DIVORCE AND DEATH:
THEIR SOCIAL & SOCIAL- PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACTS

THE DIVORCE REVOLUTION

The belief that rising divorce rates indicate the dissolution of the family--and hence of society, given that the family is its central building block--is far from new. Timothy Dwight, president of Yale, complained in 1816 that marriage and the family were going to the dogs in Connecticut because one marriage in a hundred was ending in divorce. Between 1869 and 1889, the divorce rate increased 150%. It jumped another 250% between 1960 and 1980. After peaking in 1981 and declining through the mid-eighties, the rate  leveled off at about 4.7 divorces per 1,000 population in the late 1980s and early 1990s before again declining to 4.2 in 1998.  Interestingly, while divorces overall dropped between 1981 and 1990, there was a 16 percent rise in divorces of couples married 30 years or more. For the first time in history, a married couple is as likely to be parted by divorce as by death. Click here to see divorce data sets  from the National Center for Health Statistics; for an overview of Glenda Riley's Divorce: An American Tradition, click here.

Numerous factors underlying rising divorce rates have been identified or suspected.   Christopher Lasch identifies Victorian roots of the revolution in "Divorce and the Family in America" (The Atlantic Monthly, 1966).  Additional prime suspects include:

• Examining predictors of the 1989 divorce rate per 1000 population among the fifty most populous nations of the world, we find the following to be statistically significant: percent of national legislators who were women in 1992 (r=.44); annual growth of labor force between 1980 and 1992 (.37); 1980 female life expectancy as percent of male life- expectancy (.40); average annual growth rate of urban populations 1980-92 (.41); and per capita energy consumption rates in 1980 (.33). What do these correlations tell you about the bearing of female rights and economics on divorce rates?

• Pursuing economic matters further, we observe how in the United States divorce rates decline in economic hard times and increase during times of prosperity. Not only do economic good times make separation more affordable, they also lead individuals to marry earlier, which, as we know, increases the likelihood of divorce. Looking at the combined 1973-2002 NORC General Social Surveys, we find, for instance, that 50% of women 35 and older who were first married before turning 19 ultimately divorced, compared with 24% who married when they were 26 or older (for men, the corresponding figures are 54% and 21%).
• With modernization, marital relations are increasingly concluded with divorce as opposed to desertion, as in the past many were unable to afford the legal costs of divorce.
• Changing ideologies about family life, with men and women entering marriage with greater expectations of finding personal happiness and fulfillment in their relationships, setting many up for disappointment.
• Divorce spawns divorce. Again looking at the combined 1973-2002 NORC GSS, among individuals 35 and older, those parents were divorced when they were 16 years of age are nearly two-thirds more likely to themselves have been divorced than those from "intact" families (for men, 53% vs. 32%; for women, 60% vs. 38%).

• Changes in the predominant personality types in modern society, featuring greater individualism which, according to Bellah et. al in Habits of the Heart, leads to greater difficulty in finding satisfaction in sustained, committed relationships.
• There's the impact of the longevity revolution. One century ago, when one said "I do," there was the actuarial fact that the commitment until "death do us part" was for approximately a quarter of a century. As American life expectancies have increased from 47 years to nearly 80 over the course of this century, that time of commitment has roughly doubled.
• The declining stigma of divorce and easing of divorce laws. Over the past quarter century, all states have adopted some form of "no-fault" divorce, during which time divorce rates increased 30 percent. These statutes have made divorces easier, quicker, and devoid of moral blame. By the mid-90s, several state legislatures (Iowa, Idaho, Georgia, and Pennsylvania) were considering toughening divorce laws, such as by restoring the assignment of fault.

Since 1974, the NORC General Social Surveys have included the question "Should divorce in this country be easier or more difficult to obtain than it is now?" (variable DIVLAW) Between 1974 and 2002, the percentage of Americans responding "easier" declined from 34% to 27% while the percentage saying divorce should be more difficult increased from 44% to 51%. So who is most likely to want divorce laws tightened?

• In total, women are 5 percentage points more likely than men to make divorce more difficult. This sex difference peaked during the late 1980s.
• Strongly religious Americans are half-again as likely to favor more difficult divorce laws than their non-strongly religious counterparts (64% vs. 44%). However, over time, this percentage difference (20% for all years) has declined.
• Over all of the years, political conservatives have been significantly more likely to favor stronger divorce laws (60%) than moderates (51%) and liberals (41%), with little change over time.
• Generally, the older the cohort the greater the support for making divorce more difficult, from 65% of those born before the turn of the century to 46% of those born during the 1950s and 47% of those born 1960 or later.
• Social class has little impact on Americans' attitudes, though those identifying themselves as members of the lower class are approximately 30% more likely to favor easier divorce laws than those of the working, middle, and upper classes.
• Looking at the combined surveys, we observe the following relationships between DIVLAW and marital status and sex:
  

  SEX AND MARITAL STATUS BY ATTITUDES TOWARD DIVORCE LAWS

  		EASIER	MORE  DIFF	STAY    AS IS	TOTAL
  FIRST MARRIAGE	MAL	24%	56%	20%	5542
  	FEM	20	62	18	6292
  DIVORCED, REMARRIED	MAL	29%	44%	27%	1424
  	FEM	25	47	27	1388
  DIVORCED	MAL	36%	42%	22%	1108
  	FEM	32	41	27	1895
  SEPARATED	MAL	53%	30%	17%	304
  	FEM	51	27	22	604
  WIDOWED	MAL	24%	57%	20%	449
  	FEM	18	64	19	2137
  NEVER MARRIED	MAL	37%	40%	23%	2511
  	FEM	36	43	21	2375

Given our need for rite-of-passage rituals coupled with the importance of divorcing couples with children to remain friends rather than bitter enemies, it is not surprising that divorce ceremonies have appeared. In 1980, Sheila Davis, a divorce-court welfare officer in Birmingham, England, devised the following procedure: She asks couples to join hands and repeat after her, "Goodbye and thank you for the good times we had in our marriage. I wish you all the best. Our relationship will continue as mother and father of our children but not as husband and wife. Good luck." Click here for an example of a Unitarian divorce ceremony.  See ABCNews.com's report "Parting Rite: More Couples Marking Divorce With a Ceremony."

DIVORCE'S IMPACT ON CHILDREN

In 1990, 16.8 per 1000 children under 18 years of age were involved in divorce. It is estimated that more than one-half of American children are now likely to experience the dissolution of their parents' marriage by the time they are 18. One third of children born during the 1980s are predicted to live in a stepfamily before 18. In studying how these children of divorce fare as adults, Glenn and Kramer (1985) analyzed eight years of the NORC General Social Science Surveys and found that on eight indicators of psychological well-being (e.g., happiness, health, and satisfactions with life activities) that female children of divorce scored as adults significantly lower on six measures and males lower on three. Click here for an analysis of the long- term effects of parental divorce on children.

In Lewis Terman's famous longitudinal study of gifted California children (n=1,521), begun in 1921 with follow-ups every 5 or 10 years, it was found that those whose parents divorced faced a 33 percent greater risk of an earlier death (average age at death=76 years) than those whose parents remained married until the children reached age 21 (average age at death=80). According to Dr. Howard Friedman, who did the analyses, there was no such mortality effect for children whose parents had died (cited in Daniel Goleman. 1995. "75 Years Later, Study Is Still Tracking Geniuses." New York Times [March 7]).

DIVORCE'S IMPACT ON SPOUSES

In addition to the toll on children, there are the emotional and financial costs bore by the divorced spouses, particularly for the female. In 1986, the media carried the statistics of how in the first year following a divorce that, on average, women's standard of living declined by 73% while that of men increased by 43%--figures that were later corrected to -27% and +10% respectively.  One analysis of national mortality data showed that for deaths that could be related to psychological factors, the divorced were worse off than the widowed in eight of 10 categories. When, for instance, comparing the suicide rates of females who were married with those divorced or widowed, the rate was more than twice as great for widowed women and almost three and a half times higher for women who were separated or divorced (cited in Jane Brody, "Divorce's Stress Exacts Long-Term Health Toll," New York Times, Dec. 13, 1983).

• DIVORCEINFO.COM -- "helping you survive your divorce"
• Comprehensive Divorce and Information Site -- "Everything you need to know about divorce and more. Resources galore!"

DIVORCE'S IMPACT ON GRANDPARENTS

According to Dr. Arnold Kornhaber, co-author of Grandparents-Grandchildren: The Vital Connection, the grandparent-grandchild bond is second only in emotional importance to the bond between parents and children. For grandparents, grandchildren represent a form of symbolic immortality. So what happens when their child, the parent of their only grandchildren, gets divorced and loses visitation rights? In 1984, the New York Supreme Court ruled in such a case, over the objections of a boy's mother and adoptive father, that his paternal grandparents have a right under state law to visit their grandson even through his real father no longer had visitation rights. By 1990, laws in all 50 states allow the grandparents to petition the courts to keep seeing their grandchildren. In 1997, legislation was proposed in Iowa for great-grandparent visitation rights.

It is interesting that the time when most of these laws protecting grandparent visitation rights were established, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, corresponded with the 1978 establishment of "Grandparents Day" (which falls on the first Sunday after Labor Day). In fact, getting Congress to pass legislation for Grandparent's Day was no easy feat. A retired real estate developer with a number of older supporters lobbied for six years until it was made official.

STEPFAMILIES

It is estimated by some demographers that as many as one-third of all children born during the 1980s will live with a stepparent before they reach 18. According to the latest available Census figures, there were close to 7 million children living in stepfamilies (or "blended" families) in 1985, an increase of 11.6 percent in just five years.

There are a number of recognized problems and needs of stepfamilies, of these families born of loss. When compared to those from intact families, stepchildren are reported by psychologists to have significantly more developmental, emotional and behavioral problems, but these vary given the educational and income levels of their families and their age at the time of remarriage.

Sociologist Albert Bergesen (University of Arizona) develops the ironies of how these new family forms can actually increase broader social solidarities--how divorce, instead of producing more singles, yields ever larger family unities which he labels "filament families". He argues that because of the rise of no-fault divorce--where one is to remain friends with the ex-, or at least be cordial--and with the growth of joint custody of children, relations are extended beyond both nuclear and blended families. Increasing divorce thus leads to ever-wider webs of familial relations. For example, say following divorce, that dad's children go to live with their mother and her new family. Given his continuing parental responsibility, dad remains close to them and perhaps develops some relationship with their new step brothers and sisters (and possibly even with the step-grandparents, -aunts, and -uncles). When mom divorces again, she moves on with the children from her first marriage and with their new half brothers and sisters (and possibly even with the step brothers and sisters from the second marriage; social workers report an increasing incidence of custodial parents remarrying into a blended family and then disappearing, leaving the new spouse with his or her children). The visitation rights of the stepparents, in addition to those of the grandparents, have already been reaffirmed by the courts in certain conditions. Are you still with me? Do we not still have a family, albeit one with thinner and looser ties (hence the filament label)? Since dad remains responsible for his children and friendly with his ex, this family remains, no matter how many times he or his ex remarry.

Stepfamily Association of America

Stepfamily Foundation

FamilyFusion--a newsletter and web forum that serves the stepfamily and blended family communities

Given one underlying theme of these pages, the commodification of family life, it should come as little surprise that divorce has spawned a multibillion dollar industry. Those who profit include marriage mediators, special attorneys (legal fees alone amounted to over three billion dollars by the mid-1980s), property appraisers, therapists, and even the appliance and furniture industries (regarding the latter, a consultant for furniture retailers and manufacturers observed how the “divorce rate is keeping the furniture business alive” [Iovine, Julie V. 2001. “Divorce creating furniture niche.” New York Times, July 12]. )  According to the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts, there was as of 1995 more than 500 court-affiliated parent-education programs for divorcing parents in 41 states.

DivorceNet--"the net's largest divorce resource"

The Divorce Directory--compendium of articles on divorce, divorce laws (broken down by state), and related legal issues

DIVORCE Magazine: Home Page

Divorce Online

Divorce Talk

The Divorce Page

Divorce & Family Law Links (Marital Dissolution, Child Custody, Division of Property, Mediation)

CHILD CUSTODY STRATEGIES FOR FATHERS

DEATHS OF FAMILY MEMBERS

Every year, nearly eight million Americans suffer the death of a close family member. The event can disrupt life patterns and routines for as long as three years, commonly for at least a year. There are, of course, a number of factors determining this disruptive potential of death, including:

• Who dies. Because death in modern societies is largely confined to the old, the death of a child is often more emotionally devastating for those of the parent generation than are the deaths of those of the great-grandparent and grandparent generations. In the case of the death of an only child, there is also the death of parental roles and an increased likelihood of divorce. In the patriarchal families of the past, the death of a father, while dealing major economic and emotional blows, was also the event that allowed other families to come into being as children were freed to go their own separate ways.
• The deceased's contribution to family solidarities. As families become more mobile both geographically and socially, in many cases it is the grandparent generation that provides the key familial bond. It is at their homes that family members reunite during the holidays; it is their increasing need for assistance with advance years that can become the basis of renewed bonds between siblings who previously had "gone their own ways." With parental death, however, these ties between aunts, uncles, and cousins can be severed-- particularly if there were battles over inheritance.
• How family members die and patterns of familial assistance in their dying process. Some deaths, like suicide, can be highly stigmatizing for family members. Inequalities in care, such as when the burden of caring for a dying mother fall on one child, can trigger hostilities toward non-contributory siblings.

DEATHS OF GRANDPARENTS

Increasingly for those in the American middle class, the first familial death experienced is that of a grandparent. Indeed, for nearly one-half of the undergraduates here at Trinity University, the first remembered death experience involved the death of grandparents. For them, the lesson is that death typically comes to the old within institutionalized settings, to those who have lived full, completed lives. Had our sample of those in their early twenties included more minorities and those of the lower classes, the lesson may have been quite different: that death comes prematurely due to violence.

PARENTAL DEATH

Next to the death of spouse and offspring, the deaths of one's parents often produce the greatest degree of Americans' grief. Triggered may be guilt over failing to be the ideal son or daughter, and introspection, which can lead to closer ties with children or other family members. With the death of the last parent, one not only is "orphaned" but typically enters the status of family elder. One also becomes next generation "up to bat" with the Grim Reaper, as Ralph Keyes, author of Fathers on Sons, observes:

I think when you lose your parents, it's like that line of defense is gone. You're at the rear of a formation of soldiers being shot at and the first two rows collapse. ... I remember when my mom died a minister said to me that you feel vulnerable in a way you didn't when your parents were still alive. You have to step forward and say, "I'm ready to assume responsibility in the world."

Once again analyzing the combined NORC General Social Surveys from 1973- 94, let's first examine the timetables of parental death in the United States.

We don't hear much about orphans these days. With declines in adult mortality over the course of this century, the percentage of the total childhood population falling into this category dropped from 16.3 to 5.4 percent just between 1920 and 1953. In the United States, the last of the orphanages--one traditional mechanism for managing children without parents--disappeared during the 1950s. Another mechanism was the "orphan train," which carried more than 100,000 New York City orphans West between 1856 and 1930. At each stop, the children would be displayed before the train, where farmers and ranchers would make their selection (interpretations varied: some were chosing a child, others indentured servants or "white slaves"). Those not picked (and siblings were often separated) would reboard the train to move on to the next town.

WIDOWHOOD

In Lifting the Taboo: Women, Death and Dying (London: Little, Brown and Company), Sally Cline observes how the stigma of being a widow derives from the fact that it is a status typically occupied by females.  Indeed,  some 85% of wives outlive their husbands.  Examination of the marital status of those 65 years of age and older in the combined 1973-94 NORC General Social Surveys, women are more than three times as likely as men [56% vs. 18%] to be widowed.

In couple-oriented, patriarchal societies, the widow is one often viewed as being unavailable, uninteresting, and being either sexually uninviting or a predator. Observes Sally Cline:

The Old English widewe originated in the Indo-European root widh meaning to be empty or separated. The Sanskrit vidh means destitute or lacking. Joseph T. Shipley in the Dictionary of Word Origins points out that "since marriage has made two of one, a widow is a woman that has been emptied of herself." Other writers confirm this notion: "She was a widow, that strange feminine entity who had once been endowed with a dual personality and was now only half of what she had been." These meanings are not similarly affixed to widowers ( p. 147).