Betsey Stevenson tags modern marriage “hedonic marriage,” the family having morphed from a “forum for shared production” to one of shared consumption. This is useful and obviously correct; increasingly, modern partnership is about sharing in a self-indulgent, not self-abnegating sense. We watch The Wire together because our emotional reactions register more deeply that way, not because we want to get the most out of our monthly cable payment.
I’ve been trying to get a grip on the feminist literature on nationalism, and–to use the Stevenson framing–I’m wondering why societies that have adapted to the consumption partner model become so deeply critical of production partners. Here’s Pei-Chia Lan’s account (PDF) of a woman being grilled over a marriage visa:
The following conversation is an excerpt from my observation of a TECO officer, a Taiwanese male in his forties, interviewing a Vietnamese woman in her early twenties who was engaged to a Taiwanese factory worker who had lost one arm in an accident.
“Do you want to marry him at your own will?” asked the officer.
She nodded, quietly.
“He is handicapped. Are you really voluntarily entering the marriage?”
“Yes. Life in Vietnam is harsh.”
“Do you actually love him, or are you just doing this for economic reasons?
“I really like him.”
“But you only met him for two days [before getting engaged]! How romantic!
Love at first sight, um? [sarcastic tone] Isn’t this a way to escape from poverty? I
hope you are truly in love, not doing this just for the residency…. Do not remit all the
money home after getting married. He works really hard for it.”
States bestow marriage visas, and so bureaucrats deem it state business to decide what constitutes a “real” marriage. The old models aren’t just discredited; they’re suddenly illegitimate, false, based on deception not just between partners but between partners and the state. “Do you actually love him, or are you just doing this for economic reasons?” Because what has counted as marriage for most of the institution’s history suddenly doesn’t count here.
> States bestow marriage visas, and so bureaucrats deem it state business to decide what constitutes a “real” marriage. The old models aren’t just discredited; they’re suddenly illegitimate, false, based on deception not just between partners but between partners and the state. “Do you actually love him, or are you just doing this for economic reasons?” Because what has counted as marriage for most of the institution’s history suddenly doesn’t count here.
I am not rightly able to apprehend this sort of assertion.
Is it an attempt to say that marriages of convenience for things like passports do not exist, and measures like this taken against such marriages are illegitimate? Or is it trying to argue we should let such practices make a (even further) mockery of immigration regulations lest we offend those who appear to be false marriages procured just for the greencard but actually are real lasting marriages? Or perhaps the real conclusion is in the first sentence: marriage visas should not exist in the first place. (A proposition that would strike many as deeply unfair.)
I’m still a little unclear on your entry here. Do you really believe this? I don’t say you are wrong, but you’ll have to create the best debate in order to convince other people that you are right.