The Socioeconomics of Divorce
by W Chase
Divorce has become a growing trend in many western, industrialized nations – and particularly in the United States of America (Berk 270). Divorce is a subject of many interesting studies, and is a rather complex matter with varying causes, influences and consequences. The scope of this exposition, however, focuses on those factors determined by socioeconomic status, both within Bronfenbrenner’s “macrosystem” and “microsystem” (Berk 19). For the sake of clarity, the relevant definition of “socioeconomic status” (SES) used here is: “...an index which combines three related, but not completely overlapping, variables: 1) years of education and 2) prestige of and skill required by one’s job, both of which measure social status, and 3) income, which measures economic status (Berk 46).”, which for the purposes of this discourse is extended to societies as a whole, as well as to individuals. Socioeconomic status is not only an important component in the dynamics of divorce, it is also a bi-directional influence which underlies the complexity of this factor and the multi-faceted presence it has in our lives.
Within the macrosystem of our environment are all customs, cultural values, laws, and various resources established by society (Berk 20). These elements of the macrosystem are highly relevant forces that shape many (if not all) decisions that the cultural inhabitants make – including whether to marry, to maintain marriage, or to divorce. Public policies in other countries, for instance, will demonstrate extreme effects on the incentives provided to women concerning the matter of marriage and divorce. In certain Middle Eastern countries (e.g. Iran), the degree of political freedom for women is very low in contrast for males, which is both a result from the cultural expectations of such societies and a consequence of imposed legalities. In such cases as these, the condition of the macrosystem heavily favors males, typically at the expense of the females. With discriminatory policies that restricts economic opportunities and personal freedom for women, there will be fewer incentives to divorce as the costs of doing so will be far too great. Faced with prohibitively scarce career opportunities, women may become too dependent upon the income of their husbands to financially support themselves as single mothers or free-spirited bachelorettes, a dream often only achieved in countries with an overall higher socioeconomic status per capita, and greater equality in public policies (look no further than Argentina, a country with a female president). Adding further anguish for women in the Middle East seeking an escape from an undesirable marriage: simply looking for a better husband will not as feasible as it is for women in the United States. Arranged marriages are the norm, and various social customs in may incite suspicion and shame upon a stray woman desperately seeking a better partner.
One need not necessarily look beyond the USA to find parallels to the circumstances as illustrated above. The woman of the early 1900’s faced a widely differing array of economic opportunities and typically held differing social positions than the woman in the 2000’s does, largely due to contrasting macrosystems of the respective times. In earlier eras, the culturally imposed bromide that women’s place in society is limited to being a “domestic engineer”, was heavily consequential of lacking the resources for women to effectively control the occurrence of childbirth. The process of childbirth and further nursing the young is very time consuming, resource-intensive, and expensive. Given that this event is a fairly basic inevitability, this creates incentives for women to shape their vision of the future with that development, and pursue goals that are consistent with that vision. Invariably, this precludes highly developed careers, for at least two reasons: First, employers will be naturally hesitant to hire someone likely to leave the workplace soon, unless the position in question was ideal for one with short-range employment goals. Secondly, there is the matter of division of labor in the household. In theory, it could be possible for both the man and woman to work part-time, and be a domestic engineer the other half. However, this is simply not efficient as neither of the two would specialize in what they do, thereby forgoing the opportunity to become as fully productive as possible. A full-time housewife will generally be more productive at domestic engineering than will a part-time housewife. In other words, it is a more productive division of labor for the man to specialize in working professionally full time, while the woman specializes in working domestically full time. This pervasive economic principle amounts to the reality that women had a limited range of economic freedom stemming from fairly limited social positions, in which certain shortcomings of the macrosystem played a key role: the absence of economic resources for the purpose of developing and obtaining effective birth control (Harford 76). Under such conditions, the divorce rates would be understandably low, irrespective of the actual morale in marriages. America, too, was not always a pretty picture.
Today, the American macrosystem has developed much further. Women today are granted far greater capacities for birth control by birth pills, hormone injections, and more. Additionally, the legal landscape within the realm of divorce laws has changed. Prior to the 1960’s it was very costly for a man to divorce his wife due to higher alimony payments. This facet of public policy changed since 1969, when California and subsequently other states, introduced a “no-fault” divorce law which created more freedom in divorces: Any man or woman can walk away from the marriage simply by demanding a divorce (Harford 84). These two dynamisms, intertwined together, produce important incentives for women and men with regards to their marriage and divorce decisions. With higher risks of the husband leaving the marriage, the woman now has greater incentives to pursue a degree of independence, so that if worse comes to worse and the husband decides to walk away from the marriage at his own discretion, she will maintain a satisfactory level of living. How can this independence be attained? The most practical and effective method of establishing this sovereignty is through successful career development, which provides a means for social and economic stability. Consequently, the motivation to pursue autonomy and independence further strengthens the incentives for women to stay in school longer and advance their education, to broaden their horizon of opportunities in the career marketplace.
Yet, without the element of effective birth control enabling women to control and postpone this resource-intensive and time consuming event, women would still face substantial difficulty in attracting employers. This barrier to entry has diminished over time, as developments of the macrosystem led to increased accessibility of certain resources, such as child care services. Such resources can be utilized by parents for the purpose of quickly returning to their career, thereby creating much broader socioeconomic freedoms for women today. All of these developments amount to the growing trends in American and Western societies of women more often postponing childbirth and marriage, pursuing higher education, expanding their career development – and consequently staying single longer. Ironically, the ability to postpone marriage for extended periods of time due to higher socioeconomic status can ultimately have significant adverse effects on divorce, as economist Steven Landsburg has pointed out: “A 30-year-old woman who wants a family is getting close to the point where she has to choose the best of her available suitors. A 30-year-old man can always choose to wait another five or 10 years till someone better comes along. In general, the longer you spend searching for something--be it a car, a house, or a life partner--the happier you're going to be with the one you end up with. So--again, with myriad exceptions--a woman's optimal strategy is to settle for an imperfect mate and then try to change him. A man's optimal strategy is to search until he finds someone close to perfect. It's therefore no surprise that women, more often than men, should end up regretting their choices (Divorce's Economic Effect on Adults)".
The influence of socioeconomics are further present within the innermost level of our environment, where immediate aspects of interaction take place, otherwise known as the microsystem. In this area where interpersonal relationships are within focus, the factors of affluence or poverty are, as many studies reveal, key determinants in marriages and divorces. Research on affluent families indicates the presence of socially and professionally demanding lives (Berk 47), which leaves little room for development in domestic intimacy. This limited potential for bonding combined with amplified constraints on personal availability can certainly strain a relationship. On the other hand, people who are in much lower SES categories may suffer similar plights as their wealthier counterparts. It is hardly uncommon for unskilled (or low wage) laborers to find it necessary to hold two jobs, and face constant threats of layoffs in a bleak landscape of job opportunities – consequently becoming overworked and overstressed. This can create similar strains on a marriage, as there will be less energy, time, and financial liquidity allocable to the relationships – which, contrary to popular (or naive) opinion, do require routine work, maintenance, and time in order to be successful. This comparison of socioeconomic conditions shows that while they are significant factors of divorce, they are also not necessarily lopsided in favor for either circumstance.
In addition, research also reveals a high correlation between socioeconomic status and the orientation of values – external or internal – that are emphasized within the family. Higher socioeconomic status families tend to stress internal values such as respect, whereas the lower socioeconomic families emphasize external qualities such as politeness (Berk 46-47). Both respect and politeness can be associated with one another; respect normally (but not necessarily) leads to politeness. After all, internal qualities do produce certain externalities. Yet, for the purpose of authenticity, politeness requires the cause of respect; a politeness without the basis of respect is typically superficial and insincere. One can merely act polite for the purpose of an immediate goal, but to act politely as a natural effect of sincere respect is another thing entirely. Externally-expressed values, such as politeness, are expressed (and held valuable) in relation to a purpose. For short-range purposes, it is easy to express external values in an artificial manner – as an act, rather than a habit. For long-range purposes, however, it is not easy. This is because all other things equal in the long run, one’s own habits and internal qualities will normally be the determining factor in one’s overall behavior, as contrived efforts will usually dwindle. Therefore for the purpose of expressing external values in the long-term, it is not only easy but practical to do so out of habit, i.e. out of character. This analysis of the external/internal focal point of values, serves the purpose of identifying which orientation is fundamentally beneficial pursuant to a long-range goal. Applying the same analysis to the concepts “love and affection”, or “honor and fidelity”, or “integrity and consistency”, will yield the same indication with respect to long-term relationships. This orientation can certainly have a significant impact in one’s approach to the relationship market; in how one chooses another as their partner, and the degree of long-term success in maintaining relationships. It is natural to be selective in the pursuit of a partner; ordinarily one will not narrow down a pool of potential marriage candidates based on values or criteria that they do not identify with. Normally people will rationally identify potential candidates pursuant to their own values, i.e. within their own comfort-zone. Given that the conditioned mentality in which external values are the focal point (and not internal qualities) is not ideal for long-range success, this well observed pattern of behavior (and the underlying rationale) can certainly set the stage for long-range difficulties in lower socioeconomic status families.
Certainly, no marriage is going to be without difficulty, without any conflicts, issues, and differences of opinion. This indicates that marriage is certainly not for the unstable nor the short-sighted. To the contrary, an enduring marriage of long-term success ideally calls for a strong and stable character that knows what and why they value, that has a long-range view on life, with a mature foundation of internal values by which they think, choose, and respond to situations. This element of maturity permits a greater ability to overlook frivolous disputes, resolve conflicts in a more productive manner, and remain stable in the face of turbulence. To this extent, those who are in a high socioeconomic status have the upper hand in establishing firm, enduring marriages. Those without the internal focus of value-orientation (or with a hampered development thereof) are at a disadvantage in the pursuit of a successful and lasting relationship. To that extent, those who have been raised and are living in a lower socioeconomic status are at a disadvantage in successful marriages. This is not only because of the values that they are typically brought up with, but because they will likely pursue partners within their comfort zone – which more often than not is one of roughly equal socioeconomic status. It is important to establish that neither internal nor external focal points are the exclusive property of either socioeconomic extremes; it is not an entirely black and white divide between the two, but rather a gradation. Nonetheless, the numbers certainly do support the observation that the divorce rates are indeed, lower amongst wealthier families (Fein).
As evidenced throughout this exposition, the role of socioeconomic status is a pervasive and prominent influence that is prevalent in every formation, every culmination, and every cessation of marriage and divorce. The union between a man and a woman that is known as love and further formalized as marriage is a significant event in all walks of life. Irrespective of one’s own upbringing, culture, and walk of life, it is of utmost importance for the purpose of establishing a clear vision in the pursuit of a successful marriage, to firmly grasp the multidimensional factor of one’s own socioeconomic status.
Works CitedBerk, Laura E. Exploring Lifespan Development. Boston: Pearson, 2003.
Divorce's Economic Effect on Adults. 12 May 2008 <http://www.divorcereform.org/econ.html>.
Fein, David. Correlations of Divorce Rates with Other Factors. 29 May 2008 <http://www.divorcereform.org/cor.html#anchor2280562>.
Harford, Tim. The Logic of Life. New York: Random House, 2008.
Discuss this Article (5 messages)
|
