Encyclopedia of Sociology

COURTSHIP

selection (generally in achievement-based socie-
ties), the power and prestige of a dating partner
(although defined in terms other than land, cattle,
and the like) is still valuable. Good looks (however
defined) in women, for instance, are a status sym-
bol for men, and conspicuous consumption in
men (cars, clothing, spending habits) provides
status for women. Thus, within the field of eligibles
is a smaller field of desirables. Unfortunately, the
qualities that are valued in dates (from among
whom a mate may be chosen) are not necessarily
those one would want in a spouse.

Even in participant-run ‘‘free choice’’ systems,
there is a tendency toward homogamy in the selec-
tion of partners, whether conscious or not. As a
society becomes more varied in its mix of persons
within residential, educational, religious, or work-
related settings, the tendency toward heterogamy
increases. That is, the field of eligibles and desirables
broadens. Heterogeneity leads to a prediction of
‘‘universal availability’’ (Farber 1964) as the salience
of social categories (such as race, age, religion and
class) declines. For example, interracial relation-
ships, once unthinkable (e.g., in the colonial Ameri-
can South), increased with urbanization, industri-
alization, and a general movement toward educational
and income equality. Social class endogamy, how-
ever, is the general preference, although women
are encouraged with varying degrees of subtlety to
‘‘marry up,’’ and a dating differential exists such
that men tend to court women who are slightly
younger, physically smaller, and somewhat less
well educated or affluent than themselves.

Contemporary courtship, marked as it is by
freedom of choice, has been likened to a market in
which the buyer must be wary and in which there is
no necessary truth in advertising. Persons com-
pete, given their own assets, for the best marital
‘‘catch’’ or the most status-conferring date. Waller
and Hill (1951) warned about the potential for
exploitation in both casual and serious courtship
and indeed, critics of conventional dating have
decried it as a sexist bargaining arrangement in
which men are exploited for money and women
for sexual favors. The superficiality of dating, its
commercialization, the deceit involved (given con-
tradictory motives), and the high levels of anxiety
provoked by fears of rejection (especially in men),
are additional drawbacks. Since status differentials
still characterize the sexes, dating may also be seen

as a contest in which a struggle for power and

control between partners is part of the game.

Thus, courtship’s emphasis on individualism, free-

dom, commercialism, competitive spirit, and suc-

cess reflects the larger social system within which it

functions. One may well ask whether such a system

can prepare participants for marriage which, un-

like courtship, requires cooperation and compro-

mise for its successful survival.

Efforts to predict who marries whom and why,

to delineate the courtship process itself, or both,

have interested a number of scholars. Based on a

large body of theoretical and empirical work, Ad-

ams (1979) developed a propositional theory to

explain how courtship moves from initial acquain-

tance toward (or away from) marriage in an achieve-

ment-oriented society. The propositions, in slight-

ly modified language, are as follows:

1. Proximity, which facilitates contact, is a
   precondition for courtship and marriage.


2. As time passes, marriage is increasing-
   ly more likely to be with a current-
   ly propinquitous than with a formerly
   propinquitous partner.


3. Propinquity increases the likelihood that
   one will meet, be attracted to, and marry
   someone of the same social categories as
   oneself.


4. Early attraction is a result of immedi-
   ate stimuli such as physical attractive-
   ness, valued surface behaviors, and similar
   interests.


5. The more favorable the reactions of
   significant others to an early relationship,
   the more likely the relationship will
   progress beyond the early attraction stage.


6. The more positive the reaction of the
   partners to self-disclosures, the better the
   rapport between them.


7. The better the rapport between the
   partners, the more likely the relationship
   will be perpetuated beyond the early
   attraction stage.


8. The greater the value compatibility—
   consensus between partners, the more
   likely that the relationship will progress to
   a deeper level of attraction.