than those in long-term relationships (Amato et al. 2009; Hancock et al. 2003; Lawton & Callister 2010). In 2006, de facto partners made up 15 per cent of all Australians ‘living as socially married’, that is, those who were either in a registered marriage or in a de facto relationship (ABS 2012: 261–3). Furthermore, the proportion of Australians living in de facto relationships has increased in recent decades (ABS 2012), and similar trends have been observed elsewhere (Smart 2000).

Finally, it is unfortunate that Australian statistics on age dissimilarities are extremely rare. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, on which most analyses draw, have only occasionally been collected on marital age differences. As such, the Australian data that I discuss below is at times somewhat dated. Yet, while existing quantitative research into age-dissimilar couples has its limitations, it is extremely useful in drawing attention to trends and patterns in these relationships.

Trends in age-dissimilar relationships

Quantitative research has revealed various cross-cultural and historical patterns in partners’ age differences. Statistics, for instance, have consistently shown a strong tendency for females to marry males older than themselves, although the extent of the age difference has varied across time and space (Buss 1989; Casterline et al. 1986; Cox 1970; Fielder & Huber 2007; Hancock et al. 2003; Qu 1998; Van de Putte et al. 2009). In nineteenth-century Europe, for example, a decline in age dissimilarities between partners occurred (Van de Putte et al. 2009). Moreover, it is unclear whether the acceptance of age-dissimilar couples – even female-older ones – is unusual in a historical or cross-cultural sense. Indeed, Cox (1970: 121) has suggested that in early twentieth-century England, those in the working class favoured older brides as a kind of ‘birth control device’.

Marriage statistics from a variety of contexts suggest that the reality is far more complex than a straightforward shift toward age-dissimilar relationships. Worldwide statistics show that average and median age differences in marriages have been decreasing gradually over recent decades, but that this may in part be owing to an overall increase in the proportion of female-older marriages (Hancock et al. 2003; Presser 1975; Qu 1998). This overall decline in marital age differences and growth in female-older unions has been seen as an effect of the emergence of ‘more equal power structures’ in societies, particularly in regard to gender (Berardo et al. 1993: 104; for examples see Atkinson & Glass 1985; Bhrolcháin 1992; Casterline et al. 1986; Coles & Francesconi 2011; Qu 1998). However, this argument tends to be assumed, rather than being supported by research findings. Some have questioned whether average age differences in marriage truly reflect a society’s gender relations (Casterline et al. 1986; Pyke & Adams 2010).

Some researchers argue that average age differences have stabilised in the last few decades (Drefahl 2010; Klein 1996). Yet Australian statistics, as well as those from North America, Europe, and their former colonies, tend to support the argument that average age differences continue to slowly decrease (ABS 2009; Drefahl 2010). Indeed, in 2006, Australian husbands were an average of 2.6 years older than their wives, a fall from 2.8 years in 1985–1986 and 3.6 years in 1921 (ABS 2009: 8; Qu 1998: 27). Again, this is most likely due to the significant increase in the proportion of female-older marriages that has occurred in Australia (ABS 1997; Qu 1998), as well as contexts such as the United States, England, Wales, and New Zealand (Gunter & Wheeler 1986; Hancock et al. 2003; Lawton & Callister 2010). For instance, between 1974 and 2002, the percentage of all Australian marriages between an older female and a younger male increased from 11 per cent to 23 per cent (ABS 1997: 27, 2005: 134).

Female-older marriages, however, generally have far smaller age differences than male-older ones (ABS 1997, 2005, 2009; Lawton & Callister 2010). Furthermore, there remains an ongoing tendency for husbands to be older than their wives, and for this tendency to be reflected in people’s partner preferences (ABS 2005, 2009; Feliciano et al. 2009; Gunter & Wheeler 1986; Lawton & Callister 2010; Veevers 1988). Thus, although popular wisdom might suggest that age no longer matters in love, statistics seem to suggest that it does, at least in marriages.

Although average marital age differences have been slowly decreasing in most countries over time, in recent decades the proportion of these couples with large age dissimilarities has actually increased in contexts such as the United States, England, and Wales (Amato et al. 2009; Hancock et al. 2003; Pyke & Adams 2010). That is, marriages involving larger age differences, both male-older and female-older, have increased in frequency. The frequency of such unions varies significantly according to marital history, age at marriage, educational and occupational status, and gender. For instance, female-older marriages are more common among couples where the female partner is better educated and has a higher occupational status than her partner (Coles & Francesconi 2011). Furthermore, when the male is remarrying and the female is not, he is often much older; when the female is remarrying and the male is not, she is often the same age or slightly older (ABS 1999, 2009; Presser 1975; Shehan et al. 1991). Overall, age dissimilarities are more common among those who are remarrying (Mensch 1986; Presser 1975; Shehan et al. 1991). The older a male is when he marries, the more likely it is that he will enter an age-dissimilar marriage; the older a female is, the more likely it is she will enter into an age-similar marriage (Berardo et al. 1993; cf. Bytheway 1981). Examinations of male and female age preferences in a variety of age groups mirror these tendencies (Levesque & Caron 2004; Pixley et al. 2007).

However, data from 2002 still reveals a strong tendency for Australian couples to be about the same age, with 44 per cent of couples being within two years of one another, and only 11 per cent of couples being ten or more years apart in age (ABS 2005: 134). This pattern appears to have remained relatively stable in recent years, in Australia and elsewhere (ABS 2005; Hancock et al. 2003; Rosenfeld 2005). What is clear is that, in many so-called ‘Western’ societies, age-dissimilar marriages remain more of an exception than age-similar ones (Amato et al. 2009).

Popular opinion, however, tends not to reflect the ongoing tendency toward age similarity evident in the statistics. Rather, the popular (and to some extent the academic) perspective highlights people’s status as autonomous individuals, who are free to make their own romantic choices, who enjoy increasingly equal partnerships, and whose romantic decisions are independent of social, cultural, or structural constraints, particularly in regard to the ages of their partners (Amato et al. 2009; Bellah et al. 1985; Casterline et al. 1986; Coles & Francesconi 2011; Van Leeuwen & Maas 2002). More generally, chronological age is seen as having less and less relevance in regard to contemporary social identity, particularly in the West (Hancock et al. 2003). Such conceptions were reflected in my participants’ comments on their own relationships.

Conceptualising age-dissimilar relationships

As with research on age and marital trends, quantitative researchers have also dominated discussions about which terminologies should be used to refer to romantic or sexual partnerships within which there is an age difference. Such relationships have variously been referred to as age-dissimilar, age-discrepant, intergenerational, and age-heterogamous (cf. Atkinson & Glass 1985; Berardo et al. 1993; Cowan 1984; Leahy 2002; Yuill 2004). Here, I have chosen to adopt the label of ‘age-dissimilar relationships’, as ‘intergenerational’ implies a larger age difference than was present among some of my interviewees, and the meanings of ‘age-heterogamous’ and ‘age-discrepant’ seem less straightforward.

Regardless of how such relationships are labelled, there has been a considerable amount of debate as to what constitutes an age difference (Amato et al. 2009; Atkinson & Glass 1985; Berardo et al. 1993). Some researchers have argued that these relationships should be defined by a ten year or greater age difference, while others have suggested that much smaller age differences might be significant (for examples see Blood & Wolfe 1960; Van de Putte et al. 2009). I see such definitions as overly restrictive. Given that larger age differences are more common and more widely accepted when the older partner is male, it becomes problematic to define female-older relationships in the same way as male-older ones. Some researchers have dealt with this by arguing that what constitutes an age-dissimilar relationship varies according to the gender of the older partner (Amato et al. 2009; Berardo et al. 1993; Blood & Wolfe 1960).

Yet further problems in defining age dissimilarities arise when other factors are considered. For instance, researchers have consistently found that age preferences, as well as actual age differences in relationships, vary significantly depending on partners’ ages (Bytheway 1981; Cowan 1984; Pixley et al. 2007; Veevers 1988). Furthermore, people’s general attitudes towards age-dissimilar couples vary according to the ages of the partners being judged, the age of the person judging them, as well as characteristics such as institutional setting (that is, whether they attend a school or university), socio-economic status, occupation, and marital status (Cowan 1984). Thus, it is not merely the age difference that is considered important. Finally, what constitutes a notable age difference is highly cross-culturally and historically variable, particularly in the case of female-older relationships (Casterline et al. 1986; Cox 1970; Momeni 1976). Historical shifts in conceptions of age difference, in particular, are not often accounted for, and there appears to have been little change in what is considered an age-dissimilar relationship since the topic first gained scholarly attention in the 1930s (Berardo et al. 1993).

Due to these complexities, I have chosen not to strictly define what constitutes an age-dissimilar relationship (see also McKenzie 2014). Rather, my research includes the accounts of those in relationships with a range of age differences, the smallest being seven years and the largest 30. I judge what constitutes an age dissimilarity to be highly variable, and throughout this book I emphasise how socio-cultural factors, including gender and partners’ social roles, impact on how an age difference between romantic partners is perceived.

My participants were largely self-selected, and therefore their notions of what constitutes age dissimilarity have been incorporated into my understanding of the term.

Conceptualising romantic love

It was clear from my conversations with interviewees that the majority of them saw their relationships as based on romantic love. As such, for the purposes of my argument, romantic relationships refer to couples whose relationships are romantic in origin, and my analysis does not distinguish between those currently in companionate, romantic, or other kinds of relationships. Even more significantly, people’s understandings of couple relationships were intrinsically tied to the notion of romantic love: even couplings that were not romantic were conceptualised in terms of romantic love. With one notable exception, to be discussed in Chapter 5, all interviewees shared the view that the absence of romantic love between themselves and their partners would mean that they should end their relationship. Meanwhile, they also shared an understanding that the existence of romantic love between themselves and their partners (in either the past or the present) would mean that they should continue their relationship.

Thus, there existed an alignment between romantic love and couple relationships (including marriage) in people’s viewpoints, with romantic love being taken as the primary motivation for marriage (Strauss & Quinn 1997). This is why I employ the term age-dissimilar, ‘romantic’ relationships throughout the book: people’s discussions of age-dissimilar relationships were inseparable from their perspectives on romantic love. Indeed, it is possible that this concern with the romantic was more pervasive in age-dissimilar relationships than in age-similar ones, as the latter relationships may not have required the same degree of justification through romantic discourse. This interpretation is supported by my discussion in Chapter 3, which emphasises the connections drawn between the normative and the romantic.

In any discussion that focuses attention on understandings of contemporary age-dissimilar partnerships, it is therefore important to first define romantic love. In addressing the definition of love, Goode (1959: 41) aptly points out that although the meaning of this term is widely disputed, ‘defining “true” hate seems not to be a problem’. Yet romantic feelings, to a far greater extent than other sentiments, are expected to be unique and different, thus making them difficult to define (Illouz 1997). As a result, the meaning of romantic love tends to be assumed, rather than being elaborated (Evans 2003).

Indeed, until recently, there has been a general lack of scholarly interest in love and emotion within the social sciences, with these aspects of social life often being dismissed as lacking seriousness and as characterised by irrationality (Lutz & White 1986; Maskens & Blanes 2013; McElhinny 2010; Svašek 2005; Venkatesan et al. 2011; Weber 2009). McElhinny (2010: 311) suggests that the growing interest of anthropologists in emotion, in the 1980s and 1990s, may be linked to the ‘the increasing impact of (and continuing backlashes against) scholars previously underrepresented in the academy, as well as broader social and political struggles’. Others have understood the shift to be a product of challenges to the division of the biological and the cultural, as well as the rational and the irrational (Lutz & White 1986). Still others suggest it reflects the increasingly individualised concerns of modern, Western, capitalist societies (Rose 1999).

Thus, in recent decades theorists have increasingly sought to define and elaborate the concept of romantic love (for examples see Jankowiak & Fischer 1992; Lindholm 1998, 2006). In 1959, when romantic love was a rarely discussed topic in the social sciences, Goode (1959: 41) defined it as ‘a strong emotional attachment, a cathexis, between adolescents or adults of opposite sexes, with at least the components of sex desire and tenderness’. Many theorists today would dispute Goode’s (1959) definition, as he denies homosexual and pre-pubescent partners the ability to love romantically (although my own analysis suggests that the ‘adult’ status of partners remains important to contemporary Australian conceptions of romantic love). Also reflected in Goode’s (1959) definition is the enduring assumption that romantic love can occur only between two people at any given time (see also Jankowiak & Mixson 2008).

The features of sexual desire and tenderness identified by Goode (1959: 41) remain as key elements of most contemporary definitions. Yet, having said this, sexuality tends to be somewhat differentiated from romantic love, and the latter is generally seen as superior to the former (Illouz 1997). This separation goes back at least as far as Plato, who valued ‘love for eternity’ over the ‘transient’ desire for the other’s body (Bertilsson 1991: 298; see also Singer 1984). Indeed, the Platonic notion that love is ‘sexless and timeless’ remains influential to this day (Bertilsson 1991: 299).

Lindholm (1995)...

Índice

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Series Editors’ Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Researching Age-Dissimilar, Romantic Couples: Trends, Concepts, and Methods
• 2 Love through the Ages: Theorising and Historicising the Contradictions of Romantic and Age-Dissimilar Couples
• 3 ‘They’re Just a Child’: Uncovering the Boundaries of a Normative Relationship through Dialogue on Media Depictions of Age-Dissimilar Couples
• 4 ‘Age Is Just a Number’: How Couples Challenged Chronological Age and Minimised Their Age Differences
• 5 Free to Be Fated: Similarity, Compatibility, and Choice or Blind, Fated Love in Couple Formation
• 6 Equal and Autonomous? Couples’ Gendered Differences and Power Relations
• 7 Conclusion: The Synthesis of Autonomy and Relatedness in Age-Dissimilar Couplings
• References
• Index