Assessing the deinstitutionalization of marriage thesis: Changes in the meaning of cohabitation over the relationship life course

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveWe assess Cherlin's deinstitutionalization of marriage thesis by examining the meaning couples ascribe to their cohabiting unions, how this differs between partners and by social class, and over the relationship life course.BackgroundCohabitation is often portrayed as a precursor to marriage. Declining shares of cohabitations that transition into marriage challenge this presumption.MethodData are from in‐depth interviews conducted with a class‐diverse sample of 61 different‐gender cohabiting couples (n = 122 individuals). We utilize open, axial, and selective coding to analyze our data.ResultsCohabitation initially serves largely as a form of intensive dating, though over time many respondents described relationships that intensified to a trial for or a precursor to marriage. Maturation, relative comparisons with others' life course transitions, parenthood desires, and conforming to societal expectations abetted intensification, whereas discord—about domestic and fiscal responsibilities, sex, and life goals—and domestic abuse led to de‐escalation, with many in this category “waiting to break up.” Relationship intensification among the middle‐class highlighted continued adherence to the hegemony of marriage, supporting Cherlin's thesis about developmental change. Less advantaged cohabitors more often viewed cohabitation and marriage as equivalent, supporting transformational change. Gendered enactments both challenged and supported existing institutional norms.ConclusionIn the early 21st century, cohabitation is part of the developmental change reshaping marriage among the middle‐class, but plays a more transformational role among the less advantaged, where the institution's hold has weakened.