The Divorce Crisis: The Second Wave

Two decades ago, when I began teaching introductory sociology at Kennesaw State University, I knew I had to include a module on the family. I also knew I had to include information about divorce. These were standard materials in every introductory sociology course nationwide.
But I was not optimistic. Since most of the students in my classes were fairly young I reasoned that few of them had ever been married—never mind divorced. This was a subject to which they had to be exposed, yet one they would probably find boring.
Almost immediately, however, I realized I was profoundly wrong. A majority of my students—especially the younger ones—found divorce a fascinating subject. They sat up and paid attention. They even asked more penetrating questions than usual.
At first I was confused. But then it hit me. I decided to ask how many were the children of divorce. Much to my astonishment, time after time, more than half raised their hands. This was clearly why they were so interested. It was a problem with which they had personally grappled.
In fact, the number of divorces occurring in the United States, having peaked in the early 1990’s, has rolled back somewhat. Despite the early enthusiasm many people felt for an opportunity to escape bad relationships, large numbers soon discovered that this was easier in theory than practice.
Now it is their children who are discovering another legacy of divorce. What we in sociology have learned is that the children of divorce are less likely to marry than those brought up in intact families. Worse still, should they marry, they are twice as likely to divorce as their peers.
Nor should this be surprising. Having experienced, up-close and personal, how fragile intimate relations can be, they worry that they may not be able to make them work for themselves. After all, if Mom and Dad, both of whom were adults, could not keep their vows, how could they, as their children, expect to do better?
By the same token, how could they be expected to trust members of the opposite sex? Having witnessed the undependability of one parent or another, the lesson that men or women are inherently undependable was easy to incorporate. Clearly, although people may say they love one another, this does not mean they keep their word.
Add to this the anger of having been betrayed by their parents and their own adult relationships are apt to be fraught with insecurity. Ironically, as desperately as they desire reliable love, to this same degree they suspect love is never reliable. And because they are apprehensive, they contribute to its fragility.
So where does this leave us as a society? The lesson is this: precisely because modern marriage has become voluntary, it remains vulnerable to our human limitations. Likewise, because divorce has become so common, there are many more people whose personal experiences predispose them to undermining their own desires.
What then are we to do? The answer seems simple. Surely we must be personally responsible for our own marriages. No government program is going to come to our rescue here. In fact, strong marriages result from partners who are individually committed to making them work. Strong marriages also depend on two people who know what they are doing; which is to say, how to live intimately with another imperfect human being.
And so, despite what I have just said, the answer is not really simple. Hillary Clinton told us that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, it takes something beyond a village to save a marriage. Rather, it takes two people who are dedicated to making it work. And that is never easy.
The bottom line is that the government cannot guarantee our happiness in all areas. Only we can. Only we can assure interpersonal success; but only if we are individually, and collectively, dedicated to being accountable. Once more personal responsibility makes all the difference.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University