Discussion Notes for Project 3: Marriage/Family
Marriage and family are key structures in most societies. While the two institutions have historically been closely linked in U.S. culture, their connection is becoming more complex. The relationship between marriage and family is an interesting topic of study to sociologists.
What is marriage? Different people define it in different ways. Not even sociologists are able to agree on a single meaning. For our purposes, we’ll define marriage as a legally recognized social contract between two people, traditionally based on a sexual relationship and implying a permanence of the union. In practicing cultural relativism, we should also consider variations, such as whether a legal union is required (think of “common law” marriage and its equivalents), or whether more than two people can be involved (consider polygamy). Other variations on the definition of marriage might include whether spouses are of opposite sexes or the same sex and how one of the traditional expectations of marriage (to produce children) is understood today.
Sociologists are interested in the relationship between the institution of marriage and the institution of family because, historically, marriages are what create a family, and families are the most basic social unit upon which society is built. Both marriage and family create status roles that are sanctioned by society.
So what is a family? A husband, a wife, and two children—maybe even a pet—has served as the model for the traditional U.S. family for most of the twentieth century. But what about families that deviate from this model, such as a single-parent household or a homosexual couple without children? Should they be considered families as well?
The question of what constitutes a family is a prime area of debate in family sociology, as well as in politics and religion. Social conservatives tend to define the family in terms of structure with each family member filling a certain role (like father, mother, or child). Sociologists, on the other hand, tend to define family more in terms of the manner in which members relate to one another than on a strict configuration of status roles. Here, we’ll define family as a socially recognized group (usually joined by blood, marriage, cohabitation, or adoption) that forms an emotional connection and serves as an economic unit of society. They also typically form a residential unit, or household. Sociologists identify different types of families based on how one enters into them. A family of orientation refers to the family into which a person is born. A family of procreation describes one that is formed through marriage. These distinctions have cultural significance related to issues of lineage.
People in the United States as a whole are somewhat divided when it comes to determining what does and what does not constitute a family. In a 2010 survey conducted by professors at the University of Indiana, nearly all participants (99.8 percent) agreed that a husband, wife, and children constitute a family. Ninety-two percent stated that a husband and a wife without children still constitute a family. The numbers drop for less traditional structures: unmarried couples with children (83 percent), unmarried couples without children (39.6 percent), gay male couples with children (64 percent), and gay male couples without children (33 percent). This survey revealed that children tend to be the key indicator in establishing “family” status: the percentage of individuals who agreed that unmarried couples and gay couples constitute a family nearly doubled when children were added.
The study also revealed that 60 percent of U.S. respondents agreed that if you consider yourself a family, you are a family (a concept that reinforces an interactionist perspective). The government, however, is not so flexible in its definition of “family.” The U.S. Census Bureau defines a family as “a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together” (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). While this structured definition can be used as a means to consistently track family-related patterns over several years, it excludes individuals such as cohabitating unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples. Legality aside, sociologists would argue that the general concept of family is more diverse and less structured than in years past. Society has given more leeway to the design of a family making room for what works for its members.
Regardless of one’s concept of the family, it is very important to people in the United States. In a 2010 survey by Pew Research Center in Washington, DC, 76 percent of adults surveyed stated that family is “the most important” element of their life—just one percent said it was “not important”. It is also very important to society. President Ronald Regan notably stated, “The family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms”. While the design of the family may have changed in recent years, the fundamentals of emotional closeness and support are still present. Most responders to the Pew survey stated that their family today is at least as close (45 percent) or closer (40 percent) than the family with which they grew up.
Alongside the debate surrounding what constitutes a family is the question of what people in the United States believe constitutes a marriage. Many religious and social conservatives believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, citing religious scripture and the basics of human reproduction as support. Social liberals and progressives, on the other hand, believe that marriage can exist between two consenting adults—be they a man and a woman, or a woman and a woman—and that it would be discriminatory to deny such a couple the civil, social, and economic benefits of marriage.
With single parenting and cohabitation (when a couple shares a residence but not a marriage) becoming more acceptable in recent years, people may be less motivated to get married. In a recent Pew Research survey, 39 percent of respondents answered “yes” when asked whether marriage is becoming obsolete. The institution of marriage is likely to continue, but some previous patterns of marriage will become outdated as new patterns emerge. In this context, cohabitation contributes to the phenomenon of people getting married for the first time at a later age than was typical in earlier generations. Furthermore, marriage will continue to be delayed as more people place education and career ahead of “settling down.”
People in the United States typically equate marriage with monogamy, when someone is married to only one person at a time. In many countries and cultures around the world, however, having one spouse is not the only form of marriage. In a majority of cultures (78 percent), polygamy, or being married to more than one person at a time, is accepted, with most polygamous societies existing in northern Africa and east Asia. Instances of polygamy are almost exclusively in the form of polygyny. Polygyny refers to a man being married to more than one woman at the same time. The reverse, when a woman is married to more than one man at the same time, is called polyandry. It is far less common and only occurs in about 1 percent of the world’s cultures. The reasons for the overwhelming prevalence of polygamous societies are varied but they often include issues of population growth, religious ideologies, and social status.
While the majority of societies accept polygyny, the majority of people do not practice it. Often fewer than 10 percent (and no more than 25–35 percent) of men in polygamous cultures have more than one wife; these husbands are often older, wealthy, high-status men. The average plural marriage involves no more than three wives. Negev Bedouin men in Israel, for example, typically have two wives, although it is acceptable to have up to four. As urbanization increases in these cultures, polygamy is likely to decrease.
In the United States, polygamy is considered by most to be socially unacceptable and it is illegal. The act of entering into marriage while still married to another person is referred to as bigamy and is considered a felony in most states. Polygamy in the United States is often associated with those of the Mormon faith, although in 1890 the Mormon Church officially renounced polygamy. Fundamentalist Mormons, such as those in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), on the other hand, still hold tightly to the historic Mormon beliefs and practices and allow polygamy in their sect.
U.S. Muslims, however, are an emerging group with an estimated 20,000 practicing polygamy. Again, polygamy among U.S. Muslims is uncommon and occurs only in approximately 1 percent of the population. For now polygamy among U.S. Muslims has gone fairly unnoticed by mainstream society, but like fundamentalist Mormons whose practices were off the public’s radar for decades, they may someday find themselves at the center of social debate.
Part 3 Project : Patterns of Mate Selection
Interview someone in your parents’ or grandparents’ generations about their experience with mate selection, or marriage. Specify the time frame and locate the experience in the social structure to the best of your ability (e.g., class, ethnicity, gender, religion). Take into account the following factors:
· How is the couple relationship initiated? Consider the extent of individual choice and family and peer influences. Note relevant distinctions for gender.
· When does dating or courtship begin? Are relationships placed “on a clock” leading to marriage?
· What are the social constraints on who dates whom (i.e., endogamy)? Are they the same for eligible marriage partners?
· Discuss the major courtship rituals which provide a scripted route to marriage?
· Was their marriage “typical” for the place and time? In other words, can make “generalizations” from their “particular” experiences? Contrast with patterns for your generation.
· Locate your particular case on the continuum between the two extremes of arranged marriage at one pole and romantic-companionate marriage at the other:
Arranged o+++++++++++++o Romantic-Companionate
· Relate your particular case to kinship structure, noting the difference between conjugal kinship (centered on spouse relationship) and consanguine kinship (centered on blood relations)? Historically, for example, arranged marriage is more compatible with cohesive kinship groups and extended family households; romantic-companionate marriage is more suited to individualism and privacy vis-à-vis kin.
Mate selection is about who marries whom. This is patterned, not random, following cultural norms or rules. This typically results in what sociologists refer to as endogamy, or marriage inside (the prefix “endo” means inside) the group or social category. The critical importance of marriage as a biological as well as a social institution presupposes that the couple and their respective kin share a culture (language, values, traditions, etc.). Ask yourself this: do you choose as friends and neighbors people who are similar to you culturally? Now, what about a marriage partner? The question is where do you find people who share your culture?
You will look to uncover patterns of “endogamy” in your small-scale research project/case study. This predicts that the married pair or “couple” are positioned similarly in terms of the major social divisions: social class – wealth and income, education, occupation, nationality, race, and religion. It also follows that when individuals marry across social boundaries there is tension and disruption, including a greater probability of marital dissolution.
In societies where marriages are arranged there is greater conformity to endogamy than where couples are expected to marry for love. This project asks you to pay attention to the distinction between arranged marriage and romantic marriage although the latter is more accurately called “romantic – companionate” marriage to factor in the role of friendship between couples who are social equals. This “erotic friendship” as the basis of mate selection (marriage) can be contrasted with “arranged marriage”. In the latter case, marriage partners are put together by families and intermediaries. Kin have outsized in influence in mate selection because the newly married couple is incorporated within an extended family. In South Asian cultures, the couple resides with the husband’s family; daughter’s marry out. The household includes more than one nuclear family.
The role of parents in arranging marriage persists into the present in China:
BEIJING — You are a young Chinese man whose father tells you the most important skill his future daughter-in-law must have is caring for her home and family. Your mother rejects a 40-year-old woman as your potential mate because she may be too old to bear children. See excerpt below regarding the persistence of the tradition of arranged marriage in China.
This is not prerevolutionary China, but a new TV dating show.
….. the weekly show evoked China’s tradition of arranged marriages, in which family elders hired matchmakers to find spouses for their children. Although arranged marriages were discouraged after the fall of the last imperial dynasty in 1911 and banned by the Republican government in the 1930s, Chinese millennials, often portrayed as the excessively indulged and protected products of the one-child family policy, now find themselves yielding to parents who are ready to provide them with everything, even a spouse.
In an interview with the Jiefang Daily newspaper, the show’s director, Yao Yao, said she was struck by how anxious the parents on the show were about their children’s marriages.
“Inviting parents here, getting their approval, is a way of avoiding many unnecessary problems,” she said. “There’s no question that family and parents are important in a marriage. Romance and marriage are two different things.”
Ms. Zhou said one reason Chinese parents had so much say over their child’s marriage was that many of the parents were paying for it. According to a 2015 report by the All-China Women’s Federation, the average age at marriage is 26. But the expenses of marriage exceed what most Chinese that age can afford. According to one industry report , in 2016, the average cost of a wedding in Shanghai was 200,000 renminbi, about $30,000. That does not include the costs of an apartment and a car, which are widely considered prerequisites for an engagement and are typically bought by the young man’s parents.
“Matchmaking remains popular because, from the start, each side knows exactly what the other’s background is,” Ms. Zhou said. “It’s efficient when candidates are screened by parents.”
Lu Pin, a feminist and cultural critic, said that patriarchal values had never been entirely eliminated from Chinese culture, and that there were signs they were making a comeback.
“Many Chinese families have entered the middle class now, and they want to solidify their status by marrying people from a similar background,” Ms. Lu said.
Without parents’ help, she said, many young Chinese cannot afford to marry, and even afterward, they still need help from their parents for things like child care.
“Too much protection and support from parents has given rise to a generation that has never really grown up,” Ms. Zhou said.
“Many clients tell me their marriage was based not on love, but on ‘convenience’ — that their parents told them it would be a good match,” she said. “When asked what they expect of their future partner, many say they trust their parents’ experience. That’s not the attitude of an adult.”
In modern societies, falling in love prepares the couple to leave the family of orientation for a single-family household. Spouse-centered families are the centerpiece of conjugal kinship systems. In consanguine kinship, blood ties are privileged over marriage.
For example, “dating” is a marker of the latter. There are temporal differences, too. Erotic friendship typically develops over a longer period of time so that marriage in modern societies is delayed. Love and friendship are made possible by the relative equality of married partners whereas arranged marriage is historically characterized by male dominance, or “patriarchy”. In the former, individuals are typically close in age; the average age difference for American couples is 2 years. Marrying for love and like is hard work notably because it raises expectations, especially for personal happiness and meaning. This can paradoxically explain high rates of divorce and remarriage.
Romantic-companionate marriage is typical in societies that afford the individual and the couple more room from the kinship group. In contrast, arranged marriage fits into a family system that is extended. Marriage, here, does not result in new households. Instead, newly married couples move in with parents (usually the husband’s lineage). Falling in love and in like would undermine the cohesion of the extended family household. Spouse-centered, nuclear families represent what anthropologists call conjugal kinship vs. the consanguine kinship of extended families (i.e., based on “blood”).
Romantic love (see “Romeo and Juliet”, “West Side Story”) can disrupt solidarities with the family and wider social groups when the result is exogamous marriage (see “Big Fat Greek Wedding”). Exogamy, or out-marriage, forbids mate selection outside the boundary. Strong historical examples are the incest taboo and heterosexuality. It is important to note that while romantic love can cause the crossing of a boundary, this is often accomplished in the course of affirming other boundaries as when interracial unions occur within the same social class. New boundaries may also be drawn as with “new ethnicities” (e.g., White Americans, Latinos, South Asians).
Love and Marriage
BY D’VERA COHN
Americans believe that love is the main foundation of marriage. Most who never have been married say they would like to be at some point in their lives. However, statistics show Americans aren’t rushing to the altar, and the U.S. marriage rate is at an all-time low—only 51% of adults were married in 2011, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics.
The romantic ideal of marriage plays out in survey data that show whether they are married or not, Americans are more inclined to choose “love” as a reason for marriage than any other factor. In a 2010 Pew Research Center survey, love wins out over “making a lifelong commitment,” as well as “companionship,” “having children,” and “financial stability” as a very important reason to wed
Among married people, 93% say love is a very important reason to get married; 84% of unmarried people say so. Men and women are equally likely to say love is a very important reason to get married.
But love only goes so far. Most Americans cast cold water on a central premise of many a song or poem, that each person in the universe has only one true love. About seven-in-ten (69%) people do not agree with that notion; only 28% do. Among those who do agree, men (31%) are slightly more likely to do so than women (26%). Young and old, married and unmarried are equally skeptical.
Do You Want to Marry?
Especially for those who have never wed, marriage remains a life goal. About six-in-ten (61%) men and women who have never married say they would like to get married, according to the 2010 Pew Research survey. Only 12% say they do not want to marry and 27% are not sure.
That same survey found that a trip to the altar is not so appealing for those who have been there before. Among divorced adults, only 29% say they would like to marry again, with women more likely than men to say they do not want another trip down the aisle. Among widowed men and women, only 8% want to wed again.
Men and women’s attitudes about marrying for the first time are not different among young adults. But among never-married adults ages 30 to 50, men (27%) are more likely than women (8%) to say they do not want to marry.
Though they say they would like to wed, most Americans are not in a hurry to do so. In 2011, the median age at first marriage was at a record high—about 29 for men and about 27 for women, according to census data. The median age at first marriage, which declined for the first half of the 20th century, has been rising since then. As recently as the early 1980s, the median age for men was 25 and for women 22.
Why this apparent disjunction between belief and reality? Marriage now has more competition from other lifestyles, such as living alone or living with an unmarried partner. A rising share of births are to mothers who are not married, meaning that marriage is no longer seen by many as the only gateway to parenthood. (The divorce rate has gone down since the 1980s and is less of a factor than it used to be.)
The postponement of many markers of adulthood also plays a role. A rising share of young adults, especially women, are pursuing advanced degrees, and waiting for marriage until they are done with their education and established in the workplace. The choices of these young adults are in large part responsible for the growing share of Americans who have never married.
Still, so far, the vast majority of Americans do marry at some point. Among those ages 45 and older, about nine-in-ten have been married.
Is Marriage an Important Goal?
Marriage is an important goal for most Americans, although it may not be their top priority. Having a successful marriage is “one of the most important things” in life for 36% of adults, according to a 2011 Pew Research survey . An additional 48% said it is “very important but not the most” important. Being a good parent was seen as “one of the most important things” by a larger share of adults (53%).
Men and women overall do not answer differently in rating the priority of a successful marriage to them, but there are differences among young adults, ages 18 to 34. About four-in-ten (39%) young women say that having a successful marriage is “one of the most important things” in their life, compared with about three-in-ten (29%) young men who say so.
Advantages of Marriage?
What are the advantages of marriage? According to the public, it is easier for a married person than a single person to raise a family (77% say so). But in other realms of life asked about in the 2010 Pew Research survey, most people do not think either married or single people have an easier time of it. In fact, about half or more think there is no difference between being married or single in the ease of having a fulfilling sex life, being financially secure, finding happiness, getting ahead in a career or having social status.
Among the minority who say marital status does make a difference in life, marriage is deemed better in all of the listed realms but one. When it comes to getting ahead in a career, being single wins out, 24% to 14%.
You are instructed to go back one or two generations in your family for interview subjects: your parents’ or grandparents’ generation. This should bring you closer to an arranged marriage. While there are marked differences between arranged marriage and romantic-companionate marriage, your case study may evidence characteristics of both owing to cultural change. To gauge change over time and generations, the diagram at the bottom of the question above is a continuum:
Arranged o+++++++++++++o Romantic-Companionate
A “continuum” is a gradient, a way of expressing proportionate values – a sense that things can be “more or less” rather than “either/or”. You may be familiar with the “continuum” of pain measurement used by doctors and dentists, expressed on a scale of numbers or a gradient of happy/sad faces. You are asked to place the married pair in your case study on this continuum – closer to one pole, or end, or the other. This can be gauged by considering the routinized steps or stages that led to the marriage: this is the meaning of courtship.
Your “particular” case may fall somewhere between the two ideal types of arranged and romantic-companionate. There are cases, for example, where children are allowed to veto parental choices or where there is limited dating, perhaps with chaperones.
In this project, you will describe “courtship”: the social process that moves couples from “strangers” to marriage. Romantic-companionate marriage is distinguished by dating and, more recently, cohabitation or living together; commitment to marry, here, is advanced by an exclusive relationship, living together, and an “engagement” which is symbolized by an engagement ring bestowed on the prospective wife. With romantic-companionate marriage, we see couples “living together” as a new stage in the courtship process.
Arranged marriage offers a mate selection that is in the hands of parents and governed by pragmatic considerations. At the extreme, dating is precluded. Arranged marriage shortens the time from commitment to the marriage; it is not necessary to find the time to cultivate the feelings associated with romantic attachment let alone companionability.
Remember, to reference your particular case study to the wider social and historical context. Your case may not be typical. Even if it presents as something of an exception to the rule, it should be seen as a window on what is typical in the culture, including trends of boundary-crossing. Some boundaries are easier to cross than others. As groups assimilate from one generation to the next, Americans are more likely to marry across nationality lines than religion. Most Americans marry within their own race. Inter-religious marriage can be resolved by conversion but this is not available to inter-racial couples.
Endogamy tends to prevail even when couples marry for love; in this scenario, love and companionability are more likely to happen to the “right” strangers – individuals who are similar in social class (education, income, occupational status) and ethnicity (religion, race, nationality). Romantic-companionate marriage can happen across racial lines but these couples are likely to be similar in education, income, and occupational status.
Endogamy is predicated on values attached to social characteristics like wealth, occupational status, physical traits, and ethnicity. The term “marriage market” refers to exchanges based on the relative possession of valued characteristics. Thus, someone with a high income and a prestigious occupation is in a better “market position” for a mate (i.e., can attract a partner of relative greater quality) than someone positioned lower in the status hierarchy. There is preference to “marry up” in terms of status, with benefits accruing to one’s children as well, but that requires that someone will “marry down”. What incentive would there be to lose status? See “Mate Selection Theories”, Encyclopedia.Com https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/mate-selection-theories
8 facts about love and marriage in America
The landscape of relationships in America has shifted dramatically in recent decades. From cohabitation to same-sex marriage to interracial and interethnic marriage, here are eight facts about love and marriage in the United States.
1Half of Americans ages 18 and older were married in 2017, a share that has remained relatively stable in recent years but is down 8 percentage points since 1990. One factor driving this change is that Americans are staying single longer . The median age at first marriage had reached its highest point on record: 30 years for men and 28 years for women in 2018, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
As the U.S. marriage rate has declined, divorce rates have increased among older Americans . In 2015, for every 1,000 married adults ages 50 and older, 10 had divorced – up from five in 1990. Among those ages 65 and older, the divorce rate roughly tripled since 1990.
2Love tops the list of Americans’ reasons to marry. About nine-in-ten Americans (88%) cited love as a very important reason to get married, ahead of making a lifelong commitment (81%) and companionship (76%), according to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey . Fewer said having their relationship recognized in a religious ceremony (30%), financial stability (28%) or legal rights and benefits (23%) were very important reasons to marry.
However, being a good financial provider was seen as particularly important for men to be a good husband or partner, according to a 2017 survey by the Center. About seven-in-ten adults (71%) said it was very important for a man to be able to support a family financially to be a good husband or partner, while just 32% said the same for a woman to be a good wife or partner.
As far as what helps people stay married , married adults said in a 2015 survey that having shared interests (64%) and a satisfying sexual relationship (61%) were very important to a successful marriage. More than half (56%) also named sharing household chores.
3The number of U.S. adults cohabiting with a partner is on the rise. In addition to the half of U.S. adults who were married, 7% were cohabiting in 2016. The number of Americans living with an unmarried partner reached about 18 million in 2016, up 29% since 2007. Roughly half of cohabiters are younger than 35 – but cohabitation is rising most quickly among Americans ages 50 and older.
Large majorities of Generation Zers, Millennials, Generation Xers and Baby Boomers say couples living together without being married doesn’t make a difference for our society, according to a 2019 Pew Research Center report . While 54% of those in the Silent Generation say cohabitation doesn’t make a difference in society, about four-in-ten (41%) say it is a bad thing, compared with much smaller shares among younger generations.
4Remarriage is on the rise. In 2013, 23% of married people had been married before , compared with just 13% in 1960. Four-in-ten new marriages in 2013 included a spouse who had said “I do” (at least) once before, and in 20% of new marriages both spouses had been married at least once before.
Remarriage is more common among men than women. Among previously married men (those who were ever divorced or widowed), 64% took a second walk down the aisle, compared with 52% of previously married women, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of 2013 Census Bureau data. One possible reason for this disparity is that women are less interested than men in remarrying. Among previously married women, 54% said in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey that they did not want to marry again, compared with 30% of men.
5One-in-six newlyweds (17%) were married to someone of a different race or ethnicity in 2015. This reflects a steady increase in intermarriage since 1967, when just 3% of newlyweds were intermarried, according to a 2017 Pew Research Center analysis.
While Asian (29%) and Hispanic (27%) newlyweds are most likely to intermarry in the U.S., the most dramatic increases in intermarriage have occurred among black newlyweds, 18% of whom married someone of a different race or ethnicity, up from 5% in 1980. About one-in-ten white newlyweds (11%) are married to someone of a different race or ethnicity.
Among both Gen Zers and Millennials, 53% say people of different races marrying each other is a good thing for our society, compared with 41% of Gen Xers, 30% of Boomers and 20% of those in the Silent Generation, according to the Center’s 2019 report.
6Support for the legalization of same-sex marriage has grown in the past 10 years . In 2007, Americans opposed legalizing same-sex marriage by a margin of 54% to 37%.
OpenStax, Chapter 14
“The Nuclear Family Was A Mistake”, David Brooks, The Atlantic (2.15.20).
“The Poly-Parent Households Are Coming”, Debora L. Spar, NYT (8.12.20).
“We Need to Talk About Indian Matchmaking”, Sanjena Sathia, NYT (8.5.20). “Modern Love: Weekly Essays that Explore the Trials and Tribulations of Love”, NYT; com/column/modern-love“>https://www.nytimes.com/column/modern-love
“The Dating Market is Getting Worse”, Ashley Fetters and Kaitlyn Tiffany, The Atlantic (2.29.20).
“Taking the Slow Road to Love”, Tara Parker-Pope, NYT (7.9.19).
“Discovering Dad’s Love Letters to Mom”, Helene Stapinski, NYT 2.15.20). “’Kingdom of Daughters’ Draws Tourists to Its Matrilineal Society”, Amy Qin, NYT (10.25.15).
“The Unorthodox Matchmaker”, Marisa Meltzer, NYT (4.2.18).
“Afghan Lovers’ Plight Shaking Up the Lives of Those Left in Their Wake” NYT (5/19/14) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/world/asia/afghan-lovers-plight-shaking-up-the-lives-of-those-left-in-their-wake.html
“Date Show Gives Reins to Parents in China”, K. Kan, NYT (2.20.17).
“How Interracial Love is Saving America”, Sheryll Cashin, NYT (6.3.17).