really simple and easy

Journal of Family Issues 2017, Vol. 38(12) 1651 –1674

© The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0192513X15576200

journals.sagepub.com/home/jfi

Article

Saying “I Don’t” to Matrimony: An Investigation of Why Long-Term Heterosexual Cohabitors Choose Not to Marry

Alison Hatch1

Abstract Research indicates the continuance of a rising trend in cohabitation among heterosexual couples. Although most cohabitors eventually marry or break up, there is a subset of cohabitors that are consciously committed to remaining unmarried. Based on interviews with 45 committed unmarried heterosexual couples residing in the United States, this study investigates the reasons why some choose to abstain from legal marriage altogether. Participants indicate a variety of reasons for forgoing legal marriage, including political views, economic practicalities, divorce concerns, and a lack of rationales or incentives to marry. The reasons offered fit into two larger categories: unease about the meanings associated with marriage and concerns about what marriage does to the relationship. As a subset of cohabitors often overlooked in research, it is important to understand what motivates some into saying “I Don’t” to legal marriage.

Keywords cohabitation/informal marriages, marriage, unmarried, marriage resistance, qualitative

1Armstrong State University, Savannah, GA, USA

Corresponding Author: Alison Hatch, Criminal Justice, Social, & Political Science Department, Armstrong State University, 11935 Abercorn Street, Savannah, GA 31419, USA. Email: [email protected]

576200 JFIXXX10.1177/0192513X15576200Journal of Family IssuesHatch research-article2015

1652 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

Sociological and demographic research has evidenced the rising trend of cohabitation since the 1960s (e.g., Bumpass & Lu, 2000; Casper & Cohen, 2000; Chandra, Martinez, Mosher, Abma, & Jones, 2005; Copen, Daniels, & Mosher, 2013; Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008; Smock, 2000). Some interpret the rise in cohabitation as a threat or challenge to the institution of marriage and the centrality of marriage to family life (Popenoe, 2008; Popenoe & Whitehead, 2002; Wilson, 2002). However, studies indicate that for most het- erosexual cohabitors, living together is a transitory experience, with the majority, either ending their relationships or marrying within a few years (Bumpass & Lu, 2000; Bumpass & Sweet, 1989; Smock, 2000; Smock & Gupta, 2002). For many cohabitors, living together is a way to “test-out” marriage and cohabitation begins with the intention to marry or is seen as an intermediary step preceding marriage (Guzzo, 2009; Heuveline & Timberlake, 2004; Huang, Smock, Manning, Bergstrom-Lynch, 2011). In comparison with couples that date but do not live together, cohabitation actually increases the odds that respondents intend to marry their partners (McGinnis, 2003). Thus, most cohabitors are not rejecting marriage; they either marry the per- son they cohabit with or leave the relationship. What much of cohabitation research glosses over is the subset of couples who cohabit and do not intend to marry. Some of these couples, despite their legal ability to marry and their stated commitment to one another, are consciously committed to remaining unmarried. This study is an exploration of modern-day marriage resistance by examining cohabiting heterosexual couples residing in the United States, who are committed to each other and their relationship, but have made the deliberate decision not to marry.

Background

Cohabitation research often finds cohabitors fit into one of three categories. For some, living together is a step in the marriage process as a way to deter- mine compatibility and some make marriage plans and choose to cohabit before getting married. In either case, this category comprises the majority of cohabitors, those who conceptualize living together as part of a trajectory that will ultimately lead to marriage (Bumpass, Sweet, & Cherlin, 1991; Manning & Smock, 2002; Smock, 2000; Thornton, Axinn, & Xie, 2007). A second, albeit less common, view is that cohabitation is an alternative to single life and viewed as a cheaper and more convenient way to live (Rindfuss & VandenHeuvel, 1990; Thornton, Axinn, & Xie, 2007). If cohabitation is merely an extension or attribute of dating, it follows that these relationships are not permanent in nature (Rindfuss & VandenHeuvel, 1990). The third category of cohabitors consists of those who understand cohabitation as a

Hatch 1653

substitute or alternative for marriage (Smock, 2000). These couples do not see cohabitation as a “dress rehearsal” for legal marriage and either do not have stated plans to marry the person they cohabit with, or experience changes in their circumstances that alter their intentions, or ability to fulfill intentions, to marry (Seltzer, 2000).

This present study suggests that there may be an additional subset of cohabitors that actively resist marriage altogether, and do not see their rela- tionship as a “trial” for or “substitute” of marriage. Resistance to marriage is not a new phenomenon, as U.S. history is replete with people who have found marriage objectionable. The “free-love” movement in the 19th century is an early example of mobilized resistance to marriage in the United States. According to free love disciples, love and sex should be given freely without the desecration of church or state, and thus legal marriage was wrong (Stansell, 2000). In the early 20th century, Greenwich Village “bohemians” also embraced the free-love philosophy. Emma Goldman argued at the time that marriage was a failing institution that enslaved women, and encouraged people to practice free love instead (Solomon, 1987). The late 1960’s and 1970’s “counterculture” movement argued marriage was a conformist, dull, and hypocritical institution, and part of the objectionable middle-class life- style (Zicklin, 1983). And radical feminists took a critical stance against mar- riage in the late 1960s and 1970s, arguing that marriage was an institution in which women “consorted with the enemy” (Echols, 1989).

Today, antimarriage sentiments still exist, though contemporary critics of marriage are not organized in a “movement” or “counterculture.” Despite the prevalence of concerns and debates about the contemporary state of mar- riage, to my knowledge there are no sociological studies conducted on het- erosexual couples living in the United States that deliberately resist marriage. There are, however, several relevant studies that are helpful in framing this research. In 1998, Dorian Solot and Marshall Miller launched the national nonprofit “Alternatives to Marriage Project” (currently renamed, “Unmarried Equality”). In a heterosexual, committed and unmarried relationship them- selves, Solot and Miller wanted to create a grassroots organization that fought for the recognition and fair treatment for those who, by choice or necessity, are unmarried. In 2002, following the creation of their organization, Solot and Miller released their book, Unmarried to Each Other: The Essential Guide to Living Together as an Unmarried Couple. The book is intended to be used as a guide for couples who choose to live together “unmarried”; con- sequently, it incorporates a lot of legal information and general advice. However, the authors also interviewed over a hundred people to get a sense of the issues unmarried couples face and they intersperse their findings throughout the text. Their sample was not statistically representative nor was

1654 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

their research academic in nature. However, their research is an important contribution to the study of actively unmarried couples. They found that some common reasons couples refrained from tying the knot included feeling the timing was not right, concerns about finances, and the simple lack of any compelling reason to marry.

Vivienne Elizabeth’s (2000) research discussed in the article, Cohabitation, Marriage, and the Unruly Consequences of Difference, is based on a small number of heterosexual cohabitors in New Zealand who are critical of mar- riage. Elizabeth interviews 19 people (12 women and 7 of their male part- ners), and analyzes heterosexual cohabitation as a form of marriage resistance and finds that they conceptualize cohabitation as a privileged position while constructing marriage negatively. Specifically, utilizing a discourse of free- dom, her respondents argued that cohabitation was “free from social pre- scriptions,” in that they were free to organize their finances independently, free to determine division of household labor without relying on gendered norms, and free to remain individuals without having their identities sub- sumed by their partner’s. Additionally, her respondents felt that their relation- ships were superior because cohabitation does not “cement two individuals together and constrict personal development,” as they believe is true in marriage.

Marion Willetts (2003) conducted an exploratory study of 23 heterosexual cohabitors who have chosen to register as domestic partners but not pursue legal marriage. Although some of her respondents indicated that their licensed cohabitating union was a step in the process toward marriage, others defined their relationship as distinct from marriage. Willetts found that the respon- dents had varying reasons why they legitimized their relationship through a domestic partnership registry as opposed to a legal marriage, including to gain economic benefits (e.g., health insurance), to avoid legal remarriage, as an alternative way to legitimize marriage, and because of an ideological opposition to marriage (e.g., concerns about sexism and heterosexism).

In addition to the work addressed above, other scholars have documented people critical of, or resistant to, marriage. For example, in her research on polyamorous1 communities, Elisabeth Sheff (2005) found that while many polyamorists were married, or wished to be able to marry more than one per- son, others were critical of marriage and rejected it as an “ill-conceived experiment” (pp. 262-263). In her research of contemporary egalitarian intentional communities, Jade Aguilar (2008) found that long-term monoga- mous relationships often run counter to the communities’ philosophies. Specifically, community members were concerned that a couple’s exclusiv- ity kept them from bonding with the larger group. Additionally, research on economically marginalized women indicates some poor women reject

Hatch 1655

marriage—in the face of welfare reforms that encourage marriage—because they know marriage does not necessarily confer security and stability (Walsh, 2005).

Although we are not currently experiencing another wave of the “free- love” movement, there is evidence that some couples actively resist mar- riage. Though contemporary marriage resistance is not an organized movement, the respondents in this study can situate themselves among a long U.S. history of marriage resistance and countercultural alternatives to tradi- tional marriage. Based on interviews with cohabiting heterosexual couples in committed but unmarried relationships, this study investigates the reasons why some choose to abstain from legal marriage. Participants indicate a vari- ety of reasons for forgoing legal marriage, including political views, eco- nomic practicalities, divorce concerns, and a lack of rationales or incentives to marry. The reasons offered fit into two larger categories: unease about the meanings associated with marriage and concerns about what marriage does to the relationship. Ultimately, this study attempts to fill the gap in cohabita- tion literature on couples who are committed to “unmarriage” and present a glimpse of modern-day marriage resistance.

Method

This article draws on 45 semistructured interviews with 45 couples who were “in committed, heterosexual relationships, who have been together for at least 1 year and who have made the decision to not pursue legal marriage.” I felt qualitative methods were the most appropriate to access the many differ- ent opinions and feelings my respondents had about marriage. Additionally, I felt it was important to include both members of the couple, as I did not want to assume they necessarily shared the same viewpoints. In his discussion of interviewing spouses together, Allan (1980) notes that joint interviews are advantageous not only because they contain more material for the researcher but also “the interaction of the couple as they create their accounts that provides the researcher with material he [sic] would not otherwise obtain” (p. 206). In a joint interview, the couples can corroborate and correct each other, provide additional information, and jog one another’s memory. In other words, the respondents have to work together to create a joint narrative. This is not to say that joint interviews are without their faults. For example, I expe- rienced several interviews in which one person clearly dominated the conver- sation. Additionally, it is possible that one member of the couple “edited” their responses because the other member was present.

The concept of “marriage” can mean different things to different people. For example, it could be a religious celebration of an intimate union or a

1656 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

ceremony of commitment based on local customs. Thus, marriage may not necessarily refer to a legally recognized union. For the purpose of this study, I was interested in “marriage” only as it refers to legally recognized marital unions. To be legally recognized, a couple’s commitment is defined by way of a state authorized, nationally acknowledged, marriage certificate. Additionally, I was interested in couples who have consciously made the decision not to legally marry. It would be problematic to assume that a couple is “consciously deciding” not to marry solely because they are cohabiting, as previously discussed, evidence indicates cohabitation is only a step in the trajectory toward marriage. Thus, I looked for couples who have discussed marriage with one another and have decided against it. Although Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin (1991) found that disagreement about marriage plans between partners in cohabiting relationships was common, only a few respon- dents in this study indicated that they were not as “on board” as their partner in their commitment to not getting married. In other words, no couples sug- gested that they disagreed about their decision to be and remain unmarried per se, though a handful of individuals seemed less enthusiastic about their choice as their partner. However, as Manning and Smock (2002) note, a woman or man whose partner refuses to marry is unlikely to report that they expect to marry, regardless of their own wishes. In any case, marriage deci- sions (hopefully) require the consent of both parties involved, and therefore this is a sample of couples that have, for varying reasons, consciously decided together to not to pursue legal marriage.

To conduct the interviews, I used a semistructured interview schedule. Sample questions included “How did you reach the decision not to marry?” “How did your family and friends react to your decision to forgo marriage?” “Are there ways in which not being married makes your life easier or more difficult?” The discussions often strayed from the questions asked, and the list of items I wished to focus on changed based on the circumstances of each particular couple. All but two couples agreed to have their interviews audio- taped (in which I took copious notes instead) and the average length of inter- view was about 2 hours.

Data Analysis

All interviews were subsequently transcribed and analyzed. I utilized “grounded theory” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in my analytic approach, by building theory inductively from detailed analysis of the qualitative data. First, I developed a list of questions that I hoped would help achieve the goal of understanding why couples choose to resist legal marriage. After complet- ing the first few interviews, I read the transcripts and started to adjust the

Hatch 1657

questions I asked to more accurately reflect the stories I was hearing. Since analysis occurs throughout the research process (Daly, 2007), the interview questions continued to change throughout the data collection process and often the interviews strayed from the schedule. I also gave each respondent the ability to share anything else they wished to discuss during, or at the end of, the interview. However, despite the sometimes open-ended nature of the interview, there was a set of questions asked uniformly among all respon- dents to allow for later data comparison.

To code the data, I began by reading a handful of interviews and then cre- ated an index sheet with topics and subtopics that emerged from the tran- scripts. Using the method of open coding (Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987), I analyzed data minutely by beginning with a wide opening and remembering that more is better at these initial coding stages. I then labeled passages and comments with the codes listed on the index sheet. I continually added codes throughout the process when I was confronted with new information or perspectives.

As my “analysis deepen[ed] through the process of coding transcripts,” I began “to see similarities in [my] participants’ descriptions of events and activities.” These “common indicators” are referred to as concepts (Daly, 2007, p. 231). When I was able to see even broader themes in my data, I was able to arrange some concepts into larger categories. I was then able to com- pare and relate concepts and categories with one another, a process known as “axial coding” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Strauss, 1987). Through this pro- cess, I was able to organize the responses into categories and subcategories, as will be explained in the findings section.

Sample Population

To generate this sample of respondents, I relied on snowball sampling and also placed advertisements in newspapers and on Internet listservs. The 45 in-person interviews occurred across seven states, with most interviews tak- ing place in Colorado. All interviews occurred with both members of the couple present and in mutually convenient locations, typically in coffee shops or in the respondent’s homes. To help increase my sample size, some of my advertisements, primarily those placed in newspapers and online, offered $20 to the couple to compensate for their time.

The ages of the participants ranged from 23 to 70 years, with the average age for women 39 years, and for men 40 years. Posting ads and the use of a snowball sampling technique were useful methods in attempting to locate a specific type of cohabiting couple; however, it resulted in a fairly homoge- nous sample. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents identified as “White” or

1658 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

“Caucasian”; 0.4% identified as “Chicana,” “Hispanic,” or “Latina”; 0.2% identified as “Asian” or “South Asian”; 0.1% identified as “Arab”; and 0.3% identified as “other.”

Thirty-three percent of the women and 29% of the men had been married and divorced at least once before. Relatively few couples in this study had children together. Although some of the respondents had children from pre- vious relationships, only seven couples had children that were products of the current unmarried relationship and two couples were pregnant at the time of the interview. A number of pairs indicated that they would like to have children together in the future or at least consider the possibility of doing so.

Overall, the respondents were highly educated; 76% of the respondents had a college degree or a graduate degree. This finding is analogous to Willetts (2003) study of heterosexual couples that register as domestic part- ners, where 74% of the respondents had either a bachelor’s degree or gradu- ate degree. Though tempting to make an association between choosing to be unmarried and high levels of education, many of the sample methods used in this study likely produced a more educated populace (e.g., e-mailed adver- tisements to college departments). Additionally, most respondents (69%) identified as either having no religious affiliation or identified as atheist.

Cohabitation was not necessarily a prerequisite for respondents of this study; instead, I was looking for a stated commitment to one another, a rela- tionship that was at least 1 year in length, and the decision not to pursue legal marriage. In the end, all but two of the couples resided in the same home together. However, since the responses from the couples that did not live together did not differ enough from the responses of the cohabiting couples, I have left them out of the analysis. It is possible that there are unexplored reason(s) as to why these partners are not cohabiting that sets them apart from the other couples in the sample.2

Although I did not directly ask about infidelity, the vast majority of couples described their relationships as monogamous, although two respondent pairs shared “open” pasts or periods in their relationship in which a member engaged in nonsanctioned outside sexual activity. That the majority of these couples embraced monogamy runs counter to the stereotype that people who choose not to marry do so because they “cannot commit” to a relationship either emo- tionally or sexually. Instead, the vast majority of couples in this study consider themselves committed to each other in every sense of the word.

Although research indicates that marital relationships are typically longer than cohabiting relationships and characterized by more commitment (Smock & Gupta, 2002), findings from this study indicate that there is a good deal of commitment and longevity among participants with the mean length of rela- tionship between 7 and 8 years.

Hatch 1659

Findings

The participants offered a variety of reasons and motivations as to why they made the decision to not pursue legal marriage. When asked to discuss why they were not married, or why they were not planning on getting married, many respondents remembered engaging in complex decision-making pro- cesses that included many different variables. In other words, no couple seemed to have one main rationale in their desire to remain unmarried and most offered multiple and overlapping reasons. Despite the varying motiva- tions, what this group of respondents shared is their difference from the majority of cohabitors. No one indicated that they were “trying out” the rela- tionship, or using cohabitation as a step in the progression toward legal mar- riage. Instead, the heterosexual model of marriage simply was not feasible or did not fit their personal beliefs, desires, or needs.

The variety of explanations offered derived from one of two larger catego- ries. First, many of the stated reasons to resist marriage stem from the partici- pants’ concerns about the meaning of marriage. In other words, some do not want to marry because they do not agree with what marriage, as an institution or a ritual, means in today’s society. These respondents were concerned with issues of civil liberties, and equality and religious freedom, and they felt as though marriage conflicted with those ideals. In addition to concerns about the meanings associated with marriage, respondents also indicated trepida- tion about what marriage does to the relationship. Thus, the second larger category of responses comprised fears about the consequences of marriage and the belief that the perceived risks associated with marriage outweigh the perceived benefits.

Category One: Concerns Over the Meaning of Marriage

This category comprises responses from the participants that felt as though the meanings associated with institution of marriage were problematic. Respondents indicated they disliked marriage because they felt it is a dis- criminatory institution, that it is too closely tied to religion and/or the govern- ment, that the expectations for the ritual are impractical, and that marriage itself is meaningless.

Concerns About Heterosexism and Sexism. The issue of same-sex marriage has been at the forefront of the contemporary political climate lately. As pundits, politicians, and legislators debate whether the right to marry should be extended to gay and lesbian partners, there are heterosexual couples who feel as though they cannot, in good conscience, enter into an institution they feel is discriminatory. As Stephanie, 26 years, explained,

1660 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

I don’t think it’s fair for people to get married if it’s not legal for everybody. It’s just like, I wouldn’t sit at a segregated lunch counter. I’m not gonna get married if it’s not legal for everybody.

In this regard, some couples chose not to marry as a political statement, or as Alicia, 30 years, described as an act of “civil disobedience” that made them “soldier in arms with (their) same-sex friends.” As this issue continues to be a source of conflict, it is possible that more heterosexual couples will feel strongly enough to forgo marriage as a political statement against dis- crimination against same-sex couples.

An additional concern for some respondents is the history of marriage as it relates to women. Several respondents, female and male, saw marriage as “not favorable to women” (Amy, 58 years). For example, Emily, 25 years, discussed how what she had learned in high school had affected her feelings about marriage,

just learning about the history that goes into it (marriage) and the giving away was an actual giving away, like an exchange of property, and that’s what it’s based on . . . I don’t want to be seen that way . . . I guess it’s all very distasteful. I talk about it and I think about it and it just kind of gets my stomach in a knot.

For a number of women, the roots of marriage were troubling. For others, it is the historical and contemporary role of “wife” that they found unsettling. The myriad of expectations and stereotypes placed on wives (e.g., cooking, cleaning, “nagging”), caused some women to reject the role, “ . . . another thing that was really important to me is, I’m never gonna be a wife. Don’t call me wife. I’m never gonna be a wife. I’m not going to play that role” (Leslie, 30 years). Thus, for some respondents, abstaining from marriage is a political statement against “the patriarchy.”

Additionally, a number of women, specifically previously married women, noted that marriage did indeed change the expectations in their relationships. For example, Louise, 54 years, remembered,

It sort of seemed like, when I got married, I suddenly became a possession with my ex and instantly became—I should have been like his mother, working full- time, plus coming home and taking care of the house and everything else, while he got to come home and sit and watch TV and other fun things like that.

Louise voiced a common concern among previously married women; they had found themselves in the role of “wife” with all of its accompanying expectations and pressures. Due to their previous experiences, they feared they would face the same expectations if they married again.

Hatch 1661

Interestingly, while a few male respondents discussed how marriage and the role of “wife” were not beneficial to women, no male (or female) respon- dents mentioned that marriage or the role of “husband” was problematic for men.

Objections to Religious Ties to Marriage. A few respondents felt that marriage is too closely tied to religion, for them the availability of a secular marriage is inconsequential because they feel as though the government’s interest in mar- riage is based on Christianity:

it’s ludicrous to deny that the governmental interest in marriage is Christian. It is. And anybody who denies that is not reading their history books. So let’s have Christian marriage, let’s have Buddhist marriage, let’s have Jewish marriage, whatever you want. But let’s not have it be governmental marriage. (Nicholas, 29 years)

Thus, the argument would follow that the nonreligious option of marrying (e.g., by justice of the peace) is not truly “secular” if it is a religiously moti- vated government that officially sanctions the marriage.

Although most of the respondents who were concerned with the associa- tion between marriage and religion did not identify as religious themselves, Sheryl, 24 years, felt that because she practiced a religion other than Christianity, legal marriage was not applicable to her,

Because I’m Pagan, I think that legal marriage is somewhat of a Christian institution, and I have nothing against people that are Christian whatsoever, but I feel like it’s against a lot of my beliefs as a Pagan free spirit kind of person to be legally married.

The belief that marriage has Christian foundations, and that the U.S. govern- ment has a continuing religious interest in marriage, has therefore kept Sheryl and others from getting married.

Objections to Government Intervention. Ultimately, the respondents who indi- cated concern about the religious associations with marriage and those who were concerned that marriage is an exclusionary institution were all critical, in varying degrees, of government intervention or involvement in marriage. Thus, apprehension about the role of government in marriage often overlaps other concerns. For Tom, age 52 years, and his partner Catrina, age 50 years, concerns about government involvement in marriage was an extension of their larger critique of the government:

1662 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

Tom: Neither of us want to be beholden to the state. . . . We don’t seig heil to the government, because then we turn into Nazi Germany. Marrying is seig heil to the government, and we don’t put ourselves under their influence.

Interviewer: What would happen if you married? What would be different?

Tom: It would be horrible. We would be married to the state, we would have obligations to them and we would have to obey the pigs (Tom, 52 years).

Abstaining from marriage was a part of Tom and Catrina’s lifestyle philoso- phy that actively attempted to have as little interaction with the government as possible.

Tom offered perhaps an extreme view in comparison with the others, as the vast majority of the respondents that indicated they were concerned about the association between marriage and the State found this particular associa- tion troubling, not necessarily that the government overall was problematic. Instead, a governmental “blessing” of the union felt simply unnecessary to some. For example, Patrick, 48 years, argues, “I guess I’ve never really seen the point, especially the whole state sanctioning of the thing. I don’t think we need the governor’s permission.”

In the end, some of the respondents who shared concerns about the asso- ciation between the government and marriage argued that marriage should no longer be defined or monitored by the State; others argued that the govern- ment should stay involved yet amend the rules to be more inclusive.

Dislike of Marriage Ceremony. Some respondents simply did not care for wed- ding ceremonies, or felt the ceremonies to be meaningless, and therefore had no desire to have one for themselves. While Patrick, 48 years, did not want to be the “center of attention” in a ceremony, others like Lin, 28 years, found the commercialization of weddings and the “wedding industrial complex” really “distasteful.” Nicole, 35 years, had strong feelings about the ceremony itself:

I actually hate weddings, really. Because you get together, they’re usually very stuffy. You sit at a table with people you’ve never met, talk about nothing. There are all these formalities that to me I don’t really see—I think they’re just pretty much stupid. Cutting cake? Who came up with that? Wearing a white dress that you never wear again?

Although technically one can marry without the elaborate ceremony, respondents often felt as though if they were to marry, the ceremony would be required because the social pressure to have one would be so great.

Hatch 1663

Estimates put the average cost of a contemporary U.S. wedding some- where between $20,000 and $30,000. With increasing commercialization of weddings, engaged couples feel pressured to purchase a plethora of goods and services in order to make their wedding perfect. Austin, 36 years, explains that he and his partner Abby, 34 years, chose not to marry because without any family support, they cannot afford to have a ceremony with all the bells and whistles:

My main thing is finances. I live my life like I’m married. I even wear a ring. It’s the finances. We don’t have the families to back us on either side, so for us to have a nice wedding, it’s all out of pocket, and we can’t afford to do what we want to do, so why do it? We’re not gonna settle for a justice of the peace . . . I’m either gonna go all out and do it right, or I ain’t gonna do it.

While the expense keeps Austin and Abby from marrying, Susanne, 33 years, and Logan, 32 years, felt as though they could not marry because their family made their wedding too complicated. After making some rudimentary plans to marry, Susanne and Logan’s respective families began to balk at the distance needed to travel to attend the event, and Logan’s mother refused to attend a nonreligious ceremony. Eventually Susanne and Logan gave up planning the ceremony, and subsequently any plans to marry, after deciding it was not worth all the trouble.

For a handful of respondents, wedding ceremonies themselves have become a deterrent to getting married. The “multi-billion-dollar industry with 26 magazines” (Ellen, 45 years), is too elaborate, too expensive, and too commercial for some. Yet the pressure to have such a ceremony is so great, it is hard for most couples in the United States to imagine having a wedding that did not live up to the magazine cover ideal. Thus, when faced with the potential of going into debt, possibly compromising one’s ideals, and a lot of hard work and planning, some opt to forgo the marriage altogether.

Marriage is Meaningless. This explanation, perhaps more than any of the oth- ers, lends credence to the fear that, contemporarily speaking, marriage may be losing importance. In weighing the potential risks to the potential benefits, many respondents indicated that they simply do not see any reason to make their relationship legal. As Richard, 57 years, explained:

For me, I don’t see the necessity of it. I feel very comfortable with the relationship as it is. . . . I think we’re basically on the same page about the relationship and being committed and being monogamous and enjoying each other’s company.

1664 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

For Richard and many other respondents, marriage does not offer any incentives or rewards that seem necessary or even desirable. Lillian, 40 years, believed that getting married would be “a pain” and that they have “every- thing they needed without going through the bother.”

Additionally, a few participants indicated that they did not experience much, if any, social pressure to marry. The lack of social pressure may have something to do with the older age of many of the respondents, as older people are less likely to receive outside pressure and may have fewer living relatives to exert pressure. If couples do not experience any social pressure, or do not see any tangible benefit to marriage, remaining together as a com- mitted unmarried couple is understood as a viable, if not more rewarding, choice. Moreover, the common use of the phrase “just a piece of paper” by the respondents to describe marriage evidences the relative lack of impor- tance placed on the institution of marriage altogether.

Category Two: Concerns About the Effect of Marriage on the Relationship

The second category contains responses from participants that indicate they are not interested in marriage because of how they conceptualize what mar- riage does to the relationship. Participants indicate that if they marry, they fear their relationship would change for the worse and some, especially those who have married and divorced before, worry about the potential for divorce. As evidenced by the responses, some of these concerns stem from having poor marital role models as children. Additionally, respondents indicate a concern about the financial penalties they would incur if they were to marry. Given all of the potential risks some respondents associate with getting mar- ried, many indicate that there is just no compelling reason to marry.

Marriage Changes Relationships for the Worse. It appears that couples often get married with the hope that marriage will make their relationship better in some way, perhaps by strengthening their bond or heightening their level of commitment. A number of respondents in this study believed the opposite, that marriage actually changes the relationship for the worse. Along these lines, a common concern was that marriage created ownership and stifled independence:

I think we’re both pretty independent people, like, we love to be together, but we’re both independently-minded. . . . I kind of have this whole philosophy about marriage as being sort of like ownership and I don’t want to feel like I’m owned by somebody. (Sheryl, 24 years)

Hatch 1665

Sheryl and others argued that they were able to maintain more of themselves in their unmarried partnerships than they would be able to in a marriage.

Others were also concerned that marriage enables couples to lapse into being “too comfortable.” For example, Ethan, 35 years, believed that when couples marry, “The level of comfort gets a little higher, and then when peo- ple get too comfortable in a relationship, I think they tend to stop trying as much to make the other person as happy. . . . ” Similarly, James, 32 years, worried that he and his partner “might become lazy in the relationship” should they marry. They believe that unmarried couples work harder than married couples do on maintaining their relationships and not taking one another for granted.

Many who feared marriage would negatively affect their relationships were concerned about “rocking the boat,” for example, 28-year-old Lin said, “I just kind of feel like if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” Similarly, Jerry, 41 years, remarked, “I’m very happy where I am. Why screw around with it?” Lin and Jerry felt as though their relationships were satisfying as they were, and they did not feel the need to “tinker” with the relationships by getting married. Ultimately, the decision to remain unwed seems to be a natural choice for those who believed marriage would change their relationships for the worse.

Fear of Divorce. Many respondents who had married and divorced previously were hesitant to marry again for fear that the relationship may fail. As Eve- lyn, 53 years, explains, “Neither of us wants to go through a divorce again. That could be the real basis for deciding not to marry a second time . . . we had just kind of been there, done that.” Some previously married respon- dents, viewed breaking up an unmarried relationship as easier and less com- plex than having to divorce. Of course, many unmarried couples would likely face similar “messiness” if they were to break up, especially if they have shared finances, joint purchases, or children. But for some, the stigma associ- ated with “divorce” was more problematic than suffering a “break-up” of a nonmarital relationship.

Some respondents who had never married before were fearful of marriage because of the possibility of divorce:

I don’t care so much about the legality of marriage as I used to, because you do see so many divorces, that’s the greatest risk factor—I mean, marriage is the greatest risk factor for divorce. (Stewart, 34 years)

Similarly, Nicole, 35 years, said, “I see too many people getting divorced, so I just have this idea that if we don’t get married, we stay together longer.” Both Nicole and Stewart believed that getting legally married might actually

1666 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

increase the odds that their relationship would fail, based on the sheer preva- lence of divorce in our society.

The reality that divorce is such a common occurrence has changed how some respondents feel about the institution of marriage. For example, Edward, 56 years, argued,

It’s hard to argue that marriage is the be-all and end-all when you get the headlines every day with the celebrities being married for a couple of months and then being divorced . . . the idea that it’s a sacred, permanent institution is ludicrous.

In discussing pop-star Britney Spears and her whirlwind first marriage, Ellen, 45 years, commented, “It makes marriage a mockery almost, like, why even bother anymore, because our country is almost—the heterosexuals in this country have made marriage not even a real thing.” If marriage is not a “sacred, permanent institution” and, in fact, is a present day “mockery,” then it follows that some did not feel the institution worthwhile enough to enter. Similar to the respondents who did not feel as though there was any reason to get married, respondents who felt that marriage itself has changed for the worse may also point to the potential that marriage is losing some societal importance.

Poor Marital Role Models. For many children, their parent’s relationship is the first model of marriage they experience. Therefore, it follows that if the mar- riage is tumultuous, children may not have a healthy model of marriage and therefore may choose to reject the institution for themselves. For example, Scott reflects:

I also realize that marriage isn’t all it’s hyped up to be. Growing up my parents would just fight constantly—they never seemed happy. They actually seemed miserable a lot of time. So I never really got the message that marriage was a good thing. There was also this social pressure that you can’t get a divorce because you’re Indian. . . . So it just seemed to me like, we don’t have good models of this thing working, so why should I follow that? (Scott, 32 years)

Scott, and many others, learned from witnessing their parent’s marriages that marriage could lead to unhappiness. From their perspective, marriage is no better than, if not worse, than remaining committed yet unmarried. Thus, they consciously decided not to follow in their parent’s footsteps.

Although the parents of the respondents mentioned above were unhappy yet remained together, many respondents also witnessed their parent’s rela- tionships end in divorce. Consequently, as discussed earlier, some respondents

Hatch 1667

fear the potential of a marital relationship ending in divorce. In either case, these respondents indicated that their lack of positive role models for marriage influenced their feelings about entering into the institution of marriage for themselves.

Concern About the Financial Penalties for Marriage (Beyond Expense of Wed- ding). Given the prevalent belief that marriage is often beneficial for one’s finances (e.g., the combining of incomes, the availability of a marital tax break for some), the notion that marriage can actually be financially detrimental was one of the most unanticipated findings. The ways in which respondents would incur financial penalties if they were to marry varied widely.

Jennifer, 32 years, and her partner Ethan, 35 years, were both in the mili- tary. As it stood, they each received housing allowance because they each had child dependents. If they married, they would lose some of that housing allowance, thereby making their household expenses difficult to manage. Robin, a 28-year-old graduate student, would lose her financial aid if she were to marry and have to report her partner’s income. As artists in a low- income bracket, Louise, 54 years, and Edward, 56 years, were each able to separately qualify for a State-run health insurance policy. According to their accountant, if they were to marry and have to report their combined income, they would face higher tax penalties and risk losing their health care. Steven, 58 years, was unable to marry his partner, Edith, 70 years, because of his status as a military tax resister (he does not pay federal taxes to protest mili- tary spending). The Internal Revenue Service has already, and will continue, to seize any assets he has under his name; therefore, Edith has put all assets under her name as a single adult. If they were to marry, the Internal Revenue Service would be able to seize the property.

Elizabeth, 67 years, discusses a concern a couple of respondents men- tioned with regard to social security,

Actually, here’s the sad reality. I think we would be married, but we each are on Social Security, because we’re retired, and if we get married, our Social Security gets dramatically cut. . . . So it’s the reason why so many older people are not married, because it affects Medicare, it affects your Social Security, it affects all kinds of things if you are married.

Dorothy, 63 years, was concerned about the debt that would become her part- ner’s responsibility if they were married,

Adam and I are 22 years apart. Now unless Adam gets hit by a beer truck, the odds are that I will pass before he. And when I die, I know that I will die leaving

1668 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

a ton of debt, all over the place. . . . We love each other. The paper is unimportant to me. So I decided that if we married and I died, I would leave him with enormous debt and a huge mortgage, and I just felt that that was my son’s obligation (laughs).

All of these respondents indicate that there are financial penalties to marriage that are severe enough to convince them not to marry. When it is difficult to make financial ends meet as it is, marriage does not seem worth the penalties they would incur.

Discussion

As discussed previously, cohabitation research often finds cohabitors fit into one of three categories. For some, living together is a step in the mar- riage process as a way to determine compatibility (Bumpass, Sweet, & Cherlin, 1991; Manning & Smock, 2002; Smock, 2000; Thornton, Axinn, & Xie, 2007). For others, cohabitation is an alternative to single life (Rindfuss & VandenHeuvel, 1990; Thornton, Axinn, & Xie, 2007). Last, some cohabitors understand cohabitation as a substitute or alternative for marriage (Seltzer, 2000; Smock, 2000). To some degree, the respondents in this study can be understood as part of the category of couples who cohabit as a substitute for marriage. For example, many indicated they felt “the same as,” if not “better than” a married couple and did not see the need to make it “official.” On the other hand, some respondents were critical of the very notion of needing to have a marital license and State-sanctioned approval of their relationship. In this respect, their relationships probably should not be understood as “substitutes” for marriage—since they would argue marriage is not the measuring stick in which their relationship should be judged. If marriage is unnecessary or arbitrary, so is any “substitute” for it. Additionally, while some couples cohabit as a substitute for marriage because they cannot marry for some reason (e.g., financial reasons, married to someone else) the majority of respondents in this study could marry but chose not to. Thus, cohabitation research may be limited in understanding this particular subset of heterosexual couples who are committed to remain- ing unmarried. Arguably, this present research indicates the need for another subset of cohabitors, those who resist marriage altogether. Rhoades, Stanley, and Markman (2009) echo this concern. After finding a small percentage of cohabitors who indicated they did not believe in the institution of marriage in their own research, the authors noted the need to for cohabitation litera- ture to distinguish between cohabiting individuals who do not believe in marriage from those who do.

Hatch 1669

Other studies, not all necessarily related to cohabitation research, mirror many of the findings of this study by indicating that there are at least a few reasons why heterosexual couples may make the conscious decision not to enter the institution of marriage. For example, some decide not to marry as a form of active resistance to the gender role expectations that seem com- mon in marriage. Historically, women are expected to take over household duties and child rearing in marriage and research indicates that married women spend more hours per week on housework than cohabiting women do (Shelton & Daphne, 1993). Thus, some women (and men) choose not to get married to resist seemingly intrinsic sexist marital roles (Bernard, 1982; Geller, 2001; Solot & Miller, 2002; VanEvery, 1995; Willetts, 2003). Some couples view marriage as a confining institution and choose to resist mar- riage to maintain freedom and choice (Elizabeth, 2000). Other research indicates that some couples may choose to resist marriage because they feel as though marriage is an exclusionary institution that actively discriminates against gays, lesbians, and polyamorous family groupings (Solot & Miller, 2002; Willetts, 2003). In addition, there is evidence that people forgo legal marriage due to their fear of divorce, the inability to afford or conscious revolt against the expenses associated with the marriage ceremony itself, and others simply desire to limit the role government plays in their life (Solot & Miller, 2002; Willetts, 2003). This study adds to this existing lit- erature a few additional explanations as to why heterosexual couples may choose not to marry.

In many respects, the relationships in this study were similar to marital relationships. These 45 couples shared mutual commitment to one another, shared homes and finances, and some had children in the home. They argued about similar issues as their married peers (e.g., the division of housework) and spent their time worrying about similar issues (e.g., retirement). A few couples even celebrated their commitment to one another among family and friends in commitment ceremonies that resembled marriage ceremonies. Where they differed from married couples, and the majority of cohabitors that eventually marry, is that they have chosen to forgo making their relation- ship a legally recognized marriage. This decision often comes at a price, as many faced legal obstacles in their attempts to secure the rights and privi- leges given automatically to married couples (e.g., the right to coverage by a spouse’s health insurance). Additionally, most to some degree faced social pressure to marry, which reflects Andrew Cherlin’s (2004) argument that despite the increase in cohabitation and “deinstitutionalization” of marriage, the symbolic significance of marriage remains high within the culture. On the other hand, there were a few respondents who actually benefited financially from remaining legally unmarried (e.g., higher social security payments) and

1670 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

several believed their decision to remain unmarried made their relationship stronger because they were less likely to take the relationship for granted.

As mentioned previously, a significant drawback of this research is the lack of diversity among respondents. The homogeneous group that was largely a result of snowball sampling lacks racial and economic diversity in addition to diversity in educational attainment. It is likely that more diversity would yield different and varying reasons as to why some couples remain committed to unmarriage. Additionally, there are disadvantages to interviewing couples at the same time. One such disadvantage is the potential for the loss of individual voices in the construction of a joint narrative. In other words, some of the opinions of the respondents may not have surfaced because the interview was conducted with both members present. Joint narratives may also obscure important gender power relations, as research indicates men play a dominant role in determining relationship progression (Sassler & Miller, 2011).

It is possible that some of the respondents in this study will eventually legally marry. For example, some couples indicated that they would consider legal marriage if they needed to marry for health insurance. In this regard, their marriage “resistance” is dependent on particular circumstances that may change. On the other hand, many of these respondents will likely remain unmarried, as they had deeply held antimarriage convictions. A longitudinal study to determine how many “committed unmarrieds” do ultimately marry would be a good project for future research. Also, future studies could inter- view each respondent individually after (or before) the couple interview to allow for additional data and to rectify the inherent problems with interview- ing both members of the couple together. Future research could also investi- gate the correlation between choosing not to marry as a political statement and the recent legalization of gay marriage in various states across the nation. As more states legalize gay marriage, it is possible fewer heterosexuals will abstain from marriage as a statement of political solidarity with the marriage equality movement. Additionally, future research could focus on the levels of relationship satisfaction and quality in committed unmarried relationships, as research on cohabitation has shown an association between long-term cohab- iting partners and lower relationship quality (Skinner, Bahr, Crane, & Call, 2002), and between premarital cohabitation and poorer marital outcomes, referred to as the “cohabitation effect” (for a thorough discussion of the “cohabitation effect,” see Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006).

Conclusion

Overall, this article discussed the most commonly mentioned reasons the respondents cited in their decision not to marry. The rationales fit into two

Hatch 1671

larger categories. First, there were stated concerns about the meanings of marriage, and second, there were concerns about the effects marriage may have on the relationship. Regardless of their stated reasons for forging mar- riage, their responses point to what could be considered a public relations problem for legal marriage. Whether it is the fear of lapsing into traditional gender roles, the desire to keep government at bay, or just simply because there are no compelling reasons to wed—committed unmarrieds challenge our societal belief that marriage is, or should be, the ideal relationship form. Although currently the vast majority of Americans marry in their lifetimes, it is worth contemplating whether fewer people will marry in the future due to similar concerns. Additionally, despite the plethora of research on cohabita- tion, little research directly explores the reasons why a number of couples, whether cohabiting or not, identify as committed to one another yet choose to forgo legal marriage altogether (for notable exceptions, see Elizabeth, 2000; Solot & Miller, 2002; Willetts, 2003).

This study makes an important contribution to an otherwise little-studied phenomenon. It adds to the existing literature on “alternative” family forma- tions, and helps fill a gap in the literature on this specific subset of committed unmarrieds and explores the reasons behind contemporary marriage resis- tance. This research also draws attention to some of the ways in which fami- lies and relationships do exist—despite societal discourse that renders such families nonexistent.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi- cation of this article.

Notes

1. Polyamory (from the Greek “poly” meaning many and the Latin “amor” meaning love) is an umbrella term that refers to the philosophy and practice of engaging in openly conducted, simultaneous, nonmonogamous, and emotionally intimate relationships. Sometimes referred to as “responsible nonmonogamy,” polyam- orous relationships vary in form, but are based on long-term relationships with multiple lovers and with the goal of feeling joy in a partner’s enjoyment with another person (Sheff, 2005).

2. Thank you to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

1672 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

References

Aguilar, M. J. (2008). Activism or escapism: Making sense of 21st century communes. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Boulder.

Allan, G. (1980). A note on interviewing spouses together. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 205-210.

Bernard, J. S. (1982). The future of marriage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for chil-

dren’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41. Bumpass, L., & Sweet, J. (1989). National estimates of cohabitation. Demography,

26, 615-625. Bumpass, L., Sweet, J., & Cherlin, A. (1991). The role of cohabitation in declining

rates of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 913-927. Casper, L. M., & Cohen, P. N. (2000). How does POSSLQ measure up? Historical

estimates of cohabitation. Demography, 37, 237-245. Chandra, A., Martinez, G. M., Mosher, W. D., Abma, J. C., & Jones, J. (2005,

December). Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Statistics. Series 23, 25, 1-160.

Cherlin, A. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848-861.

Copen, C., Daniels, K., & Mosher, W. (2013). First premarital cohabitation in the United States: 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 64, 1-16.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro- cedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daly, K. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies and human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Echols, A. (1989). Daring to be bad: Radical feminism in America 1967-1975. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Elizabeth, V. (2000). Cohabitation, marriage, and the unruly consequences of differ- ence. Gender & Society, 14, 87-110.

Geller, J. (2001). Here comes the bride: Women, weddings, and the marriage mys- tique. New York, NY: Four Walls Eight Windows.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Guzzo, K. (2009). Marital intentions and the stability of first cohabitations. Journal

of Family Issues, 30, 179-205. Heuveline, P., & Timberlake, J. (2004). The role of cohabitation in family formation:

The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1214-1230.

Huang, P., Smock, P., Manning, W., & Bergstrom-Lynch, C. (2011). He says, she says: Gender and cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 876-905.

Hatch 1673

Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19, 1663-1692.

Manning, W., & Smock, P. (2002). First comes cohabitation and then comes mar- riage? A research note. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 1065-1087.

McGinnis, S. (2003). Cohabiting, dating, and perceived costs of marriage: A model of marriage entry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 105-116.

Popenoe, D. (2008). Cohabitation, marriage and child wellbeing: A cross-national perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: National Marriage Project.

Popenoe, D., & Whitehead, B. D. (2002). Should we live together? What young adults need to know about cohabitation before marriage: A comprehensive review of recent research. New Brunswick, NJ: National Marriage Project.

Rhoades, G., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. (2009). Couples’ reasons for cohabitation: Associations with individual well-being and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 233-258.

Rindfuss, R. R., & VandenHeuvel, A. (1990). Cohabitation: A precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single? Population and Development Review, 16, 703-726.

Sassler, S., & Miller, A. (2011). Waiting to be asked: Gender, power, and relationship progression among cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 482-506.

Seltzer, J. (2000). Families formed outside of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1247-1268.

Sheff, E. (2005). Polyamorous relationships: Exploring community, gender, family, and sexuality (Doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Boulder.

Shelton, B. A., & Daphne, J. (1993). Does marital status make a difference? Housework among married and cohabiting men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 401-420.

Skinner, K., Bahr, S., Crane, D. R., & Call, V. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, and remarriage: A comparison of relationship quality over time. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 74-90.

Smock, P. J. (2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1-20.

Smock, P. J., & Gupta, S. (2002). Cohabitation in contemporary North America. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Just living together: Implications of cohabita- tion on families, children and social policy (pp. 53-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Solomon, M. (1987). Emma Goldman. Boston, MA: Twayne. Solot, D., & Miller, M. (2002). Unmarried to each other: The essential guide to living

together as an unmarried couple. New York, NY: Marlowe. Stanley, S., Rhoades, G., & Markman, H. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and

the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509. Stansell, C. (2000). American moderns: Bohemian New York and the creation of a

new century. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

1674 Journal of Family Issues 38(12)

Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G., & Xie, Y. (2007). Marriage and cohabitation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

VanEvery, J. (1995). Heterosexual women changing the family: Refusing to be a “wife.” Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Walsh, M. (2005). Out of wedlock: Why some poor women reject marriage. In C. Ingraham (Ed.), Thinking straight: The power, promise and paradox of hetero- sexuality (pp. 183-192). New York, NY: Routledge.

Willetts, M. C. (2003). An exploratory investigation of heterosexual licensed domes- tic partners. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 939-952.

Wilson, J. Q. (2002). The marriage problem: How our culture has weakened families. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Zicklin, G. (1983). Countercultural communes: A sociological perspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.