The increased interest for the gratification and contentment within wedlock, is seen as one of the important achievements that has lead to the ‘modernising’ of marriage, although the process of modernising was a long and complex one, it has facilitated, in the fact that it has given individuals a great deal of freedom of movement. It is believed that these changes in patterns of marriage, are seen to be more favourable to women then for men, women often associated marriage with childbearing and consequently domestic responsibilities, this could be seen as just one of the reasons for which women decide to marry at a later age. Another factor related to the change in timing of marriage, is that of women wishing to continue their studies, a good education is seen as the most appropriate manner to gain success in life, with improved employment possibilities, women are no longer dependent on the ‘breadwinning’ male (Cheal, 2002).
For numerous years, the concept of marriage was seen as a life long affair; only to be ruptured by the disappearance of one of the partners… this point of view is no longer valid. Today, divorce is seen has an integral part of contemporary family life and is not limited to a single cross-section of society, but touches couples from all walks of life. In the United Kingdom, there has been a constant increase in divorce rates (the term ‘Divorce Rates’ denotes the number of divorces in comparison to the number of marriages performed over a given period) and this since the Second World War. It is interesting to note that between 1971 and 1991, the rates of divorce have more than doubled, while during the same time span the number of marriage fell by 16%, and by 1997, the total number of divorces per year had trebled in number, when comparing this data to that of 1969 (Marsh, 1996).
When looking that bit closer at the data produced on divorce rates, it is estimated that approximately 40% of marriages will end in divorce (Gibson, 1994), and that, not all marriages are statistically equal, and are more likely to end in an annulment, cases such as teenage marriages, couples with a large family and couples who survive on relatively low-income, are more liable to see their union end in divorce. These are not the only reasons for explaining the raising rates in divorce, it is essential to examine the wider social and legal context of divorce. It is undeniable that the chances, both legally and socially over the last thirty years, have been a catalyst and contributed to the increase in divorces rates. The ‘Divorce Reform Act 1969’ played a major role in the increase of divorce petitions (request for divorce), as it changed the grounds on which a divorce could be obtained, there was no longer need for one of the partners to be seen as the guilty party, but simply, marriages could de terminated on the basis of an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship. Within this ‘Act’, there was a provision for divorce after a certain period of time, therefore be proven by a two years separation period with a mutual agreement from both partners or after five years, if only one partner agrees (Marsh, 1996).
Another amendment in the law, which had a possible effect on the rates of divorce, was the ‘Matrimonial and Family Processing Act 1984’. This ‘Act’ introduced the possibility to file for divorce after just one year of marriage, rather than the previous three year wait before being eligible (Marsh, 1996). This ‘clean break’ concept was introduced and aimed to enable each of the partners to become self-sufficient as soon as possible. It should not be forgotten; that divorce is not just the breakdown of a marriage, but it is primarily the break-up of a family, hence children. Wishing to take into consideration the well-being of children, who may become victims of divorce, the government introduced the ‘Family Law Act’ in 1996, which increased the period of separation from the previous twelve months to that of eighteen months. This ‘Act’ aimed not only to better the welfare of children of divorcing couples, but aspired to help save marriages of separating couples, by allowing them an extended ‘cooling off’ period (Muncie et al, 1993).
Other than the legal changes that may lead couples to divorce, there have also been many social changes too, the actual way that marriage is considered, may be a factor for filing for a divorce, from a functionalist viewpoint, both Talcott Parsons and Ronald Fletcher believed that marriage break-ups are due to the excessive value that is placed upon marriage, they argue, that couples expect a lot from marriage, but when these expectations fail to be met, a relationship is more than likely to end in separation (Haralahambos & Holborn, 2006). Fletcher (1966) stated “A relatively high divorce rate may be indicative not of the lower but higher standards of marriage in society”.
A more simple explanation to marital breakdown are the factors which effect the level of conflict between the partners, the family as a whole is placed under pressure due to what is required of it in the present economic system (Hart, 1976). The changing roles of women in society also could be interlinked with the changing trends in divorce rates, it is unquestionable that large number of women are going on to higher education, thus obtaining better qualifications, which in turn enables them to better paid employment. Within the couple, the fact that both partners have their own independent source of income, subsequently women are less likely to tolerate conflict with their husband and are more prone to contemplate divorce. It is believed that it is this dissatisfaction women have with marriage, which has lead to the rise in divorce, in 1997, 70% of divorce petitions were filed by women, which is considerable difference, when compared to the 1946 statistics, when only 37% petitions were filed by women (Haralahambos & Holborn, 2006).
From a social point of view, divorce is no longer frowned upon, and with the increasing rates, divorce has become ‘normalised’ and with this normalisation, it can be argued that the stigma attached to divorce has largely been reduced (Haralahambos & Holborn, 2006). Wilson (1966) believed that this reduction in stigma was largely linked to the result of secularisation, the decreasing influence of religion in a modern day contemporary society.
The financial cost of divorce should not be forgotten; previously obtaining a divorce could have been an expensive process, which might have hindered an individual’s decision to divorce. It was for this reason that the ‘Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949’ was passed, which put divorce at the level of the less wealthy, giving access to free legal aid and even paid solicitors fees. The economical aspects of divorce were further facilitated with the extension of welfare provisions, especially for single parents with school aged children and with the passing of the ‘Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000’, which provided maintenance costs (Haralahambos & Holborn, 2006).
The rate of cohabiting couples has steadily evolved over the last quarter of a century, which is directly interlinked to the changing rates in marriages and divorces. The national census produced in April 2001 showed that one in ten men or women were cohabiting ( - 2). The word ‘cohabitation’ is a term which covers a wide range of relationships, from a couple who occasionally live under the same roof to individuals who have lived together for many years, who have offspring and own their own property, but have never had a formal marriage ceremony. An official version being, “a co-resident man and woman, living together within a sexual union, without that the union, having been formalised by a legal marriage” (Haskey, 1995). Cohabitation maybe defined from different viewpoints, the most common suggests that there are significant types of cohabiters, the ‘casual’ cohabiter, is seen to be a relationship based on little conviction, and purely seen as transitory, the ‘trial marriage’, which is quite self explanatory, are individuals who have a certain amount of commitment to marry, should the ‘trial’ be successful, the finally the smallest group, the ‘substitute marriage’, who reject completely the idea of marriage and opt purely for cohabitation as an alternative (Jenkins, 1992).
Following the 1991 census, which illustrated that cohabitation was more frequent with women aged 25 to 29 and men aged 30 to 34, and that 55% of individuals in their late twenties had experienced a situation of cohabitation compared to only 7% of people aged 60 years and over, it would be correct to say that the generational aspects and mentalities play a role in whether or not individuals choose to cohabit (Utting, 1995. Giddens, 2006). It is the change in social expectations that has brought about a change in attitudes; cohabitation was until very recently seen as something quite outrageous, and was merely added to the General Household Survey questionnaire in 1979. Evidence produced by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) 2004 survey, demonstrated that 88% of 18 to 24 year old and 40% of individuals aged 64 or over considered “ It was alright for a couple to live together without intending to get married” (Giddens, 2006).
Perhaps an explanation for the increase in cohabiting couples could be linked to the increasing divorce rates, one in three cohabiting households, is composed of couples living with dependent children. Cohabitation is tremendously popular with couples, where one or perhaps both individuals are either divorced or separated and already have siblings. A study performed in 1989 provided evidence that 80% of cohabitants had children form former marriages (Utting, 1995).
Through the evidence provided by this composition, it is undeniable that trends in marriage, divorce and cohabitation are closely intermingled, showing a continuous dynamic of changing family patterns. The transformation of these ‘family patterns’ only goes to strengthen the ideology that both social and cultural changes play a huge role in influencing and shaping an individuals comportment in a contemporary society (Marsh, 1996).
References:
Bibliography
Cheal, D.J. (2002) Sociology of Family Life. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Fletcher, R. (1966) The Family and Marriage in Britain. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gibson, C. (1994) Dissolving Wedlock. London: Routledge.
Giddens, A. et al. (2006) Sociology 5th Edition. United Kingdom: Polity Press.
Haralambos, M. et al. Sociology Themes and Perspectives 6th Edition. London: HarperCollins Publishers Limited.
Hart, N. (1976) When Marriage Ends. London: Tavistock.
Haskey, J. (1995) Trends in Marriage and Cohabitation. Population Trends, 80.
Jenkins, G. (1995) Cohabitation: A Biblical Perspective. USA: Grove Ethical Studies, 87.
Mansfield, P. and Collard, J. (1988) The Beginning of the Rest of Your Life? Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Marsh, I. (1996) Sociology: Making Sense of Society 2nd Edition. United Kingdom: Pearson.
Morgan, D. (1992) Marriage and Society: understanding an era of change. In Lewis, J., Clark, D. and Morgan, D. (Eds) Whom God hath joined together. London: Routledge.
Muncie, J. et al. (1993) Understanding the Family 2nd Edition. London: SAGE Publication Limited.
Reynolds, J. and Mansfield, P. (1999) The Effect of Changing Attitudes to Marriage on its stability. In High divorce rates: The State of the Evidence on reasons and remedies. Volume 1. (1999). London: The Lord Chancellor’s Department Research Secretariat.
Sociology REVIEW – Class Handout
Taylor, P. et al. (1997) Sociology in Focus.
Utting, D. (1995) Family and Parenthood: Supporting Families, Preventing Breakdown. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Wilson, B.R. (1966) Religion in a Secular Society. London: C.A. Watts.
Webliography
1 -
(Accessed on the 2nd March 2007 at 11.30)
2 -
(Accessed on the 2nd March 2007 at 11.38)
(Accessed on the 2nd March 2007 at 11.56)
Word Count: 2230
