Stacey, Judith. Unhitched: Love, Marriage,

Stacey, Judith. Unhitched: Love, Marriage, and Family Values from West Hollywood to Western

China. New York: NYU Press, 2011.

Sociologist and NYU professor Judith Stacey's 2011 book Unhitched: Love, Marriage, and Family Values from West Hollywood to Western China is the result of ten years of exhaustive research on the part of the author regarding the subject of changing family values in America and the world. Stacey blends historical and anthropological research to support her central contention, namely that what we think of as the 'natural' family structure is anything but, and what constitutes a union varies considerably from culture to culture, epoch to epoch. In fact, in many societies there is no 'marriage' at all as we would think of it in the Ozzie and Harriet sense of the word. Stacey examines different views of marriage to challenge existing cultural beliefs that having a happy, heterosexual marriage is a necessary component of normal adult maturity.

Stacey wrote her book in light of commonly-cited criticism that family structures are being threatened by proposed changes to the definition of marriage -- by, for example, allowing homosexual couples to marry or the rise of single parenthood. Statistically speaking, given the rising numbers of these new types of family units, Stacey believes that we must openly admit as a society that a 'normal' family unit has changed radically, and the preponderance of the evidence suggests that no single family structure is better than another type of structure. The book attempts to expose "the fallacies of the one-size-fits-all vision of happy families that undergirds and distorts a great deal of public family policy today" (Stacey 4). Even many liberal politicians take it as a given that promoting heterosexual marriage is a 'good thing,' an idea that Stacey calls into question.

The ways that gay people are demanding the right to marry and have children challenges conventional notions of homosexuality and also the idea that gay desire is somehow different and inferior to heterosexual desire -- there is still a desire to marry and create a family based upon an affectionate union. That is why it is seen as one of the core challenges to current conceptions of monogamy, according to Stacey. Contrary to stereotypes of gay couples as tragic or polygamous, gay adoptions and other fertility arrangements have become common in healthy, positive and happy gay families. Gay men and women are also more apt to consider adopting children of a different race or ethnicity, showing tolerance as to what a traditional family looks like, racially, as well as in terms of its gender composition.

Stacey uses evidence from the gay couples she studies to suggest children are not necessarily more successful in traditional families -- the idea that a 'mother and a father' is a better family unit is often based upon studies that compare dual-parent families to single parents. Stacey says that a stable, happy family with two parents, regardless of the gender is what is most significant in determining a child's happiness. When controlled for economics (single mothers often make less money) and personal happiness (divorced families are subject to additional stressors intact families are not), the gender of a child's parents has little impact upon a child's happiness and future success in life.

It is also worth pointing out that while statistically children from troubled and single parent households tend not to thrive in the same manner as individuals from dual parent households, many individuals have thrived, despite growing up in troubled circumstances -- including the recent Presidents Barak Obama and William Jefferson Clinton, the progeny of single mothers and troubled households, respectively, despite the fact that both have tried to promote a pro-family agenda by emphasizing the need for strong father figures in a child's life. Ironically, Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini grew up in 'intact' households (Stacey 188).

But not all of Stacey's analysis will be well-received by liberals. Stacey notes the curious fact that the popularity of polygamy -- both amongst Mormon fundamentalists and in South Africa -- has also been resurrected in 21st century culture. Yet according to Stacey, polygamy is not necessarily exploitative to women, particularly when males are in short supply in a society. So long as the obligations between males and wives are clear, Stacey believes that this structure is not necessarily worse for a woman -- at least when compared with a highly patriarchal marriage. Were 19th century polygamous Mormon marriages really worse than traditional 19th century marriages, when in the latter arrangement a man acquired the rights to all of a woman's property and all of her children, Stacey provocatively asks?

Stacey also points out that not every society that supports polygamy is necessarily restrictive upon non-traditional, non-patriarchal relationships -- after all, South Africa also allows gay marriages. This came about because South Africa, due to its history of apartheid, tried to create a highly inclusive structure of government which prohibited discrimination in all forms, spanning from race to gender to sexual orientation. However, it also prohibited discrimination against persons due to their indigenous cultures, which meant that cultures such as the Zulu which allowed multiple wives according to tradition had a 'protected' status. Stacey states that such provisions challenged her point-of-view as a liberal and a feminist -- given that both South African men and women supported allowing such relationships. Additionally, this idea also challenges the notion that non-monogamous marriages are somehow less natural and organic than nuclear families. Unfortunately, these laws have not eradicated homophobia in South Africa. This shows how laws sometimes have limited value in changing society, given the resistance to addressing the AIDS epidemic amongst South Africans, which has had a terrible, negative impact upon the gay and heterosexual community, but is often used to excuse homophobia. How families interact with one another cannot solely be determined by looking at the law -- if this were the case, South Africa would be judged to be paradise, says Stacey, and clearly it is not. (In contrast, in the U.S., family structures are changing faster than the law, and more and more people are accepting gay marriages even when the law does not grant gays full equality).

Stacey tries to provide a historical context when discussing what we have come to regard as 'unusual' marital relationships. After all, long ago, polygamy amongst males who could afford to engage in it was the norm. Historically and today, polygamists use the Bible to justify their actions, just as people today state that marriage is an ideal, theologically justified 'perfect' union between a man and a woman. If the Bible is used as a template for perfection, and Biblical verses are used to demonize non-traditional family structures, then polygamy should not be demonized given the presence of polygamy in the lives of many of the 'wise men' of the Bible.

A corollary to Stacey's thesis regarding the culturally-contextual nature of marriage is the fact that we should not reify marriage in our society. This is a danger even in societies that support same sex relationships. Marriage is not a sacred institution, even if many people may feel they benefit from its strictures. "Even a cursory scan through the historical and anthropological records reveals that the nuclear family that most Americans think of as normal -- one spawned when reciprocal romantic love inspires one man and one woman to exchange vows to forsake all others before they begin inviting visits from the stork -- is quite the cultural exception than the rule," states Stacey (Stacey 5).

As well as analyzing history and contemporary events, Stacey challenges current, popular psychological studies that attempt to prove that married people are happier. She asks: are married people more apt to be married -- or are happier people more likely to get married? The evidence is shaky regarding the idea that most people -- particularly women -- are happier in a married rather than a single state. In short, marriage is not the only way to find fulfillment, and people who do not live in such a manner should not be stigmatized, as they often are, nor should married people be idealized.

Domesticity, in the words of one of her chapters, is not necessarily an aphrodisiac. There are trade-offs in marriage. People will often sacrifice passion in exchange for stability and security and that is not necessarily a better choice. Marriage is complex and imperfect as an institution, in many ways: it can be difficult to unite the caretaking and care-giving functions of marriage with the sexual lust of a supposedly ideal romantic partnership. Amongst some married couples, the passion may never die, but it is far, far more likely that the passion is quelled through the mundane demands of everyday life, or that the two persons in the union will grow apart naturally.

One of the most fascinating chapters of Stacey's book is her work on the Mosuo, a small group of Chinese villagers living in Southwest China. The society keeps procreation separate from family life and romance. Stacey describes the Mosuo as matrilineal -- all family ties pass down through the mother's line, even though it is not a culture where women rule over males. The Mosuo's social structures question the presumed naturalness of patriarchy and that of the nuclear family unit. In Mosuo society, girls are given their own rooms at night from a young age and it is accepted that men will have sexual intercourse with women. There is no sense of sexual immorality -- or the idea that male-female sexual connections are permanent.