An Aberration or a Logical Outcome of the American Ideology - Assignment Example

Divorce: An Aberration or a Logical Outcome of the American Ideology? Divorce has become a common and even expected outcome of marriages today. With nearly half of all marriages in the United States of America commonly held to end in separation, divorce has proved to be an interesting area of sociological research. In this essay, we will primarily look at, and check for relevance today, Peter D. Kramer’s claim in ‘Divorce and Our National Values’ that divorce is deeply rooted in American culture. Kramer claims that in literary, historical, economic and social terms, American culture reinforces the ideal of the individual and implicitly negates the idea of partnership or mutuality. The validity of this argument today will be checked by reviewing the arguments and the counter-arguments that Kramer himself provides in the essay as well as those that appear elsewhere. To set the context, we will also look at present-day statistics and opinions on divorce rates in the United States and touch upon other, more contemporary issues that have arisen related to the questions of marriage and separation. To present Kramer’s basic argument: Kramer insists that the increasing numbers of American couples opting to separate rather than stay together is the direct fallout of the value system and lifestyle that America collectively espouses. Kramer’s basic contention is that the contemporary emphasis on autonomy of the individual as the foundation of a good relationship is what causes more frequent break-ups. This emphasis may be in the form of the psychiatrist’s advice to the couple to stand their own ground in an argument; or may be reflected in classic American literature like Thoreau’s ‘self-help book’ Walden, which celebrates the individual spirit; or in the economic ideal of Capitalism that America proudly ‘exports’; and other such ideas fundamental to the American way of life. Despite the changed contexts and newer developments since publication of Kramer’s article, it remains a text that is still valid and instructive in analyzing a pervasive social phenomenon visible in the United States even today. Even though fifteen years have passed since it was first published, Kramer’s arguments still stand up to scrutiny. A recent article on CNBC reveals how because of the growing acceptance and maturing of the ‘two-income family model’, divorce rates have actually been falling over the last decade in America. It reveals how in the 1970s initially, there was a sudden surge in divorce rates with more and more women joining the workforce and divorce laws becoming more liberal. This trend continued for several years but in the last decade or so, even though women continue to work in as great numbers and even though divorce is still an easy process, legally, divorce rates have actually dropped (‘Two-Income Family Model’). The CNBC report attributes this to the fact that what was earlier a major bone of contention between couples – their respective incomes – has become less of an issue. It also reveals how people are waiting longer to marry: According to the Census Bureau, the median age at first marriage has risen from 23 for men and 20 for women in 1950 to 28 for men and 26 for women in 2009 (‘Two-Income Family Model’). The report takes this to be indicative of the fact that people are waiting longer to get married and are hence, taking their marriages more seriously, giving themselves and their prospective spouses, time for an education, for financial security, and for emotional maturity before they settle down. These delayed marriages are better planned and therefore last longer. However, popular sentiment, as displayed on this report itself, shows that there is some cynicism about these statistics; and even when the statistics are accepted as valid, a common opinion is that divorces have reduced in number mainly because of their increasing expense. As one commenter puts it: ‘it is cheaper to keep her’ (‘Two-Income Family Model’). But popular opinion notwithstanding, statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention support the CNBC report. Nearly all the states have shown decreased rates of divorce over the last decade. States like Nevada have gone from having divorce rates of 11.4 per 1000 total population in 1990 to 5.9 in 2010. But not all states have shown such a spectacular decrease. For instance, Maine has only gone from 4.3 to 4.2 per 1000 total population in the same period; while New Jersey has risen and fallen over the last ten years to return to the same figure in 2010, as in 1990, of 3.0 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). This new trend of decreasing divorce rates in some ways questions the very basis of Peter D. Kramer’s article ‘Divorce and Our National Values’ by presenting a fundamentally different scenario from the one imagined in the article: one where divorce rates are plummeting rather than soaring. But we must remember that the article by Kramer was published in 1997. His focus was more on a retrospective analysis of unusually high divorce rates in the US and reasons therein, rather than on trying to predict whether or not these rates would fall or rise. The change in situation does not invalidate the article as his conclusions on the erstwhile scenario are still well-researched, examined and convincingly argued. What this new trend in divorce rates can be attributed to is yet to be studied in detail but it would be interesting to see Peter D. Kramer’s take on this recent trend. Kramer also goes against many of his contemporaries in the field of psychology when he makes his case. For instance, Carl Rogers claimed in the 1970s that the best marriages actually increased ‘self-actualization’ of the individuals involved. In short, according to Rogers, the greater the level of freedom and independence enjoyed by the partners, the ‘better’ the marriage. There are others who support this view as Kramer himself presents in the article. For instance, Erik Erikson’s famous ‘stages of psychosocial development’ suggested that the search for individual identity was the primary concern of this century. Another psychologist, Murray Bowen, suggested that maturity could be measured by one’s ability to stand by one’s personal views in the face of opposition from family (Kramer). Kramer’s own suggestion to these counter-arguments is that perhaps we should dismantle ‘self-actualization’ as the goal and replace it with another ideal: mutuality. Mutual happiness and care, according to Kramer, can be just as worthy and fulfilling a goal in marriage. Compromise may mean a certain degree of loss of selfhood, but it does not necessarily mean loss of happiness or fulfillment. To make his point, he also cites the work of sociologist Helen Merrell Lynd who stated that ‘completely finding oneself’ must not take precedence over finding oneself through others (Kramer). Another issue crops up at this point, related to gender. Kramer reveals how women are supposed to be naturally more compromising. We have been so socialized into believing these stereotypes that in relationships women often feel pressurized to be the pliant and compromising one. Since this is true for a large part of the population, the kind of ideal of mutuality that Kramer proposes might just work out unfairly for women and perpetuate greater inequality in marriages. To counter this, Kramer suggests that by fully accepting mutuality and not expecting only women to inculcate it, we can work towards developing a value system which actually supports longer-lasting relationships instead of encouraging separation. This ideal of mutuality must also be actively encouraged in schools, at work and other locations for it to actually translate into a goal worth achieving in marriage also. This idea of mutuality, as proposed by Kramer in his essay and supported by sociologists like Lynd, has found supporters among other social scientists as well who have managed to find empirical data for their claims. In their report titled ‘Marital Strengths in Enduring Marriages’, Linda Robinson and Priscilla Blanton do an extensive survey to list out qualities common to long-standing marriages. Their findings reveal that qualities like intimacy, commitment, communication, congruence, religious orientation and so on as crucial to making a marriage last long (41). To cite here, just one example of Robinson’s and Blanton’s findings (emphases added): Positive communication skills involved sharing thoughts and feelings, discussing problems together, and listening to the other person’s point of view. Thus, it evolved out of mutual respect between the partners (41). We notice that the primary focus of these qualities – intimacy with one another, commitment to the marriage and to each other, positive communication between the couple, congruence in their perceptions of their relationship, and so on – is on inter-relating rather than independence. Most of these enduring qualities involve active involvement of both partners and a certain degree of compromise or acceptance of each other. This is quite different from the emphasis on self-actualization and ‘maturity’ as defined by Rogers, Bowen and the like. Robinson and Blanton have done their exhaustive research in this paper by conducting interviews and taking surveys of fifteen couples, who had been married for longer than a period of thirty years, to reach these conclusions. Empirical data, then, seems to support Kramer’s argument that mutuality is important to a long-standing relationship; giving it a foundation in fact rather than just conjecture. Kramer’s argument can also be tested against popular present-day theories on divorce. For instance, the online version of the magazine Psychology Today reveals how the focus has changed from preventing divorces to focusing on how to have a ‘healthy’ divorce, how to recover from divorces, how to let children stay unaffected by divorces, and so on. Just a cursory glance at the topic ‘Divorce’ on the website reveals articles with titles like: ‘Divorce Diaries: Want a Great Divorce in 2012? Here’s How’, ‘Honey, Let’s Get Divorced’, ‘Top 10 Tips for a Great Divorce’, ‘Is Marriage Becoming Obsolete?’ and so on (‘Psych Basics: Divorce’). This is just one instance of how divorce has ceased to be viewed negatively and has become something ordinary. As Kramer had argued years before, divorce has come to be accepted as an expected, if not likely, outcome of marriage. In this sense, his article far from being outdated actually proves to be prescient. A relatively recent development that has happened since the publication of Kramer’s article has been the gradual popularization and legalization of same-sex marriages. Whether or not Kramer’s argument holds up in the light of cases involving same-sex divorces is instructive to note. In a case reported in the The Washington Post about the conundrum of trying to get a same-sex divorce in a state where same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized, Ellen McCarthy reveals how the lesbian couple had decided to separate shortly after their marriage. The lawyer to one of the women seeking a divorce declares that ‘Fifty percent of gay couples break up — just like straight people.’ The reasons cited by the couple are also not unfamiliar: ‘we wanted different things.’ The fact that gender did not significantly affect the outcome of this marriage in some ways makes us reconsider Kramer’s argument that maybe this has more to do with a broader American value system than with gender roles alone. This is somewhat true across races as well. As a Huffington Post report on the U. S. Census Bureau’s survey on the subject reveals, rates of divorce among American Indians, Blacks and Whites were 12.6%, 11.5% and 10.8% respectively, between 2005 and 2009 (‘Divorce by Race’). These reveal that there are only marginal differences between races in terms of the divorce rates seen, further pointing towards reasons other than merely race as instrumental in bringing about such high rates of divorce. Perhaps, as Kramer argues, it is the wider social acceptance of divorce and the insistence on individuality that is also a cause. We see therefore, that despite new trends in divorce rates, Kramer’s opinion is not invalidated. In certain cases, he is even able to predict the ways in which divorce has come to be accepted as the norm. Empirical data and popular opinion today also back his theory. Same-sex divorce rates and divorce rates by race also reveal that there are factors other than merely gender roles or ethnicity at play. Kramer’s opinion on the reasons for divorce is well-researched and successfully manages to counter any contrary opinions by pre-empting them, analyzing them and accommodating or dismissing them. In doing so, he provides us with an invaluable insight into a common sociological problem that even after fifteen years of its publication, is able to provide us with a possible answer where other reasons fail. Works Cited: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Divorce Rates by State: 1990, 1995 and 1999-2010. PDF File. ‘Divorce by Race and Ethnicity.’ HuffingtonPost.com. 12 Jan. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. Kramer, Peter D. ‘Divorce and our National Values.’ NYTimes.com. 29 Aug. 1997. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. McCarthy, Ellen. ‘A Court’s Conundrum: When Same-Sex Partners Want to Split.’ WashingtonPost.com. 10 Apr. 2012. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. ‘Psych Basics: Divorce.’ PsychologyToday.com. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. Robinson, Linda C. and Blanton, Priscilla W. ‘Marital Strengths in Enduring Marriages.’ Family Relations 42.1 (1993): 38-45. Print. ‘Two-Income Family Model Matures.’ CNBC.com. 7 May 2012. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. Read More