Why do we still see an increased rate in divorce?

Divorce

A wide range of data and developments are cited to demonstrate that the family is under stress and is even in danger of breaking up. However, it is important to note that many sociologists wholly or largely reject this thesis that the family is breaking up, and favour instead a different model of analysis and interpretation. The point of the debate is, is the family disappearing as a social institution or is it merely transforming into a social institution, which is characterized by diversity and choice. That is, is the family dying or is it responding to the changing circumstances of what may be termed postmodern society. Postmodernism is a condition in which society is composed of many heterogeneous ideas, values and practices that coexist within a general framework. It is possible to view the recent developments in family life as part of this general trend. There are many factors to be considered when we look at the changing family, one of the key issues related to family change and adaptation is divorce.
The number of divorces granted in France has jumped from 27,000 in 1961 to 191, in 1985; this should be compared with 3000 in 1921 and only 700 in 1911. However this information could be misleading on its own, factors such as the increasing population and popularity of marriage need to be considered. With the population increasing more people will be getting married, so therefore there will be more divorce these statistics do not give an accurate account in the divorce rate. To find an accurate rate of divorce we need to find out how many divorces there are per thousand marriages. In 1961 just over 2 persons divorced per thousand, in 1987 this figure rose to almost 12 per thousand.

When we look at divorce rates in these statistics we still see an increased rate in divorce. Recent studies show that one third of all marriages are likely to end in divorce.
As well as divorce, marital breakdown can also be separation, which refers to the physical separation of the spouses; they no longer share the same dwelling, and empty shell marriages, where the spouses live together, remain legally married, but their marriage exists in name only.
Personal considerations need to be taken into account when we look at why people divorce, and it is clearly significant that people today live much longer than their ancestors. Since 1851 average life expectancy in France for men has risen from 40 to 70 years and for women from 42 to 76 years. Marriages therefore can last much longer, and a significant number break up when children leave home and partners realise that they have nothing left in common. It is often forgotten that in earlier times many marriages were terminated by the early death of either of the partners. Economic independence and grater equality at work, improved birth control and smaller families, higher expectations of marital relationships, and the isolation of the nuclear family are all seen as factors, which have contributed to the rise in women seeking a divorce.
There is also a strong significant relationship between divorce and social class divorce rates are four times higher among working class couples than among professionals and highest of all among the unemployed.

Despite minor fluctuations, there was a steady rise in divorce rates in modern industrial societies throughout the twentieth century. Liberalisation of the laws concerning divorce can be seen as integral to the changing social and sexual mores of the time. This is demonstrated by a marked increase in the number of divorces, which has followed each liberalisation of the law. Before 1857, divorce was rare; it was expensive and only obtainable by private Act of Parliament. The 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act simplified the procedure and set up courts, which dealt specifically with matrimonial cases. Men could petition for divorce on the grounds of adultery, a ¡¥matrimonial offence¡¦, but women had to prove other offences such as cruelty or desertion. In 1937, grounds for divorce were extended to include insanity. Then again in 1949 another change was seen, the Legal Aid and Advice Act provided financial help, removing the obstacle to those who could not afford divorce. During the 1960¡¦s, it seems that public opinion was beginning to favour a relaxation of the divorce law, there were less social pressures to remain married and the stigma surrounding divorce began to slowly disappear.
There was a dramatic increase in petitions for divorce in 1971 and this was due in part to the new divorce legislation. The Divorce Reform Act of 1969 (introduced in 1971), allowed couples to divorce after only two years of separation. Finally in 1985 the 1984 Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act became effective, this allowed couples to divorce after only one year of marriage. This increase did not simply represent a backlog of couples waiting to legally end an unsatisfactory marriage, since the number of petitions continued to rise during the subsequent years. Then again in 1984 the law changed again, allowing couples to get divorced after just one year of marriage, previously this had been three years.
There are now many key areas where it is possible for a growing proportion of women to have the same opportunities and to behave in the same way as men do, in education, employment and in marriage. Women are now better educated and are able to enter relatively well-paid occupations thus achieving a greater level of ¡¥financial independence¡¦. Working class women may not achieve the same degree of economic security, but the Social security system will at least provide a minimum of subsistence in this respect. Thus women are no longer constrained by the need to remain in an unhappy marriage because of the need to provide for herself and children. These steps towards equality have been accompanied by the granting of increased legal rights, in marriages as in other spheres. This argument, often referred to as the independence hypothesis, (Becker, Landes and Michael 1975), provides a plausible explanation for the rise in marital breakdown.
It can be argued that there has been a change in our explanations of what a marriage ought to provide. This can be summarized as a move from what can be called an ¡¥institutional¡¦ marriage to a ¡¥companionate¡¦ marriage. If the essence of marriage is seen as a personal relationship, and if it is no longer necessary to preserve the bond for economic reasons, fulfilment may be hard and therefore sought in a second union. It has been suggested that it was much easier to fulfil the demands of institutional marriage, these being largely economic, or entailing the provision of basic domestic services, than it is to meet the expectations of a companionate marriage based on intimacy, shared interests and friendship.

In all these more subtle aspects of marriage we need more, we expect more, and we are more easily disappointed¡¦. ¡¥
Rheinstein

This is a preview of the whole essay

In all these more subtle aspects of marriage we need more, we expect more, and we are more easily disappointed¡¦. ¡¥
Rheinstein

Functionalists such as Talcott Parsons and Ronald Fletcher argue that the rise in marital breakdown stems largely from the fact that marriage is increasingly valued. People expect and demand more from marriage and consequently are more likely to end a relationship, which may have been acceptable in the past. Thus, Ronald Fletcher argues that ¡¥a relatively high divorce rate may be indicative not of a lower but of higher standards of marriage in society¡¦ (Fletcher).
The high rate of remarriage apparently lends support to Parsons and Fletchers arguments. Paradoxically, the higher value placed on marriage may result in the increased marital breakdown.
Hart argues that the second sets of factors that must be considered when looking at marital breakdown are those, which affect the degree of conflict between the spouses. It is arguable from a functionalist perspective that the adaptation of the family to the requirements of the economic system has placed a strain on the marital relationship. It has led to the relative isolation of the nuclear family from the wider kinship network. William J. Goode argues that, as a result, the family ¡¥carries a heavier emotional burden when it exists independently than when it is a small unit within a larger kin fabric. As a consequence this unit is relatively fragile¡¦. (Goode 1971).
Edmund Leach (1969) makes a similar point. He suggests that the nuclear family suffers from an emotional overload, which increases the level of conflict between its members.
In industrial society the family specializes in fewer functions. It can be argued, that as a result, there are fewer bonds to unite its members. N. Dennis suggests that the specialization of function that characterizes the modern family will lead to increased marital breakdown. Dennis argues that this can place a strain on the strength of the bond between husband and wife. Put simply, when the love goes, there is nothing much left to hold the couple together.
Colin Gibson (1994) combines elements of the previous two arguments in claiming that the development of modernity has increased the likelihood of conflict between spouses. The way in which the society in which we live has developed has put an increasing emphasis on individual achievement.
Having looked at the increasing rates of divorce there are many arguments as to whether or not this is a good or bad thing for society, and those who are personally involved. The effects on children of a ¡¥broken home¡¦ are greater where remarriage occurs than if the children remain with a single parent. This is the rather surprising conclusion to be drawn from research by the Family Policy Studies Centre.
Those whose parents divorced and subsequently remarried other partners became part of what is termed a ¡¥stepfamily¡¦. Dr Kathleen Kiernan, research director at the FPSC, found from her research that those from stepfamilies were, less likely to continue in education after age 16, less likely to do well in terms of work and careers and step-daughters were twice as likely to become teenage mothers and also likely to marry under the age of 20.
Functionalists say that the family is a biological necessity. In theory it fulfils four main functions: sexual, reproductive, socialisation and economic. It enables sexual drives to be satisfied within the framework of a stable relationship. It provides for the birth and rearing of children. Even though extensive provision is made for education outside the home, it plays a key part in fitting children for existence in a complex society, and, in doing so establishes it¡¦s members in a certain status or position in society.
Marxists share the view with functionalists that the modern family has developed in response to broader social change. The Marxist view asserts the primacy of the economic function of the family to the exclusion of all other functions. Engel¡¦s (1972) argued that the family was the result of acquisition of private property, it was a social construct created by the growth of male dominance and the desire of men to ensure they could leave ¡¥their¡¦ property to their heirs. For modern Marxists the most important thing about the family is the way in which it acts as the prime vehicle for the production of the forms of capitalist society. It is central to the transmission of class as well as of gender differences.
So, without the ¡¥family¡¦, would social order be maintained?
Feminist perspectives on the family take up Engel¡¦s¡¦ theme of subjection, and explore the wide-ranging consequences of the fundamental inequality between husband and wife. This inequality stems from traditional differences in what men and women are expected to do, or conjugal role separation. Feminists say that the family is an instrument for the exploitation of women. Feminists argue that women have more to gain from divorce than staying in oppressive marriages.
Many government policies today do not support the traditional family and favour instead a new form of family, one, which, has adapted to fit into today¡¦s society.
Like functionalist sociologists, New Right thinkers see the family as a cornerstone of society. A strong society is built upon a strong family. They see the ¡¥normal family¡¦, as that of the traditional family. The New Right argues for a return to traditional family values as a remedy for many of the problems of modern society, such as juvenile delinquency, educational underachievement and child poverty. But are these really problems that have come about through the changing family. Change and diversity can be interpreted as the family being in decline or the family adapting to changing social conditions.
The New Right tend to be critical of any variation in what they perceive as traditional family values and blame all sorts of social problems on single parent families which are seen as dysfunctional and probably welfare dependent. Many critics have suggested that New Right thinkers tend to lay blame on victims for problems, which are not of their own making. For example, single parent families are criticized by the government for their inadequacy in raising children, and their dependency on the welfare state. However many of the problems faced by single parent families are the result of an inadequate welfare system. It¡¦s not right to say that a child brought up by a single parent will fail in many ways, or is that what society expects to happen
Margaret Thatcher, who supported many aspects of New Right thinkers, regarding the family said that she agreed that the family was a vital institution for maintaining social stability. In May 1988 she made a speech, part of which was,

The family is the building block of society. It¡¦s a nursery, a school, a
hospital, a leisure place, a place of refuge and a place of rest. It
encompasses the whole of society. It fashions beliefs. It¡¦s the preparation
for the rest of our life and women run it.
Quoted in Abbott and Wallace, 1992

In order to get back the so-called normal family, ¡¥the one which maintains social order¡¦, many things would need to change. It would not just be a case of new government policies that would be needed; attitudes and beliefs of society would have to change.

¡§¡K. There must be a change of values in our country too¡K¡¨

Tony Blair, 1997