Is Marriage like International Politics?

Happy wife, happy life.

-Some random married person

One of the nice things about my experience of getting married is that most people have really tried to be supportive and helpful during this stressful and scary time. People have given us lots of gifts to help us get started with life. They have often offered to help with wedding chores. They also tend to offer words of encouragement or to give me a bit of advice. I dig that, and I’m glad that I’m surrounded by people who care enough about me to try to help me out.

Sometimes, however, people offer a particular kind of advice that makes me raise my eyebrows. The kind of advice I’m referring to is the same kind of advice offered by “some random married person” in the quotation above: Happy wife, happy life.

I’ve heard this kind of advice from books and marriage counselors in addition to people I know directly, so it seems to be pretty popular. Moreover, the advice is not given exclusively to the groom. I’ve also heard brides-to-be receive a similar kind of advice.

Now, whoever happens to be dispensing this kind of advice always seems to have a I-know-what-marriage-is-like-and-you’ll-be-happy-you-followed-my-advice type tone about them. This tone along with their advice makes me wonder, “What is marriage like such that it generates comments like this? Of all of the comments/advice that could be given to newly weds, why is this comment the one that I seem to hear most often?”

Before trying to answer those questions, let me say a little more about how I interpret such advice in the first place. The advice, as far as I can tell, actually comes in two distinct, albeit related, versions. I can usually figure out which version of the advice I’m getting by paying attention to the tone with which the advice is uttered.

If the tone has a hint of resentment to it, then I’m hearing what I’ll call the “resentful-version” and the advice means something like “You really ought to try to please your partner because if you don’t, he/she will make your life miserable.” If the tone lacks resentment and instead simply sounds like some matter of fact advice, I know I’m getting the “prudence-version,” and take it to mean something like, “You really ought to try to please your partner because if you don’t, he/she will make your life less than maximally awesome.”

If these interpretations are correct, both versions of this advice, along with the frequency and tone with which they are given, suggest that marriage, a relationship that is supposedly one of the more intimate and loving relationships human beings can enter into, is in actuality a lot like international politics. Let me explain.

Some political theorists have characterized states as egoistic entities that are just looking out for their own interests. According to these theorists, any state will take territory or resources from other states if they can and if it furthers its goals without any real regard for the interests of the countries that are being smashed under its boot. This, of course, leads to lots of conflict among states.

Occasionally, however, the cost of fighting over resources is too high for all the states on the international scene. For example, country A may want country B’s oil, but may not be willing to fight country B’s military long enough to secure that resource. And country B may want country A’s gold mines, but may not be willing to deal with the economic sanctions from the international community if it took those mines. In situations like this, there is a kind of peace and stability between states, and a term has been invented to describe this kind of peace: “modus vivendi.”¹

The resentful-version of the marriage advice I’ve been getting seems to suggest that we should take this term that’s used to describe international political relations and use it to describe marital ones. Marriage, according to this advice, often requires a kind of modus vivendi. I would fight with my wife about X or frustrate one of her desires, but doing so is going to be too costly for me because it will lead to misery. The same is true for my wife. She would fight with me and/or frustrate my desires, but since the costs of fighting are too high, we reach a kind of stability.

So that’s how the resentful-version of the marriage advice I’ve received suggests that marriage is like international politics. What about the prudence-version of this advice? Well, the same political theorists who invented the term “modus vivendi” also have a theory about why alliances form among states. In keeping with their view of states as egoistic creatures, they explain the formulation of alliances as a kind of strategy used by states to further their own interests. States may even assist other states in achieving their goals, but at the end of the day, everyone is just hoping that their generosity will not go unnoticed and that they will be able to benefit somehow from their “altruism.”

Here again it seems that, according to the prudence-version of the advice I’ve been getting, the same dynamic that works between states works between married folk.² I might do a bit of extra cleaning before my wife gets home, but I only do this because I want to be able to go out with my buddies afterward. Country A may provide humanitarian assistance to country B, but only because doing so might make country B more amenable to certain politico-economic arrangements.³ The “happy wife, happy life” advice definitely points to a parallel here.

Both versions of the advice raise the following questions: Is this really how my marriage is supposed to work? When my wife and I are in disagreement, will we mostly “resolve” the disagreement by reaching a modus vivendi? In other words, will most of our disagreements be settled by both persons becoming so exhausted that they compromise or surrender all ground to the other just to avoid the stress of conflict? Is having the best possible life with my wife really just about performing some favors so that I can get something in return?

I really hope the answer to these questions is, “no.” I really hope that we can do better than a modus vivendi and an egoistic alliance. It would be really disappointing if marital relations had a lot in common with international relations. I don’t need more of those kinds of relations in my life. Watching the news gives me more than my fill of egoistic states and/or people screwing each other over, reaching a brief ceasefire, and continuing the conflict once its convenience again.

So far, I’ve just said why I think the “happy wife, happy life” advice means that marriage is a lot like international politics and I’ve said that I hope that that is not true. I have not, however, answered the following questions: Have I misinterpreted the “happy wife, happy life” advice that I’ve been given? If not, what exactly is my problem with a modus vivendi marriage? Is there really a problem at all? Am I just being naive here? These are questions that I will have to answer next time.


1. I first encountered this term in John Rawls’ The Law of Peoples. Rawls contrasts the peace achieved via modus vivendi with a stability that is reached because states respect each other’s interests.

2. I’m not really committed to political realism, the view that states only act in their own self-interest. I’m actually persuaded by some of the arguments that suggest that this is not the case. Even if political realism is false, it would be interesting if it turned out that marital dynamics are a lot like the dynamics between states as (mis)understood by political realists.

3. If I remember my history correctly, the US and Russia did this during the cold war to convince certain countries to adopt capitalist or communist policies, respectively.

Am I Marrying my Soul-mate?

I’m getting married in 18 days.

As the wedding draws nearer, more and more people are subtly or not-so-subtly asking me, “Are you ready for this? Are you scared?” Now, because I’m polite, I don’t respond to this question by saying, “Of course I am! Have you looked around and seen all of the divorced and/or unhappily married couples lately?!”¹

Fortunately, I don’t have to be polite on a blog. I can more or less candidly say what’s on my mind as my wedding draws near.

So, let me start off these candid remarks by noting that marriage – and life in general – is scary. Now, despite the fact that I am a pansy and am striving to become more of a pansy, I can say that there is one thing about this wedding that I am not afraid of: I am not afraid of the possibility that in 18 days, I will marry someone who is not my soul-mate. Let me explain why.

A “soul-mate” is the person with whom you would have the coolest possible wedding, the cutest possible kids, the kinkiest possible sex, and overall the happiest possible life. Now, it seems to me that lots of folk spend lots of time looking for their soul-mate; they are committed to committing to the best possible spouse they can find. This, of course, is understandable, but like I said above, I’m not married to the idea of finding my soul-mate.

Now, you might think that the reason I’m not worried about missing out on my soul-mate is a purely practical reason. That practical reason is this:

It’s just too hard to know that someone is your soul-mate. How in the world are you supposed to predict how your partner will change over the years, how you will change over the years, and how these changes will affect your relationship with your supposed soul-mate? People unpredictably become less cute, less tolerant of your idiosyncrasies, bitter, prone to midlife crises, etc. Even one small slip in television and/or music tastes can be enough to demote your partner from soul-mate to second-best-mate. Since you can’t predict the future, there’s no way to know that someone who seems like your soul-mate now will not change into number 2,876th on the list of people in the world who could make you most happy.²

While I do think that there’s a serious problem when it comes to knowing that you’ve found you’re soul-mate, this is not the reason I’m not scared of losing mine. For all I know, my fiance’ may very well be my soul-mate, but my claim here is that it doesn’t matter to me whether she is or not.

Why is this?

The short answer: Because I love her.

The long answer:

Because I love her, and because love, by its very nature, requires us to forego things that are in our best interest.

This is not news. When I say to my fiance’, “I love you,” I can’t mean, “You happen to maximally satisfy my preferences and the moment you cease doing so, I will drop you like a sack of potatoes.” Love requires us to subordinate our interests to the other. It requires us to give our partner a break on a bad day, to speak kind words even when mean ones come more easily, to muster up some energy to attend to the honey-do list, and to put the seat down after taking a tickle.

Now, if love requires that I seek the good of the other for her sake, then I shouldn’t always be in the business of maximizing my happiness, and if I shouldn’t always be in the business of maximizing my happiness, then I shouldn’t be committed to finding a happiness-maximizing soul-mate.³

So, that’s why I’m not worried about missing out on my soul-mate. The fact is that I have found the one whom my soul loves, and the one that I love, Nicole Carol LaMott, is more dear to me than any “coolest” potential wedding I could have. She is more dear to me than the kinkiest possible sex I could have. I wouldn’t trade her in for the cutest possible kids, nor the most successful possible career, nor all of these things combined.

She’s the one that I love, so if it turns out that Nicole isn’t my soul-mate and if my soul-mate is out there somewhere reading this, I just want to wish you good luck with finding a person so great and a love so genuine that you forget to look for your soul-mate.


1. Some may wonder whether I should have any fears about getting married. They might think, in other words, that if I am scared at all, then I am not ready to get married. I think this is an interesting position, and I think it leads to a more general, more interesting question: Given the evidence that many of us have about married life, is getting married rational?

2. Of course, the problem with knowing that someone is your soul-mate is also due to the fact that we cannot have a relationship with every potential soul-mate-candidate.

3. Some readers may point out that even if love requires that I discontinue a selfish search for my soul-mate, that same love may require that I ensure that I am my partner’s soul-mate because, out of love, I should seek to maximize her well-being and if I am not her soul-mate, then I will cause a less-than-optimal life for her by marrying her. This is good point, and it is not obvious what the best response is. Here are a couple things that come to mind: i) Even if in principle this is true, there’s the practical problem of how to determine whether I am her soul-mate. If no one can determine whether I am her soul-mate, then we may be forced to just consider whether I meet the lower standard of being a suitable mate. Thankfully, I think I meet that standard. ii) Love may not require that we be completely interested in the well-being of the other, so if I happen to be too selfish to seek the happiness maximizing-partner for my fiance’, then I may still love her, even if I do so imperfectly.

Why I Should Become more of a Pansy

“There ain’t nothin scarier than real life. Stephen King ain’t got nothin on this.”

-My landlady

I’ve always been kind of a pansy.

There are plenty of examples that prove this:

I can’t watch The Ring because deep down a part of me is genuinely worried that that girl will climb out of the TV and scare the crap out of me before eating my soul.

Flying around in a pressurized tin can with wings that occasionally look like they’re going to snap off is more than a little unnerving for me, and its no help to remind me that flying is safer than driving because that just makes me feel like I should be more afraid of driving rather than less afraid of flying.

And this is just the “far-fetched” stuff that freaks me out. Now that I’m getting married and graduating with a degree in philosophy, I’ve got some real stuff to get scared about. Did I make the wrong decision by leaving philosophy? Did I make the wrong decision by majoring in philosophy in the first place? How will we make “enough” money? Where will we live? How will we come to agreements about these decisions in the first place?

And even if we get past all of that, there’s still some other things to be afraid of. For example, is it me or does it seem like many (perhaps even most) adults over 40ish are unhappy? Many are working jobs they don’t like or are in marriages that they are less than stoked about or do not have any serious friendships or feel fundamentally disappointed with how their life turned out or… How do I avoid falling into these traps that seem to have snagged so many people?

Now, I’ve never really been ashamed to admit that I’m a pansy or paranoid or whatever. Lately, however, there is something quite shameful that has been happening as a result of my paranoia: I’ve let my fears rule me. I’ve let them come between me and the people that I care about. I’ve let these fears blind me to why I’ve been acting a fool lately. In fact, I’ve even used them to justify my less than loving behavior.

So, I know that this has got to change, and at this point, it may seem that the best solution is to “sack up.” The problem, however, is that I’m a pansy and I am not really sure I know how to do that, nor am I even sure what it even means to sack up. So maybe this solution won’t work for me.

It seems unlikely, moreover, that I’m going to get anywhere by trying to trick myself into believing that life isn’t really that scary and that I’m just overreacting. In real life, bad things happen.  People make decisions that they regret. Or they fail to have any truly satisfying relationships. Or they die in plane crashes. Or get terminally ill. No one is going to convince me that these things don’t happen or that they are not scary when they do happen, so that route isn’t going to work either.

Since the more obvious solutions don’t really seem feasible, I think I’ll try this counter-intuitive solution: I will try to become more of a pansy. I will add one more item to the list of things that freak me out:

I want to be afraid that I will let my fear of everything else get in the way of loving my bride-to-be well while I can, of talking patiently and kindly with her and my family members about how to do this life thing together, of connecting in meaningful ways with the fantastic people around me, of striving to be motivated to help the distant “least of these,” and of appreciating the good times and weathering well the hard times of life.

I want to become more afraid of letting fear get in the way than I am of that girl from The Ring because the worst she can do is eat my soul and the worst I can do is let fear drive me to crush the spirits of those around me. I want to be more afraid of letting my fears damage my relationships than I am of poor career choices or poor housing arrangements or being poor because a wealth of healthy relationships renders irrelevant all poverty. I want to be more afraid of letting fear crowd out love than I am of living with some regrets because not all regrets are created equal.  I want to be more afraid of failing to love well than I am of dying in a plane crash because the best I can hope for in this life is to leave it knowing that I’ve been too much of a pansy to let fear crowd out love.

Why I’m Confused about my Upcoming Wedding

I’m getting married soon.

Of course, I’m super stoked about the upcoming wedding. I cannot wait to start taking the world by storm with my best friend and bride to be. I’m definitely looking forward, moreover, to kicking off our life together by celebrating with a bunch of people I deeply care about.

Perhaps surprisingly, I’m also a little confused and worried about the upcoming wedding. I’m not confused about whether I should wear a bow tie or a straight tie. (The answer is obviously a bow tie.) Nor am I confused about what food to have at the wedding. (BBQ is objectively the best choice.) My confusions and worries stem from the fact that we, as affluent residents of the first world, are constantly living in a Good Samaritan situation. Let me explain what I mean.

We live on a pretty broken planet. Some children starvesome women are forced into sexual slavery, and some men persecute those who are powerless, which often causes more starving and more slavery. This is nothing new.

We also live on a pretty connected planet. We know that the world is broken because we get live updates on our televisions, computers, smartphones, and whatever else the kids are using these days. We also have the means to intervene, to save lives, and to give people the gift of freedom with very little sacrifice on our part.

Now, here’s where I start to get confused: when I consider that the world is both broken and connected, I realize that I am always faced with a choice, a choice that is not unlike the one that the Good Samaritan faced: I, while surfing on the web, can click that button and order a DJ for my upcoming wedding or I can click that other button on that other page and send a dehydration pack to a dying child in Cambodia. Every DJ I hire is, in virtue of my residence in this broken and connected world, also a choice to let a child die. I’m constantly in a Good Samaritan situation.

Those last few sentences will probably sound crazy to most readers, but I think that this is just because the fact that we are constantly in a Good Samaritan situation is, unlike the fact that we live in a broken world, a relatively recent development. The proliferation of technology over the past few decades has been truly breathtaking, and while we have managed to pause long enough to figure out how to capitalize on the benefits of living in this connected world, we have rarely taken that additional moment to consider that these new connections might bring new challenges and new responsibilities.

…And now there’s a wedding to plan. I can choose to hire a DJ for my wedding. Or, I can take that same money and free an Indian slave. The Good Samaritan situation invited himself my wedding. Rude.

So, now you can probably start to see why I’m confused: I’m supposed to be getting married. This is supposed to be a very special day during which I have license to indulge myself, but do I really have such a licence? Do I really have the right to choose the musical delight of 150 of my closest compadres over the freedom of a human being?

At this point, some may think that my confusions and worries are misplaced. Some of my own family members have thought that I was literally slightly insane to be thinking about these sorts of questions while discussing wedding plans. (That’s ok. Their concerns about my sanity places me in good company.) So, let me for a moment try to convince you that I am not completely off my rocker.

Some might think that I’m a little off because I need to be reminded of how difficult it is to solve these problems that make up our broken world. “Poverty, slavery, and tyranny cannot be ended merely by foregoing a DJ for your wedding,” some might say, “so don’t be concerned about starving children on your wedding day.”

My reply: that’s a fair observation with a not-so-fair conclusion. Yes, poverty will not be solved by telling DJ Diggity-Dawg to go home, but I’m not talking about solving every problem ever. I’m just talking about the opportunity to give one child medical attention that may allow her to grow into adulthood or the opportunity show one person that there’s more to life than her master’s will. So, even though my choice to forego the DJ does not entirely change the world, it can definitely change someone’s life, and so, there is reason, I think, to be confused and worried about planning a wedding with a DJ in the world in which we live.

Other readers might point out that my confusions lead to “absurd” conclusions, and they might use this “fact” to show that we shouldn’t be confused about our role in this broken, connected world at all. “If what you are saying is correct,” they might say, “then that means that we shouldn’t buy anything ever and just spend all of our time and money helping poor, sick, enslaved, people. But that’s a crazy conclusion!” To such an argument, I think we might justly reply: “That’s a crazy conclusion? Are we sure about that? Because a life spent being devoted the least of these sounds an awful lot like the life that Jesus led, and aren’t we all trying to live a life that’s more like that anyway?”¹

Of course, these responses do not exhaust all of the questions some may have about my sanity, but answering all of those questions would no doubt exhaust more than all of the space that I had for this article. So, let me just say, by way of conclusion, that I don’t know the way to resolve these confusions and quiet these worries. I’m just sort of trying to figure things out as the wedding draws closer. I do know, however, that they are confusions worth exploring and worries worth praying about, and for that reason, I’m glad to have had the opportunity to share them with you.


1. There’s a way to respond to this objection without whipping out the Jesus card. Peter Singer does a good job with this somewhere in this article. In fact, everything that I’ve said here has pretty much already been said by him. Turns out there’s not much that’s new under the sun.