To Have and to Hold, for Richer for Poorer

Leo Tolstoy wrote a lovely novella called "Family Happiness," narrated by a young woman who goes out for a walk with a man she loves. They talk about nothing in particular - frogs, actually - but exchange looks and gestures. "He said goodbye as usual and made no special allusion; but I knew that from that day he was mine, and that I should never lose him now."

They are married but grow apart. She likes parties, while he doesn't. Then one day they are sitting at home and her heart suddenly grows light. She looks around and realizes that the courtship phase of their relationship has ended, but it has been replaced by something gentler and deeper:

"That day ended the romance of our marriage; the old feeling became a precious irrecoverable remembrance; but a new feeling of love for my children and the father of my children laid the foundation of a new life and a quite different happiness; and that life and happiness have lasted to the present time."

Tolstoy's story captures the difference between romantic happiness, which is filled with exhilaration and self-fulfillment, and family happiness, built on self-abnegation and sacrifice.

It also illustrates how the family is a countervailing force in society. Public life is individualistic. It's oriented around goals like self-development, self-advancement and personal happiness. (This is, of course, even more true in America today than in the Russia of the 19th century.) The goal of family life, on the other hand, does not revolve around individual choices but around the unconditional union of souls. When we get married, and then when we have kids, we learn, sometimes traumatically, to say farewell to the world of me, me, me.

Tolstoy's novella came back to me while I was reading, of all things, The Wall Street Journal. The paper's Work and Family columnist, Sue Shellenbarger, had a piece last week reporting that the number of couples who now have separate checking accounts is rising rapidly. Roughly half of all married couples now keep multiple accounts, according to a Raddon Financial Group survey.

Some of the reasons for separate accounts are entirely reasonable. People who marry at older ages or who are forming second families may already have complicated financial arrangements that would be hard to pool. Some couples have found after long and bitter experience that they have different spending philosophies; instead of fighting, it's easier to give each spouse a little personal space.

But some of the people quoted in Shellenbarger's article seem unaware that there may be a distinction between the individualistic ethos of the market and the communal ethos of the home. A Texas woman celebrated her family's separate accounts, remarking, "It's so freeing to be your own person, and not feel like someone is looking over your shoulder." It's not clear whether she's talking about a marriage or a real estate partnership.

I went to the local bookstore and was startled to see how many personal finance gurus insist on separate accounts. "If you're part of a couple, maintain separate accounts - yours, mine and ours," writes Glinda Bridgforth in "Girl, Get Your Money Straight."

"Each partner needs his or her own money," writes the best-selling guru David Bach. "Regardless of whether or not you both work, each of you should maintain your own checking and credit card accounts." Bach says he doesn't need or want to know every detail of how his wife spends her money: "It's none of my business."

I'm not saying that people with separate accounts have marriages that are less healthy than anybody else's. I'm saying we should pause before this becomes the social norm. Private property is the basis for our market democracy. But private property in the home is an altogether trickier proposition.

For one thing, separate accounts can easily turn into secret accounts. A person's status and resources inside the home shouldn't be based on how much he or she is making outside it. A union based on love can easily turn into a merger based on self-interest, where the main criterion for continuing becomes: Am I getting a good return on my investment, psychic or otherwise?

The larger, far more important point is that in a society as individualistic as ours, it's especially important to protect and nurture the countervailing institutions. It's so easy for the powerful force of individualism to wash over and transform institutions - like family, religion and the military - that are supposed to be based on self-sacrifice, loyalty and love.

Interesting article. My mother was a traditional housewife for most of my parents' marriage, and she never felt like she could spend any money without Dad's permission, even though he has always been quite easy going about such things. When we kids were grown, and she took a part-time job, Dad insisted that she open her own checking account so that she would have her own money. She pays certain household bills out of it, but the rest is her pocket money. Having separate accounts works really well for them.

The union of souls is a noble thought and is true in a sense, but I can't agree with the writer's conclusion about bank accounts. I've been on both sides of that issue in real life. I was once the stay-at-home mom and wife. Every cent I needed for the house, the children or myself, I had to hold out my hand and beg for. It was demeaning and I came to hate the man who controlled my every need. After that disaster, I've made sure that I have worked at something so I would never have to beg again. My husband and I have separate accounts. Both accounts have both our names on them. But we manage different obligations. I pay the household bills and he pays the house and car payments. Whatever is left over we don't even ask what it went for. We consult with each other on large purchases. It sure makes for a better marriage.

My mother was a traditional housewife for most of my parents' marriage, and she never felt like she could spend any money without Dad's permission, even though he has always been quite easy going about such things.

In Japan the wives often completely control the finances. I once knew a professor there who (as is common there) earned all the family's income, but had no idea what his salary was. His wife managed the money, and doled him out a monthly allowance to spend on lunch, etc.

I have a different experience with an older spouse. I manage, give full disclosure and discuss a large purchases before hand. It works for us since we are both conservative.

We have a joint account and both work. He never rubs it in my face that he makes almost exactly 50% more than I do. Guess I'm lucky.

"In Japan the wives often completely control the finances."

That is not so unusual as the evil feminists would have us all think. My brother used to remind me of the scene in the movie "how green was my valley?" where the hard working men would come into the house and drop their wages into the wive's apron clad laps.

Also, if you look at any American dollar bill (of any denomination) you will see that the signature of the "Treasurer of the United States" is that of a woman. My father pointed this out to me years ago and explained that even though it is a symbolic post, it is symbolic of the fact that, in our culture, women ultimately hold the purse strings.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.