Why Marriage as a Social Institution is Doomed!


Marriage as a social institution is doomed.

I repeat. Marriage as a SOCIAL INSTITUTION is doomed.

If you want a marriage as a proof for your romantic relationship, feel free to marry and you have my blessing. I’m not talking about the collapse of marriage as a convention, but as a social institution that solves social issues.


Marriage as a social institution mainly serves to make sure men and women form stable and efficient unities to collaborate in agricultural production, and to make sure the progenies can be identified and selected for inheritance. It is a SOCIAL INSTITUTION in response to the agricultural economy of pre-modern times. And since nowadays, such economic base has vanished, the complete fading of social meanings of marriage is ahead of us.



Quick Disclaimer:

From the perspective of physiology, men or women, homosexual or heterosexual, sexual or asexual alike, we fall in love to one another in free will, sometimes to one person, sometimes to more than one. There isn’t a proven theory for the loyalty being biologically natural or inherent to homo sapiens.

However, apart from different cultural norms and conventions, being loyal to your married spouse is a consistent requirement in all marriages. While various societies may perceive marriage differently, what marriage does to a human society likely remains the same across the globe. That means there must be some reasons marriage built upon that are universal to human.


The social significance of marriage:

Simply speaking, in the ancient times, an agricultural economy needs strong farmers to cultivate food and strong warriors to fight. Due to different hormone secretion levels between the male and female, male has a comparative advantage over females on these tasks. Therefore, it was common that men did the hard and critical work and women did light and supportive work.

Men and women together can form a stable and independent economic unit in an agricultural society. And because agricultural societies predominantly adopted private ownership, marriage efficiently distributes products within that economic unit. We can assume that if marriage did not emerge, exploitation and oppression against women could be worse.


Another justification of institutionalized marriage comes from a side-effect of private ownership. Every person will die but the material one possesses remains, therefore under private ownership everyone needs somebody to inherit possessions upon death. The best person to be appointed inheritor is the progeny, because people naturally feel intimate with blood-linked & self-raised families. However, the problem with ancient people determining their progeny is, without modern DNA technology, they couldn’t identify whether the kid is theirs or brothers’/friends’. This is solved by the ethical, moral and legal bondage prescribed in institutionalized marriage, which asks a woman to stay loyal to her husband sexually. After all, men owned property but cannot produce children by themselves, if men figured out a way to keep his wife untouched by other men, then the woman’s child could be confirmed to be his as well.

Institutionalized marriage was natural to ancient societies and each society designed their own mechanisms to strengthen its function, such as enshrining marriage with ideas “God Blessed” or “native to human”, or introducing laws that punished people trying to divorce. These are bi-products of marriage but not the causes of it.


Institutionalized marriage is only natural to human society when our economic base requires it.

That’s the ancient part of the marriage history.

We are, however, living in a MODERN one.

Apart from the social and cultural inertia of existing marriage system, the economic premise of a marriage is vanishing.

First, the individual production unit of a modern economy is a factory, firm or enterprise, not a family.

Second, human physical labor is replaced by machines since the industrial revolution; We mainly need human mental labor now, on which women don’t necessarily differ from men.

  • Economic Base: GONE!

Economic production process evolved from easy collaboration among a few people within the family into a complicated and prolonged production chain involving hundreds or thousands of people. Therefore, in a modern economy, each labor works individually and get paid individually under various organizations. Family is no longer the predominantly efficient unit of production and distribution; thus, the economic base of marriage is gone. Also, women now make money!

  • Gender Differentiation: FADING!

Our ancestors work directly upon the object, they shoveled the dirt or they milked the cow by hand. We don’t. We operate machines to shovel dirt and monitor machines to milk cows. Machines have replaced human as the main physical labor supply in production. That means, physical strength is no longer playing a predominant role, and women is no longer disadvantaged. A woman can perform most of the tasks as can a man, so the complementary work division between female and male in a family is gone now.

The inheritance problem, with which marriage dealt in the past, is now simply fixed by new technology: if you’re not sure about your kid’s identity, go get a DNA test.


In summary, the institutionalized, women-oppressing marriage has NO solid ground to exist anymore apart from cultural inertia.

Romantic relationship is natural and biologically intrinsic to human, so we should keep that.

Yet, the social implications and ethical expectations of marriage should be abandoned.

Every modern citizen should keep this in mind:

While your married spouse sworn to be loyal to you, there wasn’t any stronger binding from the marriage paper other than his/her affection on you.

Moreover, we should perceive marriage as a personal lifestyle instead of a social institution that keeps the world spinning:


The collapse of marriage is definitely happening within the next 50 years, perhaps sooner.

So, corresponding laws should be amended, and religious groups should stop promoting the traditional ethics behind marriages, because it no longer makes sense.

P.S. There is another issue derived from the future collapse of institutionalized marriage, that is producing and raising physically and mentally healthy children. This is another problem and should not be mixed up with marriage. The society has to collectively come up a new solution of social upbringing of children, which requires us seriously putting the marriage problem on the table in the first place. Hoping to solve the children issue by promoting marriage is a delaying tactic, not a solution.

Cc @Aje @fola @pretyprexy @Ms_aijohi @Kiitan @Udy_Inyang @iamtosyne @Zolozai @Kachie @Peacehoney @shazomii @Drew @geezybee @Gfather @ganoris @habeebsanni @Judy @Otseluv


You lost me here. Do you mind explaining?


These words are not direct enough. Can you explain with relate-able examples?


This got me laughing!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl: No one has ever stopped it from being a personal lifestyle but it still remains a social institution regardless.

i love this piece


Uncle!!! :raising_hand_woman:I have a question

Are you saying marriage as a social institution could also be a foundational basis for economic development or otherwise?



I’ll use the example of a guy who saw a lady with her 1 month old baby in a stroller. He asked the woman what gender the child is and she responded; "I’ll let it choose what gender it wants to be."
The idea is that liberal ideals such as homosexuality, transsexualism, etc threaten the fabric of society’s smallest unit --> family.


I’ll try;

Here, the writer suggests that apart from the document at Ikoyi Marriage Registry & a lover’s affection, nothing else binds 2 people together in reality. Betrayal is quite normal so events such as infidelity should not be seen as out of this world; it’s wrong but it really should not be surprising since it is normal for human beings to betray each other.

Our perception os marriage is perhaps what leads us to believe it is compulsory, the writer is suggesting that we should stop seeing it as a necessity for humanity’s advancement, instead it’s simply a choice. We can have children any time we want to, but marriage itself, if we are to be objective, should not be a necessity.


Not entirely. The writer is says that marriage as a social institution arose due to economic demand. Imagine it’s 100,000 BC, humans are slowly transitioning from hunter-gatherer society to settlements, maybe humanity evolved marriage as a way to structure society more favorably for economic activity.

Someone had to work the soil and the other had to sell the produce of the soil while taking care of the kids.


So the writer is saying its not compulsory to be married… I guess he is right in that sense…


clears throat @NaijaLander,let me understand this please. Is it that this piece is trying to say that marriage as an institution should be something of past because it still hasn’t fulfilled what it should especially when children are involved? Especially with rise in marriage crises that takes place?


Betrayal is not normal… Nobody can treat that as a walk in the park tho…


No. The piece is about where marriage as a social institution is headed. The writer predicts that in 50 years, marriage won’t be socially necessary anymore.