Empirical data on divorce, beyond opinions
Last of three parts
ANXIETY about divorce is building up as the fear of the unknown swells, and the anticipatory surrender to how public opinion seems to be moving favorably in its favor. Opposing forces are clouts chasing to affect the legislation and the President on a divorce law which through the years has been debated upon.
The first two parts of this article presented empirical evidence on the prevalence of divorce in the majority of countries where it is available, easy and affordable. The intellectuals have processed and documented more than enough data of what could be understood and triangulated of this divorce — a human invention that dissolves a human institution, called marriage, which to many perspectives have become more complex because of its religious foundation and cultural value. The church and the state, well separated in ideal contexts, will wrestle in the different and separate arenas. The surge of public opinion drowns conversations, especially in social media.
What data present
Researches emphasize the social patterns in divorce not only as evidenced by subsequent marital failures which are recorded higher among those who remarry but also as a social contagion that seems modelling among those couples with friends who had divorced and among children of divorced parents. The causes of divorce are tallied and ranked with lack of commitment, infidelity and violence on top of the list. Central theme of the rationalizations include early marriages and failure to understand marriage at the outset. Cohabitation prior to marriage was noted as one significant predictor of the likelihood of divorce. Financial issues (poverty) and lack of education are associated with marital conflict.
Children, whose welfare is the very consideration behind the justification of many proponents of divorce, are placed by most evidence at the losing end — as victims in the crossfire of conflicts. While the child and each family are unique, despite these variables, divorce has been shown to diminish a child’s future competence in many areas of life, including relationships, education, emotional wellbeing and future earning power. The child may decrease social and psychological maturation, and score significantly lower on measures of academic achievement, conduct, psychological adjustment, self-concept and social relations. There is a notable early sexual debut among girls who are more likely to become pregnant as adolescents. As adults, the female children of divorced parents experience less trust and satisfaction in romantic relationships, less likely to view marriage as permanent and as lifelong commitment. They are more likely to cohabit and to divorce as well. Research, however, did not point out that they neither became a menace nor unproductive members of society.
Children growing up with single parents were more than twice as likely to experience a serious psychiatric disorder, commit or attempt suicide, or develop an alcohol addiction, according to a massive metaanalysis. Children living with one biological parent were more likely to have experienced neighborhood violence, caregiver violence, or caregiver incarceration or to have lived with a caregiver with mental illness, or an alcohol or drug problem. But life went on for many couples and children, and others seem to have coped and lived normal and productive lives after divorce.
The church should be very concerned because studies show that as adults, those raised in step-families are less likely to be religious and following a divorce, children are more likely to abandon their faith. These findings did not conclude that they ended up as bad human beings.
Enough of the data!
The snapshots of these voluminous research evidence, with their built-in self-limiting scopes and format-prescribed delimitation statements, are less illuminating than investigations of variables that may strengthen the marriage or, at the very least, mediate post-divorce adaptation among divorcing couples and, more importantly, among the children caught in the crossfire. Therefore, divorce research must focus and shift from examining structure (i.e., divorced versus intact families) and demographics (the who, what, when, where of divorce) to studying the process (the why and how) of what contributes to its effective coping. Or better yet, research should delve into the appreciative inquiry of the research variables and anecdotal narratives that are central to successful marriages and crisis resolution experiences that preserve marriages amid threats of dissolution.
Reflective questions must be
With the increasing prevalence of marriage dissolutions and marital failure worldwide, and the decreasing intention of the younger generation to enter into marriage, the behavioral, family and social sciences, including religions and academe, must shift their interest beyond just the understanding of how marriages fail and why divorce is currently preferred by the greater majority (as indicated by surveys) as a necessary evil to desperately save the heaven-blessed marriage from its consequential hell.
Why will couples who promised publicly to be together “until death” be most willing to break the promise and spend an amount more than what they spent for the wedding only to divorce and be free, again? Why are they dividing the home they dreamed of and built together? Why will they place a beloved offspring in the middle of a tugof-war similar to the properties they value and negotiate to split? Why is annulment, the dissolution of marriage that was faulty by valid grounds, not enough? Because there was a valid marriage consummated that needs to be dissolved. Why is legal separation not enough? Because the intention is to be free, again.
The real questions are: Have we strengthened marriage — as an institution in our society — from the beginning? Have parents and teachers enlightened the young inquisitive children about this relationship openly — as openly as they should have comfortably talked about sex education? Has the media inspired the public with positive marital stories that lived happily ever after rather than infidelity twists? Has the church served its applicants for weddings beyond the posting in bulletin boards, and before and after the paid ritualized ceremony (in the Catholic faith is a sacrament) that lasts a few hours in rented decorated churches? Are the politicians, who are gaining photo opportunities in “Kasalang Bayan” in the guise of uniting cohabiting couples through a civil union, instrumental enough to solving problems rather than actually aggravating it permanently? Are we a village building that home for a family and the child? Or, are we just saying “no” to divorce and engaging our confirmation biases to strengthen our stubborn stance for or against it?
Both the proponents of divorce (who argue that this is giving a new chance to love and live) and the opposition to it (who argue that it will weaken the basic unit of society) must use both evidence and reflections to understand what makes and will make marriages work, and use these in formulating social policies that enable successes in what is regarded as society’s basic unit.
We are assured that science is working if there is new evidence that proves that it is wrong. Note that every research in the world of science provides a disclaimer that findings cannot generalize, that scope and limitations exist, and that admits the complicated dynamics of this marital union. Research ends with recommendations for greater understanding of what it attempts (and satiates more) to understand. Beyond research and opinions is our openness to understand perspectives and our tolerance to respect differences — then to be understood.
With or without divorce, there is a child witnessing violence at home. With or without divorce, there are couples living separate lives already as there are couples living happily without the privilege of marriage. With or without divorce, there is a marriage (and a family) we have to save, one couple at a time. Let us focus and help that family.