‘Would you like to present me with a piece of your wardrobe?’The fortuitous reasons for cohabiting

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to analyse the reasons for cohabiting. Or, in other words, the reasons for which marriage is postponed and not flatly excluded. In fact, from the data (interviews with 50 cohabitating couples) it appears that cohabitation is a fortuitous and occasional event rather than a conscious and reflective choice made by the couples: cohabitation is the best practice and a prompt solution to likewise practical and urgent problems. So, there is a sort of gap between intention and the effective realization of the decision which determines both the choice of cohabiting and the one of marrying. In fact, most of the reasons which could explain marriage (being Catholic, the solemnity of the marriage, a moment of joy) Á which could reach or go beyond the moment of acting on the basis of a specific intention Á have to face many other choices that continue to be attractive or based on other reasons (cohabitation is as if it was marriage, the wedding is expensive). And the couples act exactly following these reasons, ignoring the original or desired intention. On the contrary, this intention is further strengthened or confirmed by these other reasons. For explaining the behavior of the couples, the author thinks that the category of akrasia is helpful since it shows how the couple mirrors and reformulates those fortuitous reasons which, at the beginning, affected the choice of going to live together in an active way, trying to overcome the casual order.

The meanings of cohabitation in ‘low cohabitation land’: the case of Italy

“…The reasons stated by the respondents motivating their preference for cohabitation were quite similar to those reported in a recent Italian study carried out by Guizzardi (2011). With the exception of those waiting for divorce (a couple and two women), for whom cohabitation is an obligatory choice, the reasons expressed by the respondents varied, ranging from a desire for independence (seven respondents), the opportunity of living in available family property (two respondents), to the next stage of a long engagement (two couples, seven respondents).…”

“…Successively, I set forward the results of the research, where some perspectives are mirrored in other qualitative studies on cohabitation carried out in Great Britain, just as those of a recent Italian study (Guizzardi, 2011) -a convergence that confirms how some characteristics of cohabiting partners (heightened individualism, desire for independence, low level of religious participation) are not dependent on different geographical contexts. In the Italian setting, one consideration is that these elements represent signs of change, given that traditionally marriage was the only socially legitimate manner to enter a union and form a family.…”

“…The main aim is to reconstruct the meanings of marriage and of cohabitation and to discover if they change over the course of the couple's relationship. The rather limited number of studies of cohabitation in Italy (Pocar and Ronfani, 1992;Guizzardi, 2011) have focused on how couples are formed and on the reasons for preference towards cohabitation without however examining the significance of marriage nor the enduring image of married couples' relationships based on a rigid division of gender roles.…”

Framing the tendency to betray one's good intentions. Akrasia as a dialogical dynamic

“…Going beyond these cases illustrated by Elster (2008), more recent studies have tried to associate akrasia with behaviors relating to modern digital technologies (Valasek, 2022), such as 'phubbing' (when we snub the person we are speaking with to check our smartphones) (Aagaard, 2020), or considered how akrasia might emerge in the behavior of couples (Guizzardi, 2011), in financial reasoning (Massironi & Chesini, 2016), and in groupthink (Szanto, 2017). While these various types of behavior clearly each have their own peculiar characteristics, and would thus warrant a separate discussion, by referring to akrasia might be able to consider some features they share, and try to interpret them and understand why they occur.…”

Does waiting pay off for couples? Partnership duration prior to household formation and union stability

“…Becker and colleagues further assume that persons set up a joint household when the utility expected from this union exceeds the utility expected from remaining in separate households (Becker, Landes, and Michael 1977). Indeed, rational reasons do often play a major role in a couple's decision to move in together, be it saving on rent or the financial, time-related, and emotional costs of commuting between two households (Guizzardi 2011). Even though they may live at different addresses, non-coresidential couples can spend a substantial amount of time together, e.g., they share meals or stay overnight often.…”