Does Working-Class Marriage Need More Progressivism?

Ross Douthat lays out the question:

Many optimistic liberals believe not only that such imitation is possible, but that what needs to be imitated most are the most socially progressive elements of the new upper class’s way of life: delayed marriage preceded by romantic experimentation, more-interchangeable roles for men and women in breadwinning and child rearing, a more emotionally open and egalitarian approach to marriage and parenting.

The core idea here is that working-class men, in particular, need to let go of a particular image of masculinity — the silent, disciplined provider, the churchgoing paterfamilias — that no longer suits the times. Instead, they need to become more comfortable as part-time homemakers, as emotionally available soul mates, and they need to raise their children to be more adaptive and expressive, to prepare them for a knowledge-based, constantly-in-flux economy.

and centers in on what I think is the most important counterargument:

Meanwhile, as cohabitation and churchgoing trends suggest, many working-class Americans — men very much included — have gone further in embracing progressive models of identity and behavior than many realize, and reaped relatively little reward for that embrace.

Near the end of “Labor’s Love Lost,” his illuminating new book on the decline of the working-class family, the Johns Hopkins sociologist Andrew Cherlin cites research suggesting that many working-class men, far from being trapped in an antique paradigm of “restricted emotional language,” have actually thrown themselves into therapeutic, “spiritual but not religious” questing, substituting Oprah-esque self-help for more traditional forms of self-conceiving and belonging.

more. Based on what I see at the pregnancy center, and what I’ve read in books like Doing the Best I Can and Coming Up Short, working-class and poor Americans have almost exactly the same beliefs about marriage and selfhood as upper-class ones.

All across the class spectrum people think you shouldn’t marry “too young.” They believe that you should have premarital sex and cohabit before marriage–that doing otherwise is irresponsible and puts you at high risk of divorce. All across the class spectrum people believe that marriage is the capstone, the reward for checking off all the other life-accomplishment boxes, something you’re not allowed to do until you’re financially and personally stable. All across the spectrum people believe that marriage is the reward you get at the end of the quest for selfhood.

Edin & Nelson note that poor men have already shifted to a model of fatherhood which is less about being a “provider” and more about being emotionally open and nurturing. Silva adds that working-class young adults already accept a psychotherapeutic model of the self.

The big differences are a) that poorer people tend to be much more willing to have children out of wedlock, in large part because marriage is a far-off if not impossible goal whereas babies are wonderful, attainable, and leathery footballs of hope, and b) poorer people generally think marriage makes the relationship more volatile, at least in the short term. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it–better to stay cohabiting or “it’s complicated” than make a definite move which could upset the equilibrium.

These are all city folk–the people at the center, and the people interviewed by Edin & Nelson and Silva–so I’m guessing there are other cultures out there in this cocktail we call America, but that’s what I see.