Reframing Marriage and Marital Delay Among Low‐Income Mothers: An Interactionist Perspective

Abstract

A common assertion in the family science literature is that low‐income single mothers are increasingly retreating from marriage but still vaunt it as their ultimate relationship goal. To explain this paradox, scholars frequently cite inadequacies in men's marriageability, financial instability, and conflictual romantic relationships as primary forces in mothers' decisions not to marry. We propose an alternative reasoning for this paradox using symbolic interactionist theory and perspectives on poverty and uncertainty. Specifically, we highlight the contradictions between what women say about their desires to marry and what they actually do when the opportunity presents itself. We use exemplar cases from a longitudinal ethnographic study of low‐income rural mothers to demonstrate our reasoning. Implications for future research and theory development are discussed.

Theorizing the Decision‐Making Process for Divorce or Reconciliation

“…The process of navigating dialectical tensions embedded in the decision‐making process acts as a catalyst for change resulting in the selection of strategies for marital growth, entropy, or maintenance. This process is not unlike the Garrett‐Peters and Burton () finding that low‐income women's decision to marry often waxed, waned, and wavered. Likewise, strategies to navigate dialectical tensions and attempts to resolve or balance them (if only temporarily) can put partners on transient, unstable, and fluctuating trajectories of growth (typified by further investment in the relationship), entropy (typified by lessened investment in the relationship), or further ambivalence (typified by maintaining a limited status quo).…”

“…The broad theoretical frameworks used to frame decision‐making processes in many of these substantive areas often included social exchange theory (Donnelly & Burgess, ), rational choice theory (Shu, Zhu, & Zang, 2012), resource theory (Szinovacz & Davey, ), bargaining models (Abraham, Ausburg, & Hinz, ), or the theory of utility maximization (Shu et al, ), although more interpretive frameworks—including symbolic interactionism (Garrett‐Peters & Burton, ), dialogical theory (Bell et al, ), and relational dialectic theory (Baxter, )—have also been used to understand decision making.…”

“…Some family scholars have chosen to examine general decision‐making processes within a more social constructionist or interpretive theoretical framework. Helpful approaches include dialogical theory (Bell et al, ), relational dialectic theory (Baxter, ), and symbolic interactionism (Garrett‐Peters & Burton, ). The main assumption of dialogism is that sense making is dynamic.…”

“…The emphasis on transactional processes and emergent meanings within the interaction between partners and among interested parties shifts the questions from the what to the how of decision making. Similarly, symbolic interactionist theory views decisions as ongoing, negotiated, and socially constructed interactional accomplishments that take place in everyday interactions and adaptations to constraining social circumstances (Garrett‐Peters & Burton, ).…”

“…Grounding decision making in time and space, therefore, is important. For example, when Garrett‐Peters and Burton () explored low‐income mothers' decisions to marry, they found that research often presented a “relatively static, one‐dimensional and often atheoretical perspective of low‐income mothers divorced from their everyday interactions and adaptations to constraining social circumstances” (p. 246). The social and physical environment and context can profoundly affect how people make decisions regarding the future of their marriage and cannot be ignored.…”