Esselbach Contentteller CMS
  • Content
    • Search
    • Amazon Affiliate Store
  • News
    • Channels
    • Archive
    • Search
    • Submit
    • General
    • Opinion and Analysis
    • Podcasts
    • Activism
    • Core Issues
    • Arts and Humanities
    • Home and Garden
    • Health and Wellness
    • Science and Technology
    • History
    • Regional Interests
    • Categories
    • Archive
    • Submit
    • Flyers
    • Podcasts
    • Adjunct Materials
  • Links
Main Menu
· Content
· News
· Files
· Links
· Forums
· Western Voices Store
· Our Amazon Affiliate
· Print-On-Demand Store
· Old News Site

News Menu
· News Overview
· News Channels
· News Archive
· Search News
· Submit News

News Channels
· General
· Opinion and Analysis
· Podcasts
· Activism
· Core Issues
· Arts and Humanities
· Action Alerts
· Home and Garden
· Health and Wellness
· Science and Technology
· History
· Regional Interests
· Immigration

Files Menu
· Files Overview
· Files Categories
· Files Archive
· Search Files
· Submit File
· Submit PAD

Files Categories
· Podcasts
· Flyers
· Adjunct Materials

What's New
Login to see an overview of all news stories since your last visit.

Latest Poll
Poll: Should States be Allowed to Peacefully Leave the Union?

Yes

0% (0 votes)

No

0% (0 votes)

Not Sure

0% (0 votes)

[ Click here for details ]

News Tags collapse/expand
The news tag list is currently empty

New Forum Topics collapse/expand

Online Users
There are currently 14 user(s) online:
Google

Welcome to our website

To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.

Western Voices World News » News » June 2012 » Divorce Culture

Divorce Culture

Contributed by: Humanum Review on: 06/01/2012 05:28 PM [ Print | 6 comment(s) ]

by Michael Roesch

Review of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's "The Divorce Culture"

"... society balked at the idea of divorcing one's spouse on the grounds of simple unhappiness. This changed after the Second World War, as people increasingly looked to the self for fulfillment. It was in this egocentric cultural milieu that divorce became a mode for self-expression and a tool for self-improvement. Especially for women, this new, expressive understanding of divorce meant a new capacity for taking control of one's own life."


"Ideas are important in revolutions, yet surprisingly little attention has been devoted to the ideas that gave impetus to the divorce revolution" (pp. 3-4). Writing in the mid-1990s, about thirty years into the "divorce revolution," social historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead points out a fundamental change in society that, oddly enough, has largely been ignored. Divorce, it was promised, would free women caught in bad marriages... but what actually happened? Whitehead presents a strong critique of the popular culture's talking points on divorce, pointing out what actually led to the explosion in divorce rate in the second half of the twentieth century, as well as the effects it has had on families, individual spouses, and children.

The focus of Whitehead's study is the change in what marriage and divorce mean for a couple, and how this change has affected the bonds between husband and wife, parents and children. Criticism of the American divorce rate in the public square almost invariably places the center of discussion on the legal shift to no-fault divorce. While an important part of the debate, especially because it effectively allowed one parent to unilaterally disrupt the other parent's relationship with his or her children, this legal change does not comprise the main theme in Whitehead's pages. Instead, she presents a full history of American divorce reflecting on the phenomenon from the nineteenth century onward, in terms not of its legal availability but rather of the predominant social circumstances surrounding divorce, and the reasons given for divorcing. A broader historical account (reminding the reader that divorce wasn't suddenly invented in the 1960s) enables her to explain the shift to what she terms "expressive divorce."
Whitehead places the rise of expressive divorce in the same cultural phase that saw a huge increase in the use of the therapy for the treatment of unhappiness rather than mental illness. In the first half of the twentieth century, the reasons people cited for divorce most commonly included economic hardship or the lack of financial support, and society balked at the idea of divorcing one's spouse on the grounds of simple unhappiness. This changed after the Second World War, as people increasingly looked to the self for fulfillment. It was in this egocentric cultural milieu that divorce became a mode for self-expression and a tool for self-improvement. Especially for women, this new, expressive understanding of divorce meant a new capacity for taking control of one's own life. Whitehead's subjects talk of their newfound freedom and rebirth offered by divorce in almost sacramental terms (despite the fact that the prospect was not always for the better, as Whitehead shows, especially for poorer women and single mothers).

At the same time, institutions that had once been supportive of marriage were also caught up in the individualistic psychology of the age. Mainline ministers deferred to psychological methods when working with couples, and marriage counselors were trained to be neutral on the issue of divorce. Whitehead cites a therapist as saying, "We are in the business of saving individuals, not marriages" (p. 71). Perhaps most interestingly, Whitehead turns throughout the book to etiquette literature such as Emily Post to take the pulse of the culture's attitudes on divorce. Where in the first half of the century the etiquette literature represented divorce as a failure, and even reinforced the taboos on it while devising a proper way for divorced couples to behave and for others to behave toward them, by the 70s it was taken for granted as a societal norm and the focus was on how best to discuss it.

What Whitehead notes as missing from the thought of the culture during this drastic change in attitudes to divorce was the children. The prevailing thought at the beginning of the expressive divorce era was simply that children would be happier when they had happier parents, but it was abundantly clear by the time Whitehead was writing that this was not always the case. With a devastating array of statistics and anecdotal evidence, she argues for a re-centering of the divorce discussion around the party that is actually the most vulnerable: the child. She also spends some time discussing what she calls the "Love Family ideology" - a redefinition of family to de-emphasize the biological connection in favor of a voluntary bond or feeling. In this ideology, parenting becomes un-gendered (and, as she argues, therefore has an emphasis on the feminine) and other adult figures are expected to step into a child's life, so that the absence of a father is not seen as a real loss. Most important in her analysis is the reduction of fatherhood in many families to a court-mediated cultural model "symbolized by three documents: the birth certificate, the child support check, and the sentimental greeting card" (p. 171).

In her conclusion, Whitehead's prescriptions for the problem are somewhat modest. In addition to her constant advocacy for viewing the children as "key stakeholders in their parents' marriage" (p. 190), she most notably calls for an increased understanding that marriage is not just about one person, or even two or a family, but the entire society. She believes that the first step is educating the public to understand that easy divorce represents a failure for our culture. Her own work is a good place to begin. Her analysis provides a strikingly complete, if secular, survey of divorce. In fact, though it is in no way dated, despite the decade and a half since its publication, new questions have arisen that would prompt us to take her conclusions even further. While many of the children of divorce have grown up to provide further evidence for her conclusions, and a large number of them are committed never to make the same mistakes as their parents, a widespread lack of trust in the permanence of marriage now causes issues at the other end. Increasingly, couples cohabit before marriage, or even decide to forgo it completely. One also wonders to what extent the issues of gender, fatherhood, and motherhood could even be discussed today in a popular secular work, as Whitehead does. Divorce Culture is an important, accessible work, bringing light to bear on the devastation caused to families by divorce, but it is only a beginning in the task of re-assembling a culture of marriage.

Original Article Here



Digg it! Slashdot Del.ico.us Technorati Fark it! Blinklist Furl NewsVine Windows Live Netscape Google Bookmarks Reddit! LinkaGoGo Tailrank Wink Dzone Simpy Spurl Yahoo! MyWeb NetVouz RawSugar Smarking Scuttle Magnolia BlogMarks Nowpublic FeedMeLinks Wists Onlywire Connotia Shadows Co.mments


« The Search for Wisdom in Education · Divorce Culture · Strategies for White Advocacy »

Re: Divorce Culture

composer
Junior Member



Posts: 14
Joined: 2012-06-06

#22 Posted on: 06/10/2012 04:33 PM
What is marriage? From a secular point of view it seems the only main difference between cohabitation and marriage is a legal one. From a traditional religious viewpoint however (I'm talking monotheistic religions) a marriage is a promise a man and a woman make before God (and secondarily, a church community) to stay together, until death do they part. In the Bible Jesus makes it clear that sexual immorality is the only grounds for divorce, and when he came upon the Samaritan woman at the well, he said she had had several husbands, but none of them were her husband. For him, starting a sexual relationship was the same as entering into marriage. There are other things marriage represents from a uniquely Christian view, such as it being a picture of Christ and the church (with all members of the church being the bride.) When someone writes a book about changing views on divorce and marriage in culture, one cannot ignore the changing views on religion in the culture.

Re: Divorce Culture

rob_brown77
Junior Member



Posts: 4
Joined: 2012-06-06

#24 Posted on: 06/10/2012 08:45 PM
You are right -- religion manifests in values, and values affect divorce.

Re: Divorce Culture

activitiesincommon
Junior Member



Posts: 1
Joined: 2012-06-17

#100 Posted on: 06/17/2012 12:12 PM
wow nice post. Thanks for sharing this post......... how to meet people

Re: Divorce Culture

RobWinfield
Junior Member



Posts: 6
Joined: 2012-06-06

#108 Posted on: 06/19/2012 12:37 PM
This is a very important topic. I think that young people who are getting married need to understand that marriage is about raising successful, healthy children first and foremost; the whole "romantic love" thing is biochemically indistinguishable from eating a pound of chocolate, and choosing divorce because of loss of "romance" or "wanting to trade in the mother of one's children for a new model" is reprehensible and a betrayal of one's children. Children will be most healthy if they can grow up with both biological parents. I am fortunate enough to be raising my daughter in such a situation. My daughter's happy situation is the exception; most of us grew up in broken homes. And I see a huge difference in my daughter. She is secure; she has no inclination to "go find a new tribe." She isn't willing to degrade herself in order to keep friends/boyfriends. She still goes on family outings with us and enjoys them, despite being a typical teenager. And she shares our goals for her -- she wants to get into an Ivy League school and is willing to work towards that goal. The older a kid gets before he or she tries drugs/sex et cetera, the less a problem these things will be, and the less likely they will be involved in drug abuse or abusive relationships. The reason drug abuse and couple abuse is so widespread is because they start so young. I got my start in sex and drugs at age 11, courtesy of "babysitters" after my mom kicked out my dad, then pursued her dreams of a career. Needless to say, I had a horrible chlidhood and I definitely could have achieved more in this life had I had a better start. Nevertheless, at age 42 I'm studying calculus and chemistry and going to UConn Storrs with the hopes of getting a B.S. in calculus and working in the petrochemical industry. There are some things in life that are hard facts; facts that no liberal can talk you out of, or scorn you out of, because I have lived and suffered from these hard facts of a broken home; and conversely, I have proven to my own satisfaction the counterfactual. Namely, that it's possible to raise happy children in an unbroken home. Latchkey kids, drug abuse, child molestation, race mixing, sex trafficking, and even untimely death of chlidren -- all this can be laid at the doorstep of the feminists and liberals. They are truly evil monsters. We have a clearcut, black and white moral war to wage. I see it as an analogy with the religious wars of the middle ages, such as the 30 years war and the 100 years war. We have been in a 100 years war without fighting back. I think, judging from the comments of online newspaper articles, we have begun to enjoin the battle.

Re: Divorce Culture

John Young
Member



Posts: 81
Joined: 2012-05-12

#109 Posted on: 06/19/2012 02:10 PM
There is no question that the existence of no-fault divorce, coupled with the fact that in 90% of cases where custody is contested, the woman wins, has created a system of perverse incentives that are detrimental to children being raised in intact homes. Obviously, men are incentivized to stay married no matter what, even in the case of severe physical and emotional abuse, whereas women are incentivized to abandon a marriage for even relatively light reasons. This differential in incentives is reflected in the rates at which men and women initiate divorce, with women doing so twice as often as men. If we can accept as a given that men and women are of equal moral stature and thus equally likely to be toads within a marriage, the differential in rates can be entirely explained by the perverse incentives of our system. Obviously, even before the no-fault revolution (which was quite specifically championed by persons who self-identified as feminists), divorce was an option for FAULT grounds -- abuse, neglect, insanity, criminality, infidelity, drug addiction etc. There were plenty of reasons allowed for ending this lifetime commitment. But even these grounds were insufficient for the self-identified feminist who would not rest until divorce could be granted for light and transient causes. Of course, these same champions worked non-stop to turn child support into one of the most draconian and punitive systems imaginable. To their credit, based upon the work of their Frankfurt School mentor and author of The Authoritarian Personality, between insane levels of divorce that have turned marriage into little more than a shack-up arrangement and men literally going on marriage strike out of sheer fear, men have been effectively removed from the lives of more than half of European-American children. Fully a third are born with no father in the home at all. Half of the remainder wind up without a father within five years of being born. Many of the 1/3rd born without their fathers in the home are on various forms of welfare because the men only agreed to the impregnation under terms of not being legally identified. In essence, a great many European American women are using the government as a surrogate father for their children. The statistics on what happens with children raised without their biological father in the home are quite grim. Obviously, these are averages and there will always be some kid who defies the odds, but overall it is clear that lack of a biological father in the home dramatically increases rates of teen pregnancy, drug use and criminal behavior while severely inhibiting academic achievement. I would certainly like to see no-fault repealed; as no-fault is a no-win for the future. But too many people have a vested interest in their hedonistic whim worship. They got married under terms that were no more binding than shacking up, and they won't accept a change in the rules. I believe it would indeed be possible, though, to create contracts for marriage under which the parties surrender their no-fault rights and agree to joint physical custody at the outset, which would make the incentives more fair and thereby reduce divorce overall.

Re: Divorce Culture

composer
Junior Member



Posts: 14
Joined: 2012-06-06

#119 Posted on: 06/20/2012 01:11 PM
I think that young people who are getting married need to understand that marriage is about raising successful, healthy children first and foremost; the whole "romantic love" thing is biochemically indistinguishable from eating a pound of chocolate, and choosing divorce because of loss of "romance" or "wanting to trade in the mother of one's children for a new model" is reprehensible and a betrayal of one's children. Kudos to your daughter for seeking a prestigious college - if she works within the "system" and can hold her moral ground in the face of liberal education's influence, she can even be a good influence on other college students. I think you touch on the heart of the issue when you open the discussion of what marriage is about, because marriage means different things to different people. I could tell you more about marriage from the Christian/Biblical standpoint, which can be informative even if you do not believe it (and I know most people on this site do not.) It's hard for me to refer to an ultimate authority as to what marriage is within mere moral and cultural relativism. I would encourage more discussion in this forum thread about seeking to define what marriage is, and how you would teach it, because that understanding plays a big part in reducing divorce. Just a brief run-down on some aspects of Biblical marriage: Marriage in Genesis is described as "becoming one flesh" until one of you dies, which doesn't mean you become the same person, but your bodies belong to each other. Jesus says the only excusable reason for divorce is sexual immorality, and that marrying a divorced person is the same as adultery. Paul and Peter emphasized that the primary role of husbands is to love their wives and make sacrifices for them, and to be a spiritual leader, and wives are primarily to respect and submit to their husbands (so long as the husband is not doing anything wrong.)

Post New Comment

Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum

Western Voices World News » News » June 2012 » Divorce Culture

Powered by Contentteller® Standard Edition