This is not to say (1) that cultures do not vary in the degree of such marital conflict. Undoubtedly, for example, in periods of great change in the role definitions of the sexes there is (a) far more disagreement and conflict between spouses, and (b) certainly more expression of this conflict in overt behavior. We are merely asserting the inevitability of family conflict and personal unhappiness in all cultures, and the impossibility of there being meaningful, direct moral proscriptions against them.
Moreover, (2) what the culture defines as a bearable level or degree of conflict will also doubtless vary from one epoch or society to another; and (3) what the society or culture defines as an appropriate solution for conflict also varies. The first of these three propositions is borne out by general observations and some theory, although intensity of marital conflict has not been measured in any culture. With reference to the second, there are beginnings of systematic theory in the structural-functional hypotheses of the past decade, specifically those dealing with mechanisms for alleviating and preventing conflict. 5 Here, let us simply note, once more, the possibility of analyzing various elements in any kinship system by reference to their effect upon the stability of marriage. The universal nuclear family 6 is to be viewed as one type of boundary-maintaining social unit, under various internal and external pressures toward boundary dissolution and maintenance. Marital unhappiness is only a resultant of various factors that predispose toward marital instability. Among these factors, there are also various mechanisms which (1) prevent the building of tensions or external forces; (2) alleviate or deflect such forces; (3) define various difficulties as bearable; (4) and offer various solutions for changing the structure or direction of these forces, or even for removing them.
Within such a view, divorce is to be seen as one kind of mechanism for dealing with the pressures and problems inevitably caused by marriage. Divorce is in a basic sense "caused" by marriage.
A typical set of preventive mechanisms was found in pre-revolutionary China. According to traditional descriptions of this "classical" family, the roles of husband and wife were clearly defined. Respect and not romantic love was demanded between husband and wife. There was an extended family system, so that intimate emotional interaction between husband and wife was less continuous or intense than in our own system. Extended deviations from proper marital patterns were prevented in part by the continuous supervision by other, older relatives. If the wife built up any large reservoir of hatred and fear, it was more likely to be aimed at the mother-in-law, rather than at the husband, who was only rarely the most powerful member of the family in the first decade of a marriage.
When conflict does reach high limits, there are different solutions in different cultures. One rare solution is that of Dobu, where overt conflict is viewed as standard. There are, however, many outlets for aggression. There is an alternation of family residence each year, from the village of wife's family to that of husband's family. Thus, each of the two spouses may look forward to a period in which great freedom of unchecked, mostly unilinear aggression is permitted.
Perhaps the most common solution is that of divorce, the extended families of each spouse offering at times the necessary help. Divorce is, then, an institutionalized element of certain kinship systems. It is not always a kind of excrescence, a sort of pathology or unpredictable deviation. This does not ignore or minimize the difficulties that individuals experience in divorce, or the devastation that may occur in their private lives when a divorce conflict occurs. Rather, we are noting that all family systems have some kinds of escape mechanisms built into them, to permit individuals to survive the pressures of the system, and one of these is divorce.
Nor is this solution confined to industrial societies. As Murdock has shown, and as Hobhouse began to show earlier, divorce is very common in many preliterate societies. Even without a complete set of data, it is clear that the rate of divorce is often higher than in our own, or than in the other few nations that have at various times had still higher rates than the U. S.
It is then an error to think that, because primitive societies are mostly "rural," they are therefore to be identified with the classical family of Western nostalgia, an idealized picture of the rural family in America at some unspecified period prior to the 1900's.
Showing posts with label Classical Family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Classical Family. Show all posts
Widespread Interest in Divorce
Divorce research has occupied the energies of many social scientists during the past several decades. If one includes marital conflict, the number would be increased. Its fascination is just as great among the American population as among social scientists. Investigations into divorce have been carried out not only by social scientists, but by lawyers, judges, social workers, psychiatrists, physicians, and others. Divorce is one of the predominant themes of modern literature. 1 Specific divorces are considered newsworthy. There are many "how to do it" books whose aim is to show the popular reading public how to avoid this problem.
Most of these analyses focus on two main themes: (1) Divorce as an index of social disorganization or pathology; and (2) Paths to marital happiness. Let us look at each of these.
The Classical Family of Western Nostalgia, and Social Disorganization
Divorce has been viewed by many as an index of "social disorganization," or of the anomie of modern urban life. It has particularly been so viewed by those sociologists who are nostalgic for the rural "harmony" which they so eagerly left as youngsters. We are all guilty of loosely contrasting an undefined urban, supposedly pathological family life, with a rural, idyllic family pattern of some generations ago: the classical family of Western nostalgia is cited and praised in practically every public speech on the breakdown of the modern family and modern society. Idealizing the past and the distant, some have failed to do justice to the complexities of both rural and urban family patterns. Many analysts see in the "rising tide of divorce" abundant evidence that the country may be approaching moral disintegration. It is not alone the clergy and the professional moralists who have taken this position.
This view need not be criticized here. If divorce is seen as a mere index of social pathology, then as a consequence there is not much stimulus to analyze what happens to an individual after he has had this experience. The question that appears to loom as of far greater significance, is how to return to an older societal form, in which the "classical family" can flourish, rather than to chart what happens to those who become involved in a modern divorce.
Most of these analyses focus on two main themes: (1) Divorce as an index of social disorganization or pathology; and (2) Paths to marital happiness. Let us look at each of these.
The Classical Family of Western Nostalgia, and Social Disorganization
Divorce has been viewed by many as an index of "social disorganization," or of the anomie of modern urban life. It has particularly been so viewed by those sociologists who are nostalgic for the rural "harmony" which they so eagerly left as youngsters. We are all guilty of loosely contrasting an undefined urban, supposedly pathological family life, with a rural, idyllic family pattern of some generations ago: the classical family of Western nostalgia is cited and praised in practically every public speech on the breakdown of the modern family and modern society. Idealizing the past and the distant, some have failed to do justice to the complexities of both rural and urban family patterns. Many analysts see in the "rising tide of divorce" abundant evidence that the country may be approaching moral disintegration. It is not alone the clergy and the professional moralists who have taken this position.
This view need not be criticized here. If divorce is seen as a mere index of social pathology, then as a consequence there is not much stimulus to analyze what happens to an individual after he has had this experience. The question that appears to loom as of far greater significance, is how to return to an older societal form, in which the "classical family" can flourish, rather than to chart what happens to those who become involved in a modern divorce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)