Applying Psychological Theories to Maggie's Decision on Love and Marriage in The Mill on the Floss

Many people see marriage as a very important event in their lives, whereas others take marriage not as seriously. Some people may have extravagant weddings that are attended by all their loved ones, friends, and colleagues; others may choose a private wedding with a small gathering of their closest and most trusted loved ones. It is also not uncommon for people to elope and even hold spontaneous weddings that may be due to truth-or-dare games, curiosity, or drunkenness. No matter how one chooses to arrange his/her marriage ceremony, love is frequently the basis of marriage.

It has become widely accepted that love should be the only basis of marriage (qtd. in Berscheid and Walster 1953). The notion of marrying for love is so strong and deeply engrained in today's society that many people may be appalled upon hearing that someone has married for reasons other than love. Despite the prevalent notion that one should only marry for love, some people still marry for other reasons besides love. Some people marry for the purpose of maintaining or acquiring fortunes. Others may be obligated to marry in order to maintain or even salvage the family name, either through marrying their own relatives, friends, or strangers. Maggie Tulliver, the heroine from The Mill on the Floss (Eliot 1985), is an example of someone who feels obligated to marry the man she does not love for the purpose of maintaining her honor and the family name.

In The Mill on the Floss (Eliot 1985) Maggie Tulliver faces the conflict between either marrying for love or marrying for honor. At the same time, she is torn between marrying Stephen, the man she loves, and Philip, a childhood friend whom she admires. Even though she loves Stephen, she openly states that she could not imagine marrying anyone else besides Philip. At the end of the novel, Maggie ultimately decides to reject Stephen's marriage proposal and is insistent on marrying Philip. Maggie's decision probably has astonished many readers considering the prevalent social belief that one should only marry for love. One way to understand the reasoning behind Maggie's decision is to understand the mind in relation to social contexts, particularly psychological theories of attachment and interpersonal relationships.

Psychological theories have been used to answer the numerous questions underlying love. Attachment theory posits that early childhood relationships with caregivers influence one's adult relationships. Essentially, one's attitudes about love during adulthood reflect one's relationship with caregivers in childhood. On the other hand, theories of interpersonal relationships offer various explanations as to why people form love relationships with certain people and friendships with others. These theories propose that people tend to be attracted to those who can fulfill their needs, share their interests, and provide them with maximum benefits at minimum costs.

Attachment Theory

Bowlby's Findings on Attachment

Attachment is the strong emotional bond that forms between an infant and one or more of his caregivers during the first year of life. Behaviors such as smiling at one's parents, stretching out one's arms, and touching a parent's face are indicative that a child has formed an attachment with an adult. John Bowlby, a British developmental psychologist, has contributed extensively to the literature on human attachment. In one study, he investigated children's attachment to their parents by observing a child's behavior when it is being separated from its parents. Bowlby found that infants who are separated from their parents would go through several predictable phases, starting with protest, followed by despair, and finally detachment (qtd. in Hazan and Diamond 2000). Bowlby suggested that while children are forming attachments to their caregivers, they are creating mental models of themselves and the people around them, which ultimately influences how they feel and act in relationships throughout their lives (Sternberg and Barnes 1988, 72).

Ainsworth's Findings on Attachment and the Various Attachment Styles

Bowlby's colleague, Mary Ainsworth expanded on Bowlby's research and investigated children's responses during a procedure known as "The Strange Situation" (Hetherington and Parke 249). In this procedure, a mother and her child are separated and reunited several times, thus, allowing the investigators to observe the attachment style between the mother and her child. Ainsworth observed that the attachment between mothers and their children can be classified into one of three categories: secure, anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant. Children who have formed a secure attachment with their mothers expressed discontent and sadness when separated from their mothers; but once reunited, the children seek the mother and are easily soothed by her. In both the presence and absence of their mothers, these infants were confident enough to explore their novel surroundings. In the separation periods, they also seem to be confident that their mothers would return to them. In contrast, children who have anxious-ambivalent attachments with their mothers experience a mix of emotions, alternating between anger and longings for comfort from their mothers. Unlike secure children, these children's emotional reactions were more extreme. They responded with anger upon separation as well as clinginess upon reunion with their mothers. Children categorized as avoidant overall seemed indifferent about their separations from their mothers, and also avoid their mothers once reunited with them.

The Association between Childhood Attachment Styles and Adult Relationships

Several researchers have studied the influence that early attachments with caregivers have on the forming of adult relationships. Glenn Wilson, Philip Shaver, and Cindy Hazan are among the researchers who have linked adult love relationships to childhood attachments (Sternberg 1988, 143). Wilson believed that parents have such a powerful influence on children, that even as the children reach adulthood, they may pursue relationships with people who resemble their parents (Sternberg 1988, 143). Shaver and Hazan delved even deeper into adult relationships, and proposed that one's adult relationships reflect the early attachment bonds formed between oneself and his caregivers (Steinberg 1988, 143). In addition, they found that people develop attachments to their lovers in the same way that they develop attachments to early caregivers.

They found that a secure lover, like a secure infant, is comfortable about becoming closer to someone. At the same time, secure lovers do not experience any difficulty in relying on others and having others rely on them in return. Anxious-ambivalent lovers, whose attachment is derived from an earlier anxious-ambivalent attachment, believe that others are withdrawn from them. These people are often insecure about their relationships, and are constantly worrying that their lovers do not honestly love them. Similar to avoidant infants, avoidant lovers, find it difficult to trust and depend on others. As a result, these people feel reluctant to establish close bonds with others. Essentially, Shaver's and Hazan's findings suggest that secure infants become secure lovers, anxious-ambivalent infants become anxious-ambivalent lovers, and avoidant infants become avoidant lovers.

Maggie's Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment Style

Maggie's Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment as an Adult

Attachment theory is one psychological approach that can be used to explain why Maggie rejects Stephen's marriage proposal and settles for marrying Philip. It can be said that Maggie's attachment style influences this decision. As a young adult, Maggie Tulliver's personal relationships and feelings about love are indicative of an anxious-ambivalent style of attachment. As a person with an anxious-ambivalent style of attachment, she shows insecurities about her relationships with others in many instances. When Philip first declares his love towards her in the Red Deeps, her response was, "It seemed so far off-like a dream- only like one of the stories one imagines- that I should have a lover" (Eliot 1985, 347). This comment suggests that Maggie had never been confident enough to believe that she could ever be loved by a man, or even fall in love. In addition, Maggie has expressed her gratefulness towards Philip for his love and caring several times throughout the novel.

If Maggie had a secure style of attachment, she probably would not have been so grateful for his love and caring. The fact that she expresses gratefulness for Philip's love and caring suggests that she longs to be loved and may not be accustomed to being loved, just like the anxious-ambivalent infants in Ainsworth's study (Hetherington and Parke 249). Later in the novel, Maggie makes her anxious-ambivalence even more noticeable when she finally falls in love. At the beginning of Stephens' and Maggie's falling in love, Maggie often avoids making eye contact with Stephen when they are alone, indicating that she is afraid and reluctant to become emotionally intimate with Stephen. On page 430, Maggie again expresses her insecurity about love by saying that she will probably never find happiness when love is concerned. Ultimately, her insecurities about love and negative outlook on relationships may have contributed to her decision to reject Stephen, the man she loves, and instead, settle for Philip, the man she does not love.

Linking Maggie's Adult Attachment Behaviors to Early Attachments

Maggie's anxious-ambivalent behavior, particularly her eventual rejection of Stephen's marriage proposal, may have had its roots in her early upbringing. As she was growing up, Maggie's biggest influence was her brother, Tom. Maggie admires him and enjoys spending time with him. Needless to say, Tom has played a substantial role in shaping Maggie's anxious-ambivalent attachment behaviors, particularly through his conditional love towards her. In the beginning of the novel when Maggie was only 10 years old, she was often scolded by Tom for her ignorance and misbehavior in such instances as the rabbits and pie incidence. During these scoldings, Tom often blames her without expressing any compassion towards her. For example, when Tom finds out that Maggie forgot to feed the rabbits, he responds harshly with the statement, "You're a naughty girl, and I'm sorry I bought you the fish-line. I don't love you" (Eliot 1985, 39).

This scolding, like all other scoldings from Tom, are often accompanied by Maggie's weeping and Tom's failure to immediately pacify her. In the process, Maggie is left alone to weep and express her guilt for a certain period of time, until Tom finally forgives her. Since Maggie continuously and frequently experiences this cycle of scolding, weeping, and forgiveness, she may have developed a tolerance to pain and suffering. In other words, she may have learned to endure the suffering imposed by painful situations, as opposed to asserting herself in such situations. Since Maggie may have gotten used to enduring pain in her childhood, she may have developed the notion that her adult relationships are supposed to consist of pain and suffering as well, as evident in the comment, " ...there can never come much happiness to me from loving: I have always had so much pain mingled with it" (430). As a result, when faced with the decision to either marry Stephen or Philip, she may have chosen Philip because she had already known what it was like to endure pain. Thus, Maggie was willing to endure pain once again because she has been accustomed to it.

Mrs. Tulliver's Contribution to Maggie's Early Attachment

As Maggie's caregiver, Mrs. Tulliver has contributed to Maggie's anxious-ambivalent attachment behaviors. The way in which Mrs. Tulliver raises Maggie puts Maggie at high risk for developing an anxious-ambivalent attachment. For one thing, Mrs. Tulliver has always imposed strict expectations on Maggie, and when Maggie fails to fulfill these expectations, she would punish her emotionally. When Maggie was young, Mrs. Tulliver frequently scolds her for her unkempt appearance and unruly hair. She often compares Maggie to Lucy, who is more docile and comely in appearance. There are even times when Mrs. Tulliver openly admits to Maggie that she wishes that Lucy was her daughter, instead of Maggie. In one scene, Maggie dumps her head into water to ruin her hair. Mrs.Tulliver responds to this act by threatening Maggie that her aunts would never love her if she was so naughty (Eliot 1985, 31). In several incidences, Mrs. Tulliver even threatens to withdraw her love from Maggie if Maggie misbehaves. Simply put, Mrs. Tulliver imposes high expectations on Maggie, but when Maggie doesn't fulfill these expectations, she would put Maggie down in some way. Mrs. Tulliver usually puts Maggie down either through threatening to withdraw her love from Maggie, by saying that her relatives would not love her anymore, or by comparing Maggie to Lucy. Thus, Maggie's relationship with her mother is characteristic of conditional love, which may be related to Maggie's insecurity about her adult relationships.

Mr. Tulliver's Contribution to Maggie's Early Attachment

The only person in Maggie's life who offers her unconditional love is her father, Mr. Tulliver. When Maggie misbehaves as a child, he would comfort her and take her side instead of scolding her and leaving her to cry by herself. Although Mr. Tulliver is the only one who provides unconditional love to Maggie, he still plays a crucial role in shaping her anxious-ambivalent attachment. Mr.Tulliver, along with the townspeople, including Mr. Reilly, would patronize Maggie for her superior intelligence. Mr. Tulliver, for one, would say that Maggie was "too 'cute for a woman" (Eliot 1985, 15). The fact that her father and many people think negatively about her intellect may have caused her to feel ashamed and guilty about her intellectual abilities. As a result, Maggie's shame and guilt about her intelligence may have generalized into other areas of her life, presumably in her relationships with others.

Theories of Interpersonal Relationships

The Similarity Principle, Matching Hypothesis, and Theory of Complementary Needs

Theories of interpersonal relationships explain why people fall in love and with whom. One theory of interpersonal relationships is the similarity principle, which states that people tend to be attracted to and fall in love with those who are similar to themselves (Berscheid and Walster 1978, 62; Zimbardo, Weber, and Johnson 2003, 562). According to this theory, people tend to be attracted to others who share their attitudes, interests, values, and experiences, whether it is on a friendship level or a romantic level. The matching hypothesis is a variation of the similarity principle, which states that people tend to be attracted to those who are at the same level of social desirability as them. In other words, people are attracted to others who are of similar physical attractiveness, social class, and reputation (Berschied and Walster 1978, 182). The theory of complementary needs is the exact opposite of the similarity principle and matching hypothesis (Berscheid and Walster 1978, 62). It states that one is attracted to people who are dissimilar to him/her in certain ways, yet, complete him/her in what he/she is lacking. In other words, the theory of complementary needs suggests that people like others whose needs complement their own.

The Reward Theory of Attraction

A more complex and encompassing theory for explaining interpersonal relationships is the reward theory of attraction (Zimbardo, Weber, and Johnson 2003, 561). The theory holds that in every type of relationship, from friendships, to business relationships, to romantic relationships, people consider the costs and rewards of the relationship. The theory basically states that people tend to like people who give them maximum rewards at minimum cost. The potential rewards could be similar interests, money, humor, comfort, and generosity; whereas, some costs may include monetary loss or loss of reputation.

The Triangular Theory of Love

Another complex theory of interpersonal relationships is the triangular theory of love (Sternberg and Barnes 1988, 120). It states that love is analogous to a triangle in that they both have three components. According to this theory, love consists of three components: intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment, which together make up the different forms of love. Intimacy refers to those feelings in a relationship that provide warmth, including closeness and bonding; whereas, passion is the component that produces arousal and can be displayed through intense longing for union with someone, physical attraction, submission, dominance, self esteem, and sexual fulfillment (Sternberg and Barnes 1988, 42). The decision/commitment component refers to the short-term and long-term aspects of love. The short-term aspect is the decision to love a person, while the long-term aspect is the commitment to maintain that love. The three components of love are like ingredients in a recipe in that, together, they create a product, love. Having too much, too little, or adequate amounts of each of these components has consequences on the product, which in this case, is the relationship between two people. According to the triangular theory of love, relationships that contain only intimacy and no other components are characteristic of "liking", which applies to most friendships.

Those relationships that are based solely on passion are called "infatuated love", which is present in "love at first sight" forms of love. Love that is based solely on decision/commitment is termed "empty love", which applies to most marriages on the verge of divorce in which the couples' passion and intimacy ceases (Sternberg 1998, 17-19). The relationships that include both liking (intimacy) and physical attraction (passion), but little commitment are characteristic of "romantic love". Those relationships that are portrayed by quick commitments on the basis of passion, without the development of intimacy, are called "fatuous love". Couples whose relationships involve both intimacy and commitment, but little or no passion are said to have "companionate love", which is characteristic of committed long-term friendships and those marriages where the physical attraction (passion) has declined. Finally, the idealistic form of love that includes all the three components of love is called "consummate love" (Sternberg 1998, 16-22).

Why Does Maggie Love Stephen and not Philip?

In order to understand why Maggie chose Philip over Stephen, one must first investigate Maggie's love for Stephen. An investigation of why Maggie loves Stephen, what kind of love she has for him, and why she shouldn't marry him is required for the attainment of this understanding. The triangular theory of love, theory of complementary needs, matching hypothesis, and rewards theory of interpersonal attraction will help facilitate this understanding.

Comparing Maggie's Relationships with Stephen and Philip

Maggie's relationship with Stephen differs from her relationship with Philip. According to the triangular theory of love, Maggie's and Stephen's relationship is characteristic of "fatuous love", consisting of intense passion which quickly develops into decision/commitment (Sternberg 1998, 21). These two components are illustrated in their intense physical attraction to one another (passion), declarations of love to one another (decision), and their commitment to one another via marriage (even though Maggie's commitment may not be as strong as Stephen's). In contrast, Philip and Maggie's relationship involves intimacy and decision/commitment which together make up "companionate love", as described by the triangular theory of love (Sternberg 1998, 20). These two components of love are portrayed in their awareness of each other's interests and family background (intimacy), as well as their confessions of love (decision) and allusions to being there for one another (commitment). Considering the two types of love that Maggie receives from both men, it is obvious that each relationship is unique. Maggie's relationship to Stephen contains both passion and decision/commitment but lacks intimacy; whereas, her relationship to Philip contains both the components of intimacy and decision/commitment but lacks passion.

The Conflict between Passion and Intimacy

So why does Maggie fall in love with Stephen, but not with Philip? For one thing, Maggie's and Stephen's relationship involves passion, the component of love that she has never experienced in any of her relationships with others. As a matter of fact, the passion between Maggie and Stephen is so strong that Maggie often feels tempted to spend time with him, despite the fact that he is engaged to Lucy. In the same token, the passion component is so prominent in their relationship that it makes Maggie disregard the intimacy component that is missing. Therefore, due to the presence of the passion component, the relationship between Maggie and Stephen is more powerful than the intimate relationship between her and Philip. In other words, the passion aspect is the component underlying her love for Stephen; likewise, the absence of passion is the underlying reason for why Maggie does not love Philip.

Why Maggie Loves Stephen

The theory of complementary needs and matching hypothesis can offer further insight into why Maggie loves Stephen. The fact that Stephen can offer her all of the things she has never had in her childhood, including extravagance, leisure activities, large exposure to the world of art and music, and the opportunity to socialize with the upper-class society may be appealing to Maggie, and thus, contribute to her decision to love Stephen. In this sense, Stephen has the ability to complete her in the areas of her life that she has been lacking in, which is in line with the theory of complementary needs. The matching hypothesis can apply to Maggie's love for Stephen as well. For one, Maggie has been described as beautiful and tall (Eliot 1985; 312 & 197), while Stephen has been described as a "striking young man" (Eliot 1985, 378) who is "generally considered very handsome" (Eliot 1985, 386). In accordance with the matching hypothesis, the physical attractiveness of each person would make both equally socially desirable and thus, suitable to be a couple. In other words, it is suitable that they should be lovers since they are both equally physically attractive. In this manner, Stephen's physical attractiveness may have played a role in her attraction to him, and her eventual falling in love with him.

The Underlying Reasons Behind Maggie's Decision to Reject Stephen Despite Her Love For Him

The Rewards of a Marriage with Stephen

Now that you have gained an understanding of why Maggie loves Stephen, we can further investigate why Maggie rejects Stephen's marriage proposal despite her love for him. In accordance with the reward theory of interpersonal attraction, Maggie may have perceived that a marriage between her and Stephen would entail more costs than rewards, thus leading her to reject Stephen's marriage proposal. One of the most obvious rewards from a marriage between them is, of course, self-fulfillment for both people. A marriage between them would seem right since they love each other and long to be in each other's company. In addition, since Maggie has not had much happiness in the past with her father's death, loss of the mill, and financial problems, Stephen could offer her the happiness that she wants and needs. Furthermore, Maggie would be able to lead a new and better life from marrying Stephen. By marrying Stephen, she could start a new life, where she could lavish herself with gifts and be exposed to music, art, leisure time, and the company of her peers and other people in the upper-class society. Thus, Stephen can rejuvenate her life and bring forth a new Maggie- perhaps, the Maggie who is optimistic, lively, and cheerful.

The Many Costs Associated with Marrying Stephen

There would be even more costs than rewards if Maggie decides to marry Stephen. First and foremost, their marriage would hurt their relationships to other people, particularly their relationships with Philip and Lucy. If they marry, Lucy and Philip's friendship with them may be ruined, or even worse, come to an end. At the same time, Lucy's and Maggie's reputation would be ruined if Stephen breaks his engagement to Lucy in order to marry Maggie. People may suspect that Lucy may have done something dishonorable to deserve such a thing. As for Maggie, people may see her as a traitor to Lucy or even label her as promiscuous. Furthermore, Maggie's relationships with her mother and brother might also be ruined if she decides to marry Stephen. In this way, she would be bringing dishonor to her family's name and thus, humiliate herself and her whole family. At the same time, Maggie could lose her connections to the past if she marries Stephen. Since she would be living a more extravagant life as Stephen's wife, she would be less likely to return to her old life at Dorlcote Mill. In addition, if the two marry, their marriage has a high potential of being unsuccessful. For one thing, Maggie and Stephen have never gotten to know each other at the friendship level (intimacy). They do not know each other's family history, interests, strengths, and weaknesses. Since they have never established a friendship, they do not know what the other is really like or is capable of. As a result, they are more prone to disagree and have arguments with one another if they get married. In addition, Stephen's domineering and self-centered personality may possibly have negative effects on their marriage. His domineering personality is displayed many times in the novel. For instance, he often directs coercive cues toward Maggie with such phrases as "take my arm" (466), "one kiss-one-the last-before we part" (469), and [write me one word-say, "Come"] (534). Also, he seems self-centered in the sense that he often acts on impulse and argues for what he wants, without acknowledging the consequences. For example, on page 460 (Eliot 1985), he suddenly grabs Maggie's arm and kisses it as if he was a madman who could not control himself. At the Mosses, he again demonstrates his selfishness and his disregard for the consequences, which is evident in the line, "Maggie, if you loved me…you should throw everything else to the winds for the sake of belonging to each other" (Eliot 1985, 467). This comment is selfish in the sense that its provisions are difficult to accomplish, for many consequences would be intertwined with them.

Considering the Rewards and Costs for a Marriage with Stephen

By applying the reward theory of attraction to Maggie's decision to reject Stephen, one can see that Maggie may have made a wise decision. Upon examining the costs and rewards, one can see that Maggie would gain few rewards at the expense of many costs to herself if she chooses to marry Stephen. Among these costs are her sacrificing of her reputation, relationships with others, and connection with the past. There is also a potential that a marriage between them could be unsuccessful because of Stephen's selfish and domineering personality. Considering these factors, it seems that it would be best for Maggie if she does not marry Stephen.

Philip: A More Appropriate Marriage Candidate for Maggie

Now that you have gained a better of understanding about why Maggie should not marry Stephen even though she loves him, we can examine why Philip would make a good marriage partner for her. By applying the similarity principle, theory of complementary needs, and the reward theory of attraction to Maggie's decision, one will see that Philip is a more advantageous match for Maggie. Maggie, herself, may have considered these factors before making her decision to marry Philip instead of Stephen.

Similarity Principle and Theory of Complementary Needs

By considering the similarity principle, one can gain a better understanding of why Maggie likes Philip and would not mind marrying him. Essentially, Philip and Maggie are similar in many aspects, from their interests in art, music, and literature, to their isolated status from the world. The fact that Philip has many things in common with Maggie makes her attracted to Philip, in the form of admiration and liking. The theory of complementary needs can also explain why Maggie admires and likes Philip. Basically, Philip gives Maggie the freedom to think and explore the world of art, music, and literature, unlike many of the people who patronize her for her intellect. Therefore, the fact that Philip has many things in common with her and can complete her may contribute to her eventual decision to marry him.

The Numerous Rewards Associated with Marrying Philip

It is very likely that Maggie chooses to marry Philip so that she would be able to maximize her rewards and minimize the costs, as put forth by the reward theory of interpersonal attraction. If she marries Philip instead of Stephen, she would have less to lose (fewer costs) and more benefits to enjoy (more rewards). First of all, if Maggie was to marry Philip, she would be able to maintain her connection to the past, wherein there was harmony and pleasant childhood memories, which she has been longing for throughout the novel. At the same time, by marrying Philip, she would have a companion whom she can openly talk with about the arts. Together, they can learn from each other through the arts and possibly contribute to improving the world through educating others about issues that they are passionate about. Unlike Stephen who tends to act coercive towards Maggie, Philip is respectful towards Maggie's decisions and feelings. Philip's respect for Maggie's decisions is illustrated in the line, "I should not give you up on any ground but your own wish" (Eliot 1985, 489). This statement is illustrative of Philip's willingness to accept her decision if she believes that they should not meet or continue their secretive friendship. Compared to Stephen, Philip is also more understanding towards Maggie. His understanding nature is evident in his last letter to Maggie. In it, he writes about how he believed in Maggie's faithfulness and that he knew that she had struggled to renounce Stephen (Eliot 1985, 522-524). Philip even imparts that he expected Maggie to marry Stephen, indicative of his understanding and compassion toward Maggie and her feelings. Considering that Philip is both understanding and respectful towards Maggie, if they were to get married, the marriage would probably be successful due to its high potential of being an egalitarian one. In other words, if they were to get married, each person would probably get equal say in making household decisions and other important decisions, thus, making the marriage more likely to be long-lasting.

A marriage between Maggie and Philip can also be beneficial to her in the sense that it would shield her from many negative consequences. If she marries Stephen instead of Philip, she would be, in a sense, betraying Philip. After all, she has told Philip several times that she "could hardly love anyone better". Therefore, a marriage between Maggie and Philip would allow her to maintain this belief, thus, remaining faithful to Philip. Furthermore, a marriage between Stephen and Maggie would probably cause a rift in Maggie's relationship with Lucy and Philip. If Maggie marries Stephen, Lucy and Philip would probably have been very hurt and betrayed, as well as angry at them. Thus, a marriage between Maggie and Philip would prevent Lucy's and Philip's relationships with Maggie and Stephen from being negatively affected. Furthermore, by marrying Philip, Maggie could avoid ruining her reputation as well as Lucy's. If she marries Stephen, society might blame her for being the cause of Lucy's and Stephen's broken engagement. At the same time, Lucy' reputation is also jeopardized as people may suspect that she had done something inappropriate to cause her engagement with Stephen to be broken.

The Costs of a Marriage with Philip

Despite the numerous rewards that Maggie may receive from marrying Philip, there are also a few costs to marrying Philip. First and foremost, she does not have romantic feelings for Philip. Her feelings for him are more characteristic of a committed friendship (companionate love) than that of a love relationship, as described in the triangular theory of love (Sternberg and Barnes 1988, 120). Throughout the novel, she seems to demonstrate her friendship towards Philip in the form of sisterly love. Her sisterly love towards him is evident in her constant talk of how Philip would have made a good brother to her (Eliot 1985, 193; 308; 341). Maggie's platonic feelings toward Philip are also expressed several times; one instance where she demonstrates her platonic feelings toward Philip is in the scene where she makes ambiguous replies to Philip declaration of love (Eliot 1985, 347-349). Instead of directly stating that she loves Philip, she "beats around the bush" and uses vague terms to describe her feelings toward him. Thus, it can be said, using triangular theory of love, that the relationship between Maggie and Philip is more characteristic of a friendship as opposed to a romantic relationship. For this reason, a marriage between them would mean that Maggie would be forcing herself to marry Philip or even love him. In this manner, a marriage between them would be unjust for Maggie. At the same time, if Maggie marries Philip, it would mean that she would have to suppress her feelings for Stephen in order to stay faithful to Philip. In this manner, Maggie would probably be imposing pain on herself by sacrificing the man she loves for the sake of the man she does not love. Another major cost that Maggie may incur from marrying Philip is Tom's disapproval. Tom has continuously made known that he will never accept a marriage between her and Philip, because Philip's father was the cause of the Tullivers' misfortunes. Philip's physical deformity is another disadvantage (or cost) that Maggie would have to cope with, for society may belittle those who deviate from the norm (Philip) and even those who marry these so-called deviants (Maggie).

Comparing the Costs and Rewards from Both Suitors

Despite all the costs that Maggie may incur from a marriage with Philip, these costs are considerably less than the costs than she may incur from a marriage with Stephen. At the same time, she would be able to gain more rewards from marrying Philip as opposed to marrying Stephen. Thus, in consideration of these provisions, the wiser choice seems to be for Maggie to marry Philip. Maggie may have considered the costs and rewards to marrying each man before she made her decision regarding whom to marry. As you may know, she chooses Philip in the over Stephen in the end. One underlying reason may be to keep her costs to a minimum and her rewards at the maximum, which is in line with what the reward theory of attraction proposes.

Conclusion

It is evident that Maggie loves Stephen because of the strong physical attraction and commitment between them. At the same time, Maggie must remain loyal to her childhood friend, Philip, with whom she has promised to love and to remain faithful too. Nevertheless, she must choose between the man she loves and the man she admires. Each suitor has his own strengths and weaknesses as a potential marriage partner, but she can only choose one. At the same time, she must choose between love and saving the family name. Faced with all these realities, Maggie chooses Philip. Some of the underlying reasons behind this decision are clear; whereas some are unclear. For obvious reasons, Maggie can not marry Stephen even though she loves him. If she marries him, she would have to make many sacrifices, including her relationships with her loved ones, her ties with the past, and reputation in society. On the other hand, if she marries Philip, she would not have to make as many sacrifices and would have more rewards to enjoy. Besides these obvious reasons, there may be other less apparent factors that may have influenced her decision. Maggie's insecurities about love and her relationships may have contributed to her decision to marry Philip instead of Stephen. Other factors that may have contributed to her decision include the individual characteristics of her suitors (Stephen and Philip), including their physical attractiveness, potential to fulfill her needs, and degree of similarity to her.