Introduction to Divorce

An understanding of divorce must not only consider the details of a specific case, but also must explore the wider societal forces that drive individual actions. This section of the Guide will give you a background in divorce by exploring the changing meaning of divorce in society and reviewing a few characteristics of those at high risk for divorce.

A Short History

The societal context of divorce has transformed radically within the past three hundred years. In traditional societies, divorce was permitted only for the most blatant violations of the marital compact. As societies have changed, however, the conceptions of marriage have altered and the reasons for divorce have multiplied.

Prior to the eighteenth century, families were the sole instruments of socialization and education, as well as the basic unit of most economies; as such, an unstable marriage was a threat to the community. Marriages were expected to be stable, not happy. Spouses were expected to retain respect for one another, but adultery, violence, and emotional indifference were commonly accepted and may even have been normative (Phillips, 1991). Society, on the whole, was willing to overlook such misdemeanors. Many people may have agreed with John Calvin that "unhappiness in marriage was a result of original sin and must be borne like its other effects" (Phillips, 1991: 16).

The first legal divorces were on strictly biblical grounds; adultery was usually the only acceptable cause, for adultery violated the basic function of marriage as a sanctified sexual union. Adultery had once been punishable by death. According to Calvin, death as punishment was preferable to divorce; speaking against the new policy, he proclaimed that "today it is the perverted indulgence of magistrates that makes it necessary for men to divorce their impure wives" (Phillips, 1991:15).

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, societal expectations of marriage shifted. The marital union began to be seen as a civil contract; in addition, barriers to leaving the union began to fall. In colonial and revolutionary America, many people were very invested in the idea of contracts bound by moral and human rights. Those who petitioned for divorce in this era often argued their case using terms like tyranny, misrule, and injustice. With the influence of such ideas, the expectations of married life rose: by the end of the nineteenth century, drunkenness, cruelty, and insanity were no longer acceptable in marriage. Americans began to expect respect in their marriages: in 1792 there were objections to the word "obey" in marriage ceremonies (Riley, 1991). Marriage was more and more expected to be a two-way street, with equal obligations on both sides in terms of investment, affection, and faithfulness.

During the nineteenth century, the Civil War and the movement West placed a terrible stress on many marriages. Long separations and infrequency of communication pushed the divorce rate up steeply. In the West, divorces were so frequent that they became much more casual and easily granted. One foreign visitor to Chicago claimed that "when the great American railway stopped, they could hear shouted out: 'There's ten minutes allowed for divorce, and twenty minutes for refreshments' "(Phillips, 1991: 137).

The rise of the divorce rate coincided with the beginnings of the early feminist movement. One foremost radical feminist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, was a staunch supporter of divorce. She proclaimed, "With the education and elevation of women, we shall have a mighty sundering of the unholy ties that hold men and women together who loathe and despise each other" (Riley, 1991: 73).

During the twentieth century, increased gender equality resulted in a wider variety of options for women. Men and women began to discard old roles, initiating a period of difficult re-adjustment and placing additional stress on couples. At the same time, the functions of the family had dwindled to caring for children and ensuring the happiness of adults. As a result, divorce was now a socially acceptable option.

The context of divorce today

In the contemporary era, the increased societal emphasis on autonomy and personal growth has decreased the marital union's status as a cultural imperative (Cherlin, 1992): marriage is no longer seen as a mark of adulthood and normalcy. Marriage is no longer a social obligation; it is instead seen as one of many paths to self-fulfillment. Moreover, families no longer have as much power over their own affairs as they once did. The state is now responsible for preventing family abuse and neglect, and enforcing policies such as property maintenance (Popenoe, 1993). With compulsory education and the introduction of moral and social issues into the classroom, families may continue to lose the power of socialization over their children. Why are families are becoming less powerful and less responsible for their traditional functions? Possibly because marriages are now founded on ideals of self-fulfillment rather than specific social obligations.

The "ethic of self-realization" has asserted itself quite strongly within the last few decades, so that today more and more couples cite the failure to reach that standard as a reason for frustration with their marriages (Weiss, 1975). This ideal makes sense to the typical American because it fits in quite nicely with our traditional Revolutionary rhetoric and our modern therapeutic orientations. As Bellah et al. put it:

"For the classic utilitarian individualist, the only valid contract is one based on negotiation between individuals acting in their own self-interest. For the expressive individualist, a relationship is created by the full sharing of authentic feelings. . . No binding obligations and no wider social understanding justify a relationship. It exists only as the expression of the choices of the free selves who make it up. And should it no longer meet their needs, it must end. . . Without a wider set of cultural traditions, then, it was hard for people to say why genuine attachment to others might require the risk of hurt, loss, or sacrifice" (Bellah et al, 1985: 107 - 110).

Modern standards for marriage have risen to daunting heights; to further complicate matters, these standards are difficult to define and express. Ideals are built upon very unsteady ground: "Judgments about level of personal fulfillment are subject to continual revision. With few normative, economic, or structural constraints on breaking up, a negative judgment is more likely to lead to divorce. . . Fifty years ago, even thirty, unhappy couples hesitated to divorce; now they are almost compelled to" (Cherlin, 1992: 130).

Who is most at risk?

In an attempt to understand why some couples divorce while others do not, researchers have often concentrated on identifying groups within the larger population who are at risk for divorce. Studies have found that marriages seem to survive best when both spouses feel prepared to commit to it, and are entering into it at a developmentally appropriate stage. Very young couples have not had time to mature into their adult structure of values, which complicates their ability to handle issues such as negotiating roles and raising children. Marriage and family-building require an investment of energy and time, as well as a burden of responsibility. Early commitments of this sort may foreclose educational or career opportunities for either spouse; such factors could result in a lower standard of living for the couple, and perhaps some bitterness over missed opportunities.

Many young people marry despite apprehension about their youth or level of commitment because of a pregnancy. Premarital pregnancy has its own possible side-effects, including parental non-support, a short courtship, and economic strain. The failure of many young couples and marriages involving premarital pregnancy may stem from the economic disadvantage of these groups. Divorce rates are higher among lower social classes, perhaps because "personal differences are necessarily evaluated with less tolerance when economic resources are low" (Furstenburg, 1979: 95). However, the presumed effect of income and social class may be due to employment stability (Cherlin, 1979). If a husband has an unstable work history, he is likely to earn a lower income; he may also have a lower status in the eyes of the community, a lower self-image, and a lower satisfaction with his life and marriage. These factors will likely increase his wife's dissatisfaction as well.

Many families attempt to achieve economic stability by employing both husband and wife. A wife's income may have two opposing effects on a marriage. The couple would have a higher standard of living, which would presumably increase their overall satisfaction; however, an income also includes an "independence" effect. The wife has means of surviving on her own, which may increase her willingness to divorce if she is unhappy or finds a better alternative to her marriage (Cherlin, 1979).

A higher level of maturity and commitment may be the most valuable resources an individual can bring into a modern relationship. In the still-shifting sands of gender roles and changing definitions of marriage and the family, societal obligations can no longer guarantee marital stability. Without such support, the new standards of communication and fulfillment may demand too much of the young or unsure.

Your couple

In this section of the case study, you will learn what happened to the couple since you last saw them eleven years ago. You will find out whether they had more children, continued their education, or suffered through separations. You will discover the details of the last few months of your couple's marriage, including: employment history and incomes; levels of love, maintenance, conflict, and ambivalence; views of each others' personalitites; each partner's ideas as to their compatibility; attractions to the marriage and barriers to leaving it; the extent of any "problem behaviors" such as drinking, philandering, or abuse; reasons for leaving; and each partner's story of what happened and why. You will also find out if either partner remarried, and if so, how happy the new marriage is. While interpreting the data for your couple, keep in mind the broader context within which the details of the marriage are embedded. Integrate both the micro- and macro-level aspects of their relationship into your case analysis. Remember to detail not only the history of the dissolution, but also why you think it went the way it did. Please include any relevant concepts or details from the readings.

Return to Divorce Table of Contents

References

Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A.., & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cherlin, A. (1979). Work life and marital dissolution. In Levinger, G., & Moles, O., Divorce and Separation: Context, Causes, and Consequences. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Cherlin, A. (1992). Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Furstenburg, F. (1979). Premarital pregnancy and marital instability. In Levinger, G., & Moles, O., Divorce and Separation: Context, Causes, and Consequences. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Phillips, R. (1991). Untying the Knot: A Short History of Divorce. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Riley, G. (1991). Divorce: An American Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weiss, R. (1975). Marital Separation. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960 - 1990: a review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, pp 527 - 555.