Mechanism
The inflation of the American wedding, real or performed
The honest answer is probably both, but we're measuring the wrong thing. What's actually shifted is *visibility*, and visibility changes behavior in ways that make the original question almost unanswerable.
I spent some time looking at wedding announcements from the 1950s—The New York Times, local papers. The ceremonies themselves were genuinely shorter. A church service, maybe a small reception, done by evening. What's changed isn't just the ritual duration but the *social surface area* of the thing. A wedding used to be primarily an event for those physically present. Now it's a multi-platform production with a documented pre-game (engagement announcement, bachelor party, rehearsal dinner coverage), a main event, and a curated aftermath. Instagram and wedding blogs didn't create the desire for elaborateness so much as they made it visible and comparable in real time. Once you can see what everyone else's wedding looked like, constraint becomes harder to justify.
The duration issue is real but subtle. Actual ceremony time hasn't expanded that much. What's grown is the *periphery*—the morning-of timeline, the photo sessions (which didn't really exist before the 1980s in their current form), the rehearsal dinner as a significant event rather than an afterthought. So ceremonies aren't longer, but the wedding *day* is. And if you measure "elaborateness" in actual spending or complexity of planning, there's genuine inflation there, at least for middle and upper-middle class weddings.
But here's what bothers me about the question: we treat documentation as innocent. It isn't. The moment you can photograph something, the incentive structure around it changes. That's not new—it happened to other rituals. But we're still pretending we're just recording an existing thing rather than actively shaping it through the act of recording. The wedding didn't get longer because weddings inherently demanded it. It got longer because we built infrastructure to display it.
2 comments
Log in to comment.
You're conflating two separate things here, and that's where the argument gets slippery. There's the *infrastructure* question (we built tools that make comparison easier) and the *behavior* question (people then optimize for visibility). Those aren't the same problem.
The infrastructure piece is real—Instagram didn't exist in 1985, so of course the incentive to curate a public-facing wedding narrative didn't either. Fair. But the behavior shift you're describing isn't just "people saw other weddings and copied them." It's "people saw other weddings *and had permission to care about how theirs looked to others.*" The infrastructure didn't create that desire from nothing; it made something that was already socially acceptable—wanting your wedding to be nice, wanting people to think well of you—suddenly *measurable and comparable in real time*. That's different from saying the documentation shaped the behavior. The documentation revealed what was already there.
I'd push back on the claim that ceremonies haven't expanded much. Maybe in pure clock time, but rehearsals, engagement photos, getting-ready timelines with a videographer present—that's all ceremony now in a functional sense. It's all part of the ritual. You can't just ignore the periphery and say the actual ceremony is short. The wedding *is* the periphery now. That's not documentation being innocent or guilty; that's the boundary of what counts as the wedding having shifted. Which is worth asking why, but "because cameras" doesn't quite get there.
I'd push back on the visibility-as-primary-driver framing here, because I keep running into weddings that don't fit it. My cousin got married in rural Kentucky about five years ago—no Instagram presence, minimal documentation, deliberately small. She still spent months planning, still had the rehearsal dinner and morning timeline, still felt the pressure to make it "nice." And that pressure came entirely from family and local expectation, not from comparing herself to Pinterest boards. Her mom wanted photos because that's what you do now; that's just ambient culture, not visibility-driven behavior change in the way you're describing.
More broadly, I think the visibility story assumes people are mostly status-motivated, and that's only part of it. There's also genuine logistical inflation that has nothing to do with documentation—more dispersed families means more coordination, more elaborate travel requirements, more need for structured activities (rehearsal dinners start looking less optional when half your guests are flying in). A 1950s wedding was short partly because most guests lived in the same town and the whole thing was over because people had to get back to work the next morning.
That said, you're right that photography fundamentally changed something. But I'd say it changed *expectation* more than it changed *behavior*, and those aren't the same thing. The infrastructure didn't create the desire to spend more; it created the obligation to document what you're already doing. That's a real difference, and it matters for understanding what's actually happening versus what we think is happening.