A NEW LOGIC OF MARRIAGE?
Keywords:
Marriage, divorce, functionality, dysfunctionality, cohabitation.Abstract
The analysis of social discourses on the necessity of contemporary marriage, as a form of legal coexistence, most often reproduces the same sets of answers - stereotype about the uselessness of the "paper", about the difficulties of legal separation or about the imposition of rights and obligations, defined in the Civil Code. Thus, the orientation of the discourses seems to target the fear of failure rather than solidarity or internal fusion within the family micro-group. Against this background, the discussions about a legal alternative to marriage - the consensual union - seem to build the premise of a new conjugal relationship, cleared of any set of rules, predefined to be compulsory for the two partners.
The idea of "purity" of the marital relationship is discovered in the scientific literature starting with Giddens (1992), where it is described as cohabiting. In his vision, Giddens believes that a pure relationship exists only as long as the mutual feelings between the two partners are present, the unhappiness of one becoming the sure premise of separation (Giddens, 1992). This is because, in the case of marriage, the sum of social and legal contexts requires the couple to make a series of compromises that often maintain the state of marriage artificially. Moreover, the latent failures of marital relationships require tolerance, acceptance and compromise rather than separation, and, as an additional source of pressure, the dissolution procedure seems cumbersome and with little social acceptance.
Thus, in light of the two great dilemmas regarding the reduced impact of marriage in terms of marital vitality, but also from the perspective of the fluctuations of value with which the marriage is described, the socio-legal reconstruction of the marital law can become an alternative transit between the classical marriage and the European laws on consensual union.
The study aims to analyze the social discourse on the views of manifesting autonomy in conjugal environments from the perspective of the existing marital legislation and the new legal resources described in the public discourse.
References
Apostu, I. (2015). Căsătoria între stabilitate şi disoluţie, Bucureşti: Tritonic
Giddens, A (1992). Transformarea intimităţii. Sexualitatea, dragostea şi erotismul în societăţile moderne. Bucureşti: Antet
Huidu, A. (2019). Parsson and Săvulescu's ”Unfit for the future” or the starting point for the deconstruction of the concept of parentality, Postmodern Openings, 10(1), pp. 200-219.
Jamieson, L, & Wajcman, J. (2010). Anthony Giddens et l’intimité: la structuration oubliée in Danielle Chabaud-Rychter et al., Sous les sciences sociales, le genre, La Découverte | Hors collection Sciences Humaines, 1010, p. 107-120
Neuburger, R. (2007) Propos sur l’intimite du couple. A qui appartiennent les organes sexuels? in Burton-Jeangros Claudine, Widmer Eric et D’Epinay Christian Lalive. (2007). Interactions familiale et constructions de l’intimité, Paris: Edition Harmattan
Paris, V. & Blais, M. (2006) Crises et transformations des liens intimes : réflexion sur le passage de la société traditionnelle à la société moderne, Dialogue, 2 (3), 173, pp. 125-134
Segalen, M. (2002). Sociologie de la famille, Paris: Armand Colin
Singly F. (de) (2003). ”Intimité conjugale et intimité personnelle. À la recherche d’un équilibre entre deux exigences dans les sociétés modernes avancées”.Sociologie et sociétés, XXXV (2), pp. 79-96.
