Some Thoughts on Family, Marriage, Children and Divorce

Women now pursue advanced careers in large numbers and that is creating new kinds of families. Whereas in the past women had to pledge fidelity to a man in exchange for security, far more women today are capable of providing for themselves. The central societal compact between a man and a woman - marriage - is changing too. Divorces are occurring in larger numbers and marriage vows are taking on different meanings. 

These developments are distressing to many people. The rise in divorces implies that many people cannot take even their most solemn vows seriously. Worse, they suggest a lack of commitment and an inability to develop enduring relationships. Are we a society of individuals who, in putting our individualism first, have lost the ability to "love and to cherish until death do us part"?

Perhaps it is the juxtaposition of the old rules and new realities that is rending us. We are rightly reluctant to throw out old mores that have evidently succeeded - most of us are here today because of marriages - yet most Westerners fail to live up to their vows. Are we failing the mores or are they failing us?

If we believe that we are in control of our own destinies, we will adjust the code of conduct. But first we should examine the whence of the marriage contract. Is it not rooted in women’s fear of abandonment and men's of cuckoldry? Public vows of fidelity help to assure husbands that they will be providing for their direct issue. Yet, the fathers of 12% of children born in the US are not the same as those registered on the birth certificate. Infidelity eventually occurs in about one-half of marriages and, like chimpanzees' affairs, the behavior is usually secretive. This dishonesty, and the blurring of personal financial affairs, leads to the most regrettable acrimonies of divorce.

The inheritance of a flawed genetic lineage is not one of our children's needs, which leads one to point out that quickly evolving technology to identify and correct genetic defects will inexorably lead to selection and insertion of desirable traits. The availability of such reproductive technologies can only make people question their sexual practices and moral standards even more. Reproduction by random recombination of the genes of parents who happen to have “fallen in love” is frequently suboptimal. Geneticists, here to mitigate the more serious risks today, and engineer evolution tomorrow, have the most interesting practice in medicine.

Younger children of divorce often worry about abandonment or become wracked with guilt, while older ones suffer pain from seeing at least one parent in agony. On the positive side, divorced parents often find new partners with whom they can have more fulfilling lives. But people who have had children together do not disassemble easily. 

Believers in the monogamous ideal may think that divorce is just a fools' tragedy for people who marry and have children without proper commitment. There is truth in that but people will "fall in love" and may not exercise the best judgment when marrying. Irreconcilable tensions may develop. If aught arises, is it virtuous to spend the rest of one's life in anguish? The decision to dissolve marriage usually bears less on foolishness and moral obedience than the ability to bear the high economic costs of separation and of maintaining, at least temporarily, two households instead of one. As one single, divorced mom put it, “I chose happiness over comfort.” 

Studies have shown that the quality of child-care matters much more than the biological relationship of the caregiver. Older children need substantial financial support as well as guidance from mature adults while younger children need continuous attention. A mother, alone, must necessarily provide fewer opportunities than two, three, or more, parents. As Hillary Clinton said, “it takes a village to raise a child”. This brings us full circle from nuclear families back to something more like the arrangements of aboriginal tribes, which formed out of clans to increase security and wealth. Such tribes are usually patriarchies and numerous marriages are often taken as a sign of a man’s wealth. In a more egalitarian world, could it not be that close connection with lover past and present might not also be a sign of a woman’s strength? Certainly, it is not a sign of empowerment if women must denounce former relationships in order to be true to their one man.

Surely, the ability to keep commitments is more important than monogamy, or even heterosexuality. Most marriages eventually recognize this and many survive by overlooking infidelities. Parent's sexual behavior does not disrupt their children's lives nearly as much as being taken for pawns during an acrid divorce. 

The odds that the children become dysfunctional get much worse if the parents and stepparents communicate poorly. Tribalism can offer children more numerous caring adults. It helps if member can subjugate their innate jealousies for the common good by seeking approval before committing to a new mate. 

Once entered into a new union, a chapter may close but the old relationship should and must continue. It is simply wasteful when, after much investment in each other and children, partners break off communication. Instead, married couples sometimes do recognize the need for change and, respecting their vows to love and cherish - not to mention to procreate together - may even facilitate each other's transitions. In calm and supportive tones, they sometimes even help choose their children's future step-parents. 

None of this should be seen as a prescription for dissolving successful couples. Nevertheless, the human race is faced with limits to growth, and principled tribes could be seen as an antidote to the shrinking family. Very young children would have an at-home birth parent caregiver while older children could live for extended periods in multiple households. This ought to foster a breadth of experience that comes from having several parents and places to call 'home', as well as serve to delay and diffuse, if not diminish, the furies of teenage identity development.

Liberation from the expectations of lifelong cohabitation allow parents to develop close relationships with more people, choosing those from whom they may have the most to learn, and to whom they may have the most to give. New partners may well be found in entirely different cultures, creating the greatest kinds of challenges and opportunities. The objective of the new Internet and jet connected tribal practitioners will simply be to strengthen themselves and their children through such diversity.

But can adults really separate their innate yet juvenile and genetically motivated jealousies and pride from their actual needs, and those of their children? And more, can the religiously insane be pried from out-of-date texts, and aim to make heaven on earth instead? 

The superrich have often had unconventional arrangements. Now that the American middle class is increasingly filling with international travelers having a high level of material security, won’t it inevitably change its mores to take advantage of the opportunities to intimately discover the world? 

© 2003-2005 Terms of Use
Written by Bruce A. McHenry.
First draft for Tania Nanevicz, 1991. Thanks for Shirley Nanevicz for her support.
Multiple subsequent revisions with thanks to numerous people for revisions.
First posted on the web 2/2/2003.  Edited and reposted, 2/7/2003 . Edited 2/9/2003 , 10/1/2003 , 3/9/2004
Manager: Bruce A. McHenry