Basic HTML Version
DIVORCE:
an
lncreasing
Family
Trauma
T
he current rise in divorces is not
helping the image of the nuclear
family. Since the early 1900s the
ratio of divorces to marriagcs has
steadily risen. Writing of the disin–
tegrating American family. O. Ho-
family with being the primary
causative agent in the creation of
neurotic human beings. They a lso
cha rge it with being hopelessly rigid
and confining in terms of limited
ro le models. Husbands, wives and
children a like a re constrained to fol–
low certa in preorda ined, inflexible
patterns which a re said to be con–
stricting.
Traditional marriage limits legiti–
mate sexual activity to one's legal
mate, and sorne consider this both
unreasonable and unnecessary in a
socially and technologi ca lly ad–
vanced society.
But are these complaints valid? lt
is certainly true that too many mar–
riages
are
constricting. grinding, cor–
rosive and d es tru c ti ve. l t
is
becoming increasingly difficult to
find blissfully happy marriages
which are functioning at an opti–
mum leve! in every respect. And
overfamiliarity
does
often breed
con tempt within the famil y. Com–
munication between family mem–
bers can easily become routin e–
the re's no thing new to say afte r a
certain point. When members of a
family become "known quantities"
to each other. every act, every word.
every suggestion becomes a cliché.
Life in the home can become bor–
ingly predictable and unbearably
dull.
12
bart Mowrer had this to report:
"The increasing frequency of di–
vorce is perhaps thc most obvious
indication of the family's state of
instabi lity and disrepair. In 1900.
only one marriage in 100 ended in
divorce ... in the late 1920s, the
ratio had increased to one divorce
in 20 marriages. Today the nation–
wide average is one divorce in
every three marriages. In Califor–
nia, for sorne reason, half of aiJ
marriages end in divorce; and,
wheo
1
was in Sacramento a few
years ago.
l
was told that in that
city, the state's capital, there are
more divorce dccrces issued than
marriage licenses" (' 'New Hope
and Hclp for thc Disintegrating
American Family."
Journa/ of
Family Counseling,"
Spring 1975,
p.
17).
Demographcr Paul C. Glick
So these complaints by sociolo–
gis ts and others really do have sorne
basis in fact. These experts are not
just trying to create a family revolu–
tion in order to cate r to their own
anarchist ic preferences.
But while the cha rges are not
without foundation. it would also be
a 'mistake to assume that the situ–
ation is hopeless. Ma rital problems
a re the clear result of cause-and–
effect factors.
The nuclea r fa mily is too va luable
asan institution- too much a part of
the fabric of human society- to
allow it to slip through our fingers
without a fight. No one has offered a
viable, equa lly prestigious
~ lterna
tive. No socio logist o r anthropolo–
gist h as a rr ived at a m o re
satisfactory or superior way in
which to structure tomorrow's so–
cieties. It is clear that the family
must remain as the bulwark of the
social order.
Who's to Blame?
But who o r what a re we to blame
for the symptoms of family break–
down and decay wc see a ll around
us? Is the problem wi th the family
institution itself- an institution that
has survived nearly 6,000 years of
recorded human experience with in–
credible viabi lity? ls the problem
that people today are so different
states: "During the 12-month
period ending in August, 1974, the
estimated number of marriages in
the United States was about
2,233,000, and the number of di–
vorces was 948,000. For the first
ti me since soon after World
War
TI
the marriage total for a 12-
month period was significantly
smaller (by 68.000) than it had
been in the preceding year. How–
ever the divorce total for the 12
months ending in August. 1974.
had continued to rise (by 56,000)
above the level for the preceding
12 months. These current figures
are the latest available in a grow–
ing series which documen t a slow–
down of marriage and a speedup
of divorce" ("A Demographer
Looks at American Fami lies,"
Journal of Marriage and the Fam–
ily,
February 1975, p. 16).
from th eir forebears? Or are family
problems a natural result of chang–
ing patterns in our society?
The fact that many of us now live
in a techno logically advanced indus–
tria l society · provides a parti a l ex–
planation.
Today's home-at least in the de–
veloped nations- is often a marvel
of modern engineering. Since the
Industrial Revolution. the principal
ski ll a housewife must possess is the
abili ty to push a button or plug a
cord into a wall socket.
The modern housewife needs few
of the domest ic skills of her prede–
cessors. No longer is it necessary for
her lo purchase food every day orto
preserve meat wi th salt a lone. She
need not gather wate r at the well in
the town square- she simply turns
on the fauce t and out it comes. Why
beat the weekl y wash on a rock by
the riverside when she can simply
throw it into an automatic washer
and push a button? And why bake
bread when she can purchase every
imaginable variety from the local
superma rket. preserved. "enriched."
and sliced? She need no t be in–
ventive when it comes to entertain–
ing the children. either. She can
simply Hip on the television and
allow it to "babysit" her offspring
automa tically. AU of these conve–
niences- irrespecti ve of whether
The
PLAIN TRUTH May 1977