Counter-Hegemonic narratives of white weddings: Brides responses to wedding disruptions during the covid-19 pandemic

Abstract

Dominant cultural discourses dictate what the ideal wedding should look like, and these discourses often center around the white wedding. White weddings typically include a bride in a white dress, a large reception, and a honeymoon. Given that western culture privileges the white wedding, weddings that deviate from this norm are sometimes delegitimatized. We used Relational Dialectics Theory 2.0 to examine dominant discourses of weddings during Covid-19. Covid-19 necessitated that many couples alter their wedding plans and prompted them to explicitly consider the taken-for-granted assumptions of the white wedding. We conducted a contrapuntal analysis of 87 recently married women’s open-ended survey responses about how Covid-19 changed their wedding plans and what the women liked and disliked about these changes. These disruptions in wedding plans afford the opportunity to explore dominant white wedding discourses among brides. The following discourses emerged from our analysis: the centripetal discourse of the white wedding, the centrifugal discourse of the focus on relationships, the centripetal discourses of the perfect day, and the centrifugal discourses of the perfect day.

Weddings remain a prominent family ritual and over two million weddings take place in the U.S. each year (CDC, 2020a). These wedding rituals are multilayered events symbolic of both separation from families of origin and the union of not only the couple, but of two families and the recognition of the couple in an extended network of family ties (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2006). From a young age, individuals are exposed to dominant discourses that conceptualize weddings as the perfect day and the best day of a woman’s life (Otnes & Peck, 2003; Stafford & Scott, 2015; Stafford et al., 2020) Dominant culture treats wedding planning as a meticulous process necessary to create the perfect day (Arend, 2016; Engstrom, 2008; Stafford et al., 2020). This process, predominantly undertaken by brides, can take weeks, months, or years (Carter & Duncan, 2017).

However, Covid-19 disrupted many planned weddings. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a pandemic, which brought an unprecedented shift in social, cultural, and economic operations on a global scale. In the wake of travel bans and limits on the size of gatherings (CDC, 2020b), wedding plans were affected. Restrictions due to Covid-19 involved wedding postponement, reconceptualization, or both (Lee, 2020).

The current investigation extends the work of Stafford et al. (2020) who explored newly married women’s discourse surrounding their wedding plans. Like Stafford et al. (2020), we draw on Relational Dialectics Theory 2.0 (RDT 2.0) to examine the broader cultural discourses about weddings that are embedded within wedding planning. A critical perspective recognizes that families are cultural sites of struggle where hegemonic discourses—which refer to prevalent attitudes and/or representations propagated through media, those in positions of authority, and interpersonal relationships— reify dominant belief systems and structures. Hegemonic discourses dictate what the ideal wedding should look like, and these discourses often center around the white wedding—which features, among other things, a bride in a white dress, celebratory reception, and honeymoon (Arend, 2016; Ingraham, 2008; Otnes & Pleck, 2003). The pandemic offered unique circumstances to examine this interplay of competing hegemonic and counter-hegemonic wedding discourses. It is important to consider these alternative narratives and types of weddings given that the dominant discourses regarding white weddings reinforce patriarchal and heterosexist standards and devalue nontraditional weddings. Thus, by giving attention to alternative wedding forms through dialogic analysis, we can explore how individuals practice these prominent family rituals in ways that deviate from the norm.

Hegemonic discourses privilege the white wedding, which in turn, (re)produces a distinction between traditional and nontraditional weddings (Arend, 2016). Similar to how hegemonic conceptualizations of family “enforce oppressive gendered roles and marginalize and penalize alternative family forms,” the privileging of the white wedding serves as an exemplar of how mainstream media stigmatizes and delegitimizes alternative wedding forms (Sotirin & Ellingson, 2018, p. 112). In western culture, “weddings are culturally pervasive, symbolically prolific, and are rarely questioned or examined” (Ingraham 2008, p. 4). Consequently, the Covid-19 pandemic represents a unique opportunity to examine white wedding discourses, because Covid-19 prompted couples to explicitly consider the taken-for-granted assumptions of the white wedding. In other words, the pandemic challenged the structure of traditional weddings and brought counter-hegemonic narratives to the forefront.

To examine these discourses, we conducted a contrapuntal analysis of predominantly white, heteronormative, middle-class, married women’s responses about how Covid-19 changed their ideal wedding plans. Contrapuntal analysis is a form of analysis that explicitly examines competing cultural narratives. We considered not only the changes they reported, but also what they liked and disliked about those changes. Contrapuntal analysis is not only appropriate for this study because we can examine responses for the broader discourses of weddings at play, but Baxter (2011) recommends this type of work in her expansion of the original iteration of Relational Dialectics Theory. We focused on heterosexual brides, because historically, the white wedding has been reserved for heterosexuals (Bair & Kaufman, 2020). We focused on brides, because as Stafford et al. (2020) observe, “when it comes to weddings and wedding planning, the bride is unequivocally the centerpiece and the primary planner” (p. 228). In this report, we begin by reviewing hegemonic and counterhegemonic wedding discourses before turning to a description of the methods used in the current project. Next, we articulate the themes that emerged from our analysis, followed by a discussion of the implications of these themes on weddings during Covid-19 and beyond.

The white wedding

Wedding discourses are pervasive and now occupy a significant space in American popular culture as well as consumer culture (Ingraham, 2008; Otnes & Pleck, 2003; Whiteman & Wood, 2020). According to Carter and Duncan (2017), marriage traditionally provided a couple with social and legal legitimacy relative to sexual engagement and eventual parenthood. However, marriage has now shifted to a lifestyle choice and thus a couple’s wedding becomes a display of their personalities and identities to an audience of family and friends. From media like magazines, television series, and films, to various merchandise like toys and collectables, “the wedding market now reaches into nearly every facet of American culture” (Ingraham, 2008, p. 11; see Freeman, 2002; Kay et al., 2020; Jellison, 2008; Whiteman & Wood, 2020). The idea of the white wedding sits at the center of this pervasive discourse.

White weddings, also referred to as “traditional weddings” or “American weddings,” are the dominant form of wedding in the United States (Arend, 2016; Carter & Duncan, 2017; Ingraham, 2008). Scholars conceptualize white weddings as rituals that include some form of the following: (1) a bride who wears a white dress, (2) formal ceremony with a procession and vows, (3) celebratory reception with family and friends, and (4) honeymoon (Arend, 2016; Ingraham, 2008; Mead, 2007; Otnes & Pleck, 2003). Expensive, ornate weddings have increased in prominence (Carter & Duncan, 2017; Jellison, 2008) to the point that white weddings are a seemingly unquestioned aspect of U.S. culture that is a ritual needed to start living a fulfilling life (Besel et al., 2009). Given the centrality of weddings in diverse western society, it is necessary that attention be given to the importance of alternative wedding forms.

The perfect day

Dominant conceptualizations of weddings center around the idea of perfection (Carter & Duncan, 2017; Currie, 1993; Mead 2007; Stafford & Scott, 2015; Stafford et al., 2020). Wedding perfection is often accompanied by stress, obsession, and a “bridezilla persona” (Stafford et al., 2020, p. 228). Engaged couples, and brides in particular, strive to create a unique and personalized perfect day that still adheres to traditional wedding expectations (Besel et al., 2009; Carter & Duncan, 2017; Engstrom, 2008; Jellison, 2008; Stafford et al., 2020).

Popular media perpetuates these white wedding narratives linking the idea of the perfect weddings with visual appeal, presenting weddings as “shows for the guests” (Besel et al., 2009, p. 116; Freeman, 2002; Whiteman & Wood, 2020). Weddings function as cultural performances where couples can display their romantic commitment to their family and friends (Besel et al., 2009; Carter & Duncan, 2017; Freeman, 2002). That is, contrary to the dominant idea that romantic relationships only exist within the private sphere, the white wedding demonstrates how mainstream media has firmly situated traditional weddings within the public sphere (Baxter, 2011). The public-private binary is at play. This division between private sphere and the public sphere exemplifies how dominant culture has separated the white wedding from the marriage. For instance, Stafford et al. (2020) found that “the planning of a perfect wedding contrasts with a focus on the marital relationship, and the meaning of the wedding day as the bride’s perfect day contrasts with the meaning of the day as a union” (p. 240). In other words, the wedding ritual appears to be more about performance than the relationship of the couple.

Counter-Hegemonic narratives of the white wedding

Consideration of alternative narratives and types of weddings is important because the discourses surrounding white weddings reinforce patriarchal and heterosexist standards. It is also important because alternative wedding forms are devalued. According to Ingraham (2008), “white weddings appear to be the most watched yet ‘unnoticed’ heterosexual phenomenon in American society and popular culture” (pp. 14-15; see Engstrom, 2008). While many brides may label their own partnerships as “modern,” traditional wedding practices continue to reproduce patriarchal and heterosexual standards (Bair & Kaufman, 2020; Currie, 1993; Ingraham, 2008). For instance, white weddings reinforce these dominant systems of patriarchy and heteronormativity through gendered actions including bridal showers and other events that prepare women to manage a household, the traditional “giving” away of the bride by her father or another male relative, an explicit focus on the bride’s appearance and less attention to that of the groom, and the official announcement of the bride’s change of last name at the ceremony or reception (Arend, 2016; Bair & Kaufman, 2020; Besel et al., 2009; Engstrom, 2008; Levine, 2005).

The implications go beyond the ritual itself. For instance, white weddings function as cultural sites that reinforce the nuclear family model (Currie, 1993; Bair & Kaufman, 2020). From this perspective, a normal family “consists of heterosexual mother and father who raise heterosexual children” (Suter & Norwood, 2017, p. 297). The white wedding supports this view given that people position the event as rite of passage for couples to start a family of their own (Levine, 2005; Ingraham, 2008). Further,

When such messages come to dominate and crowd out other, less-than-perfect portrayals of the wedding, alternative weddings such as the low-key city hall ceremony or “quickie” Las Vegas chapel wedding, or low-budget weddings…become less desirable. In addition, because they run counter to the usual wedding formula, their legitimacy is questioned (Engstrom, 2008, p. 75).

However, Covid-19 influenced nearly every wedding scheduled for 2020 in some way, such as postponement, changes in venue, and reduced guest lists (Gibson, 2021; Lee, 2020), challenging the taken-for-grantedness of the white wedding. For these reasons, a critical theoretical approach is needed to explore competing wedding narratives, resisting the status quo.

Relational dialectics theory 2.0

Inspired by the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, Baxter and Montgomery (1996) formally articulated relational dialectics theory as an interpretive framework in 1996 to further understand the meaning-making process. The original iteration of this theory served to rethink three primary concepts that dominated interpersonal communication at the time (Baxter et al., 2021). First, researchers suggested that satisfying relationships depended on closeness and independence and, in turn, problematized individual autonomy and independence. Second, researchers favored openness over closedness, privacy, and discretion. Third, researchers claimed that individuals preferred predictability and stability over uncertainty within relationships. Baxter and Montgomery (1996) suggested that these three concepts did not encompass the entirety of the meaning making process, nor did they apply to all cultures. The body of research that emerged from the initial articulation of RDT was problematic. For instance, Baxter et al. (2021) note that “this body of work often oversimplified the complexity of meaning-making, creating the impression that these discursive struggles were conceptually fixed, binary, exhaustive, and universal” (p. 8). Additionally, researchers also conceptualized these three ideas as “individual preferences, needs, or motives, not discourses” (p. 8). Although the initial iteration of RDT allowed researchers to explore the meaning-making process, it did not capture its complexity of discursive struggles within this process.

To expand on the ideas articulated in the original iteration of RDT, such that the meaning-making process relied on relational closeness, openness, and predictability, Baxter (2011) revised the theory—known as Relational Dialectics Theory 2.0. Baxter (2011)’s conceptualization of RDT 2.0 repositioned the theory as a critical framework. The revision (1) focuses more on competing discourses; (2) further emphasizes the utterance chain, including “prior, co-present, and anticipated utterances that determine meaning in the moment”; (3) focuses more on discourses and their interplay beyond the three primary concepts of interpersonal research mentioned above; (4) recognizes that not all discourses have equal power; and finally, (5) the conceptualization of contrapuntal analysis (Baxter et al., 2021, p. 8). From an RDT 2.0 perspective, a discourse refers to a system of meaning that consists of an evaluative judgment regarding “a given phenomenon”—also termed the semantic object (Baxter, 2021, p. 9). Researchers can first identify a semantic object to examine before choosing a context that illustrates its meaning, or researchers can choose a context before identifying a salient semantic object (Baxter, 2021). In the current project, we determined the context of weddings during COVID-19 before identifying ideal weddings as the semantic object.

RDT 2.0 approaches the study of communication from a dialogic perspective, which means that it views communication as the creation and recreation of identities, relationships, and the broader social context of these identities and relationships (Suter & Seurer, 2018). This (re)reading of RDT aligns with a critical approach to the study of interpersonal and family communication in that it focuses on power, the collapse of the public-private binary, and the critique, resistance, and transformation of the status quo (Suter, 2016; Suter & Norwood, 2017). Despite dominant culture’s association of weddings with happiness, celebration, and perfection, weddings are also cultural sites of struggle between traditional and nontraditional standards (Bair & Kaufman, 2020; Carter & Duncan, 2017). Given its focus on destabilizing normalized structures, an RDT approach provides an effective avenue to explore these struggles.

In addition, an RDT 2.0 approach allows the examination of the alternative meanings that emerge from the “power-laced interplay of different and often competing discourses” (Suter & Seurer, 2018, p. 249). In the RDT 2.0 perspective, power is conceptualized in two ways: (1) centripetal and (2) centrifugal. A centripetal discourse encompasses what people consider normative perspectives and worldviews (Baxter, 2011). Conversely, a centrifugal discourse is situated beyond the normative or privileged position and represents nonnormative systems of meaning (Suter & Seurer, 2018). Because dominant culture legitimates centripetal discourses, some people consider them discursively superior to centrifugal discourses. While the reproduction of social norms may oppress individuals, resistance has the potential to “decenter dominant discourses in favor of more marginalized meaning systems” (Suter & Norwood, 2017, p. 296). This same idea applies to wedding discourses in that white weddings align with a centripetal discourse and nontraditional weddings align with a centrifugal discourse. Baxter (2011) refers to this as synchronic interplay, which entails the simultaneous occurrence of discourses at a certain moment in time.

The utterance chain

Discourses exist within utterances, which are part of larger chain of communication that consists of past, present, and anticipated future talk (Baxter, 2011). While the discourses are voiced in speakers’ utterances, RDT 2.0 focuses analysis on the discourses themselves rather than the individuals who utter them (Baxter, 2011). Baxter (2011) provides a typology of four links in the utterance chain: (1) proximal already-spoken, (2) proximal not-yet spoken, (3) distal already-spoken, and (4) distal not-yet spoken. The proximal links in the utterance chain deal with how individuals in a relationship interact based on their relational history and their anticipated relational future. Unlike the proximal links which center on systems of meaning specific to a relationship, the distal links in the utterance chain are shaped by shared cultural discourses (Baxter & Norwood, 2015). At the sites of distal already-spoken talk, speakers rely on culturally accessible meaning systems to both understand their own experiences and to help others understand those experiences (Baxter & Norwood, 2015). The sites of distal not-yet-spoken talk refer to how individuals consider the dominant meaning of their talk, such as by anticipating normative responses to it (Norwood, 2013). The present research focuses on broader cultural ideas—distal already-spoken talk—of ideal weddings present within the likes and dislikes of recently married individuals.

Synchronic interplay

Another concept worth noting relative to the utterance chain is synchronic interplay, which signifies the co-occurrence of different discourses at a particular moment (Baxter, 2011). Synchronic interplay centers on the utterance chain and Baxter (2011) specifically focuses on four dimensions: antagonistic-nonantagonistic struggle, direct-indirect struggle, serious-playful struggle, and polemical-transformative struggle. The antagonistic-nonantagonistic struggle and polemical-transformative struggle are most relevant to this study and will be further explained below.

Antagonistic-Nonantagonistic struggle

Baxter (2011) defines a semantic position as a particular worldview, meaning system, or discourse. An antagonistic struggle occurs when two speakers have different semantic positions such as heteronormativity and nonnormativity. Whereas most communication scholars would view this clash as a “person-against-person struggle,” the dialogic perspective views this clash as a “discourse-against-discourse” struggle (Baxter, 2011, pp. 121-132). In an antagonistic struggle, the competition arises from different meaning systems rather than two individuals whose goals do not align. On the other hand, in a nonantagonistic struggle the researcher can identify multiple discourses within the utterance of each speaker.

Polemical-Transformative struggle

In the final dimension of synchronic interplay, the potential arises for emergent new meanings. When polemical interplay occurs, even though alternative discourses are framed in a way that seems like whatever one discourse gains the other loses, a discursive compromise partially affirms both discourses rather than embracing one discourse fully (Baxter, 2011, p. 138). Transformation is a central aspect of an RDT-informed approach and occurs when dominant discourses no longer oppress marginalized discourses (Baxter, 2011). Baxter (2011) conceptualizes this transformation in two ways: hybridization and aesthetic moments. First, hybridization refers to creating new meaning by combining multiple distinct discourses (Baxter, 2011). Second, the aesthetic moment brings about the integration of diverse discourses in a way that deeply reconstructs each respective system of meaning (Baxter, 2011).

Research questions

Given that RDT 2.0 focuses more on discourse than individuals themselves, we focused on discourses about the phenomenon, or semantic object, of ideal weddings. Ideal weddings, as the focus of our investigation, allowed us to explore the various meanings that emerged from brides’ discourses regarding their pandemic wedding. Specifically, we examined the hegemonic (centripetal) and counter-hegemonic (centrifugal) discourses that emerged from the likes and dislikes of changed wedding plans of recently married women. In accordance with the principles of RDT 2.0, we began with the following questions about the presence broader cultural discourses (sites of distal already-spoken talk) within the responses of the women to questions about their wedding plans:

RQ 1

What cultural discourses constitute an ideal wedding in women’s talk about planning a wedding during the COVID-19 pandemic?

RQ 2

How, if at all, do cultural discourses compete in making meaning of the ideal wedding?

Method

We conducted secondary data analysis of open-ended survey responses collected as part of a broader study (see Scott & Stafford, 2022 for details). We analyzed the open-ended survey responses of newly married women to questions about the changes they made to the weddings as a result of Covid-19, including a priming question about the specific changes they had to make to their wedding plans and then “What do you dislike (if anything) about how Covid-19 changed your wedding plans?” and “What do you like (if anything) about how Covid-19 changed your wedding plans?” All data were collected online in the United States. The participants’ identities were replaced with numeric identification codes.

Participants

The sample included 87 women from the United States who were married during the spring and summer of 2020 when Covid-19 related restrictions were in place for much of the United States. Participants were aged 20–41 years old with an average age of 27 (mean = 27.71, median = 28.00, SD = 3.886, range = 21). Seventy-eight percent of the women identified as white, 8% as Latina, 3% as Black, 2% as other/mixed, and 1% were unreported, and all participants reported identifying as heterosexual and cisgender. All women in the sample had completed high school, 65% held a bachelor’s degree, and 30% held a graduate degree. Only 71 women reported their income, which ranged between $20,000 to $150,000 (mean = 60,989, media = 57,000, SD = 26, 396, range = 130,000).

Analysis

Following Baxter (2011), we used contrapuntal analysis to analyze the open-ended survey responses. In this type of discourse analysis, “the researcher must identify competing discourses, show their opposition, and demonstrate the discursive struggle in which meaning is created” (Norwood, 2013, p. 29). Thus, the following questions guided our analysis: What hegemonic wedding discourses are present within the responses? What counter-hegemonic wedding discourses are present in the responses? These guiding analytic questions allowed us to uncover latent themes within the data set by locating recurring concepts, identifying larger connections and contradictions within the data set, and identifying the interplay of discourses.

To identify these discourses, we followed a six-step thematic analysis framework (Baxter, 2011; see also, Braun & Clarke, 2006). The first step included familiarization with the data set. We read and re-read the survey responses from the 87 women and noted preliminary ideas. The second step involved generating initial codes. We coded any thought-provoking aspects that emerged in the responses to answer the question about the presence of hegemonic or counter-hegemonic discourses in the brides’ responses. In the third step, we generated themes. Once we compiled a list of initial codes, we reached consensus through dialogue about how those codes could be organized into themes. This phase shifted our task from code generation to theme development. Specifically, we found latent themes related to the role of tradition and perfectionism.

In the fourth step, reviewing themes, we refined the preliminary themes by combining or separating the themes. We confirmed that a cohesive relationship existed between each data segment as well as its subsequent themes. In addition, this allowed us to confirm that the themes appropriately fit into the overall narrative of the study. In the next step, we defined and refined the themes, organizing them in a way that developed the larger narrative of the project. We identified hegemonic discourses (i.e., white wedding, perfect day) and counter-hegemonic discourses (i.e., focus on the interpersonal relationship of the bride and groom, embracing nontraditional wedding practices). In the final step of locating exemplars, we identified examples in the data that expressed the essence of each theme and the discourses at play. In addition, the third author tested the central themes against the women’s responses to provide an external assessment of their validity.

After completing these steps, the researchers examined the process of meaning-making via discursive competition, which includes unfolding and the identification of certain discourse markers. The researchers used the unfolding process to examine the indirect synchronic interplay of competing discourses of the white wedding. Thomas and Scharp (2020) explain that “through unfolding, researchers uncover hegemonic ideologies that are often taken for granted or silence alternative meanings” (p. 1812). Next, direct synchronic interplay can occur in “utterances containing discourse markers such as negating, countering, and entertaining” (Thomas & Scharp, 2020, p. 1812). Negating refers the direct refutation or denial of a discourse (Baxter, 2011). According to Baxter (2011), “negating is the acknowledgment that an alternative, competing discourse for the purposes of rejecting it” (p.167). Countering occurs when an alternative discourse either supplants or replaces another discourse. Baxter (2011) states that terms such as although, however, even, just, or surprisingly can be used to counter implicit expectations or discourses. Finally, entertaining indicates that one discursive position is one is merely one possibility among a multitude of discursive positions. Discourse markers such as might, must, could, possible, and apparently demonstrate instances of entertaining. The researchers also searched for hybrids and aesthetic moments which demonstrate the compatibility of discourses.

Findings

Our first RQ asked about the broader cultural discourses—both dominant and marginalized—present within the women’s talk about their ideal wedding plans during Covid-19. The following themes or discourses emerged from our analysis: the centripetal discourse of the white wedding, the centrifugal discourse of the focus on relationships, the centripetal discourses of the perfect day, and the centrifugal discourses of the perfect day.

Centripetal discourse of the white wedding

The dominance of white wedding discourses emerged in the responses of some women. This dominance was especially evident when reporting on disliked changes that prevented brides from having the ideal wedding they wanted. Some brides disliked that they were unable to have the traditional wedding events, such as bachelorette parties, bridal showers, and honeymoons. Sandra explained, “I am sad that things have not worked out how we planned. I am particularly sad about missing our honeymoon, and the parties leading up to our wedding (shower, bachelorette).” Ann stated, “My bridal shower, the bachelor/bachelorette parties were postponed to 2021.” Similarly, Miriam expressed “I didn’t get to have a bridal shower, bachelorette or my dream day,” which demonstrates the interconnectedness of these pre-wedding rituals with the perceptions of the bride’s ideal wedding itself.

Given that long-term planning is normalized in Western culture (distal already-spoken)——many brides disliked how Covid-19 altered their ideal wedding plans and forced a break with tradition. Samantha expressed disappointment about postponing her large ceremony in favor of a smaller one: “I wanted a spring wedding, I had already made my floor plan and seating chart, florals were planned, everything was ready. I was so excited and I was devastated when we had to postpone.” Brides voiced a sense of loss about these breaks with tradition, because tradition has become culturally linked with “the best day of your life.” For instance, Ellen expressed “Losing the day I’ve always dreamed about since I was a little girl felt like a knife to the heart, all of the financial stresses that were added to that felt like someone was twisting that knife.” Emilee expressed, “I dislike that it had to happen the way it did since I have been dreaming of my wedding day my entire life.”

Alberta navigated her disappointment about “getting married in less formal attire, losing traditions like the wedding shower and bachelorette weekend, [and the] lack of ‘elevated’ feelings surrounding a big event.” Additionally, Olivia expressed that “I had always dreamed of my wedding day and for it to be completely changed because of something out of my control was disheartening…it wasn’t some grand event as I always hoped.” The centripetal discourse of the white wedding not only shaped how these brides viewed their wedding planning and what they wanted their wedding to be like, but also influenced how they processed the changes they were forced to make to get married during the pandemic. Because these changes did not allow brides to have all the desired elements of a white wedding, they were unable to have their ideal wedding. However, while the responses of these brides aligned with the dominant white wedding discourse, other brides embraced alternative wedding discourses when talking about their ideal wedding.

Centrifugal discourse of the focus on relationships

While dominant white wedding discourses prioritize the pre-wedding events, the bride’s dress, and celebratory reception, a counter-hegemonic discourse emerged from the women’s responses that focused on the interpersonal relationship between the bride and groom and/or the relationships with family and friends. In other words, by embracing the centrifugal discourse of the nontraditional wedding, some brides experienced a shift in their perception of what an ideal wedding really meant to them and were able to focus more on their partner and their other relationships. For instance, Sara expressed that the changes to her ideal wedding plans as a result of Covid-19 “Showed us what really mattered in a wedding. That me and my (now) husband, were to be married.”

While Kathryn originally planned a large wedding with over 200 guests, the centrifugal discourse of the focus on relationships countered the white wedding discourse that calls for a big party:

I enjoyed the intimacy of a small wedding ceremony with just our parents and siblings. I felt as if I was able to focus more on the importance of the unity of our marriage instead of all the big glam and excitement that comes with a typical wedding day.

In this exemplar, the initial and ideal plan of a big glam wedding, and the implicit assumption that many guests should be invited to the wedding, is countered by talk about a small wedding with “just our parents and siblings.” Eleanore downsized her wedding from 250 guests to 10 guests and stated that “The low stress ceremony with our close family ended up being very special and a little more about us than the event.”

Other brides drew on the centrifugal discourse of the focus on relationships to resist and critique the dominant discourse that weddings should function as performances for guests and reported liking that they could focus on their union. Dana expressed, “I felt like the wedding day was more about us, and not about pleasing everybody else.” This example demonstrates that both distal already-spoken discourses and distal not-yet-spoken discourses influence weddings. Similarly, Aimee reported, “I didn’t have this extreme pressure to perform or talk to a billion people.”

Centripetal discourses of the perfect day

Even though these brides chose to resist the dominant white wedding discourse by getting married during the pandemic and thus foregoing traditional pre- and post-wedding events, they still did not accept the alternative narrative to the white wedding. For instance, the responses of some brides reinforced the notion that nontraditional weddings were less than perfect, other brides reinforced this dominant discourse by expressing feelings of missing out. Tanja voiced that “We will always be robbed of having that big beautiful wedding,” and Sandra expressed, “I feel that we’ve been robbed of a happy time.” The repeated use of the term “robbed” in participants’ reports reveals the broader cultural assumption that women are entitled to their ideal white wedding experience as opposed to a wedding in and of itself; to not have one’s ideal wedding is to have “less” than one deserves.

The distal already-spoken discourse of the white wedding is so pervasive within our culture that despite its socially constructed nature, it is perceived as the norm. Given this normalization, some brides were unable to view their nontraditional wedding as perfect because it did not align with the ideal wedding they wanted. For instance, Tanja claimed, “I dislike this whole thing. There is nothing normal about what is going on. I wanted to have a big party with a beautiful dress with all my friends.” Hannah stated, “I disliked everything about how Covid changed my wedding plans. It wasn’t the same. I didn’t wear my original wedding dress. I didn’t have all of my friends and family there to celebrate.” Ann expressed:

It feels like we were robbed of the wedding day. Because of Covid-19, I had to get ready alone at a salon. The only family my husband had present were his parents…It was one thing after the other! Neither of us felt celebrated by the day our wedding came.

While some brides disliked the forced deviation from the norm, other brides welcomed the break with tradition because it paved the way for an ideal wedding that was not synonymous with the white wedding.

Centrifugal discourses of the perfect day

Some brides discovered that the changes to the traditional white weddings they had originally planned did not mean their wedding would be less than perfect. For instance, Emilee used the centrifugal discourse of the perfect day to counter the dominant discourse of the perfect day by, stating “Even though it’s not what we planned, our intimate wedding day could not have been more perfect and special.” Jen explained, “We decided to do a small ceremony on our original date to keep the date and make it special. Honestly, the small ceremony was so fulfilling and intimate and special, if I can’t do my big wedding, I’d feel okay.” Similarly, Alberta recalled, “Our ceremony and small reception ended up being pretty perfect, despite everything. I liked the smallness and closeness of everything.”

Even though brides were forced to change their ideal wedding plans, some were happy with a nontraditional wedding. Several brides voiced that they felt more present than they would have been if their wedding had unfolded as originally planned. Aimee said, “I’m happy that it was so simplified and came together easily…I felt more present.” Sara noted:

Eliminating the mental clutter of small details allowed me to feel more calm about the day. It was just family and close friends, so I didn't feel the intensity of such an enormous “party” ahead of me. No family friends that I hardly knew, just people who knew me deeply…The day was not flashy and therefore I could focus more on the heart of it.

In this exemplar, talk about the traditional perfect day (e.g., “an enormous party”) is countered by the bride’s nontraditional experience (e.g., “people who knew me deeply” and “I could focus more on the heart of it”). Jen also expressed that her wedding “was a more intimate ceremony and there was less pressure about the perfect day.”

Finally, some brides not only found perfection in their re-envisioned weddings but they indicated that Covid-19 provided them with the excuse to have the smaller nontraditional wedding they actually desired in the first place. For instance, Sophie shared, “I liked that it was just us. We’re a very private couple and it was nice to not have to socialize with others afterwards. We got to spend our first day of marriage together without any guests.” Similarly, Tanja explained that “Our small backyard wedding was intimate and perfect and gives us a story to tell our future children.” According to Amanda, “Having the intimate ceremony with just our immediate family and my brother as the officiant was extremely special and something that would have never happened if it weren’t for Covid-19.” In other words, these brides were able to have weddings that aligned more with what they wanted rather than what they believe was expected of them.

Interplay of competing discourses

Contrary to white wedding discourses, participants’ responses revealed that “the perfect day” can take many forms and that views of the ideal wedding can shift. Covid-19 prevented brides from having the large wedding they originally planned; however, the absence of the white wedding elements and subsequent deviation from the norm did not, necessarily, make the day imperfect. For some women, the perfect day was intimate and devoid of the stress that comes along with planning the big event. In certain ways all of the brides—even those that did not reject the white wedding—still implicitly resisted the white wedding because they chose to get married during the pandemic rather than postpone until a white wedding could take place. These instances represent what Baxter (2011) calls polemical interplay: a discursive compromise where “neither discourse is embraced fully, but both are partially affirmed” (p. 138).

As shown above, we identified the themes in our analysis: the centripetal discourse of the white wedding, the centrifugal discourse of the focus on relationships, the centripetal discourses of the perfect day, and the centrifugal discourses of the perfect day. The ideas of white weddings and the perfect day coalesced into a larger discourse regarding the wedding ritual. These themes demonstrate how some brides reinforced dominant discourses in some instances, while others resisted, critiqued, or transformed those same discourses. In some cases, the women’s discourses included hegemonic and counter-hegemonic white wedding discourses that existed simultaneously. Competing discourses emerged both in terms of how the wedding relates to the couple and how it functions as a ritual event. Our second RQ asked about the tensions or the navigation of discourses relative to ideal weddings. We now turn to such navigation of these discourses.

The centripetal discourse of the perfect day and the centrifugal discourse of the perfect day illustrate the competing hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourses of the perfect day. Specifically, this interplay of competing discourses focuses on the perfect day as a large gathering and performance versus the perfect day as an intimate event centered on the couple and close family and friends wherein some brides felt more present and devoid of the stress and obsession that typically accompanies traditional white weddings. Samantha explained, “I had been dreaming of this day for a year and it was ruined and taken from me in an instant. Our small ceremony was special but NOT what I wanted/planned/envisioned.” Here, even though the bride stated that the ceremony was special, it was countered by the dominant discursive position of the white wedding—the ideal wedding they wanted. An example of direct-indirect struggle, this exemplar shows the indirect response given to the alternative discourse. This “sideward glace” serves as a form of refutation and marginalizes the centrifugal discourse of the perfect day.

In addition, several brides experienced a site of struggle between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourses regarding the white wedding and the interpersonal relationship and/or relationships with family and close friends. For instance, while Amelia expressed some disappointment over not having her dream wedding, she also rejected the white wedding status quo by recognizing the importance of the marriage:

It put into perspective what everything is really about: the marriage, the two of us. Not the party. While it still stings to not have had our dream wedding, we planned for two years (yet), we have what we really wanted. We have each other, we are married, and our 7 closest family members got to be there for us that day.

In this exemplar, Amelia’s talk about losing her dream wedding and the party (e.g., “it still stings to not have had our dream wedding”) is countered when she explains the alternative wedding centered on her marriage and family (e.g., “we have what we really wanted”). Here, the centrifugal discourse of the interpersonal relationship counters the implicit expectation that the dream (ideal) wedding is directly synonymous with the white wedding.

April was disappointed that she had to cancel her pre- and post-wedding events and big reception, however, she stated that relative to her small backyard wedding, her and her husband were “not as concerned with the small details” and “just want[ed] to celebrate with our loved ones.” Even though Savana stated that “It was the worst week of my life having my dream wedding taken out from under me within days,” she also expressed that “It was nice to have an intimate ceremony with just close friends and family because it shows you what truly matters.” Here, hegemonic and counter-hegemonic white wedding discourses compete with each other as well as intersect. Both April and Savana’s exemplars counter the implicit expectation that people beyond close loved one are supposed to attend weddings. Savana’s exemplar references the painful loss of the white wedding but supplants it with the experience of an intimate ceremony (e.g., “it shows you what truly matters”). These exemplars also show the tensions between the ideal wedding that some brides wanted and the ideal wedding that some brides believed they were supposed to have.

Even though Tanja was upset about the loss of traditional aspects of the white wedding and voiced that “We will always be robbed of having that big beautiful wedding,” she navigated this tension by recognizing that the extravagance of the white wedding was not entirely necessary:

Simplicity bred a certain sweetness and “grounded-ness” to the day, ceremony, and life event. The day wasn't stressful at all, very calm. The wedding was stripped of everything but getting married to my husband, which felt so pure and significant. Lack of distraction and chaos. The focus on getting married was easy.

Here, Tanja talks about weddings as distraction and chaos, only to supplant it with her calm and simple alternative wedding experience.

To summarize, while some brides continue to reinforce the idea of the white wedding and the importance of pre- and post-wedding events, other brides embraced their nontraditional wedding even if it did not align with their ideal wedding plans. It is worth noting that all of these women, whether they liked or disliked the changes to their wedding, in some ways resisted the status quo. That is, they could have postponed their wedding indefinitely to maintain a white wedding. Further, it could be argued that all of these women prioritized their union over the traditional white wedding trappings as they proceeded with the wedding instead of delaying their marriage as many women did (Scott & Stafford, 2022).

Discussion

We drew upon RDT 2.0 to understand the interplay of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic white wedding discourses in recently married women’s responses to questions about changes in their wedding plans as a result of Covid-19. The participants’ narratives demonstrate the cultural pervasiveness of white wedding discourses (Arend, 2016; Carter & Duncan, 2017; Currie, 1993; Ingraham, 2008). Many of the brides reported the changes to their weddings involved the elements of the white weddings being lost. Brides had to adopt nontraditional plans in order to move forward with the wedding during the pandemic. Participants’ responses also illustrated discourses of the white wedding versus the interpersonal relationship and of the traditional perfect day versus nontraditional perfect day.

Lost white weddings

As Besel et al. (2009) observe, the white wedding ritual is often seen as a necessary step to start living a fulfilling life. Indeed, one means by which participants in the present study reinforced the white wedding discourse was through their endorsement of pre- and post-wedding rituals. Throughout the responses in the current study, references to pre-wedding events and large receptions align with existing research about how such events are an integral part of the white wedding (Arend, 2016; Ingraham, 2008; Mead, 2007; Otnes & Pleck, 2003). Brides disliked that they were unable to have pre-wedding events like bachelorette parties and showers, were deprived of their dream day, and experienced a loss of tradition. This perspective supports the idea that the absence of a white wedding deprives couples of the perfect life that follows the perfect day (Engstrom, 2008; Kay et al., 2020; Whiteman & Wood, 2020).

So important is the white wedding ritual that a number of participants expressed disappointment at “losing” or being “robbed” of such a wedding, further illustrating how entrenched the white wedding is as the cultural norm. In fact, some participants attributed their post-wedding disappointment to their lost white wedding. For instance, Olivia indicated that she did not feel any different after her wedding and wondered if it was because she did not have the wedding she always wanted. This finding is particularly interesting when considered in light of Stafford and Scott (2015), who found that (non-Covid-19) brides who experienced depression following their wedding “demonstrated a focus on self in describing their wedding planning, whereas the happier brides expressed a broader relational focus that included their husbands-to-be or other relatives or friends” (p. 2226). The pandemic provided the opportunity for a shift in focus from the white wedding to the marital relationship, and this opportunity was welcome for some, but not all, brides. Yet, even though some brides still wanted the white wedding and mourned its loss, arguably, they prioritized their union by changing their plans instead of delaying until a later time when the white wedding was possible.

Another aspect of the white wedding that was lost by Covid-19 brides was the consumer experience. White weddings have given rise to a billion-dollar industry and shopping for wedding elements (e.g., dress, caterer, attendant gifts) and receiving gifts from registries has become an integral part of the white wedding experience. The changes in brides’ wedding plans support existing research regarding white weddings and consumerism (Howard, 2006; Otnes & Pleck, 2003). That is to say, the white wedding is contingent on access to vendors and other merchandise (Ingraham, 2008; Otnes & Pleck, 2003; Whiteman & Wood, 2020). Besel et al. (2009) found that the commercialized nature of modern wedding culture has contributed to couples’ financial stress. Scott and Stafford (2018) found that financial strain due to the wedding expenses were linked to increases in depression among recently married women. Scott and Stafford (2022) found that wedding financial strain was associated with both depression and anxiety among engaged women. Based on the results, nontraditional weddings were smaller and more intimate and did not rely as much on consumer culture. This removal of consumerism resulted in the loss of certain white wedding elements. However, this loss opened the door for nontraditional weddings and alternative ideas of perfection and perhaps mitigated some financial strain and accompanying ill-effects of this stress.

Nontraditional perfection

With the prominence of the wedding ritual in Western society, brides attempt to construct a “unique, personal, and individually created ‘perfect day,’ somehow combined with expected wedding tradition (Carter & Duncan, 2017, p. 4). The notion of perfect and tradition has become culturally linked to the notion of the white wedding. At the time the present data were collected (summer of 2020), white weddings could not take place, and many brides were forced to change their wedding plans in unexpected ways. Some brides welcomed the change indicating they liked the more intimate nature of a smaller wedding or liked the money saved by a smaller wedding indicating a welcome divergence from the status quo. The idea that only white weddings can be seen as perfection was challenged in the discourse of some brides. Contrary to the repetition of white wedding discourses in media, brides’ responses in demonstrate that nontraditional weddings can be “perfect” even if they do not adhere to hegemonic standards and expectations (Engstrom, 2008).

Alternatively, some brides did not view their nontraditional wedding as perfect. Mbunyuza-Memani (2018) explains that the “white wedding is tied to a higher social status and normalized as better” (p. 44). The way media positions traditional and nontraditional weddings in opposition to one another likely explains why many brides expressed displeasure about the changes to their wedding plans. That is, because media portrays nontraditional weddings as less than perfect, many brides may have felt that their family and friends would perceive their wedding as inferior or even illegitimate. The idea of perfection was a constant in both traditional and nontraditional wedding discourses, suggested that, even though mainstream media privileges the white wedding, alternative wedding formats not only exist, but can also be considered perfect by brides who are open to resisting and transforming the status quo (Bair & Kaufman, 2020; Engstrom, 2008; Suter, 2016; Suter & Norwood, 2017; Suter & Seurer, 2018).

However, some of the brides that got married during the pandemic indicated that they still planned to have a white wedding at a later time. This hybridization—or blending of each distinct discourse—illustrates how women attempted to hold in tandem the discourse of white wedding perfection and nontraditional perfection while also underscoring the dominance of the white wedding discourse, because the wedding event was apparently deemed incomplete by these women until the second (and white) wedding or a large reception. In this sense, Covid-19 not only paved the way for competing wedding discourses but privileged them. If brides wanted to go through with their wedding during the pandemic and not postpone, they had to reject the hegemonic wedding structure. In this case, the centrifugal discourse did not become an alternative option, it became the only option. However, that even though these brides chose to get married rather than postpone, this rejection of the status quo does not mean an acceptance of the nontraditional wedding.

Influence of covid-19 on the white wedding

As Ingraham (2008) notes, “Wedding culture and the wedding industry provide clues as to the larger social interests they serve. They provide a very rich source of data about how we give meaning to heterosexuality and marriage and to what end” (Ingraham, 2008, p. 3). Covid-19 has revealed the social construction of the white wedding. The white wedding may seem like a life event that everyone must experience, however, the current participants’ accounts suggest otherwise. The pandemic paved the way for some brides to challenge and resist the taken-for-granted assumptions of the traditional white wedding as brides continued to get married during the pandemic—albeit in perceived unconventional ways. By challenging the dominant wedding discourse, these brides also challenged the dominant systems of patriarchy and heteronormativity (Arend, 2016; Bair & Kaufman, 2020; Besel et al., 2009; Engstrom, 2008; Levine, 2005). Nonetheless, regardless of the traditional or unconventional nature of the wedding, the focal point of the perfect wedding permeated the women’s discourse.

For a brief period in time, nontraditional wedding practices became normative. This normalization of marginalized wedding forms could further the transformation of wedding practices moving forward. It remains to be seen if such changes will allow future brides to feel less confined to a hegemonic wedding blueprint and resist, critique, and transform the status quo of white weddings. However, it is important to note that some brides whose wedding decisions deviated from the status quo did not seem to want to resist the status quo in their discourse about their weddings. That is, many brides mourned the loss of their white wedding and would have reinforced the status quo if they could. Even so, these brides chose their union over their desire for the white wedding, which demonstrates how centripetal and centrifugal discourses of weddings interanimate. As noted above, the lack of focus on the white wedding afforded many women the opportunity to focus on their marital relationship. This raises the question as to whether such a change in foci might impact the long-term trajectory of the marriage itself. That is, it would seem to reason that such a discursive change could potentially focus partners more on each other than the event. Indeed, Stafford and Scott (2015) found that women who experienced post -wedding blues were more likely to have focused the wedding event whereas those who were the happiest following their weddings were more likely to have maintained the marital relationship as central.

Limitations and future directions

The present study has several limitations. We used survey data of predominantly white, heteronormative women who were recently married during Covid-19. A question regarding disability was also not included in the demographic questionnaire of the original study (Author, 2022). In the initial data collection, although both partners had the opportunity to complete the survey, relatively few men did so. This lack of participation among men reinforces the findings of previous studies that weddings are the “bride’s day” (Stafford et al., 2020).

Since we used secondary data, we did not recruit participants and could not ask participants specific questions that would help answer the research questions posed in the current study. The original study recruited participants using network sampling in which administrators posted information about the Covid-19 wedding survey in private groups on social networking sites (see Scott & Stafford, 2022). These groups were specifically created for women whose weddings were affected by the pandemic. As a result of this sampling method, we were unable to ensure a diverse demographic sample. These recruitment strategies also could have been a reason for the lower participation rates among men.

Given that the majority of participants in this study were white, heteronormative, and middle-to upper-class, we cannot make firm claims about how the centripetal and centrifugal discourses of weddings found in this study apply to other social groups. Although future research cannot take place in the same conditions forced by Covid-19, future research might focus on more diverse populations, such as LGBTQ + or on nontraditional or marginalized brides, grooms, and couples. Future research might also explore the wedding discourses of lower-to middle-class brides or couples to better understand how financial constraints influence cultural perceptions of wedding planning. In addition, future research might examine whether certain centripetal or centrifugal discourses were concentrated within specific groups.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the purpose of this study was to examine the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourses embedded within women’s discourse surrounding changes in their wedding plans as a result of Covid-19. The results indicate that broader cultural discourses (distal already-spoken talk) of the white wedding reflected how brides perceived these changes. However, some brides continued to embrace traditional white wedding norms and, despite deciding to continue with the wedding, mourned the loss of their perfect day. Other brides were more open to this deviation from the norm and expressed appreciation for the intimacy of a small, nontraditional wedding. Although Covid-19 altered the manner in which the wedding ritual and events surrounding the wedding were performed, whether these enactments result in a long-term rejection of status quo, allow greater resistance to the status quo, or were only a momentary pause from the status quo is not yet known. Nevertheless, the restrictions imposed because of Covid-19 still challenged the power of the white wedding and the idea that it is required ritual for couples to start a fulfilling life.

ORCID iDs

Madison A. Pollino https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3558-745X

Laura Stafford https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1485-4803

Allison M. Scott https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4806-7912