Marriage has been traditionally constructed as a relationship founded on affection, friendship and commitment to each other emotionally. However, behind this romantic notion is a more silent, yet more apparent reality; marriages made not out of love, but out of pragmatics. The structure is also commonly known as a marriage of convenience (MOC), which makes two people legal partners, and they live in an emotionally detached manner of roommates. Both seeking social pressure, economic stability, immigration status, or cultural expectations, MOCs tell a lot about the way modern society patiently negotiates intimacy, survival, and identity.

In the central sense, a Marriage of Convenience does not have to be a misleading or malevolent thing. In most instances, there is an understanding and a mutual agreement between the two parties as they go into the arrangement with open eyes. The delusion is not in the psyche of an MOC, but in the calculated realism. People are usually concerned with safety, stability, or opportunity rather than emotional satisfaction. This attitude is an indication of a larger change of values, in which marriage is no longer viewed as romantic fate, but as a strategic alliance.

Social pressure is one of the most powerful psychological motivators of MOCs. Marriage is another one of the measures of success, maturity, or moral status in most societies. The stigma, intrusive questioning, or diminished social capital may be experienced by single adults (women, in particular). To others, the marriage of convenience is the psychological coping mechanism against social ridicule. The liberation of being able to check the box can be more than having lack of emotional intimacy, which provides the relief of having to be scrutinized and pressured by the outside world.

Another important factor in determining the MOC psyche is economic insecurity. Marriage may serve as an economic partnership in the areas where an individual cannot be financially independent. The marriage is made a survival mechanism by shared rent, shared income, or access to healthcare or inheritance rights. This psychologically refames intimacy as optional and stability as necessary. In this regard, emotional detachment, as opposed to being a failure, is a coping mechanism, one that enables people to coexist without love vulnerability.

The other notable aspect of MOCs is observed in the immigration and legal status. Arranged marriages are done to ensure a person gets to live in a particular country, becomes a citizen or even gets a legal safeguard but this has not been stopped in other parts of the world. On the part of the participants, the psychological conflict is complicated. Fear and pragmatism are always in a state of perpetual negotiation: the fear of being exposed and deported, or prosecuted by the law, versus the fear of a safer future. The emotion distance may provide self-protection, which means that the arrangement is controlled and transactional.

Arranged marriages or even forceful marriages that are culturally oriented may also transform into de facto marriages of convenience. The absence of choice at first forms the psychological terrain in such instances. Couples can give up on intimate existence and live parallel lives together. The roommates by law relation turns into the unspoken rule: do not overstep boundaries, do not neglect social roles, and do not fight. This may be psychologically numbing, in that one gets detached and thinks he is at peace.

Nevertheless, the MOC psyche is not cold and inhuman at all times. Most of such marriages work on the basis of sharing and companionship and even on the friendship. There might be a lack of emotional intimacy, yet care and cooperation is not always absent. This is against the notion that marriage is based on love as the only basis. To other persons, emotional independence is a strength, and lack of romantic commitment gives them clarity and freedom that marriages do not offer at times.

Although these are functional advantages, marriages of convenience have psychological expenses. The risks are usually emotional suppression, unrealized intimacy needs and identity fragmentation. Living a life that is seemingly full on the outside but not connected on the inside may result in some form of silent discontentment, resentment or even loneliness. In the long term, the absence of emotional appeal could be in the form of anxiety, depression, or a feeling of stasis, especially when people feel confined by the structure that is supposed to support them.

The MOC psyche is further complicated by gender issues. Marrying women in convenience might result in women who are in the marriage bearing unequal emotional and domestic labour and low emotional pay. Men, in their turn, might have troubles with social roles of being a man, being intimate, and being in control. Such unspoken tensions may strengthen emotional boundaries, which supports the roommate relationship and makes its true connection more challenging.

The influence of modern individualism on the views of MOCs is also worth to be taken into account. Marriages that do not have romantic love are negatively considered to be failures especially in a time where personal fulfilment and self-actualisation are considered essential elements of life. However, this view does not take into account the historical and cultural backgrounds in marriage, where marriage has been practical at all times. The unease that most people experience with MOCs can be a sign of fear of having to face the transactional aspect that exists even implicitly in any relationship.

In the end, the psyche of a Marriage of Convenience reveals an underlying fact regarding the nature of human relationships; individuals conform to intimacy to live in their environments. MOCs are not related to the lack of love but rather to the negotiation of reality, whether it comes to culture, economics, legality, or personal choice. They attack the romantic monopoly of marriage and make one rethink the meaning of partnership.

When breaking down the psyche of the MOC, one realises that it is not just a matter of convenience in these marriages, but control, protection and compromise. They unravel how far people can go to achieve dignified, safe, or acceptable lives in an unfriendly world. On the one hand, they might seem like the roommate arrangement, but on the other, behind it all is an intricate psychological structure based on necessity, resilience, and human ability to reinvent connection.

.    .    .

References:

• Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualisation: Institutionalised Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences. London: Sage Publications.
• Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalisation of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848–861.
• Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking Press.
• Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Illouz, E. (2007). Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
• Ritzer, G. (2011). Sociological Theory (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Smart, C. (2007). Personal Life: New Directions in Sociological Thinking. Cambridge: Polity Press.