Does it Ring True Today?
By Esha Jain
Contemporarily, diamond engagement rings have come to signal a man’s willingness to commit to a woman within marriage between heteronormative couples. Brinig maintains that this signal was made necessary by the dissolution of the breach of promise action laws, which originally “entitled a woman whose fiance had broken off their engagement to sue him in assumpsit for damages, including the actual expenses she had incurred in reliance on the marriage. She might also recover for her embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of other marriage opportunities,” (1990, 204). In the past, when women were commodified and valued primarily upon their ability to secure a marriage and family, this provision was relevant and all the more necessary to maintain a woman’s livelihood. Eventually, the diamond engagement ring came to substitute the assurance, trust, and security that the breach of promise action laws had once provided to women. However, times change just as norms do, and while diamond engagement rings are still used to signal long-term commitment through the “burning” of resources, women are no longer reliant on men for their socioeconomic survival. The diamond engagement ring is more of a vestigial norm than it used to be, but the signal of long-term commitment that a ring provides is still important to maintain trust within a relationship and the greater community.
To fully understand the institution of diamond engagement rings in contemporary culture, it is important to first understand the purpose they serve. Specifically, it is important to understand diamond engagement rings as a replacement for the breach of promise action laws. Formal government means of enforcement, like the breach of promise action laws, are no longer necessary to uphold commitment in relationships. Brinig points out the importance of commitment in times where the breach of promise action laws were used to settle disputes. She states that “a woman’s marriage was necessary to secure her social position,” (Brinig 1990, 204). During the time period when the breach of promise action laws were active, it was common for a woman to rely on her husband’s income, and men would not generally marry a woman whose “virtue” had been compromised (Brinig 1990, 205). In other words, a woman had to be a virgin before marriage, and if she were not a virgin, then her ability to obtain financial security would also disappear. Unfortunately for women, there were oftentimes men who would promise marriage, have premarital sex, and then back out of their promise to marry, leaving these women with limited opportunities for future marriage, and therefore without further opportunities for financial stability (Brinig 1990, 205). The breach of promise action laws were an effort to solve commitment problems because it increased the costs for men who promised marriage and broke it off after the fact. In present times, women have more autonomy, which makes this provision unnecessary. Not only do women work, which provides income and financial stability, but cohabitation with a significant other before marriage is also very common. As a result, premarital sexual relations are not judged within society as harshly, and women are not immediately shunned from the marriage market after exploring sexually. In fact, Americans today are more likely to get married later in life and date for longer amounts of time (Geiger, A.W. & G. Livingston 2020). A lengthier courtship period is becoming the norm, which may increase trust among couples who do eventually decide to get married.
Despite a wealth of sociocultural changes in heteronormative relationships, marriage has remained a formal long-term commitment between two people that requires trust. Diamond engagement rings mitigate the insecurity that comes with the merging of lives and assets. This is due to the high cost of a diamond engagement ring, which should traditionally be about three months of the man’s salary, an initial sacrifice that signals his commitment to his future wife (Gill & Thomas 2021, 33:35). It is considered a sacrifice because it is time-consuming to accumulate enough resources to put towards the ring, which may seem to serve no tangible purpose other than sparkling on his wife’s finger. However, the wastages, or “burned” resources, do serve a greater purpose. According to Gill & Thomas, “Sacrificing (burning) valuable resources provides credible signs of trustworthiness…A good example of this in a thick network is…an engagement ring,” (2021, 33:00). This is because “somebody in the…interaction is going to burn resources...that signals” they are in it “for the long haul,” (Gill & Thomas 2021, 33:35). This signal works to give assurance to the other person in the relationship.
Likewise, it is important to note that “Resources may be burned, but the ‘efficient smoke’ lingers to be seen by many” (Gill & Thomas 2021, 35:00), which means that other members of a community can immediately recognize the sacrifice a man has made when they physically see a ring on a woman’s finger. In other words, long after he has given it to her, the diamond engagement ring acts as a signal of a man’s commitment; this signal is made apparent to not only the woman he is committed to, but also to the rest of society. Similarly, the diamond engagement ring also works to signal to other interested men that the woman is already committed, and thus, unavailable. Because the diamond engagement ring is central to American tradition, it is common knowledge that a woman wearing a diamond engagement ring is either married or engaged. This helps to mitigate trust issues between men and women, since pursuing someone who is in a committed relationship would violate the norm. Of course, cheating or adultery is still a viable option, but is disincentivized in theory because of the ring’s intrinsic value and ability to signal fidelity. To build upon this, suppose an individual does right by their spouse, wears their ring out in public, and maintains an exclusive relationship for a long period of time. In that case, this signals not only their mutual trust, but also that they can be trusted by the rest of society.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the expanded markets of today “come with anonymity, quasi-unanimity, and uncertainty,” which “require networks of trust,” (Gill & Thomas 2021, 25:35). Much like marriage, getting into a business partnership with someone unreliable can cause a whole host of problems for the injured party. Due to the transaction costs of getting to know someone well enough to conduct smaller exchanges, most people rely on heuristic arbitration because there is “only so much cognitive space for rational calculation,” and because of this, individuals “need ‘unthinking’ rules of thumb,” (Gill & Thomas 2021, 38:18). Instead of spending an hour talking to someone about their life, and even longer to try and find out if they are lying about their experiences or not, heuristic arbitration allows an individual to make certain decisions about a person with minimal cognitive energy and time. Professor Gill explained this eloquently in one of his lectures when he asserted that “If all, or most, of society is seen as practicing the same heuristic ritual, I can assume widespread trust and reduce my search and discovery costs,” (Gill & Thomas 2021, 38:45). Signaling is a large part of this. To illustrate the power of this signal, consider the following situation: A woman is wearing a diamond engagement ring. A stranger then inquires as to how long she has been married. She replies, “thirty years,” and this statement about her marriage’s longevity serves as a testament to her character, which is unlikely to be faked. While the stranger cannot crawl into the minds of others and see if those thirty years were good or bad, it is safe to assume that the woman is capable of making long-term commitments. This information about her credible commitment makes interacting with her seem less uncertain. On a larger scale, if the majority of couples in society are committing to each other for the long-term, then it logically follows that the society is likely to commit rather than defect or cheat, which makes exchange and trust more feasible in an uncertain world. If someone is willing to sacrifice for the one they love, then it is more likely that they will not cheat on them. Since they treat those closest to them with respect, it is safe to assume that if they dealt with a stranger, then they would be decent to them too.
Additionally, the implementation of community-based governance instills an element of even greater trust within these norms. Fine states that “It is through the practices of individuals working together, sharing interpretive frameworks and constructing joint meaning, that community and collective action is possible. The relations that are established among people and between groups—the existence of a set interaction orders—allows the continuation of community,” (2018, 5). While the signaling purpose of a diamond engagement ring is still applicable to the current age, it might not be in the future. Individuals in a community trust one another to reshape existing normative behaviors as necessary. Perhaps the future of diamond engagement rings as a norm is uncertain, and the landmark commitment of a long-term relationship will soon instead be accomplished by getting costly permanent tattoos of one another’s faces. However, nobody is given the complete set of necessary knowledge to predict this hypothetical change accurately, since nobody has the specific and local knowledge that other individuals possess over themselves (Gill 2020, Week 4 Episode 1 10:13). Nevertheless, collective society continues to harbor revolutionary powers in instilling new norms. It is a distinctive form of governance that is truly by the people, for the people. The internalization of norms is also a large component of the trust members have in their community. Trust is involved because members rely on the presumption that everyone else is following these set norms in order to reap the benefits of following said norms themselves. Therefore, while individuals do need rules of thumb to operate efficiently and interact with others without fear or excessive transaction costs, members also place a great deal of trust into their community as a whole.
To wrap it all up, while a diamond engagement ring serves as a costly signal for a man’s commitment to a woman within a heteronormative marriage, it was not the very first institution regulating commitment in relationships. The diamond engagement ring substituted the earlier government-enforced breach of promise action laws, which entitled women to sue men who broke off engagements. The breach of promise action laws were enacted because women were valued solely for their ability to marry and bear children. When women lost their virginity, they were devalued, no longer able to pursue a husband, and subsequently unable to obtain financial stability. This is no longer the case. Due to their high cost, diamond engagement rings are used to maintain the same level of security and trust within a relationship that the breach of promise action laws did. Diamond engagement rings also promote trust within society in various ways due to the efficient smoke they leave behind (Gill & Thomas 2021, 35:00). All in all, diamond engagement rings are used to signal long-term commitment through the burning of resources, and they help to provide assurance within a relationship and within the larger community.
References
Brinig, M. 1990. “Rings and Promises.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 6(1): 203-15.
Fine, G. A. 2018. “The Folklore of Small Things: Tradition in Group Culture.” Western Folklore 77(1): 5-27.
Geiger, A.W. & G. Livingston. 2020. “8 Facts about Love and Marriage in America.” Pew Research Center.
Gill, A. 2020. Introduction to Political Economy Lectures. Seattle: University of Washington. https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/1401681. Accessed February 11, 2021.
Gill, A. & M. Thomas. 2021. “The Efficient Smoke of Burnt Offerings: Trust & Transaction Costs in the Gifting Economy.”
