Close Relations: an Introduction to the Sociology of Families [illustrated] 0130914215, 9780130914217
Appropriate for 1-semester courses in Marriage and the Family, and Sociology of the Family. Focuses on applications and
1,134 52 43MB
English Pages 352 [372] Year 2002
Polecaj historie
![Close Relations: An Introduction to the Sociology of Families, 6th edition [6 ed.]
9780134830636](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/close-relations-an-introduction-to-the-sociology-of-families-6th-edition-6nbsped-9780134830636.jpg)
![Real World; An Introduction to Sociology [6 ed.]
9788578110796](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/real-world-an-introduction-to-sociology-6nbsped-9788578110796.jpg)
![Close Relations: an Introduction to the Sociology of Families [illustrated]
0130914215, 9780130914217](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/close-relations-an-introduction-to-the-sociology-of-families-illustrated-0130914215-9780130914217.jpg)
Table of contents :
Families and Familylike Relationships ..............1
Ways to Increase Marital Wellbeing ..............101
Citation preview
Close Relations AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOLOGY OF FAMILIES BRIEF EDITION ^
1
^
mW^
\^
\ I-
M ^3 ^
^B^^K^.
t
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^k:
*'™v.
'
s,
^^K i
SUSAN
m
ii
A.
M ^H
1
^2 r
i
MCDANIEL LORNE TEPPERMAN
^^^"^^^^^"
1
1
i-
Close Relations
Close Relations AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOLOGY OF FAMILIES BRIEF EDITION
susan
a.
mcdaniel
University of Alberta
lorne tepperman University of Toronto
Prentice Hall Toronto
For Doug,
my
life's
partner and kindred spirit
SM my
To Sandra,
partner and closest relation LT
National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data
McDaniel, Susan A., 1946Close relations: an introduction to the sociology of families Rev. (brief) ed.
Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-13-091421-5 1.
Family— Canada.
I.
Tepperman, Lome, 1943-
HQ56o.l\/\28 2001
Copyright
© 2002
II.
.
Title.
C2001-900470-2
3o6.85'097i
Pearson Education Canada
Inc.,
Toronto, Ontario
is protected by copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission, write to the [Permissions Department.
All
Rights Reserved. This publication
prior to
on pp. 311-312 is from Keith Hampton and Barry Wellman, "Internet Strengthens Social Relations and Community Involvement: The Netville 'Wired Neighbourhood Study," ASA News, August 11, 2000. Reprinted with permission from the American Sociological Association. IVIaterial
Charts from "Profiling Canada's Families H" (Nepean, Ontario, Vanier Institute of the Family, 2000) are reproduced with permission from the Vanier Institute of the Family.
Canada information is used with the permission of the Minister of Industry, as Minister responsible for Statistics Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from Statistics Canada's Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free Statistics
number 1-800-263-1136. ISBN 0-13-091421-5 Vice President, Editorial Director: Michael
Young
Editor-in-Chief: David Stover
Mosher
Acquisitions Editor: Jessica
Marketing Manager: Judith Allen Developmental Editor: John Polanszky Production Editor: Susan Adlam Editor: Karen Rolfe Production Coordinator: Peggy Brown
Copy
Art Direction:
Mary Opper
Cover and Interior Design: Sarah Battersby Cover Image: Comstock, Digital Vision
Page Layout: Jansom Original edition published
in
2000 by
Prentice-Hall
Canada
Inc.,
Scarborough, Ontario
Pearson Education
12345
0605040302
Printed and
bound
in
Canada
Pearson Education Canada Web site! Send us your commnets, browse our catalogues and more at www.pearsoned.ca.
Visit the
Prentice Hall
Contents Preface
xi
Acknowledgments
xv
Introduction: Families
and Family-like Relationships
i
The Importance of Family
2
What
2
Is
Family?
Defining the Family
3
Murdock: Three Relationships
4
Census
4
Household versus Family
4
Process-based Definitions
5
Common Elements
of Family Life Dependency and Intimacy
6
Sexuality
6
Protection
7
Power
7
Violence
7
Kinship, Clan, and
Community
6
8
New Ways to Understand Family Diversity
9
Variation Despite Convergence
10
Concluding Remarks
12
Chapter
1
How
Families Begin:
15
Dating and Mating
Love: A Recent Invention?
16
Dating Scripts and the Double Standard Expressive Exchange as the Basis for Romance
19
20
Meeting and Mating Arranged Marriages and Love Matches Social Aspects of Finding a
Mate Selection Homogamy Similarity
and Attraction
18
Mate
21
22 25 26
27
L
y}
Contents
)
Educational and Other Status
Homogamy
27
Age Homogamy
28
Homogamy Religious Homogamy
30
Ethnic
Similarity
31
and Couple Happiness
31
The Gender Difference in Attraction What Men Want What Women Want
32
Why People Do Not Optimize
35
Dating Violence
37
Concluding Remarks
42
Chapter 2
Types of Intimate Couples:
33 34
47
Marriage, Cohabitation, and Other Forms
Change and More Change
48
More Diverse and More Complex Too
Marriage Trends and Patterns Age
at
Marriage
Marriage
Still
50 51
Types of Marriage Is
49
52
Valued?
53
Changing Attitudes that Affect Marriage
54
Changing Attitudes
55
to Marriage
Marriage Timing
56
Living Solo
57
Commuter Relationships
58
The
59
Falling Marriage Rate
Cohabitation Increase
61 in
Cohabitation
63
Comparisons
65
International
Effects of Family Experience
66
Legal Implications
67
Births
in
Common-law Unions
Effect of Cohabitation
on Marriage
Young People's Attitudes
Same-sex Couples The Debate over Gay/Lesbian Marriage The Dilemma of Equivalence
68 69 71
71
72 72
New Forms of Couplehood
73
Other "Couple" Bonds
73
Concluding Remarks
74
vii
Contents
Chapter 3
Ways
of Being Close:
Interaction,
80
Communication, Sex, and Trust
Marriage and Well-being
81
Satisfaction as a Measure of Marital Quality
82
What Makes The
Marriage Satisfying?
84
Cycle of a Marriage
84
a
Life
Homogamy
88
Love
89
Intimacy
91
Coping and Conflict Management
93
Gender Role Attitudes and Equity Good Communication
94
Communication and Gender Encoding and Idioms
97
Non-verbal Communication
98
Rules for Successful Communication
99
96
97
Ways to Increase Marital Well-being
101
Does Marital Therapy Work?
102
Overall Assessments of Treatment
102
Whom
103
Does Marital Therapy Help?
Concluding Remarks
Chapter 4
104
Parenting:
112
Child-bearing, Socialization, and Parenting Challenges Is
Parenthood Family?
113
Decisions about Entering Parenthood
113
Entering Parenthood
114
in
the Past
Family Planning Today
114
Entering Parenthood
Young
Child-bearing Alone
115
117
Childlessness: Voluntary and Not
118
Adoption
119
Gays and Lesbians Becoming Parents
120
Brave
New Worlds
How Parenthood
of Reproduction
Affects Marriage/Relationships
Socialization
Parenting Processes
120 121
123 125
Love and Attachment
125
Emotional Stability and Family Cohesion
127
Protectiveness and Control
128
^
L
Vlii
~)
Contents
Fair
and Moderate Discipline
130
and Coping Resources
132
Skills
Runaways
132
Variations ON A Theme
134
In
Single Parents
134
Adolescent Mothers
136
Gay and Lesbian Families
136
Loco Parentis
137
Cultural Variation
139
Class Variation
140
Concluding Remarks
Chapter 5
141
Work and Family
i48
Life:
Gender, Housework, and Paid Work
jusT
Who
Did
What
in
the Past?
149
Labour-saving Devices and Household Work
149
The Worth of Housework
150
Unpaid Work Comes of Age
150
Double Days, Double
150
Toil
Child Care: The Biggest Part of Domestic Labour The More Things Change Conflicts over
153
154
Housework
155
Economic Independence and Domestic Work
157
The Effects of Domestic Work on Paid Work
157
Displaced
Homemakers
Elder Care: An Emerging Challenge at
Work and
158
Home
Family Life
The Problem: Balancing Work and Family
159 159
Life
160
Overload
161
Cultural Sources of Distress
163
Spillover
164
Work-related Stress
164
Strain and Preoccupation
165
The Reciprocal Relationship
166
Efforts to Solve These Problems
167
Individual and Familial Efforts
167
The Daycare Debate
169
Corporate Responses
170
Family Policies: A Cross-national Outlook
173
State Responses
174
Concluding Remarks
174
IX
Contents
Chapter 6
Family Dynamics:
How
180
Families Face Problems and Get Along
Some Families Have More Problems Than Others Some Problems
Create Secondary Problems
Every Family Faces a System of Problems
Public Issues and Private Troubles Change and the Life Cycle Families
Change
All Families
Some
in
Patterned
183 185
188 190 192
Ways
195
Solve Problems
196
Families Need Help Solving Their Problems
Every Family Has Resources
198 201
The Three Types of Capital
203
Concluding Remarks
204
Chapter 7
Stress and Violence: Unpleasant Realities of Family
209 Life
Stress
211
Causes of Stress
213
Chronic Stresses
214
Coping with Stress
222
Violence
223
Causes of Violence
226
Violence as an Interaction Problem
230
Types of Abusive Relationships
233
Effects of Violence
234
Concluding Remarks
236
Chapter 8
Divorce:
242
Trends, Myths, Children, and Ex-spouses Is
Divorce a Problem?
Divorce and Society A Historical, Cross-national Overview Social Changes Legal Changes Cultural Changes
Causes of Divorce
245
246 of Divorce
247 247 248 249 250
Microsociological Causes
251
Mesosociological Causes
251
Macrosociological Causes
257
Contents
')
Effects of Divorce Effects on Both Effects on
259
Spouses
259
Women
260
Effects on Children
262
Parent-Child Relations
266
Concluding Remarks
Chapter 9
269
Fresh Starts:
276
One-parent Families, Empty Nests, Cluttered Nests
What
is
a Fresh
Start
in
Family?
277
Multiple Fresh Starts
278
Singlehood as a Fresh Start
278
One-Parent Families
279
Deliberately Seeking Parenthood on One's
Custody and Non-Custodial Parenting
Own
285
287
Remarriage
287
Cohabitation as a Fresh Start
289
The Challenges of Stepfamilies
290
Widowhood
293
as a Fresh Start
Gay/Lesbian Fresh Starts
294
Fresh Family Starts
297
in
Later Life
Transitions out of Parenting: Empty Nests
297
Sandwiched Families and Cluttered Nests
298
Created Families
299
Concluding Remarks Afterword:
Where Do
Families
300
Go from Here?
The Future of Family Life
307 309
The Connected Society
309
How
312
Families Talk
Cybersex and Commitment Teaching and Learning
314 in
Cyberspace
Computerized Work and the Family
Concluding Remarks
317 319 320
References
321
Index
342
Photo Credits
352
Preface Family
is
a hot topic as
we begin
this
new
millennium. Talking about our
own family experiences and relationships is endlessly interesting, and fama common theme in politics and on radio and television talk shows. Family is what we say we value most in life (Vanier Institute 1994). Yet families are rife with contradictions. Although we value our families, many of us abandon them. Family is a place of love, in which we seek solace from the ily is
world; yet
it is
also a place
where abuse and violence are prevalent.
commonly using terms such
seem
to value families,
ities"
and "family values," and yet they blame
Family
life is still
a fundamental part of
certain general features characterize
most
Politicians
as "family responsibil-
families for social problems.
life
throughout the world, and extended kinship ties,
families:
provision of resources and social support, relative stability and permanence,
and a
However, marital, divorce, and and norms have changed rapidly how fragile the traditional system really is.
(fading) association with the sacred.
child-bearing behaviours, attitudes, values,
and dramatically, showing just
The Approach of This Book People liked Close Relations: An Introduction
to the
book
applied in focus, and one which would serve them better in
munity college courses. They ered in the earlier book..
As
also asked us to cover topics
that
we had
not cov-
We wrote this Brief Edition in answer to these requests.
recently as 20 years ago,
to" guides to family
some was more teaching com-
Sociology of Families, but
said they wished they could have a shorter version of the
life.
books on the family were often simple "how-
Sometimes
called "matching, hatching,
and
dis-
patching" books, they had subtitles such as "dating and courtship" and "family
and you." This approach was possible a few decades ago since the ways in which people lived in families tended to be less diverse than in the 1990s, and the diversity that did exist was neither portrayed nor celebrated in family texts.
Consistent with Talcott Parsons' stru ctural functionalism, then the
overwhelmingly dominant perspective on families, ciety for students to
In retrospect,
it is
certain structures
to live in families.
do fulfill some of Parsons' work. The observation that families
— —
and forms under certain conditions
the nuclear family form link
was thought useful to so-
possible that families
"functions," including those related to
have
it
have guides on preferable ways
for
example, that
an important between families and the economy and the world of work. is
prevalent in industrial societies
is
Far more interesting than the regularities in close relations, though, are the variations in form or structure. verse.
It is
Modern families
are remarkably di-
largely in response to that empirically verifiable fact that
written this book. This
book
sets itself the task of
other family books in use today.
Its
focus
is
we have many
being different from
on applications and theory:
XII
")
Preface
what works
for families, for
us as individuals, and for society. Several themes
characterize our book:
We
1. know families to be immensely varied and characterized more by processes than by the forms they take. Families organize themselves in many
different
ways
to
accomplish their goals.
Family is becoming more important to us as individuals and as societies. Family health affects individual health and longevity and the population 2.
health of entire countries. 3.
Of
course, old expectations about family
lutions to family problems, based
are
needed and are offered
on what
may no longer work. New soknown from family research,
is
here.
There is a constantly changing interplay among families, schools, and work. Family is both part of the problem and part of the solution, as shov\n in this book in a variety of ways.
4.
5.
We use historical changes and cross-national comparisons to make fam-
today understandable and interpretable. What is happening in Canada today is similar to, and connected with, what is happening all over the ilies
world.
Throughout
this
book,
we look at families as plural and diverse. We recogmany ways to enact family life and achieve fairuly-
nize that there are a great like goals,
some
better than others.
We focus on families in terms of what
they do rather than the shape they take.
Canadian Content Speaking of diversity, this is a Canadian book intended primarily for Canadian students and classrooms. While some generalizations based on American data apply to Canadian situations as well, others do not. Our laws are somewhat different, as are our
histories, traditions, values,
norms,
and customs relating to family and marriage. At the same time, it is difficult to write a text based entirely on the findings of Canadian research. The body of available Canadian research is not only smaller than one might hope but also uneven in scope. So, a Canadian text has to use whatever Canadian research is available and also borrow from the findings of other research. Thus, what we attempt here is a careful triangulation, using research from Canada, the United States, and elsewhere. Where we are convinced that distinguishing between countries is critical, we indicate whether the findings of the studies we use to make generalizations are Canadian or American. On the other hand, we do not draw attention to the nationality of a finding if we think that doing so adds nothing to a student's understanding of the research on families.
xiJI
Preface
Brief
Overview
The book begins with an Introduction that explores the variety of interesting shapes and processes of families and family-like relationships. Then,
we begin
to follow the life histories of family lives. In
Chapter
—
1,
we
look
—
and mating the ways that most families begin and how dating and mating have changed over time with changing ideas about love, sex, and marriage. Chapter 2 is about marriage and cohabitation, the two main forms of early couplehood in Western societies today. In Chapter 3, we discuss marriage and marital well-being: the satisfactions and dissatisfactions at dating
of being in an intimate relationship, particularly in respect to communication, trust,
and
sex.
Parenthood contract; this
and
is
is
a time of change
the subject of Chapter
socialization issues.
and challenge as choices widen and 4.
There,
we also consider parenting
We propose several approaches to parenting sup-
ported by research, and some solutions to parenting problems. In Chapter flict
as families
tion to family
of families
is
5,
we discuss the division of domestic labour, a source of conof family members change. Work in rela-
and expectations
a topic of continuing strong interest as
must balance family
Chapter
6,
most adult members
with paid work. "Family Dynamics: How Families Face Problems and Get life
Along," discusses a topic not discussed in the earlier edition of
namely, family dynamics. Here
we confront the notions
this
book:
of "family prob-
lems" and how families, as small social systems, confront their problems. Often, they are able to change successfully to deal with their problems, but sometimes they are not. Violence and stress in families, the topic of Chapter 7, may result. Here we examine the theories that may help us develop social programs that reduce the risk and harm associated with stress
and
violence.
In the end, is
some families
fail
to survive their problems,
family breakup, separation, or divorce. In Chapter
8,
and the
result
the trends, myths,
and consequences of divorce are considered. If couples divorce, some people remarry, and some experience stepparenthood. Most families eventually go through the stages of children growing up and leaving home.
causes,
starts, in all their diversity, are the topic of Chapter 9. The book ends with an Afterword, which offers a glimpse into families of the future, emphasizing how, to some extent, families will create their own futures within both the opportunities and the constiaints societies offer. We look particularly at the new opportunities and dangers associated with
Fresh
cyberspace.
As
with a chapter Anecdotes and excerpts from the popular media and from scholarly works are set off from the text throughout each chapter, to highlight related attitudes, debates, and current features of family. Study tools at the outline.
in the first edition, each chapter of the text begins
^
Xiv_j)
Preface
end for
of each chapter include a chapter
review and discussion. Related
summary, class activities, and questions
Web sites are also provided, along with
a brief description of the site's contents. Definitions of key terms are in-
cluded
at the
end of each chapter.
Acknowledgments Meeting the need for an abridged edition of Close Relations: An Introduction to the Sociology of Families proved an interesting challenge. To write a book that contained more useful information in fewer pages meant cutting redundant or irrelevant material to the bone, as well as producing useful yet brief discussions of topics like mating, cohabitation, social dynamics, and cybersex. After inspirational talks with each other and training sessions with a Rubik's cube, we settled down to work. Miraculously, the new book came together as planned, thanks to the help of our
James
many capable young assistants.
Russell, all-purpose communications-meister and, until recently,
"resident writing
helped us pare
guy"
in the
Department of Sociology, University of Toronto,
down the initial edition to about two-thirds its original size.
Students in Sociology 327Y, "Families and Health," at the University of
Toronto, and students in Sociology 479, "Family and Gender" at the University of Alberta, tested the materials in the original edition and sug-
gested further modifications for this version. Graduate student
gave us useful comments on the
Jeff
Boase
new "Family Dynamics" chapter; graduate
students at the University of Alberta, especially Teresa Abada, and students in
McDaniel's graduate seminar on "Family and Gender" provided useful
feedback on the book; several anonymous reviewers also provided candid
and very helpful suggestions and comments on the
initial
edition
and parts
of this version. Seven talented undergraduates at the University of Toronto
Cherryl Bird, Ed Chiu,
and Lynn Xu
Anne Dunford, Al Kwan, Karen Root,
Amy Withers,
—reviewed a draft of our manuscript for content and
clarity
and, along with research assistant Kristy Wanner, helped put together learning materials for this
text.
Al
Kwan and Amy
Withers took on the task of
helping with the final assembly of learning materials and with seeking permissions. Valued colleagues Sharon
Maureen Baker
Abu-Laban (University
(University of Auckland,
of Alberta)
and
New Zealand) provided encour-
agement throughout. Thank you, all you wonderful, talented helpful people, for getting us from page 1 to page 352 in this challenging book. Through all this, John Polanszky, our editor at Pearson Education Canada, was always patient, diplomatic, and helpful. Copyeditor Karen Rolfe was resourceful and untiring as she shepherded this manuscript through to completion. Oh yes and good-humoured too! Thank you, Karen, for improving the manuscript. As before, we also thank our families for their support and tolerance of time spent away from them. Susan thanks her spouse, Douglas, without whom writing about families would have less meaning. Lome thanks his spouse, Sandra, from whom he learned a lot about marriage, and his sons Andrew, Charles, and Alexander, from whom he learned a lot about parenthood and child development.
—
XVi
')
Acknowledgments
Lastly,
we thank each other once again
the project evolved in the midst of
book demonstrates
for patience and tolerance as two immensely busy schedules. This
that in this fabled twenty-first century of cyberspace
—
—
much even distant collaborative authorship is posThe authors never met during the course of this project, and communicated over increasingly long distances, as McDaniel's travels took her to an island off the coast of British Columbia and to various other corcommunications, sible.
ners of the world.
We hope you like this revised edition. The usual disclaimers about the authors' responsibilities apply. There are
many topics we
still
haven't dis-
cussed much, especially those having to do with aging families
(e.g., life
middle age), and few topics have been discussed in the depth they might warrant. But we think that, within the constraints of space we have faced, this book will give students a good introduction to current thinking about families and close relations, here in Canada and elsewhere. We look forward to your comments on this new book. after
ntroduction: Families and Family-like Relationships
Chapter Outline The Importance of Family
Sexuality
What
Protection
Is
Family?
Defining the Family
MuRDOCK: Three Relationships
Power Violence
Census Household versus family
Community New Ways to Understand
Process-based definitions
Family Diversity
Common Elements
of Family Life
Dependency and intimacy
Kinship, Clan, and
Variation Despite Convergence
Concluding Remarks
Close Relations
Among our deepest and most abiding human needs is to have someone close who understands and loves us and in whom we can confide and trust. In an uncertain and insecure world, we seek solace and hope in close relations. Families belong to a group of relationships we would characterize as "close," including intense friendships, love affairs,
relationships. These relationships are characterized
ment
or bonding between the partners.
bers feel strongly attached or
bonded
to
Of
and long-term work by a strong attach-
course, not
all
family
mem-
each other. However, what people
—
commonly imagine when they think of the word "family" what the word "family" evokes in our culture is attachment, sentiment, and emo-
—
tional intensity. For
most of
us, families
provide our most important reand one that remains
lationships, our first connection to the social world,
important throughout our
lives.
This book explores the changing dimensions of family relations and the
ways
ety.
We examine the diversity of family relations and consider how families
in
which they
affect
and are
affected
by
school, work,
and
soci-
may be becoming more important in our lives.
The Importance of Family Some people point to the upsurge in single-parent households, increases in the number of children born outside legal marriage, and high divorce However, public opinion tremendously important to Canadians (Vanier Institute of the Family 1994, 13) and that if anything, family relations are increasingly important to Canadians (Angus Reid 1994). Young people are no less enthusiastic about families than older people, with 91 percent anticipating marriage and 89 percent children (Angus Reid 1994, 71-75). rates as evidence that the family
is
in trouble.
polls consistently find that family life
is
People continue to value families because they provide emotional support and economic benefits. Perhaps most importantly, families give us
ily is
an otherwise busy and chaotic world. The familiarity of famreassuring and, throughout our lives, gives us the confidence to ex-
plore
new things.
grounding
What
is
in
Family? Most people think
of families as groups of people related through marriage,
is that description specific enough? Is it inclusive enough? Is it possible to delineate the boundaries between families, friendships, and other close relations? To some people the answer seems obvious. They argue that the word
blood, or adoption. But
"families" should only be used only to describe "traditional families." But
3
Introduction
have varied in form throughout history and still vary from one soThe families now regarded as traditional are themselves a significant departure from earlier traditions. Where, then, do we draw the line? families
ciety to another.
Defining the Family The answers to these questions regarding family are not merely academic. How family and other close relations are defined matters to us personally to our values, our dreams, our aspirations as individuals, and to our identities. Definitions also matter to our rights in terms of law and to our entitlements to benefits, pensions, schools, and many other social resources. Debates rage about common-law spouses having the same rights as married spouses, about spousal rights for gays and lesbians, and about the financial responsibilities and the rights (to custody, access, etc.) of divorced people. As we send this book to press, the Law Commission of Canada is consulting with Canadians about changing family relations and how government can or should recognize and support the variety of adult close relationships that Canadians form (see www.lcc.gc.ca). Let's look now at
some
definitions of family.
Defining the Family family n.
(p/.
A
is
family
-ies)
a place
with one another.
the
But
home if
will
where minds come
If
in
contact
these minds love one another
be as beautiful as a flower garden.
these minds get out of harmony with one
another
it
is like
a storm that plays
is
but too often a
our refuge and springboard; nour-
is
it,
we can advance
commonwealth
of
down
but an earlier heaven.
is
think the family
ridiculous
and
is
the place where the most
least respectable things in the world
go on.
a link to
a court of justice which never shuts
— Malcolm DeChazal is
the nucleus of civilization.
—William James Durant
The family
is
one of nature's masterpieces.
—John Bowring I
is
for night or day.
The family
is
horizons. In
—Alex Haley
—Alexander Pope family
new
our past, bridge to our future.
ma-
lignants.
A happy
to
every conceivable manner, the family
The family
-Buddha family
ished on
havoc with
the garden.
A
The family
— George Santayana Call
it
a clan, call
family.
it
a network,
Whatever you
call
it,
call
it
a tribe, call
whoever you
are,
it
a
you
need one.
-UgoBetti
—Jane Howard
^
Close Relations
Murdock: Three Relationships For
many years, sociologists used as a benchmark George Murdock's (1949, 1)
definition of family as a social
group characterized by a
common
residence, economic co-
operation and reproduction [including] adults of both sexes, at least
two of whom maintain
a socially
one or more children,
own
approved sexual
relationship,
and
or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting
adults.
—
Note that by this definition, three basic relationships co-residence, economic co-operation, and reproduction must all be present to qualify a social group as a family. Murdock's definition excludes many groups that most of us would consider families: childless married couples, for example, and single parents and their children. Same-sex unions are excluded, as are married couples who are separated. Celibate couples, according to Murdock, cannot be a family even if they have children, live together, and
—
share other kinds of intimacy. (This sex
life
to
means questioning a couple about their
determine whether they and
their children constitute a family!)
Two
sisters who live together cannot be a family, according to Murdock. Thus, Murdock's definition does not seem to allow for the variability that exists
among families
living in
Canada today.
Census is so limiting. Statistics Canada and survey agency for Canada, takes a much more inclusionary approach. Statistics Canada defines family, for
Because
this
approach
to defining family
(1992, 133), the official census
the Census, as a
now
married couple (with or without never-married sons and /or
daughters of either or both spouses), a couple living common-law (again with or without never-married sons ther or both partners), or a lone parent of least
and /or daughters of ei-
any marital
one never-married son or daughter living
in the
status,
with at
same dwelling.
This definition is better, since it includes a wider variety of people. However, it still misses a large number of groups that would consider themselves to be families, and would be considered families by others outside their household. This being so, many researchers have changed their focus to households for practical purposes.
Household versus Family Market researchers and census-takers often try to sidestep difficulties of definition by focusing on "households" as though they were "families."
Introduction
Doing so allows us changes
5
about changes in households and imply without necessarily addressing changes in But this approach also presents problems. As
to talk
in close relations
families or family life. pointed out clearly by Eichler (1997), many families live in separate households but maintain ongoing family relationships. The prime example is divorced families in which custody is joint or shared (Smart and Neale 1999); the divorced parents and their child(ren) constitute at least one family and maybe more. A "h ousehol d" may contain only one person or many unrelated members roommates, boarders, or residents in a group home. Or it may contain a nuclear family, an extended family or multiple families (for example, communes or families sharing living space to save money). Conversely, a family may spread across many households. However, usually families and households coincide, giving rise to "family households." In the United States, family households are officially defined by the Bureau of the Census as married couples with or without children under 18, or one-parent families with children under 18. Family households also comprise other households of related individuals (for example, two sisters sharing a household, or a parent living with a child older than 17 years). By contrast, non- family h ouseholds contain unrelated individuals or people who live alone. Canadian defirutions from Statistics Canada and other offi-
—
cial
data-gathering organizations are similar.
Process-based Definitions The United Nations
(1991),
by
material support to values,
the
and serving
its
it
performs such as emotional,
members, care of each
financial,
other, transmitting cultural
as a resource for personal development. In doing so,
UN is defining families in terms of their main shared processes, rather
than in terms of structural features that they not
by the Imand
contrast, prefers to define family
portant socio-economic functions
may
not
—share.
—increasingly, do
In Canada, serious consideration has been given to the question of what family is and what families are. The question was taken up by family researchers, the Vanier Institute of the Family, and the Canada Committee for the International Year of the Family on which one of the authors of this book (McDaniel) served. They concluded that ultimately families are defined not by the shape they take but by what they do (Vanier Institute of the Family 1994, 9). As Moore-Lappe (1985, 8) puts it: Families are not marriages or
homes
who develop intimacy because they to
make up
that
emerge
their in a
uniqueness
...
or rules. Families are people
share experiences that
—the mundane, even
group of people
silly,
who know each other
timacy that provides the ground for our
lives.
...
come
...
traditions
It is
this in-
')
Close Relations
To acknowledge
and close relations, broad inencompass the dynamics of family and close relations over time. Consistent with much of family research, it is process rather than form that defines families. Over the past two decades, a broad process-based definition of famhas become generally accepted by most Canadians (see Angus Reid ily 1994). Much of current Canadian family law and policy reflects the move toward inclusion of families that are diverse and similar in their processes, the diversity of family
clusive definitions are
if
needed
that
not structures.
However, some groups continue
oppose such inclusive definitions. and has become a highly political issue, with some "family values" groups pushing to have these issues placed at the forefront of the national agenda. Gay and lesbian families, for example, have become a touchstone in many contemporary debates about what is and is not a family and what rights and entitlements those who are deemed family ought to have. Similarly, immigration and growing ethnic diversity have meant challenges to how we form, maintain, define, and connect in
The
diversity of families
is
to
controversial
close relations.
Common Elements The and
of Family Life
groups we think of as families typically share many features, commonality can help us begin to understand the nature of fam-
social
that
Because families are extraordinarily diverse, it is difficult to generalabout them. However, it is possible to focus our attention on their
ilies.
ize
common processes.
Dependency and Intimacy have in common attachment and some kind of dependency or interdependency. However, this is not unique to families; most close friendships and work relationships also include some degree of emotional dependency, based on familiarity and expectations of reciprocity. However, family relations are special in that they tend to include long-term commitments both to each other and to the shared family per se. All close relations
Sexuality Adult partners within families typically have a long-term, exclusive sexual relationship, whereas among co-workers and among friends, sexual relations are either absent or of short duration. In families, sexual relations are
permitted and expected between certain members hibited
between other members
(e.g.,
(e.g.,
spouses) but pro-
parents and children).
Norms of sex-
Introduction
ual propriety are
much
7
stronger in families than they are in friendship or
work groups. Taboos against incest forbid sexual relations with a family member other than a spouse; nonetheless, sexual abuses of children and elders do occur within families.
Protection keep their members under guard against all kinds of and external dangers. There is a clear cultural expectation that families will protect their members. Parents and relatives are supposed to keep children safe from accidents and household dangers, and away from drugs, alcohol, predators, and other forms of harm. As well, spouses are supposed to protect one another, and adult children are supposed to protect and help their parents. In reality, family members often fail to do this sufficiently, and worse, some people neglect, exploit, or abuse family members. However, those who break the cultural rules usually face criticism and disapproval. Effective families internal
Power Households and families are small social groups whose members spend a lot of time together and depend on each other to fill both economic and non-economic needs. There are large differences in power, strength, age, and social resources among members. Ideally, the more-powerful family members protect the less-powerful ones. However, it is this imbalance in power that makes patriarchy, control of the family by a dominant male (typically, the father) a central fact in the history of family life in most known societies. Simply put, men have dominated because they possessed and controlled
more
of the resources.
Violence
—
—
Likewise, families though ideally peaceful and loving are also marked by violence, perhaps to a higher degree than any other groups based on "close relations." Although violence has always existed in families, in the last two decades, there have been growing reports of violence within families. Some estimate that one woman in ten will be assaulted at some time in her life. In most cases the assailant is a spouse or boyfriend. As well, researchers estimate that one girl in four and one boy in ten is sexually abused before the age of 16, often by friends or relatives. Perhaps is more common in families than in other close relations prebecause many family members are young or otherwise vulnerable and cannot easily escape from their families. Victims suffering similar
violence cisely
~)
Close Relations
violence at the hands of friends or workmates,
would simply
more Ukely than not
leave.
Kinship, Clan, and
Community
So far we have focused on families as they exist normatively in our own dominant culture. However, families vary from one society to another, just as they vary within our own society. In many societies families exist within larger social networks within kinship groups and clans and we cannot really understand how these families function unless we also understand their place in these larger networks, and in the community at large. The members of the household the husband and wife, parent and child, brother and sister are thoroughly integrated into a larger web of kin uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, grandchildren and their lives cannot be understood without reference to this larger web. A kinship group is a group of people who share a relationship through blood and /or marriage and have positions in a hierarchy of rights over the property. The definition of a kin relationship varies between societies; kin relationships may also determine where the members must live, whom they can marry, and even their life opportunities. Some societies count relationships through the male line, so that any individual's relationships are determined by his or her father's relationships; we call such kinship systems patrilineal. Others count relationships through the female line; these are matrilineal systems. Still others count relationships through both lines; they are bilateral kinship systems. If the kinship system is patrilineal, a person gains a position in the community just by being the child of his or her father. In a matrilineal kinship system, on the other hand, a person has certain property rights because of being the child of his or her mother. However, that kinship system is independent of which sex holds more authority in society; men can be the dominant sex even in a matrilineal society. In this case, the person whose kinship link is most important to a child is not the biological father but the mother's brother, as among the Ashanti in West Africa or a number of North American
—
—
—
—
—
—
aboriginal societies.
Western Europeans and North Americans have no special words to on the father's side from kin on the mother's side. For emotional purposes, it does not matter whether a first cousin, uncle, or aunt is on the mother's or father's side. However, our system is mildly patrilineal. For example, a woman has historically taken her husband's family name, not the reverse, and this name is the one that passes to the children. (It should be noted, however, that this is not the case everywhere in the West. In Quebec, for example, the law prevents women from taking their husband's name on marriage.) distinguish kin
9
Introduction
Our family system
follows the western pattern, in which property
is
male line. Likewise, where families settle determined by the husband's job, not the wife's, al-
also typically inherited along the
down
traditionally
is
though
changing. However, our society also has certain matrifo-
this too is
Because
cal characteristics. Vrin-kpp£Pi:srr-thp
have stronger
ties
(Rosenthal 1985;
pfoplf
women
have been defined as the primary
—
who
maintain famil y contacts children tend to with their mothers' kin than with those of their fathers
Thomson and Li 1992, 15). Children also maintain closer when the mothers grow old. When parents of
contacts with their mothers
grown children live separately, lied upon than are mothers.
New Ways
to
fathers are less often visited, called,
and
re-
Understand Family Diversity
In this book,
we
will
derstanding family
argue repeatedly that some of the older ways of un-
life
do not serve us well
in a highly diverse
and
fluid
we have adopted some new approaches to studying family life. We did not invent these new approaches, however; they already enjoy wide currency among many sociologists. The life-course approach is one new way of studying family change. society.
As
a result,
This approach follows the variety of social and interpersonal dynamics of close relations
and how these change throughout our
Kohli 1986). This approach focuses on the fact families
change
—they have
to
change
that,
lifetimes (Elder 1992;
over the course of time,
—to meet new requirements, such as
the arrival, care, or departure of children. These changes have effects entire family system:
siblings;
and on the
on relations between spouses, parents and
on the and
children,
family's relations with the "outside world," such as
parents' changing relations with their employers
and
their careers
(Kruger
and Levy 2001; McDaniel 2001b). Another new approach is to look at family relations from the perspectives of different family members. This approach recognizes that different family members have different interests and different experiences as members of any given family. Smart and Neale (1999) use this approach to study post-divorce families, for example. Because different family
members
often
have different interests, it is often inappropriate to speak of "the family" as though it has a single interest and acts in a unified way. Much of family research up until the 1970s (and beyond) was done from a male perspective. A popular phrase of the time that has stuck is "bedroom communities," which described suburban communities in which families lived and women often worked at home. These were living communities and could be seen as bedrooms only from the point of view of men who worked elsewhere. Many other examples exist. What do family life
")
10
^
Close Relations
and changes
in close relations
children, for example?
among adults look like from the viewpoint of
They look profoundly
different, as
we are now
dis-
covering (Marcil-Gratton 1993). Children live in numerous and varied kinds of families while lier in their lives
still
dependent, and changes in family are happening ear-
than those of children in times past. Looking at shifting
among adults from the viewpoint of children's living situations gives us a new and important vantage point on families. Yet another new approach is to coUect data in new ways so that family diversity can be studied over time. One example is Statistics Canada's Survey close relations
of
Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID)
a picture of the changes in people's (1997), for
example,
relies
(Statistics
Canada
work and family
on SLID to examine
1996),
lives
which builds
over time. Cheal
the longer-term effects of being
dependent family while young or at various Life course stages. finds that the effects of both dependence and poverty of youth increase in-
in a financially
He
have different "Life histories," and change over time, they profoundly mark the future prospects of their members, especially the youngest members. Of course, all families change, and the times change families. For example. Whitehead (1990, 1) reminds us that "Today's stay-at-home mother is tomorrow's working mother." She further points out that families change with the times: "One day, the Ozzie and Harriet couple is eating a family meal at the dining room table; the next day, they are working out a joint custody agreement in a law office {op. cit. 1)." Studying families in a context of change reminds us to stay away from any simple definitions of family, or theories about family life, that assume that all families are the same, and stay the same, regardless of their historical context. Combining tLiis historical approach with recognition that different family members have different experiences gives us interesting results. Consider Statistics Canada's National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, tergenerational inequities over tune. Thus, families
and as
these histories develop
which follows
children's lives until adulthood, collecting data
on family
changes, schooling, health, and a whole range of variables that affect children's lives. Early findings from this study have already enabled us for the first
time to learn, for example, that the effect on children of living with a sin-
is more than the result of the low incomes often faced by such The good news from longitudinal research is that good parenting can, to a large degree, overcome these detrimental effects. Much more is to be learned by following the same people (children or adults) for a long period of time and seeing whether they can, eventually, escape the disadvantages of a low-income childhood and, if so, how.
gle parent families.
Variation Despite Convergence As we have seen throughout
this section,
changing economies and
play a major role in changing the form and content of family
societies
life,
both in
Introduction
becoming industrialized and
countries just
in the
H
Western world, where
economic change continues. Many social scientists perceive these changes as part of an inevitable and universal progress toward a single worldwide culture of modernity, in which families have a distinct and different form, compared to traditional families. This approach has several pitfalls. First, it assumes that all modern families are similar to one another and different from all traditional families. Second, and equally important, it assumes that all modern families "choose" their new forms, and these forms are necessarily better.
Convergence theory presents a rosy picture of family modernization, as though families and individuals are choosing to change and are all changing effectively. In fact, however, modernization forces families to change. William Goode (1984, 57-58) has pointed out that families change when societies industrialize precisely
because industrialism
"fails to
give support
to the family": 1.
The
industrial system fires, lays off,
and demands geographical
mobility by reference to the individual, ignoring the family strains these actions
may cause.
The economy increasingly uses women
in the labor force, and thus work burden on them; but few corporations have developed programs for helping women with child care, or making it 2.
puts a
still
easier for 3.
The
local,
larger
men to share in
these tasks.
system has
industrial
little
place for the elderly, and the neo-
independent household with
its
accompanying values
of separate lives for each couple leaves older parents
ambiguous 4.
in favor
and kin
in
an
position....
The family is
relatively fragile because of separation
but the larger system offers
little
and divorce,
help in these crises for adults and
their children.
Industrialization not only produces great opportunities but also great life. Some societies, and some families, resome industrial countries, families receive much more support from the state than do families in other countries. By its laws and policies, a state influences the costs to individuals and to
perils for families
spond
and family
better than others. In
society associated with marriage, divorce, child-bearing, child-rearing,
and elder
care. In this
in that society. That tical
way, the
is,
in part,
state influences the patterns of family life
why
industrial societies
do not have iden-
family forms.
There
is
no evidence
of a single evolutionary path in family
life
—from
simple to complex, extended to nuclear family. Even nuclear families, thought to
be the most
distinctive feature of
modem family Ufe, are not a linear prod-
uct of industrialization. Because the effects of industrialization have been
so all-encompassing, social scientists have been tempted to search for the
12
^
Close Relations
origins of the western family with industrialization. But, as Goldthorpe (1987, 10) points out,
many
features of the western family
—neo-local —
resi-
monogamy go back to pre-Christian history. Nuclear families were common in England long before dence, bilateral kinship recognition, and possibly
had an overwhelming grown children, or with uncles,
industrialization. English adults apparently never
desire to live with their parents, with their aunts, or cousins. Like
modem-day Canadians,
the pre-industrial English pre-
up their own households, containing only spouses and chiland did so whenever they could. A similar pre-industrial pattern was found in pre-Confederation Newfoundland (McDaniel and Lewis 1997). Major forces of change like industrialization, urbanization, and edferred to set
dren,
ucation certainly affect family
life;
yet the relationships are not simple, nor
two of the most industrialized and Sweden, we find very different family forms. In Japan, traditional family and gender norms persist. In Sweden, by contrast, there are very high rates of cohabitation and women working in are the outcomes predictable. Indeed, in countries, Japan
the paid
work
Throughout
force (although mostly in traditional female sectors).
this
book we argue
that
many
possible but also desirable, and, indeed,
family forms are not only
work well
— in Canada and
throughout the world. No simple conclusions can be drawn about what a family is, what causes families to change, or whether family life is getting better or worse. Those who want simple answers may find this ambiguity disappointing. Those who want to understand the modern family will find that the many open questions make for an exciting and intellectually challenging area of sociology.
Concluding Remarks It
seems that everywhere, family relationships are
in flux.
Around the world,
and urbanization are destroying extended kinship networks and drastically changing the nature of family obligations. In North industrialization
America, people value family
life,
but they are spending a smaller fraction
At the same time. North American families today show more signs of stress and conflict than ever before. What, if anything, is the connection among these facts? Current family trends are the result of long-term worldwide changes in social life. New laws and new contraceptive technology have given rise to new sexual permissiveness. Fertility has continued to fall for more than a century. Divorce rates have reached historically high levels everywhere, espeof their lives in anything resembling a traditional family.
^3
Introduction
These long-term trends have been boosted byrapid increases in the labour force participation of mothers of young children. In turn, women's behaviour is the culmination of a struggle for equality with men that began in earnest almost two centuries ago. As we will see, the process of industrialization has set in motion irresistible, irreversible social forces that transform the content of close relations in everyday life. These social forces include the development of a consumer culture, market economy, welfare states, and a mobile, urban social structure. As well, new technology prolongs life, prevents unwanted United
cially in the
births,
and
creates
States.
life
even create
womb. In future, many scientists expect new sentient creatures through genetic engineering
outside the
that
it
and
artificial intelligence.
will
The
sociological study of family
relationship
and
between
social structures
constraints, similarity
ample, the
norm
and
offers a
good
illustration of the
social processes,
between choices
— ex—are slow to change. The family as a
diversity.
of marital fidelity
cultural ideal exists outside
life
and
Some aspects of family life
and beyond individual people,
for
in the
ways
that people of a particular society think about love, marriage, parenthood,
and so on. What is amazing about family between people's idealization of family life "in
the domestic division of labour, life
today
is
the contrast
and people's never-ending creativity in the face of a rapidly changing everyday reality. Family life is constantly being constructed, and every family bears the unique stamp of its members. No two families enact love, marriage, parenthood, or domestic work in precisely the same way. If anything, the study of families makes clear that social life is a process of continthe old days"
and negotiation. We get the families we strugalthough some family members have more power than others in
ued uncertainty, gle for,
variety,
the struggle.
ways and behaving have changed because dozens, then thousands, then millions of family members have changed their way of reFamilies have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. Accepted
of thinking, speaking,
lating closely.
We should not conclude that we are in the midst of a break-
down of the family, in which a mate is no more than erotic property, and a child no more than a consumer durable. The way most people continue to struggle
and
sacrifice for their spouses, children, parents,
gests that the family
means
In the chapters that follow,
siblings sug-
we study a variety of families as they form,
develop, grow, and, occasionally dissolve. dating and mating.
and
a great deal more.
We begin with a
discussion of
^
i^L_)
Close Relations
Key Terms Bilateral kinship system: Kinship through both the male and female lines.
Matrilineal kinship system: Kinship through the female line.
Extended family: A family system in which three or more generations of family members live together and have social rights and obligations.
Nuclear family:
Kinship group: A set of people who share a relationship through blood and /or marriage and have positions in a hierarchy of rights over property.
Kin-keeper: The family member who maintains and nurtures family contacts.
sists
A family group that cononly of spouses, or spouses and their
children.
Patriarchy: A system in which family decision-making is dominated by males,
most
typically
by
fathers.
Patrilineal kinship system: Kinship
through the male
line.
CHAPTER
How
ONE
Families Begin:
Dating and Mating Chapter Outline Love: A Recent Invention?
Age Homogamy
Dating Scripts and the Double
Ethnic
Standard Expressive Exchange as the Basis for
Romance Arranged Marriages and Love Matches
Mate
Mate Selection Homogamy Similarity
Similarity
and Couple Happiness
The Gender Difference Attraction
Meeting and Mating Social Aspects of Finding a
Homogamy Religious Homogamy
and Attraction
in
What Men Want What Women Want
Why People Do Not Optimize Dating Violence
Educational and Other Status
Concluding Remarks
Homogamy
Chapter Summary
^6
~)
Close Relations
Friendship
Love
is
love minus sex and plus reason.
friendship plus sex and
is
(Mason Cooley, "Thought du
minus reason.
Jour," The Globe and Mail,
20 January 1998,A20.)
Sooner or
later,
most people end up
in a serious, intimate relationship.
About
90 percent of Canadians will marry at least once. Research suggests that the
key to a happy marriage fect
mate;
is
not
—
v^^e
repeat, not
—a matter of finding the per-
we discuss this issue at length in Chapter 3. No method of select-
ing a marriage partner, however sound, will guarantee the survival or the is because, throughout your lives, you and your mate will continue to change, and so will the world around you. But some choices may produce more marital satisfaction than others, and some are riskier than others. That makes it worth examining what social science knows about mate selection and about the results of better and worse choices. We will soon argue that the very idea of "mate selection" is misguided,
happiness of your marriage. This
in the
same way
that "job selection" inaccurately describes
how people find
work. But for the time being, we'll use the metaphor of mate most people think of finding a mate as a selection process. Theoretically, people bring their attributes
game" and
offer
them
in
and
hopes of an exchange. Failure
selection, since
skills to the
to
make
"mating
a fair or bal-
anced exchange causes disappointment and resentment. In any relationship, the partner with the greater "resources" has more to offer and, therefore,
more power (Blood and Wolfe
1960; Scanzoni 1972; 2000). For this reason, should expect to find that people mate with others of similar social "value," since both stand to gain equally from the relationship. That may explain why most mating takes place between people of approximately equal physical attractiveness (Hatfield and Sprecher 1986). When mates are not equally attractive, the less attractive person usually brings other valued attributes wealth, power, or social position to the relationship. This somewhat cold-blooded process is surrounded by romantic no-
we
—
—
tions of discovery: finding oneself, finding one's soulmate, finding one's
and so on, and all of this is based, in turn, on the idea of romantic Most Canadians believe that love is the foundation on which families are built. And, in order to find love, we must search out "the one" who is right for us. In theory, that's why we date. But before we look more closely at dating and mating, let's look at how the idea of love has developed. destiny, love.
Love:
A Recent
Invention?
There is nothing natural about the connection of love and marriage, although many people today think that they have always gone together. In fact, traditionally, most people in the world have thought that the purpose of marriage was to benefit the family group, not the individual spouses. For
this
Chapter
How
i
^7
Families Begin
were mutually advantageous to their this has mattered more than whether the couple loved
reason, they arranged marriages that families. Historically,
way
each other romantically in the shall see, neither sarily certain to
The idea
that
we
think of love today. But, as
marriage for love nor marriage by arrangement
is
we
neces-
produce happiness and a durable marriage.
of romantic love
is
a social construction, the product of a par-
ticular culture in a particular historical period,
has a biological basis (Fisher 1992).
It is
although some argue that
not that love
itself is
a
it
new concept;
ancient myths and age-old stories have love at their core. For example, Krishna, one of the popular gods of Hinduism,
is
often
shown
as a flute-
maiden (Coltrane 1998, 36). In Krishna, erotic and romantic love are combined with the quest for salvation. Ancient legends of Japan also have themes of love. Greek philosophers wrote about love. In all these instances, love is the focus. However, it is not the kind of love that we today think of as linked with marriage, or the basis on which most Canadian families are formed today. Morton (1992) tells of how the idea of love as a basis for marriage grew out of questioning the traditional social and economic grounds for marriage. As feudalism ended and the market economy began to grow around the fifteenth century. Western European households began to shrink. The number of family-only households increased rapidly, and the traditional bases of marriage came into question. Ultimately, marriage as it was then known was transformed. Love came to be the basis on which families began. The emergence of the concept of romantic love greatly changed social roles, especially for women. Women had to transform themselves from workers into love objects. In this role, adornment and looks mattered more playing suitor of a
than their actual contributions to the family's overall well-being.
Women
went from being partners in work to being weaker, passive, decorations (Abu-Laban and McDaniel, 2001). The differences between men and women became more exaggerated, as social and economic power in society and in marriage shifted more to men a process that reached its peak with indus-
—
trialization in the nineteenth
and twentieth
centuries.
we know it today, Many images of romantic love in the
Courtly love, the likely origin of romantic love as
emerged late
in
Europe
in the
twentieth century
Middle Ages.
still
Think of finding Even in wedprincesses and are still "given
retain aspects of this period.
one's "knight in shining armour" or serenading one's love.
dings today, most brides
away"
to their
still
look like fairy
husbands.
affairs were not simple, as the story of Romeo and Juliet ilWith the emergence of courtly love, the woman, as the object of male affections, was placed on a pedestal. She was to be won, though she remained, in a fundamental sense, unattainable. These ideas, too, exist in our modem thinking about love and sex. Along with them goes the well-entrenched idea of a sexual double standard, which places a high value on women's limited sex-
Courtly love
lustrates.
")
^^8
")
Close Relations
ual experience before marriage
and
their fidelity afterward.
perience prior to marriage and fidelity afterward
At
least three
about love, and is
ex-
important elements figure in our contemporary notions
all
have
historical antecedents. First, romantic love
leisurely activity possible only in societies that
romantic love
Men's sexual
was seen as less important.
a private activity.
It
assumes
have
is
a
leisure time. Second,
that people
have access
to free
time and private spaces, which implies a reduction in the overall influence of the extended family. Third, romantic love
become more important
a youthful activity that has
is
as the period of youthful
dependency and "ado-
lescence" has lengthened. It would be impossible to imagine today's dating behaviours and rituals without the growth of a leisure class of young people with time and money to spend, and good physical health to enjoy romance. However, today, as in
the past,
romance continues
There
in short, a
is,
to
work
women and for men. own society and most others.
differently for
double standard in our
Dating Scripts and the Double Standard A traditional sexual double standard was the premise for dating rituals (or "scripts") that existed in
North America from about the 1920s through the
1950s and most of the 1960s (despite popular images of that decade as the era
saw boys as initiators, calling girls for dates and Though less widely accepted today, this double standard persists in many cultures around the world, and in Canada among immigrant families that come from these cultures. Girls were expected, by the same scripts, to be chaste and virginal until marriage. This game was a difficult one for women. Schwartz and Rutter (1998, 79) note that girls were of "free love"). Sexual scripts
often paying for the date.
cast as if
"good"
if
they were chaste, and "bad" ("loose," "easy," and worse)
they followed masculine rules of sexuality.
Laumann et al
(1994), relying
on data from
the United States' National
Health and Social Life Survey, find that the sexual double standard
is shift-
ing dramatically. They focus on people on their eighteenth birthday: in particular,
what proportion have not had sexual intercourse
as yet,
and what
proportion have had five or more partners? Comparing results over four decades, the 1950s through the 1990s, not surprisingly they find fewer 18year-old virgins today than in the 1950s. However, the big change occurs
have had five or more sexual partners by age 18. Almost four times as many women in the 1990s fall into this category than did in the 1950s. In contrast, the proportion of young men who had more than five sexual partners by age 18 has not changed much. For both boys and girls, a dramatic shift has occurred in the age at which sexual activity begins. Brumberg (1998) notes that the average age in the proportion that
for first intercourse for girls in the
United States
is
now
16 years old. Today's
(
— Chapter
girls,
notes
Bmmberg,
How
i
Families Begin
are sexually active before the age at
^9
which their great-
great-grandmothers had even begun to menstruate. This
standard
Now,
is
not surprising
when we
—although not always the
think that in grandmother's time, the
reality
—was abstinence
until marriage.
the "love standard" (Hobart 1996) usually prevails: sexual relations are
fine as long as the
couple love each other.
Some cultures are even more supyoung men in Canada, for ex-
portive of unmarried sex. For francophone
ample, Hobart (1996, 149) found that the "fun standard" takes priority over the love standard.
Many discrepancies exist between what people do privately and what they say they do.
Nowhere is this more true than with sexuality, whether preand
marital, extramarital, or marital. People underestimate, overestimate,
misrepresent their
own sexual activity.
out what
It is
challenging for family sociolo-
from what people say is occurring. From multiple studies (Hobart [1996, 150] summarizes the Canadian studies), it is known, however, that the majority of unmarried youth today report having had sexual experiences and the vast majority do not think premarital sex is wrong. A counter to sexual intimacy in uncommitted relationships has been the threat of AIDS and venereal diseases in recent years. The threat has been controversial, and misinformation abounds; many young people mistakenly believe that heterosexuals are not vulnerable to AIDS. Nonetheless, the lethal threat of AIDS has affected the enthusiasm of some young people gists to sort
is
really occurring
for sexual intimacy, at least unprotected sexual intimacy. In
some quarters, become
celibacy outside marriage, even including pledges of virginity, has
a popular option.
Expressive Exchange as the Basis for Romance Whether we are examining heterosexual or same-sex couples, a central feature of marriage in Canada is commi tment to the ideals of romantic love. In our society the arrangements geographic and economic of marriage are framed through the ideological rhetoric of romance. Though practical concerns always play some part more in some relationships than in others most people who get married do so because they believe they love their partner. And often, people feel they have discovered the best even per-
—
— —
fect
—
—mate. The
ideal of romantic love plays a small role,
riage partner in
many
any, in selecting a mar-
parts of the world. Instead, marriage
as a mainly practicaLarrangement, in
matter of luck.
if
which love
is
is
usually seen
beside the point or a
What is relevant is whether the Likely husband will be
a good good homemaker, and whether family and kin group with sons.
provider, whether the likely wife will be a the union will supply the
^
20
)
Close Relations
—
—
However, in our culture, people expect and are expected to marry -iorjove. Canadian marriages are ideally~founded on expressive exchange, not instrumental exchange. The term "exchange" refers to a process of ongoing interaction between spouses. The exchange perspective sees marriage as a give-and-take process, in which each spouse both gives and gets. The stability and well-being of a relationship is thought to depend on how well a balance is struck and sustained in this exchange between spouses. Expressive exchanges in marriage are exchanges of emotional services
between spouses. They include hugs and kisses, sexual pleasure, friendship, a shoulder to lean on, empathy, and understanding. Expressive exchanges affirm the affection and love each spouse has for the other. By contrast, instrumental exchanges are non-emotional. They maintain a household in practical ways and include such services as sharing the housework, paying the bills, and looking after the children. In our society, people are urged to marry someone they love, not just people who would help out in practical ways. Yet no matter how much two people
may love each other, married life always involves practical matters
and economic concerns. This is the central dilemma of modem married life. Romantic love may be central to our ideal of married life, but in the last three decades, most families have needed two incomes to support a middle-class lifestyle that one income would have supported in the past. Economic and cultural influences have led many people to delay marriage, forego intimacy, or cohabit instead of marrying. The conditions of modem marriage are often not very romantic or love-enhancing. So, the tions,
modem family still has both instrumental and expressive func-
but in our ideal culture the family
fulfilling
ization of the marriage
family
is
mainly expressive, directed
emotional and psychological needs. In large part,
lives, that
and
family,
and the
conflict
it is
to
this ideal-
between ideal and real and sometimes
leads to high rates of frustration, divorce,
violence.
Meeting and Mating With love
as a goal
—for better or worse—Canadians of
timate partners. Meeting a potential mate
is
not what
it
all
ages look for
used
to be. Yet
in-
some
some new traditions emerge as the older ones Landers ran, in 1997, a series of letters on "How We Met," some readers expressed frustration and boredom with the oldfashioned stories of how couples met. The implication is that none of that sort older traditions remain, and are updated.
When Ann
happens any more, which may or may not be true. The range of ways to meet one's Life partner has certainly widened in recent years. Many meet in the usual places of shared activities schools and universities, workplaces, religious places, neighbourhoods, sporting groups, or events. Others meet through common friends or relatives. Still othof thing
—
Chapter
ers are
How
i
Families Begin
21
put together by relatives or traditional marriage brokers in arranged
marriages or semi-arranged marriages.
Arranged Marriages and Love Matches A society that practises "arranged marriage" p uts parents or kin in the control
o f makjngmatches between people In most .
marriages have been arranged in
this sense,
societies for
most of history,
not based on love but on the
needs, beliefs, or desires of the couple's relatives. Thus, "arranged mar-
most conunon in societies where we find close extended faimlies. In cultures that have arranged marriages, rights to land are typically passed from one generation to the next (usually, from father to son). Since marriage is an arrangement between families, it makes sense to arrange marriages in a way that protects family assets such as land, grazing rights,^ or animals. Parents also want to minimize potential conflict between the families that will be joined by the marriage. For these reasons, the choice of marriage partners is considered far too important to be left to the whims of youth. Spouses are chosen because the union is economically advantageous or because of friendship or kinship obligations. Sometimes people marry people they have never met. In the West today, few marriages are "arranged" in the traditional sense. In multicultural Canada, arranged marriages sometime occur among young people. An article in the University of Toronto's student newspaper The Varsit]/ (January 25 1993, 7), reported that "most second generation Canadian-Pakistanis grew up expecting and accepting the concept of an arranged marriage an arranged marriage was inevitable and the social norm. And yet the definition of an arranged marriage today differs from In Toronto today, most individuals acthe definition of one 20 years ago tively participate in selecting their partners. The couple meets first with their families. If they are interested in each other, they can speak to each riages" are
—
...
Aunties
in
Action
Arranged marriages have a long history
in India,
The tasks of arranged marriage, from mate selection to
groom, such as height, the information they acquire also includes family history, education, career, etc.
wedding arrangement, are not performed by the
These "aunties" then
talk with other "aunties" from
the aunts of the potential bride and
another family to see
if
parents.
It
is
groom who are often
in
First,
the aunts, or
in India,
gather infor-
charge.
"aunties" as they are called
a match can be made. Social
gatherings such as a wedding provide an opportunity,
which allows the "aunties" to look a prospect
tial
prospects.
the physical attributes of the potential bride and
will
arrange a meeting for the couple.
If
is
for poten-
found, the "aunties"
mation about their nieces and nephews. Besides
Source: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3550/aunt.htm (Downloaded December 2000.)
22J)
Close Relations
other on the
phone and go out with or without a chaperone, depending on It's not an individual decision but a collective
the values of the families
...
[one], involving six family
We
members
know how common
at least."
North America. In however, with high rates of immigration from developing countries (especially Asia), arranged marriages still occurred among
Canada
can't
this practice is in
in the 1990s,
several ethnic groups.
Mate
Social Aspects of Finding a Exposure
mates
and mating process as practised by most people in Canada today. This process, far from being random, is structured or arranged by our social characteristics. There is a range of possibilities extending from the more constrained choices of arranged marriage systems to the more open, but still constrained, process of falling in love with someone you meet at school, in your neighbourhood, or at your church, temple, or mosque. The term "marriage market" may seem too rational or cold-blooded a description of a process we tend to view as largely emotional. And yet, there to potential
is
a
first
step in the meeting
much that is market-like about finding a mate. For example, we can think about mating in terms of exchanges. Each potential partner brings to the is
potential relationship sometliing that
is
of value to the other: personality,
skills,
physical attractiveness, earnings potential,
admit
it
or not, rating and ranking
is
etc.
Whether
participants
part of the mate market.
Watch people at a singles bar or a campus event. Both men and women woo people more like
eye those they wish they might have. But in the end they
themselves. Each of us constantly compares our seLf-perceived market value,
sometimes based on lege, or in the
testing the
"mate market" in high school, university or col-
work world, with what we
think
we
can achieve in the mar-
ketplace of love. Confidence in one's ability to "strike a deal" often determines
how far one can reach. Popular movies notwithstanding, princesses and billionaires seldom wed worthy but plain commoners or street prostitutes. As we noted earlier, a central part of the mate market is the politics of attractiveness. Good looks make a difference, for both men and womejL mate market. For women, (Abu-Laban and McDaniel, 2001). Immense amounts of time, effort, and money go into the construction of female attractiveness. Women pluck, wax, and shave unwanted hair, carefully groom the wanted hair, shape and flatten unwanted bulges, and enhance wanted ones. All this is packaged in the latest fashions after being "worked out" into the shape of the day, sometimes called "body sculpting." Impression management also matters in the attractiveness project; it must appear as if heterosexuals
attractiveness
"the look"
is
and gays, is
a
life's
achieved
in getting attention in the
project
effortlessly.
In the mate market, flirting matters.
However, the
flirting script, like the
dating market, has been considerably updated. Sexually aggressive
women
Chapter
Though the
script
has been updated over the years,
flirting is still
i
How
Families Begin
23 ^
an important part of the meeting-
and-mating scenario.
are
ing
still
—
^by
men (Coltrane 1998, 33). Yet, flirtwomen as well as by men— is still an important part of the meeting
considered off-putting to most
and mating scenario. Women are expected to flirt with a blend of innocence and interest; the mix must be exact so as not to convey unintended messages. Flirting prior to the 1990s was heavy on the innocence, light on the sexthe content is reversed, with women expected to be though not too aggressive (Coltrane 1998, 34). With greater equality between men and women in the present, perhaps the image of the woman waiting for the man to ask her out is outdated. Yet women were never entirely passive in this process, mastering many ways to convey interest in particular men. Among the most popular was to "put out the word" that you were interested. Some women, of course, still wait for men to take dating initiatives. The patterns of dating are different, however, in the 2000s; groups of young people of both sexes often go out together. The question of whether wooing is more equal remains. In some ways it is, since both sexes take initiatives in singling out the person they particularly like. However, a gender imbalance remains. Several studies of firstdate initiation find that men ten d to evalu ate woman-initiated firs^ dates in more sexual ways than do women (Mongeau and Carey 1^96). Those women
ual innuendo.
sexual in
Now,
flirting,
24
')
Close Relations
who initiate dates are seen by a group of impartial observers as being more sociable,
more
liberal,
asked. Despite a tives,
it
could
than men,
but
less physically attractive
welcome tendency toward more
still
be that
than the person being
equality in dating initia-
women who initiate dates are viewed differently
who are expected
to initiate dates.
grown both in popularity and acceptability in the latter part of the twentieth century. What used to be called "lonely hearts ads" Personal ads have
now mainstream, appearing in respectable newsand used by respectable people. One recent U.S. study (Merskin
for the truly desperate are
papers,
and Huberlie 1996) discovered
that
mate finding
is
becoming more a matter
of mediated information rather than traditional selection.
More people than
ever are turning to the want ads or to Internet dating services to meet that
someone
special.
In personal ads,
it
has been found that
men tend to emphasize looks and
physical attributes (weight, height, ethnicity, even eye and hair colour)
moce
than wom.en do. For example, terms such as "attractive," "slender," "petite,"
or "sexy" are used
much more often by men in their ads to describe the
person they seek (Coltrane 1998, For
47; Smith,
women, common keywords
Waldorf, and Tremblath 1990).
include "secure," "professional," "suc-
with terms to describe physical features and of their dreams.
cessful," or "affluent" along
age in the
man
Of course,
dom
than
it
this
does not mean that mate selection
is
any more ran-
ever was, only that the pools of potential mates within the
have been enlarged by reducing the factor of and advertising. Maybe this is yet another dimen-
socially preferred categories
distance, via Internet
sion of globalization!
A study of personal ads in a Canadian newspaper between
1975 and number of ads placed (Sev'er 1990). The ratio of males to females placing ads was about 4 to 1. A stunning finding is 1988 found a sixfold increase in the
Internet Dating Men
in
Silicon Valley are facing an
unusual phe-
nomenon. These educated individuals with professional careers are having trouble finding a date.
reason
is
that there are
Silicon Valley. "In
more men than
women between the ages of 20 and 44" is
in
Santa Clara County, the heart of
Silicon Valley, there are 40,641
2000). This
One
more men than women
(Stackhouse
because the workforce of the high-
tech industry there consists of mostly men. These
men
are generally
reason
why they
work obsessed, which
can't find a date.
hours, which leaves
people, deficit'
let
them
little
is
another
They work long
time to meet other
alone dating. Silicon Valley's 'gender
has spawned a new sub-industry of dating
services, including websites such as
www.match-
maker.com (Stackhouse 2000). As an
alternative to
the
web
dating services,
some men
actually drive
an hour north to San Francisco to look for dates.
Source: Jerry Stackhouse. 2000. "Lonely Internet Hotshots Deplore Dating Drought." The Globe and Mail. March 25, Ai, A24. Reprinted with permission from The Globe
and Mail.
Chapter
i
How
25
Families Begin
means used in the mate market has changed, the gender expectations of meeting and mating have not. Women still present themselves in terms of physical attractiveness, and men still seek women with specified physical attributes. It may be that in this method of mate-seeking, gender stereotypes matter more than in more conventional mate markets. Or, that although the
it
could be that people placing personal ads are particularly "consumer"-
oriented: they
want a good "product."
Sev'er (1990, 76) concludes that "Even in this unconventional market,
game have remained extremely traditional. Women women) are at a disadvantage, both as choosers and as po-
the rules of the mating (especially older
The personal ads market seems new bottle for the same old wine."
tential chosen.
disguise, a
to
be a traditional market in
Mate Selection The term "mate
selection"
may seem like an odd one. Do we really "select"
whom we shall love or marry? The answer seems to be yes. Every society, including ours, has rules or laws about whom we can marry or with whom we can have sexual relations. We cannot legally decide, for example, tomarry a sibling or to have sex with a child. However, our society is relatively permissive; traditional societies have more numerous and specific rules about who can marry whom. Some societies practice en dogamy which is the requirement common in small, traditional societies tliarpeople marry within their own social group (such as their own class, caste, or ethnic group). Other societies practise exogamy, which means marrying outside one's social group. Exogamous societies are occasionally small and based on extended kinship, like the !Kung bushmen ,
of the Kalahari desert.
Marriage rules always aim
to
ensure a kin group's advantage.
Why
immovable property might be lost through marriage, the pressure toward endogamy is strong. Endogamy is
endogamy? Wherever land also likely
when a group is suffering discrimination by outsiders and
strengthen contrast,
or other
its
social
exogamy
gives the
has to
stressing
group boundaries
in marriage.
By
members
of a small society
more chance
to
bonds by
survive by increasing the size of the group they can a famine, war, or other trouble.
It is
a
good survival
call
on
in the event of
strategy
where group
resources are few and the group does not feel threatened by
(all)
outside
groups or where there are few if any family properties to be lost (or gained) through marriage. Our own society has no explicit rules of endogamy or exogamy, but it sometimes seems endogamous, since most people tend to fall in love with and marry people who are like themselves in important ways. This should not be entirely surprising since we interact most with those with whom we have things in common. Propinquity (orproxiniity) theory says that people are
more likely
to find a
male arnbng those with
whom they associate. The
")
— ^26
^
Close Relations
homogamy takes this hirther, proposing that people tend to fall in love within their own social group, as defined by class, educational level, retheory of
ligion,
and race or
-^
ethnicity.
Homogamy Given the importance of similarity in interpersonal attraction, one expects that people will marry others like themselves. This is what we find. People meet others like themselves, find
them relatively more
attractive than others they
have met, and then marry them, or at least form a household. This tendency of like marrying like assortative mating or homogamy is found for a wide variety~orcharacteristics Important variables on which mate similarity is evident include age, geographic location, various physical traits and overall physical attractiveness, and mental traits, including attitudes, opinions, and personality (Buss 1985). So, where in the past people married others from the same town and background and were similar to their mates on a great many dimensions, today we marry others to whom we are similar on a few of the most important dimensions. There are good reasons why people tend to be homogamous. First, they are more likely to meet others who are (at least socially) like themselves than to meet people unlike themselves. This results from the social circles within which people move and interact with others. Second, we usually like people who think the way we do and act the way we expect them to; we feel comfortable in their presence. Third, instiumental and expressive exchanges are easier to balance when like is marrying like. That's because people are bringing similar, hence more equal, qualities and resources to the marriage. As we will see shortly, homogamy also promotes marital satisfaction and happiness. Thus, homogamy has a survival value: couples who are similar are not only more likely to meet and marry but also more likely to remain together and produce children than couples who are less similar. The resulting children of these homogamous marriages themselves enter the marriage market looking for marriages like those of their parents namely,
—
.
—
homogamous marriages. Most intimate
relationships involve people of remarkably similar back-
One study (Laumann
et al. 1994, 255) of a national population sample in the United States found that 93 percent of marriages and 89 per-
grounds.
cent of long-term relationships involve people of similar race or ethnicity,
while 82 percent of marriages and 83 percent of long-term relationships
in-
volve people with similar education. Only 10 to 20 percent "marry out" or "intermarry" on important social characteristics. In Canada, the 1996 Census suggests a growing tendency to intermarry
more persons with multiple 1998c,
3).
Yet, the
among ethnic groups, leading to
ethnic origins than before (Statistics
overwhelming tendency remains
ple like ourselves.
to settle
Canada
down with peo-
;
Chapter
i
How
2/
Families Begin
Similarity and Attraction and psychological researchers have noted the connection between and attraction in many social relationships, not only marriage. So, for example, Singh and Tan (1992) observe that in experimental settings similarity produces attraction; the degree of attraction depends on the degree of similarity (see also Hoyle 1993). People feel drawn to, and identify with, people like themselves. Neimeyer and Mitchell (1988) conclude that attitude similarity is a significant predictor of Initial attraction between pairs of interacting undergraduates. Only similarities of personality and intelligence predict attraction eight weeks later. As we shall see, ttj^ same patterns define mating and marriage. Of course, we don't like, let alone fall in love with, everyone who is like us in important ways; many factors mediate the connection between similarity and liking. These include environmental or situational factors, moods and recent emotional experiences, observable (versus imagined) characteristics of partners, static and kinetic factors (appearance, words, and deeds), and subjects' overall evaluations of the people with whom they Social
similarity
are interacting (Byrne 1992).
Mediating factors also include the personalities of the interacting partexample, Grover and Brockner (1989) find that the relationship between attitudinal similarity and attraction is stronger among experimenners. So, for
tal
subjects with strong rather than
weak empathic
tendencies. This
is
due
to
a difference in reactions to a given level of similarity, not to a difference in
good good enough to imagine a relationship with someone they have just met are more likely to be attracted to someone similar than people with weaker imaginations. the perceived degree of similarity. Said another way, people with
imaginations
— —
Interestingly, similar deficiencies as well as strengths can tractive in mating. So, for
are
more than twice as
prove
at-
example, non-alcoholic daughters of alcoholics
likely as non-alcoholic
daughters of non-alcoholics to
have an alcoholic spouse. This finding is not associated with the sex of the alcoholic parent, nor is it true for sons (Schuckit et al 1994).
Educational and Other Status Some
Homogamy
mates are more important than others in determining mate selection, and education is one of the most important in our society. For example, education an achieved status is a characteristics of prospective
—
—
more important criterion in the selection of rnafriage partners than social class origins, which are ascribed (i.e., inherited at birth). Moreover, educational homogamy has increased over time (Kalmijn 1991). More people are marrying spouses with the same or a similar level of educational attainment.
")
28j)
Close Relations
Most North Americans today postpone marriage educational
homogamy has become an
From cational
until
they have completed their education. Likewise,
important factor
the 1930s onward, the
homogamy (Mare
1991).
in
mate
selection.
norm has
There
been, and
is,
increasingly edu-
may be several explanations for this,
including the increased importance of educational attainment for
upward
and the increased numbers of young people who prolong
their ed-
mobility,
ucation through secondary school, college, or university, and even postgraduate programs. Though a increase in educational
shift to
the pattern of social stratification in
Educational
achieved status over ascribed status, the
homogamy may not indicate a significant change in
homogamy may be
modem industrial societies (Jones 1987).
important for the couples involved, but
holds no necessary implication for the
way the class
it
structure operates.
Age Homogamy One
of the
most consistent and
the partners involved.
they are. This pattern
is
Men
persistent facts of marriage
is
the age
gap of
tend to marry
women
and
—a stable finding of sociolog-
clear
persistent
a little_young er than
ical research.
when marriage meant financial security, women may have man who could provide for them. That often meant an older, established man. Nevertheless, now, when marriage is more In the days
looked for a financially secure
Chapter
than security for
women,
the age difference persists.
with the gender gap in earnings potential, marriage for
many women who
How
i
cannot earn as
much by
It
Families Begin
29 ^
could be argued that
is still
a matter of security
own
their
labours in the
market as they can by marrying someone with higher earning power. However, this is not likely the best explanation. Age difference can reflect different power and experience, although of course, this
is
not always true.
It
can
mean that men exercise greater financial
leverage in marriage; the younger partner position.
It is
also possible,
his career that
terms of
is
may be
even probable, that
more established and
if
the
in a
weaker bargaining
man is a little older, it is
that sets the course for the marriage in
who is likely to follow whom for a job or a promotion, or a transfer.
widen further with the birth of a child. The marriage gradient, a well-known sociological concept, takes unip equal marriages one step further. First discovered by Jessie Bernard in the
These
differentials tend to
1970s, the marriage gradient reveals that
we
sort ourselves into couples
not only by age but also by differential status. Men, on average, tend to
marry
women with a
lit tleless
education or a sligmly lower occu pational
own. There are two interesting co nsequen ces of this^_First, when taken together, the unequal matches form an off-centre parallelogram, of higherstatus men linked with slightly lower-status women. Since the world comprises men and women of all statuses, there are bound to be some men and some women prevented from making marriage matches. But, they are are left out of the marriage gradient not the same kinds of people. MeiL are tho se at the bottorn, for whom there isno^ne of lower stafuslo marxy— Women who are left outpFmarriage a rejHose atlhelop7for whoih there i^ no one of higher status to marry. Thus, one musFBe^vvary when comparing the married with the unmarried: unmarried men and women are likely to be profoundly different. It may be that this imbalance is resolved by outmarriage, such that highly educated women of lower-status ethnic groups marry equally or status than their
^o
less-educated
men of higher-status ethnic groups.
In short, additional vari-
ables need to be tossed into the exchange process to solve this marriage-
gradient problem.
The s econd c onsequence is just as interesting. When men and women by status and age, the impression is created that differences between men and women_arelarger than they_actuail^L.ai:erTtworks like this: We see couples inwhich she is younger, and lower in status, than he is. Some people might conclude from this that there is a natural sex difference. pair off unequally
In
fact, social
choices in marriage partners tend to exaggerate existing sex dif-
we make, we reproduce cultural prejuwomen compared with men, in relation dices about the natural abilities of ferences.
By
the marriage choices
to education, wealth,
sociologist
and
status.
(Following these rules,
knew about Canadian women came from
if all
that a Martian
interviews with the
— 30
Close Relations
^
wives of wealthy Canadian men, the Martian might conclude that all are young, beautiful, and well-dressed.
women
Despite this marriage gradient, research shows considerable age and educational
homogamy. Indeed,
people in their the
same
it
points to increasing age
homogamy among
marriages, and a parallel, though smaller increase in
direction in subsequent marriages.
come more 1993).
first
Age
—
like
education
relevant in mate selection (Vera et al 1990; Qian
Other characteristics have become
less relevant,
—has be-
and Preston
among them ethnic-
ity and religion. The increasingagejigaiflgan\i^_^uggests a reduction "~~ women's reliance on men as ''b readwinners."
—
Ethnic
in
Homogamy
At the turn of the century, endogamy was strong ethnic groups. Ethnic
homogamy was
for all
North American
strongest for the
new immigrants
from Southern and Eastern Europe, with weaker endogamy in the second generation (Pagnini and Morgan 1990). Today, ethni?^lSanarriage is more common for all groups. Second-generation European Canadians and Americans marry increasingly into the native stock and increasingly out of
The ethnic boundaries that separate potential mates have weakened over time. Today, ethnic marriage
is
more common than
ever.
inter-
Chapter
their national origin group.
i
The ethnic boundaries
How
Families Begin
3^
that separate potential
mates have weakened over time (Kalmijn 1993). That's likely because people from different ethnic backgrounds are, during adolescence and early adulthood, attending educational institutions where they meet and mate
with others of similar educational attainment.
Religious
Homogamy
The data also reveal weak and diminishing riage. Even among the Jews, a group that is
barriers to religious outmarparticularly concerned about
high degree of homogamy
its
group survival, the
by
religious conversion (before or after marriage). Overall, for
fairly
other religious groups, the data
show
is
achieved largely
a strong continuing trend
ularization of the institution of marriage,
meaning
less religious
Jews and toward sec-
homogamy
over time (Glenn 1982). Intermarriage between Protestants and Catholics has increased dramatically since the 1920s, indicating that the social boundaries separating ed-
ucational groups are stronger than religious (or ethnic) boundaries. In
have become increasingly homogamous with respect to education, showing that education has replaced religion as a key factor in spouse selection (Kalmijn 1991). Religiously homogamous marriages are more satisfying, however. A survey of Seventh-day Adventists shows that family worship, common religiosity with spouse, and church attendance are strong predictors of marital satisfaction (Dudley and Kosinski 1990). In other research, couples of the same denomination, couples who attend church /temples/ mosques with similar frequency, and couples with strong religious convictions have the most successful, stable marriages. It appears that religious homogamy is important only where one or both spouses are addition, interfaith marriages
actively observant.
Similarity and Couple Happiness The literature
consistently argues that social similarity of partners
marital satisfa ction. Homogamous couples than dissimilar couples (Weisfeld
and
religion but to
promotes
are sighiticantly more^satisfied
et al 1992).
This applies not only to age
common attitudes as well.
A study of long-term committed couple relationships finds that agreement on a wide variety of issues is one factor that contributes to the longevity of the marriage, marital satisfaction, and overall happiness (Lauer et al 1990). Men and women whose attitudes diverge from those of their spouses are less satisfied with their marriages (Lye and Biblarz 1993).
")
^3^
^
Close Relations
Marital happiness
is
positively related to the accuracy of perception of
interpret each other's thoughts
and and moods and generally associated with
and
effectiveness of spousal interaction (Kirchler
a spouse's motivational state,
the frequency, positiveness, 1988). -'
L
to spouses' abilities to correctly identify
i.e.
M^in causesofmajjiaLdiasa tisfaction be .twppr| partner sare a
lack of
shared aHIftrdesJoward jnoral standards_and^x, with moral stariHards being the predominant factor for women and sex the predominant factor
I for
men (McAllister
1986).
between marital satisfacand communication of sexual behaviour preferences in a sample of married couples. They find agreement on sexual matters is significantly related to the couple's marital happiness. Wives tend to have a better understanding of their husbands' sexual preferences than the husbands do of Ross
et al (1987) investigate the relationship
tion
their wives' preferences.
The Gender Difference
in
Attraction
Some believe that mating and marriage are about the capture and possession of erotic property (Collins 1983). This view is quite consistent with what
we have said so far about the role of romance in the mating process. How else can we account for the complicated and unreal beliefs people hold about mating and their mates? Experts who provide premarital counselling note a variety of unrealistic beliefs that are common among people when they choose mates. They include the beliefs that •
people will find the perfect partner;
•
there
•
love
•
when all else
is
is
only one good partner for each person;
enough
to
smooth over the rough patches
fails,
the mates will try harder
opposites complement each other homogamy). •
Why for
is
beliefs?
and succeed; and
heterogamy
The answer
is
is
better than
that
mate
selection,
indeed the capture of "erotic property," and people's ability to often clouded by passion. This is clear when we examine differences
many,
reason
do people hold such
(i.e.,
in a relationship;
is
between men and
women in their mating preferences. Women and men are
not aUke in certain key ways, and this difference
is
the basis of attraction.
One
overwhelming difference between men and women is men's placing a higher value on physical attractiveness and a lower value on earning capacity than women (Buss 1985, 1989; de Raad and Doddema-Winsemius 1992). Cross-cultural surveys using data from 33 countries confirm that women value the financial capacity of potential mates more highly than men. Across
Chapter
cultures,
i
How
33
Families Begin
')
^
women also value ambition, industriousness, financial status, and
prospects
more highly than men.
r
What Men Want Although the gender difference
is
larger in self-report data than in ob-
served social behaviour, men's preference for physical attractiveness, youth,
and reproductive value in a mate is documented in many studies (Feingold 1990). For example, analyses of published personal advertisements for mates confirm the difference, with men asking for a photo and a sexual relationship and women looking for older mates and financial resources (Wiederman 1993). The results are similar no matter how we obtain the data: whether by survey, experiment, or otherwise. Surveyed undergraduates of both sexes ex-
press a desire for physical attractiveness, earning potential, and expres-
compared with women, men more often emphasize emerge in data drawn from the National Survey of Families (Sprecher, Sullivan, and
siveness in a mate; but,
the
first
of these three qualities (Sprecher 1989). Similar patterns
Hatfield 1994).
How much of this gender difference is a matter of mere self-presentation?
An experiment by Hadjistavrolous and Genest (1994) finds that women
intentionally under-report the impact of physical attractiveness
preferences. Connected to a
lie
detector-like apparatus,
on
women
their
under-
Igraduate s^admit a more'extrememflugnce by the physical attractiveiigss of Ipotential male dating partners, and'glve^Hefe-e^CtfemeHating desirability ings to physically uriattiractive men. So, cultural, a result of
what we
some
rat-
of this gender difference
are taught to say that
is
we want, and not a bio-
men and women. men want vulnerability or submissiveness in a mate. In an undergraduate experiment, both men and women rated dominant men and vulnerable women consistently higher as prospective mates than dominant women and vulnerable men (Rainville and logical difference
between
Besides attractiveness and youth,
Gallagher 1990). In a questionnaire study, though both sexes valued kindness, consideration,
and honesty, men
also preferred a submissive
and
m.
intro-
verted romantic partner (Goodwin 1990). Tii feirns^ofsexual purity, the results are
may_value
mixed. Both
men and women
relatively inexperienced marriage_partner^^_regardl^s^ of their
^ M
own experience levelXfacbby and'WiIliams'T985; Williams and Jacoby 1989). However, uiiver and Sedikides (1992) find strong evidence of a double standard. Men prefer low levels of sexual permissiveness for committed partners, M and they rate permissive potential mates lower on marriage desirability.^ For men, permissive partners may be attractive as dates but are less attractive as potential
marriage partners.
i
34__J
Close Relations
What Women Want women prefer low levels of sexual permissiveness for both low- and high-commitment partners, rating permissive potential mates lower than non-permissive ones on both dating and marriage desirabilFor their part,
and when considering how to choose undergraduate women are more s electiv e than men ove^ll. Particularly important are status-linked variables andlHeanticJpated investment of a partner in a relationship. Men liave lower re^quirements for a sexual partner than women but are nearly as selective 4 as women when considering requirements for a long-term partner ity.
In casual mating opportunities,
a long-term partner,
(Kenrick et
al 1990).
In a study of strategies used to attract mates,
women
try to attract
who are willing to consider eventual parenthood, by acting chaste and emphasizing their fidelity. Men who show relatively more interest in eventual parenthood than other men attract women by emphasizing their own chastity, fidelity, and ability and willingness to invest (Cashdan 1993). (By contrast, non-investing men, and women who expect non-investing men as partners, flaunt their attractiveness and sexuality to draw in as many partners as possible.) No wonder, then, that survey data find men (but not women) of higher "investing" mates,
social status acquire
more mating in women's
an important criterion
partners, choice.
showing
Women's
that
men's status
ber of partners decreases linearly with age, showing that a
productive potential
is
an important
criterion in a
is
numwoman's re-
(but not men's)
man's choice.
Women
more promiscuous after the dissolution of their marriage. This suggests that women's sexual exclusivity, an important criterion in men's mating choice, operates more weakly once (but not
men)
a marriage
tion
is
also
become
significantly
over (Perusse 1994).
Though one might expect that women's attainment of higher educaand more direct access to their own economic resources would re-
—
—
duce such gender-based differences
in
mate
choice, survey results indicate
the opposite. Rather, higher education increases
women's socio-economic
standards for mates, thereby reducing their pool of acceptable partners
(Townsend
1989).
Many efforts have been made to account for the seemingly universal and persistent tendency of men to seek young and beautiful wives, and women to seek older and successful husbands. One explanation is provided by evolutionary psychologists, or socio-biologists. They argue that such matches have survival value. Dominant and successful ("alpha") males try to pass along their genetic materials by marrying and impregnating the youngest and healthiest females. Young and healthy females, for their part, seek dominant male partners to ensure that their relatively small opportunity to produce offspring (compared to men's) is afforded as much protection as
— Chapter
i
How
35
Families Begin
and child-rearing. Offspring withN and most powerful fathers stand the great" \ hence the pattern of mating survives.
possible during the period of pregnancy the youngest, healthiest mothers est
Why
chance of survival,
People Do Not Optimize The metaphor of a mating or marriage "market" seek "perfect mates"
much like
is
finding a job
wholly
—
it is
fictional,
in
which people
however. In
socially structured
fact,
rationally
finding a mate
is
but largely unplanned and
unconscious.
Reasonable people shop carefully for
cars, television sets,
ments, but they do not shop for mates. That
is
and
apart-
because rational people do
not seek the ideal or "optimal" solution to their most important personal concerns.
They do not
try to optimize; rather, they "satisfice": they seek a
life has handed them (March most purposes, w hatever satisfies us js ideal. According to March and Simon, most human decision-making aims to discover and select satisfactory alternatives. "Only in exceptional cases is it concerned with the discovery of optimal alternatives. To optimize requires processes several orders of magnitude more complex than those required to satisfice" (1958, 141). The difference between optimizing and "satisfictng" is the difference between searching a haystack for the sharpest needle and merely searching for a needle that is sharp enough to sew with. Think of it another way: The human race could not reproduce itself and survive if people were romantic optimizers. We would have died out as
"good enough"
and Simon
")
solution, within the constraints
19b«). tor
a species years ago.
Consider the arithmetic of the problem. Suppose
that, as
an
idealistic
you had listed 10 qualities you felt you absolutely must have in a mate. Your mate must be attractive at least in the top fifth of all possible mates, by your own standards of attractiveness. Your mate must be fun again, at least in the top fifth of all possible mates. He or she must be interesting to talk to again, at least in the top fifth of all possible mates. Then add seven more qualities. Now, what is the probability that your ideal mate actually exists, and that she or he would find you ideal? If the qualities you are looking for in a mate are uncorrected, only one person in five to the tenth power one in 9.8 million will meet all your requirements. That may be fewer than one adult person of the right sex, teenager,
—
—
—
—
aged 20 to 60, in all of Canada. Equally, there is only one chance in 9.8 million your "perfect mate" will consider you the perfect mate. So, by this scenario, the chances of meeting and marrying the perfect mate are one in 9.8 million squared (or nearly zero). Even more modest goals cannot be optimized. Suppose that, instead of requiring your perfect mate to be among the top fifth in attractiveness, you
3^
')
Close Relations
him or her to be only in the top half. You similarly lower your standards for your other requirements. This makes your mating problem more manageable: now, you only need to look for that one "perfect" person in a thousand (that is, two to the tenth power). The probability of meeting and mating with an ideal mate who is making similar calculations has improved: require
now
only one in a thousand squared, or one in a million. (There are be nine or ten of your ideal mates in all of Canada. Some of course, be already married or in a committed relationship.) it is
likely to
may
At most, you know only mating
this
With
way is
this in
a
few thousand. The chance of meeting and
quite unlikely.
mind, you
may try to
solve the shopping problem
by
re-
ducing the number of qualities you require in a mate. Suppose your potential mate has to excel in only one respect and satisfy you in four others. Now
mate are each looking for someone who is in the top fifth in one quality and in the top half in just four other qualities. The probability of finding a person with the qualities you seek is one in 1250. The probability that you will satisfy his or her requirements is also one in 1250. Even so, the chance of meeting and mating is still well below one in a million (that is, one in 1250 squared). If you try to optimize, you will fail to solve your mating problem, even by lowering your original standards. Some people therefore adopt the strategy of trying to meet more potential partners. After all, if you knew 6000 people instead of 2000, your chances would triple. But getting on a firstname basis with 6000 people is very difficult and time-consuming, and the odds are still stacked against you. Besides, all this time spent mate shopping leaves less time for education, good grooming, and all the other attributes required to make you an attractive mate! Carefully expanding your network of acquaintances seems to be one way around this. By joining certain kinds of groups or perhaps placing or answering personal adv^ertisements, you will more quickly meet new people with the qualities you seek. These mating techniques have become much more popular in the last few decades, especially among middle-aged people, whose opportunity to meet a large number of new, and possibly unmarried, people is seriously restricted. (Take note: You will meet more^potential mates at college or university than any timejnJheJuture.) Still, many people hesitatelolook Tormates in this wayTThey find it demeaning, fear the unpleasantness of blind dates that do not work out, or worry about getting sexually transmitted diseases from a new sexual partner. However you revise the shopping list and extend your range and number of contacts, the chance of finding the perfect mate this way is nearly zero. Most people cannot and do not find a mate in this way. Rather, people
you and your
perfect
who are close at hand. As in so many areas of life, we come to value what we know best and have available: people like ourfall
in love
selves.
with those
We become satisfied with the possible, not the ideal; then come to love
the person
who satisfies us.
I
Chapter
How
i
37
Families Begin
Whether we choose homogamy or heterogamy (intermarriage) depends on what kinds of people are close at hand. That explains why our chances of mating with people of other religious, ethnic, and racial groups increase when we have more contact with them. To illustrate this, a study of major language groups concludes that "endogamy [within-group marriage] varies positively with the number of available potential mates belonging to the same group; negatively with the average distance to them; negatively with the available potential mates belonging to different groups;
average distance to the ply, at
latter"
(De Vries and Vallee 1980,
people usually marry others
hand, even
if
slightly "better"
are socially
of
168).
Said
more sim-
and geographically near
much farther away. may sound very unromantic, but in prac-
mates can be found
This process of "satisficing," tice the feelings of
who
number
and positively with the
love are genuine. People in love believe that they have dis-
covered the one perfect mate. In a sense, they have. But they have not (and could not have) done teristics.
by following a shopping list of the "right" charachave decided, after the fact, that their mate is perwhat's so amazing about falling in love. it
Instead, they
—and that
fect
is
Dating Violence Unfortunately, and ironically, every discussion of dating and mating must include a discussion of interpersonal violence. This
is
ironic because, as
said at the beginning of this chapter, dating in our society
mantic illusion and emotional intensity. There
is
we
charged with ro-
an element of choice that is lacking in most other cultures, and a sense that the choice though reversible through separation or divorce is nonetheless enormously consequential.
—
is
—
What, then, is the relationship between our pattern of romantic mating, on the one hand, and the high rate of violence between dates, mates, and lovers, on the other hand? Abuse of women in dating relationships is relatively widespread but underreported and, until recently, understudied (DeKeseredy and Schwartz 1994). There may be a pattern of perpetuation of violence by men and acceptance of violence by women that starts as early as elementary school. A national Canadian study of 1835 girls/women and 1307 boys/men (DeKeseredy and Schwartz 1994) found that girls who experience violence while in elementary schools are more likely to be victims of dating violence in high school and colleges /universities. And boys who are violent while young are more likely to perpetuate violence in dating relationships. These men are also more accepting of rape myths (such as the myth that women enjoy sexual assault, or that sexual assault can be perpetrated only by strangers, etc.) than are non- violent men. The 1993 Violence against Women Survey in Canada found that 16 percent of
women
in
Canada had experienced some kind of violence in a Canada 1993, 2). Violence was found to be
dating relationship (Statistics
widespread, with over one-half of Canadian
women experiencing at least one
")
38
^
Close Relations
incident of physical violence since age 16.
haviours such as hitting, threatening,
etc.
The survey addressed only be-
defined as crimes in the Criminal
Code of Canada.
Women aged 18-24 and women with some post-secondary education were the most likely to have experienced violence in the 12 months prior to the survey, suggesting that dating violence is relatively
Interestingly,
about 20 percent of the
said that they
had never before
women
widespread.
interviewed for this survey
anyone about the violence they had exfirst of its kind anywhere, is being the late 1990s and early 2000s.
told
perienced. The Canadian survey, the replicated in other countries in
Let's relate these findings to domestic violence:
One survey of self-re-
ported domestic violence in Canada shows that
(1) younger people are more unSnployed people are more violent than employed people; but (SHower'mcome and less-educated people are no more violent than higher mcome, highly educated people. There is also a relationship between a belief in patriarchy and spousal abuse. Husbands who believe men ought to rule women are more likely than other husbands to beat their wives. In turn, a belief in patriarchy appears to depend on educational and occupational level. Specifically, the belief appeals to lower-status, less-educated men.
violent to their spouses than older people; (2)
It
larly
women will be particuuneducated people—people who
stands to reason, then, that violence against
common among
aren't married or in a
young, relatively committed relationship and are dating. Thus, "date
a growing concern among sociologists. But in this area of research, good data is difficult; young men and women tend to disagree about what happens on dates. A survey by sociologists Walter DeKeseredy and Katharine Kelly, conducted on 44 college and university campuses across Canada, found four women in five saying they had been subjected to abuse by a dating partner and nearly as many men admitting having acted abusively toward their dates. The validity of the findings was questioned because the study listed a very wide range of behaviours under the heading of "abuse." These be-
rape"
is
getting
haviours included insults; swearing; accusations of
flirting
acting spitefully; as well as using or threatening to use a
with others or
gun
or knife;
and
may be best to separate the violent from the less violent abuses before interpreting the results. When we do, certain patterns fall into place. Where violent abuses are concerned, women are more than twice as likely as men to acknowledge their occurrence. Where less violent abuses are concerned, men and women acknowl-
beating, kicking, or biting the dating partner. So
edge them equally
it
often.
For example, 65 percent of women report being insulted or sworn at by
men report having done that to a date. On the women report being slapped by a date, yet only 4.5 percent of men report slapping a date. Likewise, 8.1 percent of women rea date,
and
63.6 percent of
other hand, 11.1 percent of
Chapter
How
i
39J
Families Begin
Date and Acquaintance Rape and Sexual Assault Definitions
It
is
ally.
In
your right to set It
is
Canada, the legal definition of sexual assault
was amended
in
1983 to apply equally to
women
limits
on what happens sexu-
your right to say no even
attracted to
someone
if
you've been
or previously had sex with
them.
and men. Acquaintance sexual assault ual behaviour It
is
non-consensual sex-
between adults who know each other.
Includes intercourse, touching, kissing or hold-
ing
someone against
their will.
Sexual assault
may
Would You Ever? Or Have You Ever? Would you have sex with a person because you
feel
that they just won't stop?
be imposed through verbal coercion, intimidation, physical restraints or threats.
be violent or result
in
It
does not have
to
physical injury to qualify as
Have you ever been forced ing? Or because you
sexual assault.
to
have sex with some-
one because you weren't asked
if
you were
will-
were ignored when you said
"no"?
Important Facts
Would you have sex with someone because
Male and female survivors face a fear that people
fear that
will believe
the myth that they
being raped.
may have enjoyed
Some people may
believe they gave
consent because they became sexually aroused or involuntarily
had an orgasm during the assault.
It
is
important to recognise these reactions as involun-
you
will lose
your relationship
if
of a
you don't?
Have you ever had sex with someone because you were drunk or stoned?
Would you have sex with someone because you are afraid of what might
happen
if
you don't?
Have you ever had sex with someone because you
tary, physiological reactions.
were forced or threatened with harm?
A major concern
facing male victims
is
society's beIf
men should be able to protect themselves— and therefore, it was somehow their fault they were lief
you answered yes to any of these questions, you
that
have experienced sex through pressure, coercion, or force.
unable to fight off the assailant. Sexual assault
Be aware
in social
situations
is
any unwanted sexual act imposed
on one person by another.
Protect Yourself where a
lot
of alcohol
Meaning: Without consent,
it's
sexual assault.
and/or drugs are being consumed. Many assaults
happen
in
these contexts. Sources: http://web.uvic.ca/~oursac/men.htm and http://web.uvic.ca/-oursac/date_and_acquaintance_rape.htm
port being kicked, bitten, or hit with a
fist,
yet only 2.4 percent of men report
having done any of those things. This consistent discrepancy leads to one of three possible conclusions. Either (1) violent and abusive men date a lot
more women than
men,
(2)
ashamed
to
gentle, non-abusive
many men
women tell a
lot
of
lies
about
admit the things they have dates. The third option seems the most probable based on
their dates, or (3)
done to their what we know
as sociologists.
are
40
Close Relations
:>
Facts About Sexual Assault Figure
injuries during sexual assault
i.i
Number of
victims of assault involving
sexual intercourse
who
are physically
injured during the attack.
Source: Adapted from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of
Women, "Sexual Assault"
fact sheet. 1985.
Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 2001.
•
Nearly 50 percent of
women living
all
assailants
who
force
into sexual intercourse are married or
common-law
at
the time of the assault
and are considered responsible members of the
community. •
of sexual assaults involving forced sexual inter-
course occur •
in
broad daylight.
62 percent of victims of assault involving forced sexual intercourse are physically injured
in
the
attack; 9 percent are beaten severely; 12 percent
25 percent of all sexual assaults involving forced
are threatened with a weapon; 70 percent expe-
sexual intercourse begin with a "legitimate" con-
rience verbal threats.
woman — requesting information or maintenance people are common ploys.
tact with the
posing as
Source: Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women,
"Sexual Assault" •
49 percent of
all
sexual assaults and 18 percent
fact sheet. 1985.
Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Public
Works and Government
Figure 1.2
Services, 2001.
occurrences of forced sexual intercourse
Percentage
of
female students
who
said
they gave into unwanted sexual intercourse
because they were overwhelmed by a man's continued arguments and pressure.
Source: Adapted from Walter DeKeseredy and Katherine Kelly. 1993. "The Incidence and Prevalence of in Canadian University and College Dating Relationships," Canadian Journal of Sociology.
Woman Abuse
Reproduced with permission from the Canadian Journal of Sociology.
20.2 percent of female students said they gave into
unwanted sexual intercourse because they
were overwhelmed by
ments and pressure.
a
man's continued argu-
6.6 percent of female students said they had un-
wanted sexual intercourse because
a
man
ened or used some degree of physical
threat-
force.
Chapter
1
How
4^
Families Begin
I
Facts About Sexual Assault (continued) Figure 1.3
forced sexual intercourse when victim
intoxicated
is
Percentage of female students who said
when
that
they were drunk or high, a
man
attempted unwanted sexual intercourse.
Source: Adapted from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of
Women, "Sexual
Assault" fact sheet. 1985.
Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 2001.
'
when man attempted un-
13.6 percent of female students said that
they were drunk or high, a
Source: Walter DeKeseredy and Katherine Kelly. 1993. "The incidence and Prevalence of
wanted sexual intercourse.
woman Abuse
in
Canadian
university and College Dating Relationships." Canadian Journal
of Sociology 10
(1),
41-53.
Reproduced with permission from the Canadian journal of Sociology.
The data
also
show that violent abuses on dates are not only physical, As before, male respondents are only about one-half or
they are also sexual.
one-third as likely to report doing these things as
ing them done. Bear in
occur between people
mind
that
who know
women are to report hav-
most instances
of forced sexual activity
each other. The result
is,
too often, that
women blame
themselves for the experience. Because they know the assailant, they react passively to the sexual assault. Because they react passively, they blame themselves for not reacting more forcefully. A few even continue the dating relationship.
Date rape grows out of
common
other form of sexual assault that places (McDaniel
is
practices of sexual harassment, an-
especially prevalent in schools
and van Roosmalen
1991). In the halls of
and work-
our high schools,
Canada's female students regularly experience harassment ranging from unwanted staring and rude or embarrassing remarks to unwanted touching. The result for girls is a frequent, if not constant, sense of discomfort even dread
—about being
—
at school.
Part of the problem der.
is
that perceptions of sexual
High school boys may have
the girls. College-aged
men
little
are
idea just
much
harassment vary by gen-
how much they are upsetting
less likely to label
behaviour "ha-
rassment" than their female peers. But after exposure to the work force, men's awareness grows and they, too, come to see certain behaviour as harassment. Overall, women label more behaviours as harassing than men do, but this discrepancy decreases with men's experience in the
work force.
^
— 42^_)
Close Relations
Concluding Remarks It is
apparent that the quest for a
changed dramatically changed
is
cominitted intimate relationship has
North America. What has not and to our sense think that having someone close
the importance that relationship has in our lives
of well-being. In fact,
matters
close,
in recent times in
more
some
sociologists
in times of rapid social
change than in times of social
stability.
Mating, and especially marriage or a long-term committed relationship, satisfaction and deeper dissatisyou marry, you will probably increase your standard of living and longevity, especially if you are a man. Marriage has riskier, less predictable outcomes for women, particularly when there are children involved or when women lack skills that would allow them to earn a living. Men gain the most from a marriage that works, and women especially mothers and poorer wom^en lose the most when a marriage fails. So, especially if you are a woman, deciding whether to marry means assessing your relationship realistically. If you think that there is too much fighting and not enough hugging in your relationship, marriage wiU not solve the problem. As we will see, the "enchanted" newlywed period is normally followed by many years of declining satisfaction, particularly if children are present. The typical marriage may worsen before it starts to improve. Certainly, the stresses any marriage is likely to experience will not disappear. When you marry, avoid having children until you are fairly certain that your marriage will survive. Married women must develop the skills and self-reliance that they will need to support themselves. Most women have already changed their conception of marriage in significant ways, by
gives people the chance for both greater faction than the single
life
life
normally does.
If
—
equipping themselves for independence. Married women who continue to work for pay see their marriage more in balance with the overall scheme of their lives than married women who do not work in the paid work force (Baruch, Bamett, and Rivers 1983, 294).
Most important, flee a relationship that is marked by physical or emoThe violence is likely to recur. You are not to blame, and your partner is not likely to change. Message to men: Seek professional help if you tional violence.
tend to express your relationship frustrations in a physical or violent way.
Doing so is neither inevitable, normal, nor acceptable in modem close relations. Do people get what they want from mating and marriage? On the one hand, the range of possible choices is wider than ever: people are increasingly free to marry or not to marry, to have the kinds of relationships they want to, and to choose their own mate. On the other hand, what we want is patterned by our social experience. People learn to want marriage as the preferred form of adult life. We mate with people who are nearby and socially like ourselves, not with "ideal" mates. However, we can grow to think our partner
is,
in fact, the "perfect" mate.
we discover that there are no simple answers to dating and mating, no easy ways to select a mate who will ensure a happy, long-lasting In the end,
Chapter
How
1
43 ^
Families Begin
However, as we will see in Chapter 3, there are better and worse ways of conducting close relations, and some approaches can lead to genuine happiness and fulfillment; so in the end, mate selection is not relationship.
the crucial issue
we often think it is. we discuss some of the forms of early marriage.
In the next chapter,
Chapter Summary This chapter discusses mate selection as an exchange process
change
we
is
most
lil
50
Close Relations
^
percentage of first-union common-law couples
Figure 2.1
First-union
common-law couples
S
1980-84
20
10
30
40
50
60
Percentage (%)
Source: Adapted from Census Families in Private Houseliolds by Population Age Groups of Never-Married Sons and/or Daughters at Home, Showing Family Structure, for Canada, Provinces, Territories
and Census Metropolitan Areas, 1996 Census. Cata
no.
93foo22xdb96oo9; Beaujot, 2000: 89.
Marriage Trends and Patterns Two trends characterize contemporary marriage:
decline in marriage rates n tinning popular ity of marr iage. These two bends seem contraand the ,CQ dictory but actually are not; More people marry at some point in their lives than did in the 1910s, when an estimated 12 percent of women never mar-
same
been a decline in rates most recent data available (Statistics Canada 1998b), which shows that the marriage rate dropped 2.2 percent between 1995 and 1996 in Canada. In the decade from 1981-91, first-marriage rates declined by 25 percent in Canada and 42 percent in Quebec (Nault and Belanger 1996, 2). Put another way, the proportion of Canadian men who ever get married dropped from 80 percent in 1981 to 70 percent in 1991 (Nault and Belanger 1996, 32, 36). For Quebecois men, the comparable proportions of men ever marrying fell from 71 ried (Gee 1986, 266). But at the
time, there has
of marriage since the 1960s. This trend continues in the
percent in 1981 to 50 percent in 1991. For
would marry, compared
women in Canada, 83 percent in 1981
to 75 percent in 1991; for
Quebec women, the pro-
portions are 74 percent in 1981 and 56 percent in 1991 (Nault and Belanger
While these are large declines, the fact remains that the majority of both men and women, even in Quebec, do marry at some point. Before we conclude that marriage is going the way of the dinosaur, we need to consider, 1996, 38, 42).
however, what else
is
happening with the formation of couple unions.
Types of Intimate Couples
Chapter 2
Age
at
5LJ
Marriage
later now than they did in the 1960s and 1970s. were supposedly a time of "free love," the age at marriage during that period was lower than it had been for a long time and lower than it has been since (about 22 years for women, 25 for men) (Ram 1990, 80). The long-term trend toward postponement of marriage continues; by 1996, women were 27.1 on average at first marriage, and men 29.3 (Statistics Canada 1998f). The tendency is slightly greater for women than for First,
people tend to marry
Even though
the 1960s
men to postpone first marriage. The reasons for later marriage are complex and related to social and economic opportunities and expectations. One factor is today's uncertain job prospects for young people. Another factor seems to be people's interest pursuing non-family interests such as education,
in
people
still
seem
to
still
travel, or
work. Young
we have
value marriage and family, as
seen, al-
though marriage is valued considerably less by younger than older people. Younger people seem to prefer not to jump into marriage early.
average age of first marriage
Figure 2.2
in
Canada 1921-90
1921
-
^^^^^^"
1930
-
^^^^^H
1940
i
1950
-
i960
-
1970
-
1980
—
1990
-
^^^^^
H
ivien
^^^^^ ^^^"
^^^^
()
1
1
1
1
1
5
10
15
20
25
1
30
Age It
in
is
has changed In many ways since 1921, the age at which most people marry has fluctuated only within a five-year period in the average person's life. Most people still the first time) between 23 and 28 years of age.
interestint; to note tfiat, although marriage
Canada
marry
(for
firs
:
Sources: Adapted from Vanier Institute of the Family. 2000. Propling Canada's Families II, 44-45; Statistics Canada. 1992. Current Demographic Analysis: Marriage and Conjugal Life in Canada,
Catalogue 91-543; Statistics Canada. 1999. The
Daily,
October 28; Statistics Canada. 1998. The
Daily,
January 29.
Close Relations
52_J
Types of Marriage Broadly defined, marriage
is
a socially
between two or more people
that
is
approved sexual and economic union
expected to
last for a
long time. People
often enter this union with public formalities or a ceremony, such as a wedding.
and
In Canada, traditional forms of marriage
encing dramatic change.
the family are experi-
Many people find such change disturbing.
Because
is such a basic institution, and marriage is such an intimate relachange can seem very threatening to some. Yet there is no particular form of couple relationship that is universal or necessary. In order to understand the change in our own society, and what it may predict for the future, we will take a larger view of the institution of intimate couples and
the family tionship,
the
many ways societies organize
"marriage-like" arrangements.
After aU, societies vary in their patterns of marriage, family,
and
kinship.
For example, societies are diverse in the range of choice given to would-be marriage partners, their reasons for marrying, rules about premarital and ex-
and whether the same rules apply to both men and and the desired age difference between spouses varies from one society to another. tramarital intimacies,
women. Even
the desired age at marriage
Single by Choice Single by choice— it's an
and
for a
empowering statement,
growing number of women, an accurate
women, once
consumer markets
traditionally
Women now fuel the
dominated by men.
home-renovation market and at
hardware stores.
written off as outcasts or spinsters, are gaining ac-
Auto manufacturers have begun to
train their sales-
ceptance as part of a major societal and cultural
people to target softer
description of their lifestyle too. Single
In
i960, about
30%
of
all
adult females
States were single. Today, that to over
in
shift.
the United
number has jumped
40%. Focusing on women
of the
riageable age, the statistics are even
most mar-
more
signifi-
between 1963 and 1997, the percentage of women aged 25 to 55 who were married dropped cant:
from
The
83% to 65%.
rise of
the single
in five
to
homes
sold
in
sell
pitches at
the United States
women. One in
1999 went
unmarried women. With their greater financial
freedom,
it
vey, over
isn't
60%
surprising that
of
women
would consider raising a
The
shift
in
a
Time/CNN
sur-
ages 18 to 49 said they
child
on their own.
away from marriage
is
also evident
popular culture and the mass media. Recent
woman
is
due
in
large part to
the greater collective power and independence that
the group
account for half of the customers
now wields. A Young and Rubicam study
released recently labelled single pies of this decade, the
women
consumer group
tailers are paying the
to
the yup-
whom
most attention, even
re-
in
tion, like
in
fic-
Melissa Bank's The Girls' Guide to
Hunting and
Fistiing
and Helen Fielding's Bridget
Jones' s Diary and Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reasoning
all
feature single, strong-minded
as do television
shows
like
women,
Sex and the
City,
Judging Amy and Providence. Source: Tamala M. Edward. 2000. Time (Canada),
v.
156 No.
Reprinted with permission from Time
9.
Inc.
Chapter 2
In is
some societies, people wed more than oae mate at a
the generic
polyandry
yny
Types of Intimate Couples
is
name
for this
arrangement. Within
this
53
>
Polygamy
time.
general category,
one woman to more than one man, and polygman to more dian one woman. Polygamy was com-
the marriage of
the marriage of one
mon in mosfpfelhdustrial societies and is still permitted in a few. In Nigeria, all marriages were polygynous as recently as 1975. But banned in all industrial societies. Polyandry, on the other hand, has always been a rare form of marriage. It occurs in societies like Nepal, where living conditions are harsh, and few men are able to support a wife and children on their own. A woman is therefore "shared" by a group of men usually, brothers and she is a wife to all of them. Fernalejnfantjcideis-practised, justified by the argument that the number of women_^needed" in such a society is much less than the number of men. Anthropologist NTarvin Harris suggests that societies with low population pressure (the relation between population density and arable land)
for
example, half of
polygyny
is
—
—
favour polygyny; societies with high population pressure favour polyandry.
—
—
marriage between one woman and one man is the marform most familiar in Canada. However, variations on monogamy, too, are becoming more common. One of these, which is increasing in incidence, is cohabitation of two people of the same sex. Sociological research shows that these stable same-sex relationships are very similar to stable opposite-sex relationships. Another form is what sociologists have called ser-
Monogamy
riage
ial (or
sequential)
over the
life
monogamy.
Serial
monogamy is
a time. In a society with high rates of divorce a
growing number of people practise
Is
the marriage of a person
course to a series (or sequence) of spouses, though only one at
Marriage
Still
serial
and remarriage such
as ours,
monogamy.
Valued?
Despite changes in timing and permanence, marriage continues to be central
North America. Cultural stereotypes favouring trahave not changed. Ganong, Coleman, and Mapes (1990) found that Americans view married ppnp lp morp favourab ly than unm arried. They also view parents more favourably than those who have not had children, and children with married parents more favourably than children to interpersonal life in
ditional family
whose parents
life
are divorced.
Marriage shapes identities of
men and women, and
provides a supis
supported
and law. Despite many doubts and obstacles, the great majority of people value the institution of marriage and want to marry. However, as we shall see, all of this is changing rapidly. Thornton (1989) measured changing attitudes to family issues in the post-war period; Americans feel lessening pressure to marry or to have chiisocial policy, tax structures,
/
/
port system for raising children. The institution of marriage
by
,*
54
Close Relations
^
While attitudes towards intimate couples are changing rapidly
people
still
in
North America, the great majority of
value the institution of marriage.
dren, or to restrict intimate relations to marriage. Also, people are
cepting of alternative family forms. Nevertheless, Americans
more
still
ac-
"value
and desire marriage, parenthood and family life for themselves" (ibid, 873). For Thornton, this implies an important shift in norms and values concerning intimate relationships. "Marriage
may now be less important as a sanc-
and cohabitation" (Thornton 1989, 889). At the fidelity in both marital and cohabiting relationships has increased
tioning institution for sex
same
time,
in importance.
A recent survey of sexual attitudes and behaviour reveals that in Quebec, apparently the most liberal province in Canada, 96.4 percent believe faithfulness between a couple is essential, even more important than a stable relationship or a 11.1 percent of
course, the
good sex
life.
numbers could even be
22.4 percent of
men and
cheated on their partner
—and, of
However,
women admit they have
higher.
Changing Attitudes that Affect Marriage Into the 1960s, marriage
was a
social ritual
by which young people were
pected to declare their adulthood. Parents of "baby boomers" (children
ex-
bom
Chapter 2
Types of Intimate Couples
55
between 1946 and 1964) epitomized this sentiment. These couples married in their early twenties, and had lots of children about twice as many as the generation before and the generation after! There were good reasons for the strong interest in early marriage and family life. In the aftermath of World War II, North' Americans were anxious to return to "normal" by refocusing on marriage, child-bearing, and home life. The economic boom of the 1950s ensured the availability of jobs and housing and a "family wage" by which a family could live on the wages of one member, typically the man. The sexu al revolut^n increased openness about sexua lity, particularly premaritaj_ sexu ality. Attitude surveys show a dramatic change in
—
the direction of
more
liberal attitudes in the late 1960s
and early 1970s. "it is wrong for
For example, in 1969, 68 percent of those polled agreed that
people to have sex relations before marriage." In 1973, only four years on, only 48 percent felt premarital sex was wrong (Thornton 1989, 883). A similar pattern of increasingly liberal attitudes
was
reflected in questions
about birth control.
Young women started having sex earlier too, according to surveys. A woman's average age at first premarital sexual experience fellii:am_19 in 1960 to just under 17 in 1990. Given later age at marriage, young people are now sexually active for between seven and ten years before marriage. Virg inity at ma rriage is no longer_a_cultural expectation, except in some ethnic or religious communities.
In sum, the sexual revolution
way for changes in attitudes
and the women's movement paved the and to women's place in the fam-
to sexuality,
and the economy. These attitudinal changes are reflected in changes in the and permanence of marriage. Marriage rates began to decline in the 1960s, declined rapidly in the 1970s, and have continued to decline at a slower rate since 1980. Indeed, a larger fraction of American adults have never married at all. This fraction, only 16 percent in 1970, had risen to ily
timing, structure,
23 percent in 1990. Likewise, the proportion of adult years spent outside
marriage first
is
higher than ever before.
It
began
to rise as the
average age at
marriage increased, after 1960.
Changing Attitudes
to Marriage
Trp^'li^mOy marrinr'^ \V(]s viewed in terms of rights, duties, and obligations. In the West, a major attitude shift has placed greater emphasis on the perI
sonal or emotional bonds of closejidations. In 1981, onlv
one in
five
North Americans surveyed expressed
ditional" family attitudes (Yankelovich 1981). Likely, this
"tra-
number has
sinceshrunk, although in the United States in particular, there has beeii a resurgence of traditional family values. One in five, in 1981, believed life is about self-fulfillment, not duty to others in either family or society.
-n
5^
')
Close Relations
—
Marriage and family life may be valued so long as they complement or at least do not interfere with personal aspirations and self-fulfillment. The remaining three in five North Americans, the majority, fall between these two extremes. For mo^ thej^[uality of a relationship matters mtJte than its structure (e.g., married versus common-law). The irnportant question for three-fifths of people is "What makes an intimate relationship satisfying?" not the legal or societal arrangements under which the
—
relationship exists.
Why, still
then,
get married,
do people still keep up the old forms? Why do so many many in churches, dressed in expensive white bridal gov\ms
and formal black tuxedos with cummerbunds? In short, formal weddings and going through the legal ceremony of marriage have more to do with marking a transition and /or gaining social approval than with emotional commitment. Many people still find the idea of legal marriage compelling, despite what they know about the realities of marriage and divorce. Enormous numbers of North Americans are neither rejecting the family or other long-lasting, close relationships, nor accepting family in a traditional form. Most are hoping to revitalize and reinterpret family (Scanzoni 1981a, 1981b, 1987), suiting their families, themselves, and their needs. Yet in some parts of Canada and the world, and in the future, marriage may no longer be the close relationship in which people spend most of their adult lives. People are already less inclined to marry than they were in the past; they are more likely to view cohabitation or singlehood positively.
Marriage Timing First
comes love
Then comes marriage Then comes Mary
[or
any
girl's
name] with
a
baby
carriage.
So goes the skipping song. These days, however, there is less of a set sequence. Baby carriages may come first, with or without love, and marriage may never come, or may come along more than once. StUl, people tend to live
some sense of the appropriate timing of life events. comes from is not entirely clear; it may be simply a sense
their lives according to
Where
this sense
of what
or
is
appropriate, or
some other
it
may be pressure from parents, peers, the media,
source.
women feel to have children at, comes from fears that infertility may set in or that risks to the pregnancy and /or the baby increase with age. This is the familiar "ticking biological clock." There is some slight increase in risks (of, for example, Down's syndrome) but the risks are not nearly high enough to account for the fears women have about not having children "on time." That There are hints that the pressure some
or by, a certain age,
Chapter 2
Types of Intimate Couples
57
grounded has little effect on the deep sense of the appropriate timing of life events people seem to have. Gee (1990) shows in a Canadian study that women measure the success of their lives, in part, on how closely they approximate the internalized these fears are often not particularly well
ideals of family
life
events. This standard contradicts the increasing diver-
sity of people's life courses.
Women,
example,
for
may
get married or es-
tablish their first conjugal relationship in their teens or in their forties or
older.
The
social rules are
more
flexible
than ever, but people's internal
sense of timing remains.
Most North Americans today tend to postpone marriage or establishment of a long-term committed relationship until they have completed their education. For a small minority, this
is
high school. For most,
it is
some-
beyond high school such as technical training, college, or university. means that most people marry in their mid-20s or older, a pattern that is similar to what it was a century ago. In both Canada and the United States, many young people come to marriage with considerable experience with thing
This
dating and sexual experimentation;
many have lived
with someone, either
new spouse or someone else. This g enerally adds a maturity to the beginning^f_a rnarr^^g*^ *^^^ ^^n^e important for its s trength-and survival. Older age and higher levels of education are also good predictors of marriage the
success
and
survival.
Living Solo Marriage
is
not for everyone. Over the
last
two decades, one-person house-
holds have increased substantially in Canada; 21 percent of
all
households
Canada consist of a person living alone. The reasons for singlehood are many: never marrying, separation or divorce, widowhood. Some may be married and in a commutmg'relatioriship. The growing popularity of living alone may be, in part, a function of in
people having sufficient
money
to indulge their preferences.
It
also reflects
any given time may be between relationships and thus living alone. In part, the growth in living alone is due to an aging population containing more widowed people. However, it is also clear that some singles have made clear choices to live alone, and to the divorce rate, in that
develop a single
more people
lifestyle that
at
they fully enjoy.
is not new, nor is it even more common now than it was in the early part of this century, though more concerns are expressed about it now. Alone, however, need not mean lonely. Many who
To
live
live solo are
People ner;
who
without a
life
partner
not isolated at
all
from
are devoted to their
their
communities or
work may
circles of friends.
prefer not to have a
life
part-
many great artists and writers have remained unmarried and some unAnd the need for marriage for security and
attached in any permanent way. acceptability for
women has declined, even though it is not gone.
-n
58
Close Relations
^
Commuter Relationships However, many people
still
feel a
very strong urge to marry. Indeed, some
people would prefer (or decide) to marry and
live apart
than postpone or
avoid marriage. Consider so-called "commuter marriages." marriage" live in
is
two separate households.
dences~after ha\^mg shared a
ferent
A
"commuter
a marriage or other intimate relationshipbetween spouses
homes from
Typically, couples take
common one.
up separate
who resi-
Less often, couples live in two
the beginning of their marriage. For
some couples
dif-
this is
only a short-term arrangement. For others, it becomes a long-term lifestyle. Though commuter marriages remain rare, nothing illustrates so well people's continued commitment to the institution of marriage despite enormous odds and the conflict between the cultural values of living together versus
pursuing career success.
Economic and cultural pressures may force couples to choose this path. The main reason for keeping up a commuter marriage is career advancement. Today, more married women are entering professional occupations that make
To Love, Honour, and E-mail: Net Helps Partners
Stay Connected In
commuter marriages, the
imity to one's
Long-distance Marriages
In
toss of physical prox-
spouse can put
a serious strain
on
Of course, e-mail does have least of
which
is its
To combat
the relationship. But thanks to the globalization of
nicate emotions.
communication technology, long-distance couples
offer the following advice:
who
can't be together
in
the
same
physical space
can at least interact with one another
Career demands forced
in
cyberspace.
economy have
our modern
many couples— over
in
2 million in the United
its
downfalls, not the
inability to effectively this,
commu-
veteran e-mailers
To convey anger: Use bold-face or upper-case lettering, or lots of
Affection:
exclamation points.
Use X's and O's, or pet names, or
mantic text
art,
ro-
such as flowers.
States alone, according to one estimate by psychologist Karen
Shanor— to
live in
separate house-
Finally, there's
holds, at least for a period of time.
To keep phone
bills
from skyrocketing, many are
turning to e-mail communication as a in
constant contact with one another.
venient
way
ences, and
it
to get
Surprise: "Gasp!
in
which
...
thud"
always the ubiquitous emoticons,
letters
and punctuation marks are com-
way to remain
bined to create smiley (and not-so-smiley) faces.
also a con-
IRC (Internet Relay Chat) and other private cyber-
It's
around pesky time-zone
differ-
allows one to carefully sort out one's
space chat-rooms allow commuter couples to com-
municate over
real time.
And, with the growing
thoughts before constructing the message. This
popularity of scanners, microphones, and digital
technology-based form of interaction between com-
cameras, spouses can now send pictures, sound
muter spouses has become so even developed
its
common
own nickname: an
that
it's
"e-marriage."
bites
and
live
video feeds to each another, halfway
around the world.
Linda Matchan. 1998. The Hamilton Spectator, September 25, Final Edition,
Fi.
Reprinted courtesy of The Hamilton Spectator.
Chapter 2
it
hard
for
them
same Pe ople
to
move when
time, tighter job
their
Typesof Intimate Couples
husbands move, and vice
markets are forcing more people
com muting mar riages
versa.
59 >
At the
to relocate.
and afand Gross (iy»/ j, "over nalt are academics, and the vast majority have completed som e graduate stSdy. Most commuting spouses are in their late thirties, and over Kal? have been married more than nine years. About half of commuting couples also have children. in
are usually well-educated
fluent professionals. According to Gerstel
The Falling Marriage Rate More Americans,
as well as Canadians, are postponing marriage, fewer
who do are spending a smaller proportion and average marriages last a shorter average time than in the past (Espenshade 1985). These trends inevitably lead to a falling rate of marriage. Let's examine two theories to explain the declines: an economic explanation and a demographic explanation. A leading economic argument is that marriage rates have fallen in recent decades because marriage is less necessary for both men and women, and the alternatives to marriage are more attractive. For women, financial independence and reproductive control have begun to tip the balance in favour of cohabitation or singlehood. Combining marriage, parenthood, and labour force participation is hard work, particularly for women. Economist Gary Becker (1991) argues that lowered "gains to marriagp" are ^riniar ily^ due to a rise in female earnings and labour forceparti cipation," alongjAottLadecline in fertility rates. WomenTiave less to gain from motherhood, and more to gain from paid work, than they did in the past. Although this theory, which has been sharply critiqued (see McDaniel 2000, for example), seems to suggest a greater equality of women's occupational opportunities and incomes than actually exists, it also takes a rationalistic, decisionmaking stance on emotional issues such as falling in love and marrying. This theory could explain why African American families have become even less stable than white families. Compared to African American men, who have suffered enormous discrimination in employment and from the criminal justice system, African American women are better educated and hold positions of higher status. On this argument, black women have even less to gain from marriage (and more to lose) than white women. More generally, data show that anything that provides a measure of independence and support to women, or puts them in a more nearly equal economic position (compared to men), reduces marriage rates. An interesting demographic explanation comes from Richard Easterlin (1980, 1987), an American economist/ demographer, who attributes low marriage r ates and high divorce rates t o rises in cohort size. Easterlin argues that relative income is tied to the size of a birth conort (a group of perpeople are ever marrying, those of their lives in spousal relations,
6o
^
Close Relations
sons with a
common demographic
statistic,
such as date of
birth),
which
determines job opportunities. The smaller the cohort, the more easily people
and promotions since the supply of labour be smaller than the demand. So, North American baby boomers, bom between 1946 and 1964, experience more financial insecurity and earn relatively less than their parents because they belonged to a particularly large in that age
group
will find jobs
will
birth cohort.
Baby boomers' marriage prospects would also be reduced because some of the large numbers of men in this cohort would not find suitable mates when ready for marriage, because fewer women were bom in the last few years of the boom. And, if married, they may be more likely to divorce since they would see possibilities in that large cohort for new mates. This means that on Easterlin's argument, the increase in divorce over the 1960s and 1970s may give a misleading idea of the long-term divorce trend. That as
is,
"the traditional family
some
may not be going down the drain quite so fast
think" (Easterlin 1980, 231).
If
smaller cohorts experience better
economic conditions (and they usually do), they ought to feel better off than their parents and divorce less often. So, with smaller families, the divorce rate in the future might be lower than it was in the 1970s. Balakrishnan et al (1990) argue similarly for Canada. Guttentag and Secord (1983, 231) propose a different kind of demographic explanation that focuses on se x-ra tio imbalance to account for chang-
"When sex ratios (i.e., ratios of men to "men are in excess supply and women are
ing rates of marriage and divorce.
women) are high," they suggest, in undersupply. Youn£_adult women are highly valued bec ause of their scardty^^nd traditional sex roles are common." But when therejs.an "excess" of wrtmian "wr>mp>n f^^l mnrp prnArpr1^gQ^anfj_£^va1iipH hy gnriPt^/ Men in this situatiorTwill have a weakeFcommitment to women, and women will in turn develop a
weaker commitment to marriage and
less willingness to de-
pend upon men. Guttentag and Secord note a greater sex-ratio imbalance among African Americans than whites. The reasons for this include a disproportionate number of African American men in the armed forces and penal institutions, lower sex ratios for African Americans at birth, and higher than average death rates among African American men due to homicide and suicide,
among
would account, they argue, by African Americans.
other health risks. This
participation in marriage
Unfortunately, none of these explanations
tell
us
for the lesser
much about the chang-
ing nature of personal relationships. In spite of marriage rates being cur-
we
cannot conclude that people are avoiding stable, emotionally committed relationships. In fact, when we look at the increased numbers of cohabiting couples, it is hard to conclude that North Americans avoid forming intimate couple relationships or avoid commitment. rently in decline,
Typesof Intimate Couples
Chapter 2
61
Decline of the Traditional Family The decline of the traditional family heaval
in
Quebec and
causing up-
cause
children are paying the price,
cated
is
it
leads to family break-ups and very compli-
lives.
It
also leads to a lot of poverty, because
suggests a provincial government study.
single mothers are put
The increasing number of Quebec children born out
afterwards." Fellow researcher Nicole Marcil-Gratton,
of wedlock are four times
a
more
likely to face the
separation of their parents before they reach their sixth birthday than are ple, the
them
those born to a married cou-
study says. This conjugal instability places
at greater risk of
developing behavioural prob-
lems, even before they enter elementary school.
demographer
a
in
more
difficult position
at the University of
Montreal, said
"unbridled conjugal mobility" might suit Quebec adults but has a negative impact on children.
Commissioned by the Quebec Health Department, is bound to raise the ire of some common-law couples and single parents, who know
the study
children today
they're raising their children responsibly. The re-
before they start hav-
searchers conceded they were unable to gauge the
ing children," said Richard Tremblay, an expert in
impact of conjugal instability on childhood behav-
"It
seems
have
child
that
lived with
young people having
many partners
development
at the University of
Montreal and
one of the study's researchers. "There has been habit of changing partners
...
and
it's
a
worrisome, be-
ioural problems.
Poverty and a poor education might have a stronger
negative influence, they said. Source; Edmonton Journal. 2000, June 18. Final Edition, A3. Reprinted with permission from The Canadian Press.
Cohabitation One
significant
change
crease in cohabitation
in family life in the
—
Western world has been an
in-
people living together without being legally mar-
Living together, also called cohabitation or common-law union, used to be more prevalent among working-class people. It also used to be seen as a lesser form of couple relationship than legal marriage. Now, ried.
however, cohabitation has become more
and
is
much more
common among all social classes,
accepted. In Quebec, cohabitation has
norm fory ounger coupl es, with legal marria ge
become
the
deci ded ly less prefer red.
Rates of cohabitation have increased dramatically in
all
provinces in the
past two decades.
Cohabitation legal marriage.
It
is,
not surprisingly, a less stable form of union than
describes
many different Elhds^f relationships,
includ-
may
be less serious from the outset. This does not mean that there are not long-lasting, happily cohabiting couples, for there are many, with the numbers growing rapidly. Some people may prefer coing some^ that
it does not have the same expectation of permanence, but others see cohabitation as permanent, a choice not to marry. Cohabitation gives peo^e many o fjhe expected benefits of family life— emotional and sexual satisfaction, mutu al dependency and support, ioiex-
habitation precisely because
,
— 62
^
Close Relations
ample
—while they retain (or
Cohabitation
may be
at least perceive)
a greater degree of choice*.-
a personal "vote" against the restrictions, legal
and
often religious, of traditional marriage. Increasingly, couples in cohabiting relationships are having children, an-
commitment and permanence. In 1993-94, Canadian children were bom to women living in commonlaw unions with the child's father (Vanier Institute of the Family 1994). The old stigma of births "out of wedlock," once known as illegitimate births, is other indicator of their degree of 20.4 percent of all
largely gone, particularly
when the parents are in a stable, caring relationship. now see cohabitation as a lifelong way of family
Especially in Quebec, people Ufe
a close, committed couple relationship in which to have and raise children.
is an alternative form of numbers of people. If, however, cohabitation is seen as trial marriage, one might predict that the long^the^ cohabitation per iod, the mor e_^stable the subsequent marriage might be. However, not much difference is found m divorce fates befween women who had previously cohabited for one year and those cohabiting for two or three years. One study, though, shows that women who cohabit premaritaUy for more than three years before marrying hayehigher divorce rates than women who cohabit for shorter durations with the manlKey ev enmallymarry (Halli and Zimmer 1991). It may be that it is not cohabitation peFs^Th5lreIat^s to the
Increasing evidence suggests that cohabitation
farpily union, not trial marriage, for increasing
higher risks of spUtting up, but the social risk factors that people bring into the relationship. Evidence
vorced once.
If so,
shows
that people
who
cohabit
the difference in divorce rates
may be
may be not a
already di-
result of co-
habitation but a reflection of the characteristics of a self-selected group. It
may not be coincidental that the growth in cohabitation has paralleled
later marriage,
people
now
higher divorce rates, and lower rates of child-bearing.
More
think of spousal relations as being about love and sexual
at-
traction, not child-bearing and cementing families together. The emergence of "plastic sexuality," sexuality freed from its close connection to repro-
duction,
may hold the potential for democratization of personal relationships
(Giddens 1992). Women can be more like men in having sexual freedom. Fewer people today need the approval of family, government, or religion for their relationships. People have come to expect greater satisfaction of their emotional and psychological needs in their close relationships. This is the companionate relationship or marriage.
Women,
particularly, are less
economically dependent on their partners than they used to be. These ing norms, opportunities, and expectations have cline in the stability of
married and cohabiting
all
shift-
contributed to a de-
life.
have discouraged most Western countries, the same marriage have encouraged cohabitation. At the same time, the sexual revolution has removed the stigma that used to go with "living together" outside marriage. And women's greater access to education and jobs has reduced the factors that
In
incentive to marry, as
we have seen.
Chapter 2
Types of Intimate Couples
63 ^
need for new strategies, rates of first marriage have fallen low in Canada. The falling national rate has been led by large declines in Quebec, which has one of the lowest marriage rates in the world. The trend of younger people opting for common-law unions over marriage partly explains this decline. Most people are merely delaying, not rejecting, Reflecting a
to
an
all-time
marriage, so the average age at
common-law
first
marriage
is
increasing. Both increased
cohabitation and delayed marriage reflect at least a tempo-
rary flight from marriage, and predict lower percentages of people ever
marrying. Likely the family will survive as an institution but not in the form
we have grown up idealizing.
Increase
in
Cohabitation
common-law unions has been dramatic, up nearly 19). The proportion of adult Canadians living in common-law unions increased from 3.8 percent in 1981 to 6.9 percent in 1991, and in Quebec from 4.9 percent in In Canada, the
growth
in
40 percent in the 1981-91 decade (Nault and Belanger 1996,
1981 to 11.2 percent in 1991. For those aged 20-34 in 1991, 9 percent were in
common-law
unions.
Among aboriginal Canadians, from the
the proportion of children (0-14)
1996 Census,
who live with common-law parents was 24.7
up from 10.5 percent in 1986 (Statistics Canada 1998a, 5). The longest-duration common-law unions occur in Quebec, but time spent in common-law unions is on the rise across Canada. Common-law unions are now increasing among all age groups in percent in 1996,
Canada, although the the authors
mid-90s)
knows
rate of increase is
of a couple (the
lower
woman
among older people. One of
in her late 80s, the
who are living together. They were married
to
man
in his
each other and di-
vorced almost 70 years ago; each married someone else and raised families in the interim. Now, with both second spouses deceased, the couple some-
how found each other again and are happily cohabiting. Why is there a move away from traditional marriage (though it is still the majority choice)
and toward common-law unions? Some see the trend as women, enabling them to rely less on
a result of greater opportunities for
marrif^q^as
a
kind-of o^rupationalchojce. Similar reasons are used to explain
we shall see
Chapter 8, "Divorce: Trends, Myths, however, that this is actually a factor (Oppenheimer 1997). An alternative explanation focuses on men's deteriorating employment and income prospects. Men are seen by women
higher divorce rates, as
Children, and Ex-spouses."
It is
in
not at
all clear,
as less stable providers (see, for example, Easterlin
Changing values about traditional marriage also
and Crimmins
may play a
role, as
1991).
could
distrust of traditional institutions.
The
rise in cohabitation
tions that are
more
flexible
seems to show that people want intimate relaand less socially binding than legal marriage.
For people of aU ages, cohabitation offers
many of the usual benefits of mar-
64
Close Relations
^
Table 2.1
married, common-law, and lone-parent families IN CANADA 1976-96
% of all couples Common-law couples as % of all couples Lone parent families as % of all families with children Married couples as
1976
1986
1996
83.A
82.3
90.2
0.7
8.2
13-7
18.8
22.3
14.0
Sources: Statistics Canada. 1978. Census of Canada, Families. Table 6. Cat. No. 93-822; Statistics Canada. 1987. Population and Dwelling Ctiaracteristics, Families, Part 1. Table 2. Cat No. 93-106; Statistics Canada. 2000. Population and Dwelling Characteristics, Families, Part 1. Table 2. Cat. No. 93-106; Statistics Canada. 2000. Census Families in Private Housefiolds by Population Age Groups of Never-Married Sons and/or Daughters at Home, Showing Family Structure, for Canada, Provinces, Territories and Census Metropolitan Areas, 1996 Census. Cata no. 93foo22xdb96oo9: 89.
riage,
with fewer socially imposed expectations and fewer legal obligations.
more
an individually created intimate relationship. Canada and the United States, much of the early increase in cohabitation was accounted for by young people, particularly college and university students. In the mid-1970s, a national U.S. survey (Clayton and Voss 1977) found 18 percent of young men had lived with a woman for six months or more. A study of college students discovered that nearly four reIt is
of
In both
spondents in five would cohabit if given the opportunity. And another study found 71 percent of the men and 43 percent of the women expressing a desire to cohabit.
American students said the main advantages of cohabiwere convenience, testing for compatibility, love, hope of establishing a more permanent relationship, and economic considerations. Reasons for In the 1970s,
tation
not cohabiting included parental disapproval, disapproval of partner, con-
and fear of pregnancy (Huang-Hickrod and Leonard 1980). For many, living together was a practical way of splitting expenses. For a prelude others, cohabitation was a part of the dating and mating process to marriage. For women, cohabitation was a part of the courtship process, not a long-range lifestyle. For others, particularly in the 1990s and 2000s, cohabitation is a long-term alternative. It is a marriage-Hke commitment without the wedding, and with obligations to each other, often spelled out in law. Another group of cohabitors is older, previously married people. Over 40 percent of American women cohabitors are previously married (Bumpass and Sweet 1989). Similar numbers exist in Canada. These women had their own reasons for living together instead of marrying. Some were separated but not yet divorced from a spouse, so they couldn't legally remarry. Religious beliefs prevented others from divorcing and remarrying. Finally, some widows did not want their pension benefits reduced by remarriage science,
—
(Newcombe
1979).
Chapter 2
Types of Intimate Couples
65
International Comparisons North America, Australia, New Zealand, and most of Europe, cohabiand marriage rates declined. Meyer and Schulze (1983) compared several European countries and the United States and found that the most important reason for the increase was the growth in female labour force participation; women with strong commitments to employment are less committed to marriage and family life and more receptive In
tation has increased
to alternate living
arrangements.
more educated than
Women
and
in cohabiting relationships are
dependent on the ir educated women. This is a big change from the past wKenit was the" less educated~who cohabited most often. In Canada, a Family History Survey (Burch 1989) found about one adult Canadian in six had cohabited at one time or another. Among young people (aged 18-29), the proportion was higher: about one man in five, and one woman in four. On Census Day 1981, about 6 percent of the couples enumerated were in a cohabiting relationship. On Census Day 1996, 11.7 percent lived in a cohabiting relationship; one in four in Quebec "mates"
the avera ge
a re materially less
tPian less
(www.statcan.ca/census). is more common in Quebec even than in any of the American
Cohabitation, perhaps surprisingly to some,
—
than in any other Canadian province states
—despite Quebec's history of
strict
Catholicism (Balakrishnan
et al
Quebec men and 40 percent of Quebec women will have cohabited, compared to only 28 percent for either sex in the rest of Canada. This shows that religious sanctions on cohabitation and non-marital sex have been seriously weakened since the sexual revolution 1990,
8).
By age
of the 1960s.
35, 44 percent of
Some argue
that
it is
the very strictness of those sanctions that
has resulted in a backlash against them, and a reluctance to marry. Since the 1970s, there has been a dramatic increase in cohabitation in
and 1980, the number of cohabiting couples By 1981 the number had risen to approxiabout 4 percent of all couples (Spanier 1983). More than
the United States. Between 1970 tripled to 1.6 million couples.
mately
1.8 million,
one in every three ever-married 25- to 34-year-old Americans lived together first marriage (Cherlin 1989). To take just one example, in Lane County, Oregon, premarital cohabitation increased from 13 percent in 1970 to 53 percent in 1980. Gwartney-Gibbs (1986) estimated this increase by noting addresses on marriage licence applications. Cohabiting couples were before their
those
who had identical addresses prior to marriage.
In Australia, cohabitation has increased, although the rates are lower
than in North America (Khoo 1987).
An
Australian Bureau of the Census
study found that nearly 5 percent of all couples living together in Australia in 1982 were unmarried. The majority of cohabitors were young people, 70 percent under the age of 35. One-third of the cohabitors were separated
"^
66
•)
Close Relations
Over one-third of the cohabiting couples dependent children. In Europe, the trend to increased cohabitation had already appeared by the end of World War II (Festy 1985). Cohabitation is most commonly found in Scandinavia, particulartySwedgruwhere ifhaTaT^g^Kistory.
or divorced from earlier spouses.
were
living with
Because^oFlfs hisfofyTthere are interestmg differences in cohabitation
compared
Europe and the United States. In Scandinavia, cohabitation has long been accepted as an alternative or prelude to marriage. Indeed, in Sweden, a country with the world's highest rates of cohabitation, it is unusual for people to marry without living together first. But even in Sweden, rates of cohabitation have increased since the mid-1960s. This increase results from couples living together at younger ages and after a shorter period of acquaintance than previously. Hoem (1986) says that these cohabiting unions are more like extended dates, practices in Scandinavia
to the rest of
or going steady, than they are like traditional marriages, but there
is
likely
among couples. Second, in Denmark and Sweden, child-bearing within cohabiting unions is common. In the rest of Western Europe and in the United States, cohabitation is less common and child-bearing for cohabiting couples less frevariation
quent (Blanc 1984). In Sweden, pregnancy is not a prompt to marry; about two-thirds of first children are born to cohabiting, not married, couples
(Hoem
1986,
9).
Third, the increase in cohabitation
marriage
by
among divorced
far the preferred
Swedish
people. In
is
related to a decline or delay in re-
Norway and Sweden, cohabitation is
type of second union (Blanc 1987).
social policy
may
provide part of the reason; since 1955,
paid maternity leave has been available to all Swedish women, regardless of their marital status. Other Swedish_^Qlkies include no-fault divorce, free birth control, access to abortion,
good
child care, state-paid
and state-protected child support payments. Even income tax system is organized in such a way that marit al status is all but irrelevant. Sweden's policies focus on individuals and the well-being "Ij of cTiiidt^n,"hot the legal arrangements of intimate couple relationships. In effect, such laws and policies make the decision about marrying or children's allowances the
'
cohabiting unimportant.
The dramatic increase in the incidence of cohabitation has attracted As a result, research has been directed at discovering
considerable interest.
the characteristics of those
who cohabit, the nature of cohabiting relationships,
and the subsequent impact on marriage.
Effects of Family Experience
An important influence on cohabitation is the nature of an individual's family of origin. Children of mothers who married young and who were preg-
Types of Intimate Couples
Chapter 2
nant at marriage were more likely to develop their age. Children of divorced or separated parents
67 ^
own unions at an early
were
also
more
likely to co-
habit (ThorntonT991J
Legal Implications The major difference between marriage and cohabitation is that the former is an explicit legal commitment and the latter is not in quite the same way. In
some
provinces, as in Ontario, cohabitation
may
also
mean
differences in
rights to spousal support or property acquired during the relationship. so,
law and policy increasingly regard a cohabiting relationship that
for
more than three years as a
legally binding relationship, a
Even lasts
"common-law"
partnership. Long-term cohabitants are legally expected to support each other in the relationship and after a breakup. The degree of this expectation,
however, varies from province to province, state to state. One thing is clear, however: the difference between marriage and cohabitation is blurring.
Confusion and ignorance are so widespread on these issues that the province of Ont ario has publish ed a pamphlet called "What you shoul d
know about farruly law in Ontario (August 1999). Here is some of what it says about "living together"
{op. cit., 7):
Common law couples do not have the same rights as married couples to a share in the value of property that their partner
bought while
they were living together. Usually, furniture, household belongings
and other property belong
to the
person
who bought
them.
Common law couples also have no special rights to stay in the home they have been sharing while living together.
However,
if you have contributed to property your partner owns, you may be able to claim a share in it. Unless your partner agrees to pay you back, you will have to go to court to prove your contribution.
The pamphlet goes on
to say that couples in
ships can sign a cohabitation agreement
common-law
relation-
and
spell out
to protect their rights
what who owns what in the event of a breakup. The point is, we should not assume that arrangements that prevail in one jurisdiction prevail in another nor that the frequency and acceptance of common-law unions have made them equal to marriage in the face of the law. Most provinces in Canada treat common-law unions that last for some specific period, typically more than two years, the sameasjnarried unions; the obligations of the partners to their'children are the same,
may be
and the
split of
would be for married couples, although this varies. Since some jurisdictions, such as .^Iherta, do no_L even recognize common-law Imions, it is wise for couples living commonlaw to have legal contracts and wills that protect them; their children, and property
if
the union ends
the
same
their property. Just putting into writing
as
it
each person's understanding of the
68
^
Close Relations
Older cohabitating couples face
some unique
challenges. Issues involving wills and estates
may
deserve careful attention.
relationship can be helpful in sorting things out should the relationship
end
or one partner die.
an older couple of similar means decides to share a go to their adult children rather than to each other should one die, it is wise to have this in writing. Wills should also deal with occupancy arrangements. Otherwise, a surviving partner could be evicted by the government or the partner's children from a house in which he or she has lived for years. New types of unions require new and sometimes careful steps. For example,
home, but wish
Births in
if
for their estates to
Common-law Unions
unmarried people are increasingly common in Canada, and espeQuebec. Many people might assume that a majority of such births would produce deserted women and lone-parent families, but as is often Births to
cially in
the case in sociology, the reality births to legally
who who
is
quite different. In the majority of cases of
unmarried people, the parents are living together. Parents
cohabited before marrying are more likely to separate than parents
married without cohabiting, but they are clearly
less likely to
do so
Chapter 2
than couples
who remained
in a
Types of Intimate Couples
common-law union
69
")
(Marcil-Gratton,
Lebourdais, and Lapierre-Adamcyk 2000).
The image we have of young, unwed pregnancies and deserted sinmothers is largely derived from U.S. experience U.S. black women's experience and is unparalleled in Canada and anywhere else in the Western world. In most cases, there is no reason to believe that the feelings, promises, or the sense of family sharing, are any less genuine because they are not formalized in law or religion.
—
gle
—
Effect of Cohabitation The majority
of Canadians
lationship (Statistics often
on Marriage
now live common law in their first conjugal re1997). Common-law relationships are more
Canada
now the basis of long-term, sometimes lifelong, committed unions, in
which increasing numbers
have children and even grandchild ivorce is greater, on average, for couples who marry after having lived together tt>.gBrrfor^.coup les who marry without living to gether (Baker 1995, 51). The reasons for this are complex and maybe even contradictory. Individuals who live together prior to marriage may have different characteristics than those who do not, in terms of religion, family supports, perhaps class or ethnic backgrounds, so they may not be directly comparable to those who marry. of couples
dren. Surprisingly perhaps, the probability of
It may be, as well, that there is considerable diversity among those who live common law, with many living in committed long-term relationships and others living in shorter-term, less committed relationships. When the two are lumped together and compared with those who marry, the result can seem to be that living common law prior to marrying puts couples at greater risk of divorce than actually may be the case. We know that cohabiting relationships are shorter-lived than legal
marriages. However,
cohabitation
make
what effect does cohabitation have on marriage? Does for stronger,
more
stable marital relationships?
Unfortunately, the relg tionship between cohabitation and later marital success
is
not clear.
'^Ofteh^lzommon-law partnerships are a prelude to marriage with just under half of the people ever in a common-law union ending up marrying their common4aw partner. This suggests that common-law unions sometimes do still serve as trial marriages. However, as stated above, cohabiting beforemarriage does not make the marriage more likely to succeed. Prior cohabitation is found to be positively related to marital disagreement and an increased chance of divorce. We do not know why this is so. We have no sociological evidence that cohabitation itself causes a decline in the quality of a later marriage; but neither is
Hq
70
')
Close Relations
there any clear evidence that cohabitation improves mate selection or
prepares people for marriage.
^
,;
In
women who cohabit premaritally have almost 80 percent dissolution rates than those who do not. Women who co-
Sweden,
higher marital
habit for three or
more years
solution rates than
prior to marriage have 50 percent higher dis-
women who
cohabit for shorter durations. Also,
whose marriages have remained intact for eight years have identical dissolution rates after that time. The evidence strongly indicates a weaker commitment to the institution of marriage on the part of those who cohabit premaritally (Bennett, Blanc, and Bloom 1988). Some North American studies, such as Bumpass and Sweet (1989) for example, have found that couples who had previously cohabited were more likely to be divorced after 10 years than couples who had not cohabited. cohabitors and non-cohabitors
White's (1987) study of a large sample of ever-married Canadians found that premarital cohabitation has a positive effect on staying married. This remains when length of marriage and age at marriage are controlled. Watson and DeMeo (1987) find that the premarital relationship of the couples, whether cohabitation or a traditional courtship ending in marriage, has no long-term effect on the marital adjustment of intact couples. What can
we make of these contradictory findings? One would think that people who have cohabited would know when they were ready to commit themselves to a long-term relationship. But cohabitation proves to be
no
better a "screening device" for mates, or prepa-
ration for marriage, than traditional courtsHip. ihe data hint that people
who-arejvilliiigJoxQhabit^re also willing to divorce. AlongtKese lines, Balakrishnan (1987) finds that peoplilvho cohabiTare less stability -minded, or conformist, than pgjQplejiviio marry legally. This habiting, the couples
and
may be
carving out their
makes
own
sense, since
by
co-
sense of relationship
responsibilities to each other.
Teachman and Polonko (1990) on the other hand, argue that the effect of cohabitation on marriage duration must be assessed more carefully. If cohabitants have spent more time in a relationship than non-cohabitants, then not only the total duration of the relationship should be examined but also the length of the marriage. in marital duration between those
When this is done, there is no difference who cohabit and those who do not prior
to marriage.
Some in cohabiting relationships have little desire to remain in a stable Nor may they plan to marry. In an early study. Click and Norton
union.
(1977) report that 63 percent of cohabj.ting couples in the United States
remain
Most oythDS^s!a[5an^ to^tHeFTess than two years say they~3olionntend to marry each other, and in fact, do not do so. More recently in Canada, some cohabiting unions may be short-lived betogether less tharT two^^gal^.
cause, in about half the cases, they are converted into legal marriage within
Types of Intimate Couples
Chapter 2
a few years (Burch 1989). But in the other half, to cohabit,
11_J
some couples may continue
while others break up.
Young People's Attitudes What are young people's
attitudes
A cross-national & Waldron 1997) is revealing but cer-
toward living together?
study of white high school seniors (Lye
word since non-white students are not included in the As expected, students who are more progressive, socially conscious, and /or sympathetic to gender equality, particul arly ma les, were more favourably incli ned toward co habitation. Concerns about social fairness tainly not the final
sample.
and the well-being of others may translate into support for gender equality and acceptance of cohabitation. By contrast, more conser\'ative political beliefs were associated with traditional attitudes toward both gender issues and cohabitation. It would be interesting to see what a more representative international sample of young people might find.
Same-sex Couples Recent media attention and social acceptance of same-sex couples
may
cause readers to believe that these
arrangements are
new ways
in intimate relationships.
Gay and
lesbians
to live
Not
so.
have formed and
lived in couples since the beginning
of families.
Much
be learned couplehood by
is to
sociologically about
looking at gay and lesbian couples.
Some sociologists, among them Anthony Giddens (1992), have argued that equality is not fully possible in a traditional heterosexual
union; there are too
and
many economic
social pressures
toward
in-
equality of the spouses. Gillian Dunne (1997) similarly argues that lesbian unions invite us to look
more ples,
because she sees heterosexual-
ity as
Gay and lesbian couplehood can teach us a great sociologically,
about
all
types of couples.
deal,
closely at heterosexual cou-
an institution that
affects
regulates everyday social
looking clearly at
and
life.
In
how lesbians live
72
")
Close Relations
in close relations,
Dunne says we can learn about the links of intimate rela-
tionships to economic
and
social systems.
The Debate over Gay/Lesbian Marriage The recent Ontario marriages
of a lesbian
and
a gay couple caused a pre-
did on the clash between traditional and non-traditional conceptions of marriage. Those who view arriag e^as a dictable uproar, focusing as
it
m
sacred arrangement^whose
main purpose is^r6creaTfi5nwere_upset by
use of marriage vowsloTegitmiate sanTe^excohabitation. Those marliage^s~arrpndTn-ingr^Iose"^orid
and sex were pleased
to see
whose goal
is
love,
companionship!
marriage vows traded between people
clearly cared for each other deeply,
though they had
the
who vTew
little
wh6
likelihood ol
bearing or raising children together.
The hot political debate over whether gay and lesbian couples ought be allowed to marry legally and in religious ceremonies is very sociologically revealing. On the one hand, some (but not all) gays and lesbians to
want
to
have the
and entitlements, as well as the social would provide. On the other hand, some
responsibilities
recognition, that legal marriage
worry that equating their unions with heterosexual marriages could rob gay and lesbian unions of their unique and valued aspects among these, equality and sharing. Som£ noiv-gay conservatives who are against same-sex marriages make remarkably similar arguments. Essentially, if you make every couple rela-
—
tionship a marriage, then marriage as a unique social institution ceases to exist
At the same time, some of the same conservatives worry that is a couple and who is not involves too much government inference. Still others argue that encouraging individual responsibility for each other in an intimate union is a good way to support people who might otherwise call on government assistance. This argument is the purely practical one of private support of people in families, no matter what kind (Amiel 2000,
13).
regulation of
who
of families they choose.
The Dilemma of Equivalence people have distinct reasons for choosing to live common law rather if law and policy make the two equivalent, does the chosen difference cease? A similar question occurs with respect to gay and lesbian unions. Are the differences that may be valuable for gay and lesbian If
than getting married,
unions are defined as equivalent to common-law heterosexual couples, or married couples? Yet, it may be important to society couples lost to
if
their
have some equivalence in gay and lesbian relationships to heterosexual However, equivalence also may diminish ways in which het-
relationships.
Chapter 2
Types of Intimate Couples
73
erosexual relationships might learn from gay and lesbian couples. In sub-
sequent chapters,
we will consider gay and lesbian couples in various ways
as important family forms.
New Forms
of Couplehood
New ways are emerging for gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples to form intimate couple bonds.
(known as PACS)
One is the Facte civil de solidarite or civil solidarity
The PACS;^ available only in and lesbian unions and was instituted in tolaw only in early 200u, atter intense debate and public protests. Experts had pred icted that 10 (TOO couples would seek such unions in the first year. In the firstTour months, however, over 14 000 couples had made PACS unions. Interestingly, many were heterosexual. Ga)^ aildjTieterfese)ajai£use^I^^ For gay and lesbian cou-
pact
in France (Daley 2000).
France, began as an effort to legalize gay
ples, seeking a
PACS is a big occasion with formal wear, invitations to attend,
and big parties
to celebrate. For heterosexual couples,
it is
often a kind of in-
formal formal sanctioning of their relationship.
What is a PACS? It is, ther is
gay or heterosexual,
/
simply, a kind of middle ground for couples,
ei-
who want a legal partner ship where each partner
responsible financially for the other, in both support_andIHebts. After
file joint income tax forms and benefit from each work benefits. A PACS, however, is easier to dissolve than a marriage and can be done without a lawyer. This comparesfo obtaining a divorce in France, which is a very long, involved process. The PACS la w made F rance the first traditionallyJ^Tathqlic country to recognize, in some legal sense, gay and lesbian couples. Denmark has had
three years, the couple can others'
legally accepted^ gay'couples since 1989. Since then, all Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and Belgium have legally recognized same-sex unions. Germany, Italy and Spain all have jurisdictions in which same-sex couples are legally recognized. Canada, in 2000, introduced leg-
Parliament that would give same-sex partners the same social and tax benefits as heterosexual partners. Marriage, however, continues islation in
to
be defined as the union of a
man and a woman.
Other "Couple" Bonds The image
of people living alone with their cats or
dogs or other pets
is
common. is a hotel restaurant named the who resided in a mansion on the woman who owned the mansion
In Victoria, British Columbia, there
Parrot House, in honour of the pet parrot site
where
the hotel
now
is.
The
elderly
died, providing in her will that her pet parrot
her
home until
the
end
of
its
natural
life.
would
live
comfortably in
During that time, the parrot lived
^
74
Close Relations
^
alone in the big house, attended by servants. For this ^
woman, her parrot
wa s her significan t othe rjna^uple-like emotional bond. "Life without Lucille? Unfathomable, to contemplate still
how
quiet
and
my home would be, and how much less laughter there'd be, and how
much less tenderness, and how unanchored I'd feel without her presence, the simple constancy of
it"
(Knapp
1998,
6).
Approximately one-third of all people in the United States live with dogs (Knapp 1998, 13). And, a sizeable proportion of these regard their pet as part of their family (Coren 1998). In Canada in the 1990s, over one-thir(Jof people age 45 and over had pets as part of their families (Statistics Canada 1991). A neighbour of one of your auLucille
is
a two-year-old dog.
thors (McDaniel), a
was
man in his early 70s, married for a long time with grown
days over the death of his 14-year-old cocker my companion, and I miss him more than some family members." Sometimes, as in the case of the Victoria parrot, pets are vital companions. Given this, "... it is amazing," suggests Sprey (2000, 30), "how few data on pet ownership appear in data banks that aim to document all aspects of marriage and family in our society." In Canada, questions about pets are rarely asked on surveys. children, spaniel.
in tears for
He says,
"That dog was
Concluding Remarks There can be no doubt that people worldwide are redefining what to
it
means
be an intimate couple. The family remains the arena in which personal
emotional and psychological growth can take place. But more than ever, couple relationships have come to be voluntary acts
As
—choice made freely
done can be undone. Spouses are not as closely dependent on one another economically as they once were, and they can opt out of couple relationships that do not meet
by
individuals.
well, there
is
a sense that what's
their personal expectations.
marry legally than in more people view singlehood positively. Cohabitation offers many of the benefits of marriage, without the same social and religious constraints. Yet, where marriage and divorce are concerned, variations persist among industrialized countries. For example, in Sweden reforms have elimIn Western countries, people are less inclined to
the past;
inated
many of the traditional incentives to marry.
countries are
moving
in the
same
direction,
It
appears that aU Western
toward diversity of ways
to
form intimate couple unions. Will the institution of marriage die from a lack of interest?
From
the
data we have examined here, we see a continued increase in the acceptance
We see no decrease in the strength of commitment toward exclusive intimacy within a spousal relationship.
of varied spousal forms. overall
Types of Intimate Couples
Chapter 2
75
Chapter Summary Close relations larly in
in
couples have become
can be a couple and In this
much more
diverse and individualized, particu-
the last few decades of the twentieth century. At the
chapter,
how couples should
we have
(or
same
time, debate over
should not) be legitimized has intensified.
looked at the variety and types of intimate couples.
examined how couples are changing, and why; what the differences experiences
in
relation to different
world, cohabitation
mean by
is
forms of couplehood.
are,
have seen
if
any,
that,
left to
is
is still
start again. Legal
When we
an increasing sense
marriage
is
less popular
look at marriage as an exin all its
gone mainstream;
it
is
is
more popular and often leads
greater for couples
discovered that
Most Canadians marry like, is visible in
lived
first
marriages are taking place later
in their
mid-2os or
until after
later.
Marital
in
Canada, and that many
they finish their education.
homogamy,
or like marrying
marriages as welfas dating, However,lnen t^na"to marry younger
women, and men tend
Many Canadians
women
to marry
tional status than their
with less education and slightly lower occupa-
own.
live
alone,
some
as widowers or widows,
some as divorcees, some
as single persons by choice. The reasons for this vary; interestingly, one solve their conflict between careers and family living alone.
not popular but
is
to
A commuter marriage, when couples
for career-oriented reasons,
may
comes about
increase due to
Common-law marriages common-law
who
prior to legally marring.
people wait to begin a committed relationship
dence by
accept-
a popular arrangement.
to a lifelong union. Ironically, the probability of divorce
common-law
is
between two people, we see that marriage
Living together or cohabiting has
is
family
around the
be a couple and the decisions of what
seen as respectable and positive.
clusive contract of intimacy
able forms
to
the individuals. Additionally, there
one can separate from one's partner and
and singlehood
women
in
have
becoming much more common and couples are redefining what they
Now, more than ever before, the decision
We
We
We
a "close relationship."
kind of couple to be, are that
who
its
affect our
way some
choose career and indepenlive in
for similar reasons.
separate
homes
often
The commuter marriage
practical nature.
idearabout
families. For
example, births
in
arrangements are increasing, and the stigma attached to children of
such unions has almost disappeared. Another bias that
is
changing
is
that against
same-sex couples. Increasingly, same-sex couples are being granted similar
rights
to heterosexual couples.
One
practical
argument
for
ations as heterosexual couples tain
allowing same-sex couples the
is
that the
two partners are more
each other, instead of relying on the state
for
same
rights
and oblig-
likely to privately sus-
support such as pensions.
^
76
Close Relations
^
Key Terms Cohabitation:
A sexual relationship in
which two people
live together
without
beiijg legally married.
Cohort:
experiences as the result of a major common event, (i.e., birth, marriage, graduation, or migration in the same year or decade.)
Common-law marriage: A valid and legally binding marriage entered into
or religious ceremony,
civil
resulting
from a cohabiting relationship
that lasts for
more than
three years.
Commuter marriage: A marriage between spouses who live in two separate households for a variety of reasons. Marriage:
is
rule of marriage in allowed only one spouse per
person.
A group of people who share sim-
ilar life
without
Monogamy: One which one
A socially approved sexual and
de solidarite (PACS, civil soliAn alternative form of couplehood in which a partnership is legally recognized and each member is financially responsible for the other, but that is easier to dissolve than a marriage.
Facte
civil
darity pact):
Polyandry: The marriage of one to more than one man.
woman
Polygamy: The marriage of one person two or more spouses at the same time.
Polygyny: The marriage of more than one
woman to one man. Serial (sequential)
monogamy: The martwo or more
riage of one person to
economic union between two or more
spouses in a lifetime, though only one
people that
time.
is
expected to
last a
long time.
to
at a
Suggested Readings Baker,
M.
ON: McGraw-Hill
wedlock argues that the rules of engagement have been so variable over time and
latest revision of this best-sell-
across cultures that the concept of a "tradi-
2001. Families: Changing Trends in
Canada (4^^ ed.). Toronto, Ryerson. The
ing text offers coverage of the cultural diver-
within the Canadian family by addressing issues like delayed parenting and marriage, and alternative family structures. sity
Dragu, M., S. Sheard, and S. Swan. 1991. Mothers Talk Back. Toronto, ON: Coach House Press. Several mothers speak of their experiences with their own families. This book offers an insightful look into the life of mothers in the last decades of the century. Graff, E.J. 1999. What is Marriage For? Boston, MA: Beacon Press. This informative
and enjoyable study
of the history of
tional marriage"
Ihara, T., R.
simply does not
Warner, and
Living Together:
F.
exist.
Hertz. 2000.
A Legal Guide for Unmarried
Couples (10*^ ed). Berkeley,
CA: Nolo
Press.
This user-friendly book contains information
on renting and buying
a
home, par-
enting issues, wills and estate planning, and
sample living-together agreements for a and comes with a computer disk containing forms you can use and modify for your situation. variety of situations,
Pepitone-Rockwell, Couples. Beverly HiUs,
F. 1980. Dual Career CA: Sage Publications.
Chapter 2
Types of Intimate Couples
lU)
This book contains several papers by differ-
Martin's Press. The result of a sociology
ent researchers delving into the issues of
doctoral dissertation, this
dual-career couples, such as
its
development,
marriage, and family and career issues. These issues have changed somewhat in the last 20 years; however, the book is quite up to date for a 1980 title. Slater, S. 1999.
The Lesbian Family
Life Cycle.
book chronicles 90 interviews with lesbian and gay couples regarding their views on and concerns with
commitment ceremonies and same-sex marriage. This title is current and applicable to an interesting debate in Canada.
Wu,
Z. 2000. Cohabitation:
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. This book utilizes clinical research to examine how lesbian couples have formed their own richly diverse family patterns, coped with a homophobic culture, and extended the parameters of the very definition of what constitutes a "family."
Form
G.A. 1999. From This Day Forzvard: Commitment, Marriage, and Family in Lesbian and Gay Relationships. New York: St.
implications of the
Stiers,
An
Alternative
of Family Living. Toronto: Oxford University Press. This text traces the grow-
ing popularity of cohabitation in Canada,
addressing the shifting cultural attitudes of the country, the current and future trends of cohabiting couples, and the soci-
demographic, economic, and legal phenomenon. It provides a current look at a long-term trend in Canada. ological,
Review Questions 1.
2.
Why are sociologists interested in
7.
for the
How has the proportion of people
alone?
who are in intimate couple
relation-
8.
9.
4.
What two trends
"serial
a
it
"commuter marriage," and undertaken?
What economic and demographic for the decline of
10.
monogamy."
What are
the main advantages and disadvantages of cohabitation?
Why does the institution of marriage
What social factors help explain why Sweden has the world's highest rate
continue to be central to relationships
of cohabitation?
in
North America? 12.
6.
is
marriage rates?
11. 5.
factors that account
growing popularity of living
arguments account
characterize contemporary marriage in our society?
Define "polygamy," "polyandry," "polygyny," "monogamy," and
What
why is
ships remained constant despite the decline in traditional marriage rates? 3.
What are some
intimate couple relationships?
How has the sexual revolution and the
women's movement affected
From
the perspective of gays and what are the pros and cons
lesbians,
of legalizing
the
institution of marriage? 13.
What
homosexual marriages?
distinguishes
PACS from a
traditional marriage?
78
Close Relations
^
Discussion Questions 1.
Given the growing popularity of
alter-
native types of intimate relationships, do you believe that a "traditional marriage" can still exist? Should it exist? Answer by first giving a definition of what you believe a "traditional marriage" to be. 2.
50 years?
What
like in
social
another
4.
as a unique social institution ceases to
with 7.
communication
to
8.
9.
5.
rate?
more
stability or to ensure the continuity of family lines. In your opinion, is the general purpose or function of marriage much different today? Do you believe people still marry for the same reasons, or has
practice?
likely to sepa-
What pre-marriage
marriage become something different?
conditions
in the relationship could potentially
increase the chances that the marriage will succeed?
Throughout history, marriage has been intended not for the purpose of love, but for practical reasons; for instance, to pool resources to ensure
Why are couples who cohabited prior to marriage
It has been said that commitment is formed at a certain period in a relationship. In your opinion, should indi-
economic
keep in contact
and drawbacks of this
and
viduals date for a certain period of time before commitment is established, or is true commitment unrelated to the length of the relationship?
with their spouses. What are some benefits
off to others,
who are obliged to care for
their aging parents.)
People in commuter marriages are relying increasingly on electronic forms of
Do you agree
Why or why not?
In what ways are pets treated like part of the family? In what ways are family members treated like pets by others? (Consider parents who bear children families
this
Premarital sex, although gaining wide acceptance among the general public, remains a highly contentious issue among religious and ethnic groups. What are your thoughts?
statement?
this
simply to show them
changes are
promote or impede outcome? likely to
"Essentially, if you make every couple relationship a marriage, then marriage exist" (Amiel 2000, 13).
In the past 50 years, the traditional model of couplehood in Canada has given way to a broader definition of what constitutes a loving, intimate relationship. Given this trend, what, in your opinion, will the typical
Canadian couple be
3.
6.
10.
Why do you think that, despite religious roots in Quebec, there are high levels of cohabitation in Quebec?
Activities 1.
Take an informal survey of the attitudes of people your own age toward cohabitation, same-sex marriages, and other types of intimate couples.
people from your parents' genera-
Contrast these attitudes with those of
changes?
Are there differences, and if so, cultural developments can you think of that might account for the tion.
what
Chapter 2
Spend some time monitoring the interactions between a pet owner and his or her pet (either yourself or someone you know). Prepare a short video or journal documenting ways in which the pair interact as though they are family members.
How are our views on marriage changing? Conduct a study of men's
Types of Intimate Couples
79 ^
and women's magazines. How is marriage portrayed in popular culture media sources? Based on what you find, how is marriage cast in a favourable light, and how is it cast negatively? In what context is the "ball and chain" concept of marriage most popular? Why do you think this is so?
Weblinks riage," cohabitation and domestic violence, commitment, work, and much more.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/ People/famili.htm
—
Canada Family, Households, and Housing is the division of Canada's national Statistics
statistical
agency dealing with the
latest facts
and
figures involving family life, including marriage and divorce rates, household composition, and living arrangements.
http://www.dfwx.com/home.htm
A business Web
site with information on wedding ceremonies (religious and secular), and other related offers. This is an entertaining site that shows the diversity of marriage ceremonies and encourages the
various
http://www.buddybuddy.com/toc.html
celebratory aspect of marriage.
Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples is a information centre for same-
http://www.bcricwh.bc.ca
sex couples, containing essays, surveys, legal
and resources on legal marriages, ceremonies, domestic partner benefits, relationship tips, parenting, and immigration. articles,
http://perso.club-internet.fr/ccucs/frames/
A Web
site for the
Children's
Research Institute for
& Women's Health, explaining
their goals, research,
and educational and
supportive services. http://www.angelflre.com/ny/Debsimms/ #contents
e_une.litml
The PACS National
Collective offers
com-
prehensive information on the Facte civil de solidarite, including the regulations for entering and ending a PACS, as well as the rights and duties that each partner
Parenting in the 90s and 2000s is a helpful site for parents and their children. Family activities, family issues, and advice from other families are discussed. http://home.vicnet.net.au/-' viclegal/
holds.
leginfo/famlaw
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/
A Web site explaining legalities relating to
Within
Landa
Waite of the University of Chicago provides a more inthis site,
J.
depth look at cohabitation. She discusses such issues as cohabitation as a "trial mar-
the family, such as divorce, counselling, legal advice. Fortunately, this useful
and
information for modern married persons can counter inaccurate information on these subjects.
CHAPTER
THREE ^^^^m
_^
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ '^^^^^Km
^^^^NH|H||L
^^^^^^1
.
*«'B
'
^^^1 --"""
:^
^^^^^F^WiBMV^
^^^H
^H
^1
^^^||^T^
4 w ^^^^^A^^m^ammt It W^
Ways
'^^^lilr'
of Being Close:
Interaction, Communication, Sex, and Trust
Chapter Outline Marriage and Well-being
Good Communication
Satisfaction as a Measure of Marital Quality
Communication and Gender Encoding and Idioms Non-verbal Communication Rules for Successful Communication
What Makes
a
Satisfying? The Life Cycle
Marriage of a Marriage
Homogamy
Ways to Increase Marital Wellbeing
Love
Does Marital Therapy Work?
Intimacy
Overall Assessments of Treatment
Coping and Conflict Management
Who Does
Gender Role Attitudes and Equity
Marital Therapy Help?
Concluding Remarks
I
Chapters
Ways
happy
own
fashion," begins Tolstoy's classic Russian novel,
really only
one
8l
an unhappy family is unhappy after its Anna Karenina. Is there
"All
families are alike but
of Being Close
way for a family to be happy but many ways for families to
be unhappy?
Most social scientists would disagree with Tolstoy. Research suggests many ways to be happy, both individually and within close reand many ways to be unhappy. Still, there are only a few recipes lations, for increasing the likelihood of happiness, and we will explore them in this chapter. We will consider the reasons why some people have closer, more fulfilling relationships than others and why married people or people in committed long-term relationships are, on average, happier and healthier than unmarried people why close relations are good for people. In this chapter, we focus mostly on marriages because most of the research on satisfaction with close relations has focused on marital relationships. The central question, however, is what makes any close relationship work. We suspect that the answer is much the same for marriage and cohabitation, for same-sex and opposite sex relationships. that there are
—
Marriage and Well-being The
first
key finding
is
that people in long-term intimate relations-for ex-
—are generally mo
ample, married people
re satisfied people. In a study of
married couples, Russell and Wells (1994) find quaTity^f marriage to be the strongest predictor of life happiness for both men and women. Berry and Williams (1987) note that marital satisfaction and income sahsfaction are the
dominant
factors in determining
satisfaction has the largest
measured quality
of
life.
However, marital
impact on general well-being (Rosen
et al 1990).
Perceived quality of important relationships more strongly affects the satisfaction of
life
both black and white Americans than any demographic vari-
ables, socio-economic status, or religion
(Thomas and Holmes
1992).
In Western societies today, marriage or being in a committed relation-
Compared with marunmarried are less happy, less healthy, more disturbed, and more prone to premature death. Of course, there are complex causal issues irvvolved in this finding. Is it that those who are less happy, less healthy, more disturbed, and more prone to premature death are less likely to get married in the first place? It seems likely. This still remains to be sorted out in research. Among the married, however, happiness and health are highly dependent on marital success. Sociologists have measured the link between marriage and well-being in at least three ways: (1) by examining suicide rates, (2) by asking people to report their feelings of happiness or satisfaction with life, and (3) by looking for signs of deficient personal well-being (e.g., poor mental or physical health or changes from previous healthfulness). ship
is
of great significance for individual well-being.
ried people, the
^82
^
Close Relations
One
of the earliest sociological studies, Emile Durkheim's (1957) clas-
Suicide, discovered something that today we think of as almost common sense. In looking at the patterns of French suicide rates in the late sic
work.
nineteenth century, he found that socially integrated people are less likely to kill
As
themselves.
are less likely to
well, people
kill
whose
themselves. People
lives are regulated
often suffer from a state he called anomie, cide.
by
who are isolated and
social rules
unregulated
which increases the
risk of sui-
Close relations not only provide people with social supports but also
hopes and aspirations. With more integration and regulation, married people are less likely to commit suicide than unmarried people. Today's statistics support Durkheim's theory: suicide rates remain higher among unmarried than among married people, just as they were a century ago. This theory was difficult to test thoroughly until the second half of the set healthy limits to their
twentieth century. Before then, structural barriers
it
difficult for
was possible only with a special act of Judaism and Christianity have historically opposed
Canadians
to divorce; divorce
Parliament.
As
well,
made
Canadian society has historically stigmatized divorced people. from membership in the religion and from religious members of the society, divorced people have historically experienced a wide variety of social penalties. Thus, people who succeeded in obtaining a divorce were rare, unusual, and subject to intense social pressures. With the growing social acceptance of divorce, and higher divorce rates, it has become clear that the anomie and isolation, not stigmatization, are to blame for suicides. That is why, as Durkheim's theory predicts, suicide rates are consistently higher among the divorced and lower among the widowed and never-married. However, researchers rarely use suicide statistics to measure the wellbeing of married couples. Although suicide may be a sign of unhappLness, most people who are unhappy do not commit suicide, and some apparent suicides are actually accidents, such as some drug overdoses. Moreover, marriage breakups or being unmarried are not the only cause of suicide. Therefore, sociologists have developed a variety of ways besides suicide rates to measure the happiness, satisfaction, or well-being that marriage divorce, so
Cut
off
confers
on people.
Satisfaction as a
Measure of Marital Quality
Research by Lewis and Spanier (1979) establishes that marital happiness and marital satisfaction, one visceral, the other cognitive, are so highly correlated as to be virtually
the^ame
thing.
Much
of the current family literature fo-
cuses on marital commitment, rather than marital satisfaction or quality. This
is
because, for reasons that become clear in Chapter
8,
"Divorce: Trends,
Ways
Chapter 3
Myths, Children, and Ex-spouses," tal
and perceived
some
they have tantly,
riage.
be
a marriage. Nonetheless, satis-
on people's divorce decisions and, more impor-
people believe that they ought to
feel satisfied
with their marriage.
of the time, report being satisfied with their mar-
Moreover, married people, both satisfied
up
quality remain the place to start our discussion because
influence
Most people, most to
many factors other than objective mari-
quality influence the decision to break
faction
83
of Being Close
with their
lives
men and women, are twice as likely
than separated or divorced people.
On aver-
—not surprising in view of the importance people place on marriage —but more age, never-married people are less^atisfied than married people
than divorced or separated people (Campbell 1980; Tep^eTman
satisfied
1994). MantaTsatisfaction
Weaver
(
is
a major
component of life
satisfaction.
Glenn and
1981) report that the contribution of marital happiness to overall
happiness
is far
greater than the contribution of
any other kind of
satisfac-
including satisfaction with work.
tion,
Married people continue to be more satisfied than non-married peoHowever, some Canadian research suggests that the strength of the relationship depends on age of the partners and, in general, may be vanishing, thus challenging the view that marriage is a source of wellbeing in Canada (McDaniel 1998a; White 1992). In contrast, relying on evidence from Europe, Veenhoven (1983) argues that, contrary to what some people may believe, marriage is actually gaining in its importance to our well-being. Married people continue to be happier (especially in the most modernized European countries), less disturbed, healthier, and live longer than unmarried people. Since 1950, these benefits of marriage have inple.
creased.
As
and marital
satisfaction than
Alas, marriage licences don't later,
the
is more strongly correwas several decades ago.
a result, overall life satisfaction today
lated with marriage
honeymoon
love^Jronour/
and
come with
ends. But the marriage
negotiate.
We can
it
users' manuals, so sooner or
may
not
if
we know how
to
learn those skills to keep rekindling
numbers of therapists, counsellors, and authors who are helping couples acquire the tools to make a modem-day the flame of romantic love, say increasing
marriage work.
A good marriage is particularly important to people who are sick, weak, or otherwise vulnerable. Marriage's beneficial effects are particularly valuable
when the partners are most needy.
For example, pregnant
women par-
from being in a good marriage with a supportive and understanding spouse. The quality of the attachment between a pregnant woman and her husband affects the woman's sense of weU-being (Zachariah 1996). Moreover, this effect continues after the child is bom. But if husbands put the usual demands of marriage on their spouse (i.e., working, cooking, cleaning, massaging his ego, etc.), their wives are worse off when pregnant ticularly benefit
or sick than they
would be
alone, or with their mothers.
")
84
')
Close Relations
What Makes
a Marriage Satisfying?
What is it about a good marriage that increases life satisfaction, health, and means between the spouses' individual needs, wishes, and expectations, a fit that they regard as unique and irreplaceable (Wallerstein 1996). Such couples believe that maintaining a good marriage throughout life means establishing and maintaining a good sex life and providing a safe place for expressing deep feelings. People, especially married people, think they know what makes for a happy marriage. Yet do they really? Social scilongevity to such a degree? For happily married couples, marriage
achieving a good
fit
entists are not quite so certain.
In studying the factors associated with marital satisfaction, distin-
guishing the causes from the effects
is
often difficult. For example, couples
who report talking to each other a lot also report trusting each other, having satisfying sex,
and generally feeling satisfied with their marriage. However, open to interpretation. Is it frequent conversation that insexuality, and satisfaction? Perhaps, cause and effect run in
this finding is
creases trust,
the opposite direction. Perhaps marital satisfaction causes spouses to talk to
each other more, or
The only way
time.
all
to
know
as they change over time
The
and again over by watching marriage partners
the factors reinforce each other again for certain is
and pass through a
Life Cycle of a
typical family
life cycle.
Marriage
Unfortunately, marital satisfaction usually decreases over time, a finding
reported in both longitudinal and^ross-sectional studies. tunately," since fits
We
say "unfor-
we have just noted the remarkably important health bene-
of marriage. What's more, this decline
is
particularly
marked
for couples
with children. Willen and Montgomery (1996) refer to this fact as the "Catch 22" of marriage: Wishing and planning for a child increases marital happiness, but achieving this
wish reduces tKeTiappiness.
~~~~~
Just as a troubled marital relationship strains parenting, the birth of a child,
and the
resulting intense mother-child relationship, tends to strain
and Burman 1995). New parents are less happy with each other and experience more frequent, sometimes violent, conflicts with their spouse after the baby arrives (Crohan 1996). For some, the conflict may even begin before the baby arrives. marital relations (Erel
Marital satisfaction decreases with the arrival of children because children
husbands or themselves, which may cause resentment. The birth of a child reduces by up to 80 percent the proportion of activities wives do alone, or parents do as a couple or with non-family members, until the child is school-aged. This radical shift from spousal (adult-centred) activities to parenting (child-centred) activities drastically reduce the time
wives have for
their
Ways
Chapters
creates
an emotional distance that the partners find hard
85 ^
of Being Close
to bridge.
Romance
and privacy disappear. Sleepless nights increase. Mothers, the main providers of child care, change their time use much more than fathers. Particularly after the birth of a first child, marital quality and quantity of time decline immediately. Mothers report feeling more angry and depressed than before (Monk et al 1996; for Canadian evidence on this topic, see Cowan and Cowan 1992.) In a recent article, Canadian sociologist Bonnie Fox (2000) also points out that the transition to parenthood tends to increase gender inequality in the couple. As people become parents, the social relationships between husband and wife change. Wives, as mothers, devote more time to their infants and less time to their husbands. Husbands are often resentful of this change, and wives may adopt a new subservient way of dealing with husbands to reduce resentment and conflict. This often, and predictably, produces resentment on the wife's side. As Fox summarizes the evidence In short,
how
a
woman defines mothering is partly a
product of ne-
gotiation with her partner. Because intensive mothering requires con-
siderable support,
it is
contingent upon the consent and active
cooperation of the partner, which makes for equalities in the relationship
father
and
his child
creation of
it.
their partners'
And
...
in
landmark study published
in
all
sorts of subtle in-
stiong relationship between the
partly contingent
upon
the
encouraging the relationship,
woman's
women
Affects a Couple's Intimacy
1992 as When
couple needs for the sake of the kids.
Become Parents, Canadian psychologists Carolyn and Philip Cowan explored the satisfac-
easy to
tions and separations of new-parent couples,
a Toronto couple counselor
Partners
let
ages four to out,
separation rate by the kindergarten year. But cou-
ily
in
the Cowans'
nancy
into the first year,
vived the
there
"Becoming A Family"
is
project,
professional and group support from preg-
initial
a lot
almost unanimously sur-
18-month stretch -together.
new parents can
learn
Clearly,
and share, to
help them revitalize their relationships.
parents are ready to bury their
own
individual
if
and
16.
But the
who has
little
four children,
ones ultimately lose
everyone's needs aren't included
in
the fam-
equation.
j^^ Cowans' study made
it
very clear that, though
babies get bad press for causing crises
in their
g^ts' marriages, the fault-lines that break
^iages are present before the pregnancy.
p^ts a
lot of
pie building
The Cowans found that many of today's committed
too
come
before everything else," confirms Lindsay Watson,
Following 100 "relatively well-functioning" couples
pies
"It's
the kids' wants and schedules
a decade into parenthood, they found a 20 percent
who had
active
cater to
needs more than they otherwise might (Fox 2001, 11-12).
How Being New Parents In a
is
[a]
...
less.
pressure on the
work can't wait
weak
until
par-
up mar-
Baby
just
spots.
So cou-
the kids
demand
By then, one partner may have grown
right
out of the relationship.
Source: Eleanor Barrington, "Let's
Renew the Romance," Today's
Parent. 1994. V. 11(3), 50-52.
Reprinted courtesy of Eleanor Barrington.
86
^
Close Relations
Even
the closest, happiest
couples experience distress after
having a baby. Regrettably, few professional services are avail-
smooth this transition (Cowan and Cowan 1995). After the initial euphoria and depression of parenthood wears off, reality sets in. The spouses are often too busy to spend even able to
limited "quality time" with each other. This
change
tionship
long-lasting. For ex-
is
to their rela-
ample, sexual activity
falls off
dramatically and never returns to its original level.
Researchers report that with preschoolers present in a household, sexual inactivity is
and prolonged. It is amazing that couples with likely
preschoolers actually have another child!
Space does not permit a detailed discussion of marital sexuality.
Be assured, however,
that researchers widely accept
the quality
and frequency of
sexual intercourse as~an indiMarital satisfaction decreases with the arrival of children. The
cator ofmarifaT satisfaction
—
and
radical shift from spousal activities to parenting activities cre-
marital "quality." Sex
ates an emotional distance that the partners find hard to bridge.
way from holding hands, cuddling, fondling,
the
whole variety of physical pleasures
parents of infants as
it
does to newlyweds or people
have a great impact on marital
the
and kissing
to
—makes as much difference to the who
are dating. So,
the drastic reduction in sexual activity that accompanies childbirth to
all
satisfaction.
is
At the same time, other
likely
factors
also affect marital sexuality; they include illness, aging, work-related stress,
and frequent separation. Typically, marital satisfaction,
which decreases with the arrival of children,
when the children are teenagers. The presence of children in the household, though pleasing in many respects, also increases the doreaches an all-time low
mestic workload for parents and foments conflict. Once the children leave home, creating what some sociologists call an "empty nest," many marriages
Ways
Chapter 3
improve
to near
newlywed levels of satisfaction.
87
of Being Close
Parental (and other work) re-
sponsibilities decline, partly^)^laining this return of marital satisfaction in later
(Orbach, House, and
life
this
Mero
1996).
Many couples rediscover each other at
time because they have more leisure time to become reacquainted. Thus,
younger married couples, older couples show much less distress, less desire for change in their marriage, and a more accurate understanding of the needs of their partners (Rabin and Rahav 1995). Parenthood is, in some ways, like a classic experiment conducted on
compared
to
naive subjects.
Some
well-functioning couples introduce the experimental
matched "control" couples do not. In the experimental group, marital satisfaction plummets; in the control group, it continues to decline slowly (if at all) as the marriage wears on. At a later stage in the experiment, the experimental condition removes itself. The child grows up and leaves home. Marital happiness returns to earlier levels. The condition, a child. Other
conclusion
Our
is
obvious.
first
point, then,
predictably oveFthe
is
and and declines
that marital satisfaction varies normally
life cycle. It
typically declines over time,
most rapidly and extremely with the presence of children. Then, satisfaction typically recovers when the children leave home. So, unless you avoid having children, this is likely to happen in your own marriage. Knowing this pattern, however, means that extra efforts can be taken to keep the spark in your marriage.
Don't Forget to Be a Couple Karen Geraci remembers how shocked she was when she read that married couples with children
Ms. Carson's advice
spend
are focusing too
"l
just
20 minutes a day talking to each other,
thought, 'That's the most horrifying statistic."
Now
that the 35-year-old and her
husband Marc
Rumball, 36, have children, she says,
"I
totally un-
all
much on
understand— all the young parents on her
middle-class street
"1
think a lot of couples get lost
in
the Danforth village, where
"If
a
you don't
...
make time
in
being a family,"
of you sharing a
But they tend not to do
the world.
it,
despite a
warning from one of their neighbours, Christine
whose marriage broke up
her two children were just 4 and it's
1.
a year ago
when
in
life
home
...
like
something
and being together against
When you
Practical things of '"
simple activities
at
your relationship. That feeling of the two
dies
much about
for
walk or a shared dinner
several families are permitting a reporter to track
each other before
children— at the ex-
Toronto therapist Judith Golden says. "They forget
their lives for a year.
Carson,
their
pense of their marriage.
that they have to take time to be a couple."
derstand."
They
echoed by psychologists and
is
marriage therapists. They argue that parents today
life,
only have the that's
when
mundane and
a marriage gets
trouble."
Pay attention to
too late, she said.
Source: "Don't Forget to Be a Couple," The Globe and Mail, 27
May
1994, Metro Edition, A15.
Reprinted with permission from The Globe
and Mail.
")
^88
'
)
Close Relations
Having children has satisfactions too. Bear in mind as well that children are not the only causes of marital problems, nor does the avoidance of parenting ensure happiness. In fact, couples less are
unhappy as
childless,
a result. Less
is
who are involuntarily child-
known about couples who are voluntarily
but there are strong hints that they tend to be happy.
Other marital problems can also be predicted and avoided. discuss separately,
and in turn,
We will now
several factors that affect marital satisfaction.
Homogamy Marital satisfaction also depends on
how similar the spouses are. We dealt
Chapter 1, "How Families Begin," but it bears repeating. Generally, husbands and wives who are more alike get along with each other better and report being more satisfied with their marriage. As noted earlier, social scientists call spousal similarity, or the marriage of like to like, homogamy. Little research has been done to link spousal similarity with life satisfaction, overall satisfaction, or overall happiness (Satisfaction is different from happiness in general: satisfaction is judgmental and cognitive, happiness is emotional and visceral. Life satisfaction typically is a single global measure [provided by the respondent]; overall satisfaction is typically a constructed measure, summing up various individual measures of satisfaction in different life domains). However, the observed connection between spousal similarity and marital satisfaction suggests a connection between spousal similarity and life satisfaction. Homogamous spouses are not necessarily similar in every respect. However, some kinds of social similarity such as age, education, race, religion, and geographic location, are particularly common and, therefore, perhaps particularly important. As well, some shared physical traits (e.g., physical attractiveness) and psychological traits (e.g., intelligence) increase the likelihood that two people will be attracted to each other. The similarities also increase the likelihood that mates will be happy with each with
this at length in
other (Buss 1985). It is
nor do
not clear precisely
similarities
how these similarities affect the mating process,
ensure the survival of a marriage. Behaviours,
interests,
and attitudes about men's and women's roles do tend to matter the most. They help to decide who will mate with whom, and who personality
traits,
with whom. People usually pair with partners who hold similar atand couples who are similar in their attitudes toward gender role-re-
will stay titudes,
lated attitudes turn out to
have better marriages (Aube and Koestner
1995).
homogamy is strongly correlated with marital satisfaction. Homogamous couples also adjust to marriageBetter, irTthe^seTtS^e that their Overall,
marriages work better (Weisfeld et
Long-term spouses
tell
Creamer and Campbell 1988). agreement on a variety of issues researchers that al 1992;
Chapters
Ways
contributes to the longevity of their nnarriage, to marital satisfaction, to overall
happiness (Lauer
Homogamy
89
of Being Close
and
et al 1990).
by reducing the number of two people build a shared life, together facing the little injuries and major tragedies life has in store. Doing this is easier when spouses view the world in similar terms, and when each knows, understands, and respects the other's point of view. Similarity in education, age, and cultural background tend to make this easier. Sometimes, an assumed similarity between spouses is as important as real similarity. Other things being equal, spouses who think they are a lot alike express more satisfaction with their marriage. They also speak to each other in more positive ways than spouses who think they are very different (Thomas, Fletcher, and Lange 1997). That may be because people consider people like themselves to be more attractive and likeable than people who are different. They are also more likely to forgive indiscretions in spouses they issues the couple
increases marital satisfaction
may disagree on.
In marriage,
consider to be like themselves.
The
effects of racial
and
religious
heterogamy
(or "intermarriage") are
harmful today than they once were, but they are occasionally harmful nonetheless. For example, (heterogamous) couples in which the man is Nigerian and the woman African American consistently express more disless
tress
and
dissatisfaction over finances, child-rearing,
and time spent
to-
gether than (homogamous) African-American couples (Durodoye 1997).
Other things being equal, spouses
in minority
male /white female marriages
happy than spouses in same-race marriages (Chan and Smith 1996). This is not an argument in favour of segregation, nor even in favour of homogamy. Sometimes the troubles intermarrying couples face are due to discrimination; when racially or ethnically mixed couples are more common, there may be fewer problems. For example, these couples may receive more support and encouragement from their kin and friends. The point is that similarity makes a difference to marital well-being. Ultimately, however, relationship dynamics are more important than background similarities in predicting marital satisfaction (Fowers and Olson or try to with the spouse 1989). What matters most is how we get along are less
—
—
we have chosen.
Love Many
people consider that love is more important than anything else in keeping a relationship satisfying. For people in cultures that define marriage in romantic terms, this will necessarily be true. What, then, of marriages that are not initially based on romantic love? In many societies arranged marriages are the norm. Arranged marriages in China, the Indian subcontinent,
and the Arab world are often
built
on
")
90
Close Relations
Figure 3.1
percentage of population aged 15 and over having WEEKLY CONTACT WITH VARIOUS FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
Grandparents
-23%
Other relatives -
24% Siblings
-46% Neighbours
1
-55%
Parental in-laws -
5
Sons/son
in
67% laws -
74%
Daughters/daughter in-laws Close friends
20
60
40
78%
-81%
80
Percentage (%)
Source: Vanier Institute of the Family. 1994. Propling Canada's Families, 170, 171.
parents' perceptions of shared attributes sult,
parents very often choose wisely
children. Arr anged
between the partners. As
a re-
— and homogamously— for their
m arriages tend, as a result, to be atable an d sometimes
immensely happy. Folk mythology argues that arranged marriages become, over time, more satisfying tHarTIove marriages. However, research does not bear ourthat belief Even in China, where arranged marriage has a long history, love marriages are more satisfying at every stage or duration (Xiaohe and Whyte 1990). In Canadian society, as we have said, most people marry for love. They see love as the basis of their union, without which the marriage would not satisfy either partner. Yet, as we saw in an earlier chapter, romantic love has a particular social and cultural history. Typically, love is associated with economic security. People who must live hand to mouth .
cannot afford to think love, but
below
much about love.
Wealth, of course, does not b riri g
a certain level of income, romantic love
may be an
ex-
travagance that few can afford. reflects economic prosfrom the Industrial Revolution. That is why people pay more attention to romantic love in industrialized, or
Thus, our current preoccupation with love
perity that, ultimately, arises
"Westernized," societies. Typically, people in nations with a high standard of living, high marriage
the
most importance
piness (Levine et
and divorce
rates,
to love as a basis for
al 1995).
and low
fertility rates
assign
marriage and as a source of hap-
Ways
Chapters
9^
of Being Close
and companionship usually continue throughout life, yet some types of love are more common than others at particular stages of a marriage (Noller 1996). What some consider immature love exemplified by limerence, love addiction, and infatuation is characteristic of the first year or two of an intimate relationship. In marriage, feelings of passion
—
—
Limerence
is
that
packaged experiences
that includes preoccupation
with the loved one, wild fluctuations in mood, ecstatic feelings of welland depths of despair. Lovers can't get enough of their mate and spend much time thinking over how likely they are to win, please, and keep their beloved. Mature love, on the other hand the kind that allows the lovers and those who depend on them to grow and develop provides constraint, stability, and certainty. This kind of love, less euphoric and less chaotic, supports marriage and family life, and^it can confinue^ throughout life. Mature love is more common later in a romantic relationship. It is, without a doubt, central and life satisfaction of contemporary Western to the marital satisfaction people. It is the enactment of current notions of intimacy. being,
—
—
—
—
Intimacy Most people would agree that feelings of intimacy are also very important Ln making people satisfied with their marriage. "Intimacy" comes from the Latin word meaning "inward" or "inmost." It connotes, on the one hand, "familiarity" and on the other hand, "secrecy." Now, consider the connections among these three words "inward," "secret," and "familiar." Each of us is uniquely familiar with our secret, inward thoughts, hopes, and fears. To become intimate with someone else means admitting them to our (largely) private, unique world, which in turn means trusting them with our most valued possessions. Building and maintaining this intimacy with a partner
is
the key to a mature, surviving relationship.
From these beginnings, the word "intimacy" in our culture has come today to mean little more than sexual intercourse. When we say that X and Y have been intimate, we often mean nothing more than that they have had sexual relations. This implies tha t our c ulture equates sexuality with trust, privacy, familiarity,
and
closeness.
The
reaHty^islofteri different:
are sexually active are not trlily intimate with each other, are truly intimate have
friendship
no sexual
relations.
Many who
and many who
Consider the peculiar status of
—especially, same-sex friendship — in our culture: Often, our
more intimate (in the original sense of the word) than our sexual relationships. However, in the best, most important, and most persistent close relations their spousal relations people do pair intimacy friendships are far
—
—
with love and sexuality.
What Typically,
actions are considered a violation of intimacy or "cheating?"
men consider cheating by
their
spouse
to
mean
sexual intimacy
")
9^
Close Relations
^
with another man.
mean emotional
In
consider cheating by their spouse to
woman, whether
sexual relations
We have more to say about this in the afterword, when we
occurreAornot. consider the
Women may also
intimacy with another
new problems posed by cyberspace and
good marriages, we
"virtual cheating."
find intimacy of both kinds, sexual
chological. Satisfied spouses are
more
and psy-
sexually intimate with each other, as
measured by how often they display affection physically, touch each other, kiss each other, cuddle, and have sex. These affectionate behaviours are reciprocal. Shows of affection by one spouse usually prompt affectionate behaviour by the other spouse. What is more, they prompt other positive actions. Often, they also prompt respectful behaviour (Gaines Jr. 1996). Intimacy grows naturally in a supportive social relationship. However, intimacy doesn't
another person
come easily to everyone. Knowing how to be intimate with something that we learn more by example (and practice)
is
than by instruction.
A loving, committed
couple can have problems with
intimacy if one or both partners never learned how to be intimate. They may have trouble trusting or confiding in others generally, or particularly in others of the opposite sex. They may have trouble expressing affection because they grew up in a family in which people never did so. Or, they may
have trouble with sexual behaviour because of an
earlier sexual
trauma, or
because they never saw their parents relate to each other as sexual beings. Sexual intimacy, like marriage generally,
is
experienced differently by
When it comes to sexual an d emotiona intimacy in our society, women and men seem to want, neeHTand expect different things. This the
two
sexes.
l
difference in experience sometimes leads to
breakdowns
in
communica-
Women want more disclosure than men. Men don't understand what the fuss is all about. Women need to talk about their feelings, and they want tion.
their
men to do the same. Some men often act as if the whole exercise is a big this proves men and women are ge-
waste of time. Some have argued that
netically different in emotionally relevant ways.
An
and more convincing, explanation is that the differences between men's and women's respective understandings of intimacy is largely due to gender socialization. As a society, we teach the sexes to talk to each other in different ways. Nevertheless, more than talk is at issue here. Husbands report more sexual satisfaction than wives. As well, the predictors of sexual satisfaction differ for husbands and wives (Song, Bergen, and Schumm 1995). For women, sex occurs within a gendered or gender-unequal society, and marital sex occurs in a context shaped by the structural and cultural realities alternate,
of people's lives. I
Many women have to find sexual pleasure within a marital
relationship that also provokes feelings of powerlessness, anxieties about con-
and exhaustion from child care and outside employment. including these power issues, sexual incidence and frequency decline over a marriage. Age, duration of marriage, and the presence of children all affect the frequency of marital sex. Holding that contraception,
For
many reasons,
Chapters
stant, marital
Ways
happiness does too. Allowing for age, duration of marriage, and
the presence of children, happily married people have sex
more
less
happily married people. Again, the cause-effect relationship
Is
that people
it
93 ^
of Being Close
who
are
happy together
are
more
inclined to
often than is
unclear.
make
love,
making love often helps a couple stay happy, or that other factors affect both happiness and sexual frequency? Perhaps it may be some of each. that
Coping and Conflict Management How well a couple copes with stressors and manages the conflicts that arise in
any long-term relationship influences
strain, for
their marital satisfaction. Financial
example, increases the likelihood of depression in both spouses.
Depression leads the partners to withdraw social support and undermine the other.
These behaviours, in turn, reduce marital satisfaction and intensify the
depression (Vinokur, Price, and Caplan 1996). satisfaction. Taking care spouse puts an enormous strain on marriage. It leads to
Health-induced strains also influence marital of a chronically
ill
dissatisfaction, especially for the caregiving spouse. This dissatisfaction is
more likely if he or she feels the ill spouse brought on his or her own health problems, or has other reasons for feeling cheated in the relationship (Thompson, Medvene, and Freedman 1995).
As we said earlier,
the birth of a child reduces marital satisfaction
by
in-
creasing conflict and parenting stress (Lavee, Sharlin, and Katz 1996). The
problem
is
greatest
if
a couple has
been unable to resolve important and Guthrie 1996).
rela-
tionship issues before the birth (Heinicke
The
stresses of
work can
also reduce marital satisfaction. Often, con-
employment cause distress. By producing and reducing warmth and supportiveness between the spouses, these conflicts reduce the quality and satisfaction of a marriage (Matthews, Conger, and Wickrama 1996). Unemployment due to job loss also causes marital conflict, either from the loss of customary ways of family living or unwanted role reversal (particularly for males). Material deprivation and marital conflict over financial issues also play a part (Lobo and Watkins 1995). Surprisingly, retirement from work can either increase or decrease marresulting
flicts
from
a spouse's
hostility
RetiringTrom a high-stress job normally increases satisfacHowever, poor health and other changes that often cause or accompany retirement (which may reverse gender roles or reduce social support) reduce satisfaction (Myers and Booth 1996). In general, people need to prepare for retirement and, often, adjust their close relationships to accommodate ital satisfaction.
tion.
their
new
situation.
Married people cannot avoid to
conflicts,
avoid disagreements altogether
relies
more on
relationship skills
sence of hardship. So
is
whatever
their cause,
and trying
usually unwise. Marital adjustment
and
beliefs than
on the presence or ab-
we are not arguing against confrontation, which means
94_J)
Close Relations
recognizing and dealing with interpersonal issues in a forthright way.
much else in
with
life, it's
not what you do that counts,
it's
how you do
As it.
Though confronting disagreements is better than trying to avoid them, there are better and worse ways of doing this7"Tn oldeFcouples, conflict resolution is usually less hostile and more affectionate than in middleaged couples. With the passage of time, many couples figure out how to defuse and laugh at their disagreements. Styles o£cQnflict resolution also varyby sex. Generally, wives tend to be more emotional than husbands, and husbands are more defensive and less expressive (Carstensen, Gottman, and Levenson 1995). Not surprisingly, people in unhappy marriages express more negative emotion than people in happy marriages. However, though it is good to express emotion, expressing too much negative emotion may not be. Becoming^uieLand withdrawn does more to keep the peace and maintain marital happiness, providing this is not simply a means of avoiding problems.
Many new
parents adapt (effectively) to the increased stress accom-
panying childbirth by adopting this strategy of quiescence (Crohan 1996). However, this is only a short-term strategy, while the couple determine how to address their^problem in a more constructive way. Violenc^nsTiever a satisfactory way to deal with marital conflict. It neither makes the disagreement disappear nor improves the marriage. Spouses in violent relationships often respond to each other's comments with one-up moves, and violencexanescalatequickly. This interaction pattern, in which both spouses assert but neither accepts the other's effort at control, may reflect poor skills in arguing constructively (Sabourin 1995). In some couples, one or both spouses excuse violence on the grounds of drinking or another extenuating circumstance. As a result, the violence has less impact on marital satisfaction and thoughts of divorce (Katz et al 1995). However, the violence problem does not go away and in the end, it is likely to become intolerable to at least one of the spouses.
^ Gender
Role Attitudes and Equity
People are more satisfied with a marriage that meets their expectations of
marriage should be, and how a spouse should treat them. means that, in our society, people, particularly women, are much more satisfied when their spouse treats them as an equal in the
what
a
Increasingly, this
"
marital relationship.
Over tice
the past 25 years,
we have
seen an increase in the sense of injus-
associated with an unfair domestic division of labour. In
fact, this is
The most dissatisfied wives today are younger mothers who are doing most of the household work far more than their husbands are doing often as well as working outside the home (Stohs 1995). When wives adopt less traditional occupations or careers, or more hours of work outside the home. often a greater source of marital problems than disagreements over sex.
—
—
Chapters
Ways
of Being Close
95 ^
"primary housekeeper." (We return to the division of household labour in more detail iii Chapter 5, "The Domestic Division of Labour, Gender, and Housework.") they
still_ar e
expected
to^bejhetraditional
Couples argue more about household work than about paid work or else. Conflicts about paid work usually revolve around the husbands' working hours, with most wives preferring their husbands to spend less time at work (Kluwer, Heesink, and van de Vliert 1996). Child care is an area of particular contention when household work is discussed. Mothers with paid jobs who provide most or all of the child care are often stressed, "" resentful, and dissatisfied with their marriages. Whisman and Jacol^son (1990) report an inverse relationship between marital satisfaction and power inequality. Happy couples more often share a balance of power, and are better able to perceive accurately the other's motivational state than moderately unhappy couples (Kirchler, DeLongis, and Lehman 1989). Mates who see themselves as equal partners are more satisfied with their relationship than are traditional partners, and report using fewer power strategies in trying to get their way (Aida and Falbo 1991). Pairs perceiving equity in their participation in marital tasks are more adjusted and more satisfied with their marriages than other couples (Diez-Bolanos and Rodrigues-Perez 1989). More-satisfied couples are apt to both give and take support, to be involved in each others' work lives, to have an equal commitment to the relationship, and to practise equal decision-making. Nontraditional gender attitudes, an d husbands app roval of their wives' careers, promote higher marital satisfaction (Ray 1990). Islnarriage better for men or for women? Given what we have said about the importance of equality for marital satisfaction, the answer should be obvious. In our society, research has suggested that marriage is better for meCLlharLiarjiyomen. Evidence shows that marriage benefits both men and women, though not equally. As a result, members of the same family can have different, and even opposing, views about the qualanything
'
ity
and value
of their marriage.
Just as dating
marital "quality"
and mating choices are
means
men and women, men and women. Men, espe-
different for
different things to
men, appear to value the stability and constancy of "being marmen have a different set of needs than women, reflected in the traditional household division of labour. Men don't look for emotional
cially older
ried" most. Yet
support so much^srtiey^lqok for practical, instruinental supports. Marital closeness^ seems to
dampen husbands'
sense of well-being (Tower and Kasl
Among couples aged 65 and over, husbands are happiest when they emotionally independent wives who don't need much attention. By
1996).
have
wives are happiest andleast depressed when they feel important to their husbands and can depend on them emotionally. Comparative measures of longevity confirm that women get less benefit from marriage than men do. We noted earlier that married people are
contrast,
9^
")
Close Relations
healthier than unmarried people. Significantly, this
is
truer for
men than it
Canadian married men have a life expectancy five years longer than single men, while married women live only one and a half years longer in their already longer lives than unmarried women (Keyfitz 1988). The precise causal connection between marriage and longevity is yet to be determined. All we can say is that, whatever biological benefit marriage confers, it confers more of it on men. Men also gain more satisfaction from marriage because men and is
for
women. As
women hold
a result,
different structural positions in society.
power. They get paid
the as
less
same level
of
many benefits Even
if
life
less,
satisfaction as
and
Women,
as a group,
and employers discriminate against them in other ways. Because they do not as often occupy positions of social or political power equal to men, women are more vulnerable to exploitation. Thus, even before marriage, women are less able to achieve have
society
men and, then, are less likely to derive
after marriage.
women
marriage yielded
nancial benefit, they
would
as
much mental, emotional, and fimen because they had invested
profit less than
where the spouses have children to care for. As we will see in Chapter 5, "The Domestic Division of Labour, Gender, and Housework," women still do the lion's share of the housework, whether or not they also work outside the home. When the household division of labour is unequal (favouring husbands), wives especially employed wives are more likely to become unhappy and depressed (Pina and Bengston 1995). A bad marriage is far worse, especially for women, than singlehood or divorce, which explains why many people divorce or avoid marrying more. This
is
especially true
—
in the first place. Yet despite all these to
be more satisfying
for
both
—
gender differences, marriage tends than never marrying or
men and women
being single again after separation or divorce.
Good Communication We have saved the most important factor in marital satisfaction for last: it good communication. Some of the problems we have discussed so far can be solved only by choosing a mate wisely, developing better coping skills, rekindling romance, or reorganizing the household division of labour is
and increasing equity. But most problems can be significantly improved by working on spousal communication issues. Both quantity and quality of communication are important in relationship dynamics. Quantityjneans how qftenspouse^ talk with each other. The quality^of spousal communication includes (1) how open spouses are, (2)Tiow well they listen, (3) how attentive and responsive they are, and (4) whether ahd'CSTTolvRat extent they confide in each other. These are
all
important to the establishment of a good,
satisfying relationship.
Successful couples
schedules and
little
make
lots of conversation,
even
if
they have tight
time to spend together or the topics of conversation are
Chapters
trivial.
Ways
of Being Close
97
How much time spouses spend in discussion influences their satis-
engage in much more communication than dissatisfied couples, who engage in little communication on most of the topics commonly discussed by marital couples (Richmond 1995). Put another way, satisfied couples chit-chat: they make small talk, banter, and joke around. Dissatisfied couples talk less, or mainly talk about weighty matters when they talk at all. faction with the relationship.
More
satisfied couples
Communication and Gender Communication
is
a
gendered relationship challenge,
in the sense that
women perceive more communication problems than men, and likely to perceive men as the source of these problems. Men, on
are
more
the other
hand, view the communication problem,
if it is a problem at all, as mutually and O'Flaherty 1996). Some supposed gender differences in language are stereotypical and have not been empirically confirmed. However, researchers have found gender differences in such dimensions as how much women and men talk, length of utterance, use of qualifying phrases, swearing, breaking of silences, and compliment styles (O'Donohue and Crouch 1996; Tannen 1993). There are also differences in the emotional content of the talk, with women typically being more expressive of emotions than men. So, men and women spe ak differently, and this difference can become a problem. Consider an important form of marital communication called debriefing conversation about what happened during the day. Men view their debriefing talk as hav ing an informative report function, that is, to bring their spouse up to speed on currenl evehtsTWbrnen, for their part, see debriefing talk as having an equally important emotionaJor rapport function; that is, as chit-chat and a way of keeping in touch emotionally (VangellsH and Banski 1993). In women's view, the talk may be about current events at home or at work, but the real purpose is downloading grievances, receiving and providing support, and renewing contact with the mate. Homogamy between partners, which we discussed earlier, is one factor that significantly increases the likelihood of easier and better communication. People with a similar history, who grew up believing similar things and behaving in similar ways, have an easier time talking with each other. Members of homogamous marriages also have more similar expectations about the role that each is to fill in the marriage. So homogamy increases the likelihood each mate will satisfy the other by behaving in the expected
shared
(Eells
—
ways. This advantage
when both partners
is
especially valuable in the early stages of marriage,
try to define their respective roles.
Encoding and Idioms Communication group
is
to another.
the transmission of information from one person or
To transmit information
successfully, the sender
must
")
98
)
Close Relations
Scenes from A man's viewpoint
is
men's magazine. The
a
given
Marriage in this article
man and his wife who had very how to spend their money. The their old kitchen table
place, contrary to
from a
article tells the story of a
different ideas
on
feud springs from
which Karen decided to
what she and Bob had
re-
earlier
decided. Bob thought the kitchen table, though old,
was
still In
working order and did not need to
be replaced, although Karen saw an aesthetic rea-
son to purchase a new one.
The
writer. Bob,
goes on
to talk
riages.
seemed
differ-
ences of our parents' generation and today's mar-
to wait
on
recalls his
how
his
mother always
dad and looked
at
an adoring love." Bob points out that
man and
marriage, the
the
individually" instead of
the other. He
woman
today's
try to "flourish
one partner
comments that
him "with in
sacrificing for
his wife "in her opin-
never misses a stride." He supports her
ion,
tempt
at-
for perfection.
The changing trend of attitude towards marriage is
about the
He fondly
reflected in the writer's
ried not for security or
even
kids, but as a
comment: "We got mar-
sex or companionship or
way to come
to ourselves."
Source: Adapted from "Scenes from a Marriage," Dad's Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2000. Reprinted courtesy of Mimi Kim.
present the message encoded as clearly as possible. That way, the receiver
can understand the message with the least loss of meaning.
Sometimes, problems in communication arise from one person assuming that the other person is using the same codes (or shorthand). A word, phrase, or even type of body language can have profoundly different meanings for different people. It is partly to avoid these problems that many couples develop elements of their own private language to use with each other. Such a language involves the use of idioms. Couples often create idioms to separate their relationship from others. By using a different language, they are defining themselves as a couple, both as a notice to outsiders and as a reminder to themselves of their special relationship. These idioms take a variety of forms: for example, special pet names for each other, "inside" jokes about other people, words or phrases that denote intimate activities (e.g., for sexual behaviour or parts of the body), special or ritual activities, occasions, or places, and so on. The use of idioms also improves communication, because the couple has defined their meanings together. This vastly decreases misunderstanding. As a result, satisfied couples use more idioms than couples who report lower levels of marital satisfaction.
Non-verbal Communication
^
Another important part of successful communication
is
the encoding
and de-
coding of non-verbal information. Non-verbal communicationjncludes posture, the^irection of the gaze,
and hand
dissatisfied couples are particularly
prone
position. Researchers find that
to
misunderstanding each other's
Ways
Chapters
99
of Being Close
non-verbal cues. This lack of understanding can cause problems, especially
when a person's non-verbal cues contradict the speaker's verbal cues. ample,
if
one partner
is
For ex-
apologizing sincerely, and the other spouse mis-
reads the non-verbal signals as insincerity, a simple n\iscue can turn into a full-blown argument. Non-verbal accuracy increases over time in marriages,
but
it
more
increases
for those
who are satisfied with their marriages.
Rules for Successful Communication may be easier when we are already satisfied with our mar-
Talking openly ital
relationship.
However, good communication
matic result of a good relationship. Couples
who
is
hardly ever the auto-
love each other intensely
and are committed to one another may still have to learn to talk effectively, and it may take them a long time. Like all our other social skills, communication is something we learn, and continue to learn, throughout our lives.
Love Stories No matter the late is
details of our courtship,
them not only
currently faring,
indicates it
how
how we
re-
the relationship
can also be an amazingly ac-
They
finish
each other's sentences. There
emphasis on consensus and
And there's
ing.
joint
a great deal of
pressions of fondness for one another."
Was
Couples whose relationship
it
love at
first
sight for into
you and your spouse?
him
in
the produce aisle
and had a great conversation about grapefruits. Did you meet her at a party and like the didn't get
mad even
after
way she
you spilled that drink
ratives are
spouses who don't remember
Married couples are often asked to describe that
have any money or time
we in
tell
the story without
those narratives
much ado,
may be more
yet
imbedded
than a simple saga
of romance. Our stories also contain important clues to what's right or
No matter the late
wrong with our marriages.
details of our courtship,
them not only
indicates
how the
how we
re-
relationship
is
currently faring.... In
a stable marriage, "partners talk
about their
re-
a professor of
psychology
at the University of
these
wedding song
really small since for
we never woman
each other," one
stated. "A few times with the kids or as a family
and that's about
We
all
it."
walk around with the stories of our
tionship
in
rela-
our heads. These narratives constantly
evolve based on our current emotions.
they affect both
how we
feel
In
today and
doing so,
how
we'll
treat our spouse tomorrow. They can indicate which
of us are
lationship in a very positive way," notes Gottman,
their
their narIt's
their first Christmas together.
"The happy times are
encounter or candlelit dinner. Most of the time
moments,
vague and unenthusiastic.
and can't recollect
ex-
souring not only have
a harder time recalling shared
on her?
first
is
a tot of
spontaneous
curate indicator of what's to come.
Maybe you bumped
is
decision-mak-
filled
with regrets and which are looking to-
wards the future with high hopes.
So go ahead. Describe that chance encounter or friendship-turned-romance that led to your nup-
Washington. "They remember a
lot
about how they
tials.
met and about various periods
in
their marriage.
to
it,
But this time, don't just
tell
your story. Listen
too.
Source: Suzanne Leonard. 1995. Psychology Today, Nov/Dec, 43-45Reprinted with permission from Psychology Today Magazine, Copyright® (1995 Sussex Publishers,
Inc.)
-)
lOOj)
Close Relations
Researchers find that dissatisfied couples are particularly prone to misunderstanding each other's non-verbal cues.
What counts
communication varies over time and however, most people agree that certain forms of communication harm the relationship because they undermine the listener's self-esteem. For example, personal insults, ridicule, questioning a person's authority or competence, or dismissing or belittling the person's achievements, are negative, hurtful, even emotionally abusive, forms of communication. Yet, not communicating is sometimes just as harmful as communicating negatively. Giving a partner the cold shoulder can sometimes hurt even more than a personal insult. Some rules of successful communication do emerge from sociological research on families. One purpose of communication is to convey information, either of a factual or an emotional nature. The first rule then is that communication must be clear if it is to be effective. This not only pertains to the encoding/decoding nature of communication discussed earlier but also suggests that both partners should say whajjhe^mean andjneanwhat they say. This rule may seem self-evident. However, it is surprising how many spouses regularly fail to observe it. Part of the problem is that many learned at an early age that communication is not only a tool for making our thoughts and feelings known but also a powerful tool for hurting and controlling people. So, often, they speak in veiled ways, and listen for veiled insults, hints, or compliments. as good, effective
across cultures. In our
own
society,
Chapter 3
Ways
101 ^
of Being Close
The second golden rule of communication is: Be willing to hear and to to your partner's comments, complaints, and criticisms. A key to establishing and sustaining good communication is the recognition of our own deficiencies and a sincere willingness to work on remedying them. Communication is important at all stages of a close relationship, but it c an be _ respond
especially
nportant in the beginning. This
ir
eymoon period
there
is
an increased
is
because during the so-called hon-
other as well as a strong desire to please and to son.
It is
during
this
communication of the understand the other per-
sensitivity to the
period that couples establish the basic interactional pat-
terns of the marriage. Indicators of marital quality, such as the
a couple uses in solving problems, are often
first
observed
methods
that
at this time.
Later, often during transition periods, other behaviours,
such as the
establishment of meaningful family rituals, can help a couple to establish
Among couples with small children, marital satisfaction who have create djamily rituals and believe that these rituals are important. Such rituals may include regular daily events, for exand project is
stability.
highest for people
ample, such as having dinner together, weekly events such as a Sunday
af-
ternoon outing, or seasonal events such as holidays together.
Ways
to Increase Marital Well-being
Marriages are emotionally satisfying only say that the spouses
feel the
marriage
important that both spouses
It is
and maintain the
is
if
they are "good," which
is
to
giving them something they value.
feel this
way. Marriages must increase if the marriage is to
participants' sense of well-being
survive. Social science evidence shows that marriages that fail to satisfy whether because of dissimilarity of the spouses, absence of love, too little intimacy, too much conflict (or abuse or violence), or poor communica-
—are
tion
less likely to survive.
Ultimately, marital quality (or satisfaction) depends
on
a couple's abil-
adapt effectively in the face olstressful even ts, given their own enduring vulnerabilities (Karney and Bradbury 1995). Every person, and ity to
every couple, has vulnerabilities. ful
events and must find
survive.
From
ways
And every person and couple faces stress-
of adapting or coping
this perspective
on
to increase marital well-being: (1) (2)
by
if
the relationship
satisfaction, there are
by
is
to
only three ways
better adapting to stressful events,
better avoiding stressful events,
and
(3)
by reducing the couple's
stock of vulnerabilities.
Many couples try to increase their marital well-being on their own and do so
successfully. Others seek help with their family-related
problems from
and friends, disand sympathetic (but unspecialized) advisors such as priests /minis-
a variety of others. These include people such as family creet
ters /rabbis /mullahs, family doctors or lawyers, or teachers. Little is
known
about the effectiveness of the advice these sources provide. Sometimes (per-
102_J)
Close Relations
haps
a lot
more
often than
we would suppose) people talk with wise amaAnd they talk to
teurs: bartenders, cabbies, dental assistants, hairdressers.
TV and
radio talk
show
hosts increasingly,
it
seems, or write to newspa-
per advice columnists. Others, or sometimes the
same people, consult specialized adviand marriage and family
sors, including psychologists, psychiatrists,
therapists (MFT).
Does Marital Therapy Work? A survey of the outcomes of marital and family therapy finds moderate but significant
effects (Shadish et al 1995). In short, yes,
therapy does gen-
Of course, couples who seek MFT want to be helped so the odds that they will be helped by the process.
erally help couples. this increases
No consideration of theories about the family, specifically, about marital satisfaction,
can be complete without some discussion of family ther-
would drive all therapies, just as they do in the best-developed areas of medicine. Conversely, no family theory would be considered proven until it had yielded testable and verified results in clinical, therapeutic trials. Regrettably, however, we do not live in apies. In a perfect world, theories
a perfect world. Today, retical basis or
many
family therapies continue without a theo-
ignore the therapeutic literature as though they stand to
learn nothing from clinical trials that, whatever their conceptual grounds,
improve family functioning in dramatic ways. Indeed, only a few researchers on family issues, most notably, Gottman (1979) and Notarius and Johnson (1982), try to link therapeutic approaches to social science research on marital interaction. The difficulties we have in making sense of research on treatment efhave
with the problems of cause-effect discussed throughout this chapter. As well, there are problems of generalizing from sociological research to everyday clinical practice, and vice versa. For example, randomized experiments may yield different answers from nonfectiveness
to do, first,
randomized experimental studies of MFT, which, in turn may yield different answers from non-experimental (observational) studies of cUnical outcomes. Beyond that, therapists practise a variety of treatments. So, we are far from being able to say conclusively how well marital therapy works, or what kind of treatment works best for what kinds of problems.
Overall Assessments of Treatment The findings on treatment effectiveness vary widely, but there
is
gen-
agreement that marital therapy can be effective in reducing marital conflict and promoting marital satisfaction, at least in the short term (Bray and Jouriles 1995). Research examining the long-term efficacy of eral
Ways
Chapters
^03 ^
of Being Close
couples therapy for the prevention of marital separation and divorce sparse but promising.
The treatment couples do not
literature, like the research literature,
know how
shows
that
is
many
handle the bad feelings that are an inherent byproduct of the differences between people. These bad feelings are unexpected and ironic: After all, the overwhelming majority of couples begin with to
and great hopes, yet divorce still claims more than one-third of all first Many researchers have concTuded^hatTlnstea^Tjf "therapy; unhappy couples need to learn crucial psychological skills, called "psychoeducation," to help them avoid escalating conflict (Marano 1997). Though bad feelings and conflicts cannot be avoided, they can at least be kept in check. Sometimes, the goal of the therapist, or of one or both parties, may be to eliminate conflict without solving (or even recognizing) the problem that is causing the conflict due to issues of cost, immediacy, or tolerance of partner(s). However, if the underlying problem is spousal inequality, family true love
marriages.
poverty, or alcohol addiction, helping a couple to avoid escalating
its
conflicts
—
may it is
merely mask the problem temporarily. In the long term, therapy if to succeed has to address the underlying issues that produce conflict:
—
the issues
we discuss throughout this book.
Whom
Does Marital Therapy Help?
Whether a treatment program is effective is determined in part by the treatment goal. Many of the "successes" of marital therapy are partial successes in the sense that
some
goals are accomplished while others are not.
It
de-
pends, then, on the defined goal of the treatment. Is
the goal, for example, to
improve the well-being of the relationship
as a whole, or of a particular spouse? Increasingly, marital therapists are
seeing just one marital partner, and the therapists need to consider methods
mode (Bennun 1997). It is not one spouse helps the relationship nor that helping the relationship helps either or both spouses. Some spouse-aided therapy with depressed patients leads to reduced depression and less dysfunctional thinking. However, there is no evidence that this treatment affects marital satisfaction or communication and expressed emotion between the spouses of treating relationship distress within this clear that helping
(Emanuels, Zuurveen, and
Emmelkamp
1997).
For some, couples therapy produces improvement in both individual psychological functioning and relationship satisfaction. This shows that
couples therapy can accomplish both goals simultaneously, while individ-
and McCormick 1997). One study (Vansteenwegen 1996a) finds that seven or more years after completing couples therapy, the individual changes were longer lasting than changes in the marital relationship itself. Thus, often, therapists must decide whether ual therapy cannot (Hannah, Luquet,
to
apply psychological theories to help individual
clients in a troubled
mar-
Close Relations
104_J
Some
couples' therapy produces improvement
in
both individual psychological functioning and rela-
tionship satisfaction.
riage, or to
apply sociological theories to help improve the relationship
Sometimes,
it is
Among
impossible to do both.
some respond to marital therapy better Baucom, and Hamby (1996) find that what they call wife-dominant couples improve more than any others from therapy. Egalitarian couples continue to function well before and after therapy, while anarchic (and to a lesser degree, husband-dominant) couples change little and distressed couples,
than others. Gray
'
\| '
itself.
Little,
\iI
continue to function poorly.
Concluding Remarks There are no guarantees in life, and no fixed rules we can follow to ensure a satisfying marriage. Yet, one reason we place as much importance on our marriage and family
good deal
life is
that these are areas over
which we can have a
of control.
In our culture,
we choose our spouses and decide whether to have chil-
dren,
when to have them, and how many to have, at least to some degree.
may
divorce
if
we no
perhaps encourage adult children so on.
It is
because
we
have some control that
We
longer want to be married to our spouse, remarry, to leave the house,
adopt new children, and
think of our family lives as domains over which
we
we
also expect that they will bring us great satisfac-
Chapter 3
tion.
and
Ways of Being Close
^
105 ^
We assume this satisfaction will result if only we ntake the right choices the right decisions. But
is this
assumption valid?
and wrong decisions? As we have seen throughout this chapter, there are a few things we can do to increase our chances of finding satisfaction in marriage. The first is to excise the myth that happiness is all wrapped up in finding the perfect mate. No one is perfect or not for long. Conflict is bound to arise, and a successful marriage is one in which conflict is managed well. As we've said before, the key to this is good communication. Long before marriage, couples should start to discuss what they expect from marriage, what they want from life, what they are willing to give up, and what they are not. Most people who are about to get married discuss few of the important things that could lead to conflict in the future. They may discuss whether they are going to have children, when, and how many. They may devote less time to thinking through together the implications for each of them of this decision. However, they are unlikely to discuss the possibility that one of them may be infertile, and how they would deal with that. Nor do they often discuss the possibility of giving birth to a child with a disability, or of having one spouse lose a job. Couples who are planning to get married may discuss where they want to live. However, they rarely discuss what they will do if one of them gets a promotion that forces them to move to another city. Nor do they discuss the possibility that their parents will reach an age when they will no longer be able to take care of themselves. Will they let their parents come to Uve with them, or put them in a nursing home? Are there
right
and wrong
choices, right
—
No one can anticipate—much less solve— all of their problems in advance.
A marriage is, in the end, a plan to
People
who
try to solve problems together. problems together won't be married for long, or if married, they will be miserably unhappy. When it comes to marriage, or to any kind of close relationship, we can only regulate our expectations by communicating with one another. Only in that way are you likely to have some idea of what is in store when you say "I do." At the same time, be aware that society has socialized you to pair off and marry without having even the faintest idea what is in store!
can't solve
Chapter Summary In this
chapter
we have seen
by adhering to a set of strict
that achieving a satisfying marriage cannot be accomplished
rules. Despite this,
as the notion of perfection, which
member that
conflict is inevitable
is
dull.
and not as insurmountable as
good communication, many couples Another inevitable outcome of life.
some assumptions may be
impossible and probably
it
discarded, such
Couples should
re-
seems. By relying on
pull through. life
and
living is the
Changes cannot always be anticipated, and mistakes
unexpected, will
happen.
in
marriage and
We
have learned
106j)
Close Relations
that negotiation in marriage
uitable the
power
key to worl
2l8 ^
Close Relations
time when, because of declines in the siblings to help
them care
for their
fertility rate,
aged
most people have fewer
relatives.
Caring for frail, elderly parents puts an emotional strain on adult sons and daughters. Daughters experience more distress than sons, due to interference with work and a strained relationship with the parent (Mui 1995a). So far, research has not provided reliable estimates of caregiving in the working population, or accurately identified types of work interference (Tennstedt and Gonyea 1994; Carswick 1997). Even so, it is clear that regular caregiving interferes significantly with the caregiver's work life. The common result is stress and costs to personal and job life (Gottlieb, Kelloway, and Fraboni 1994). Caring for elderly family members often leads to burnout, particularly in
women. Unchanged
gender-role expectations
mean
that
men do not as
readily accept responsibility for providing care. Because formal caregiving
services are limited
and expensive, caregiver burnout
is
a likely result
(McDaniel 2001a). Note, however, that it is a societal problem, the result of fit between changes in our material conditions of life and our cultural values and norms (Alford-Cooper 1993). Since it is a socia culture lag, a lack of
etal
problem, social policy or social change must address
it.
Additionally, caregiver burnout and other psychosomatic
symptoms
may occur because people charged with caring for an ill or aged parent have never resolved conflicts or ambivalent feelings toward their parents. Poor
The Price of Eldercare According to
a joint
study by the University of
Alberta and Statistics Canada, the selfless peo-
who
ple
take care of their elderly parents and
grandparents have saved the national health-care
system $5
billion a year.
But the report goes on to
conclude that the economic impact of those millions of hours of
unpaid work runs deeper: the
caregivers are silently causing hidden problems for If
themselves.
care for elderly at
are
in
and psychological their
prime
strain, but
because many
earning years— their thirties
forties— they also sacrifice time
home
were replaced by
who
or in another unpaid situa-
full-time paid workers,
cost the health-care system
it
more than $5
when they could
sion or RRSP.
That raises the risk that they are causing a delayed form of economic damage to their own "a greater risk of becoming
frail,
mary of the
lives,
isolated
running
and poor in
a
sum-
findings.
The study argues that better support
would
now— including more home
billion
the elderly and more ways
annually. However, the workers themselves pay a
and
be earning an income and contributing to a pen-
seniors themselves," the university says
the approximately 2.1 million Canadians to
tion
tional
care,
for the elderly
more homes
for
to help the unpaid care-
givers— will save the taxpayer money
in
the future.
harsh price. Not only do caregivers suffer from emo-
Source:
Tom
Spears. 2000. "Family, friends do
80% of eldercare:
study" The Ottawa Citizen, )anuary
Reprinted with permission from
Tom Spears and The Ottawa
2,
A3.
Citizen.
219
Stress and Violence
Chapter 7
parenting can produce a variety of problems in children, yet these are the
same children who may be called upon to care for their parents a few decades later. Showing attentive affection to parents who elicit feelings of anger or resentment will, in the long run, take a toll on the caretaker's mental health. Consider these stress-producing situations of providing care to adult relatives:
Dementia. Caring for a relative with dementia usually affects the
•
caregiver's mental
and physical
and often
health,
also the health
well-being of other family members. However, using
many
and
care-
giving or social services can mitigate the effects (Lieberman and Fisher 1995). Caregivers report that in the for parents
first
two years
of caring
with dementia, friends are the most important source of
emotional support. Siblings provide practical help but can cause interpersonal stress. Family caregivers
nursing homes experience immediate
who
relief
put their relatives in
from feelings of over-
load and tension. However, a continuing concern and sense of guilt leads to long-term stress (Zarit •
Cancer.
and Whitlatch
1993).
A diagnosis of cancer in a parent is particularly distressing
young children, especially females. So, for example, adolescent girls whose mothers develop cancer report more symptoms of anxiety and depression than girls whose fathers have cancer, or boys whose mothers or fathers have cancer. Largely this is because of the need to take on tasks that have fallen on their shoulders (Grant and Compas 1995). to
Heart Surgery. For spouses of patients undergoing open-heart
•
surgery, the worst stresses are chronic illness, sleep disturbance, and fear of death. Caregivers report that, after surgery is complete, they
community services work schedules as well as dimin-
urgently need support groups and referrals to
due
to considerable alterations in
ished satisfaction with sex and spousal communication (Monahan,
Kohman, and Coleman •
HIV/AIDS.
1996).
In addition to the care required for people with
the stigma associated with of
HIV /AIDS
leads to depression
AIDS,
and sense
burden among family members (Demi, Bakeman, and Moneyham
1997). tion
The patient experiences major
and the
stress
from
this stigmatiza-
and hopeand Frierson
resulting isolation. Fear, shame, dependency,
lessness complicate bereavement (Lippman, James, 1993). In heterosexual couples
with an HIV-positive partner, two-
member is aware of the members who are aware,
thirds report that at least one other family
HIV-positive condition. Of the family only half are supportive.
Gender dition
is
is
the only predictor of psychological distress
where
this
concerned. After controlling for race, age, and education,
con-
women
experience far more psychological distress than men, on a variety of dimensions.
Women have particular emotional difficulties in dealing with this ill-
ness (Kennedy et
al 1995).
')
220
^
Close Relations
— whatever the relation—have a distinctive profile. Most are women,
Overall, unpaid caregivers to the disabled
ship or cause of disability
and married, and most are the child, parent, or partner of Few receive any formal assistance, although many receive informal support from family and friends. Nearly half the caregivers report they have experienced major health problems of their own in the past year. Indeed, two-thirds say they feel exhausted at the end of each day. Half feel they have more to do than they can handle (Schofield and Herman 1993). Research (Michelson and Tepperman 2000) re-analyzing Statistic Canada's General Social Survey 12 (1998) reveals that caregivers spend more time at home and less at an external workplace than the non-caregivers do. Perhaps more significant is that caregivers spend only half the time in other people's homes. Caregivers spend much more time than do non-caregivers with their own spouse, not least because this person is most likely to be the one for whom care is given. For similar reasons, they spend more time with parents or in-laws who live in the same household and with other people who live there as well. So caregivers do not suffer from a lack of contact, and are alone significantly less in the day than non-caregivers. In short, they aged 30
to 59,
the care recipient.
tend to be isolated with kin. Caregivers also have a greater number of episodes of activity during the day than non-caregivers This suggests a certain amount of responsibility to one or more adults Regarding activities, caregivers do more domestic work than non-caregivers, when not spending time directly on caregiving; the same is true with time devoted to shopping and services.
Reactions to this lifestyle are reflected in feelings of time pressure.
Among the caregivers, 46 percent agreed with the statement, "I feel that I just don't have time for fun anymore," compared to 36 percent of the non-caregivers. Some 44 percent of the former "feel constantly under stress," compared to 36 percent of the latter. Similarly, 31 percent of the former would like to spend more time alone, compared to only 23 percent of the latter. Respondents were also asked about how much stress they felt in the
previous two weeks.
Among the caregivers, 35 per cent said they felt "a lot"
compared to only 20 percent of the non-caregivers. main source of stress, 46 percent of the caregivers cited compared to only 19 percent of the non-caregivers. The latter were
of stress in that period,
When asked family,
more
their
work. Feelings of time crunch are significantly less among those spending more time on such activities as watching TV or reading the newspaper. likely to cite
On the positive side, the most enjoyable activity of tiiose done on the day reported
is
typically
found
in the respondents'
homes, whether a caregiver
more likely to choose their spouse/partner as the person present during the most enjoyable times; children under age 15 are seldom part of the most enjoyable activity. or not. Caregivers are significantly
Chapter
In short, Michelson
and Tepperman
among caregivers,
pressure are greater
7
Stress and Violence
221
find that, although feelings of time
they are not
unhappy
or unsatisfied
While they wish to be alone somewhat more, the crunch appears to come more from their pre-adult children than from being with and
with their
lives.
taking care of other adults, particularly their spouses.
Both the
and these findings indicate that caretakers are diswomen and less likely to have been in the paid the previous two weeks, factors that typically explain many
literature
proportionately likely to be
labour force in
such differences in everyday behaviour. Caregiving, paid work, and gender are
all significantly
dently related to feelings of stress. This analysis shows that
but indepen-
when
adults
take care of other adults at home, there are a variety of impacts (through feelings of responsibility rooted in the
home, through
trade-offs of time
within the daily ration of 24 hours, and through consequent feelings of time pressure and
Although caregivers differ in their characteristics from non-caregivers, with some of the clear differences coming from variables with a long history of strong and helpful explanation (gender and work status), the impact of caregiving is significant and independent. These data also suggest that it is more the responsibility for having to take care of another adult person that is central to the issue of stress, not the absolute
stress).
amount of time
given.
Recent American studies suggest that 35 percent of
all
caregivers are
over 65 y o ar»of age (The Johns Hopkins Medical Letter 2000). One of the largest growth sectors of adult caretaking lies in the realm of retired people taking care of an aging and/or infirm spouse. The difficulties in doing so are greater, insofar as the caregiver is more likely to have difficulties of his or her own. Because the Canadian time-use surveys have been representative samples of the population of 15-64 year olds, this older, very serious segment of the
community
caretaking
Such
a survey
is
is
missed.
only as good as the relevance of the data gathered.
The Johns Hopkins group occurrence
(2000) also notes that depression
is
a
common
among caregivers.
Despite a great deal of evidence that shows
women experience more
caregiving stress than men, researchers disagree about the cause of this stress. In a major meta-analysis of earlier studies of caregiving. Miller and Cafasso (1992) find no significant gender differences in total caregiver involvement or in the impairment of the frail care recipient. Female care-
givers are slightly tasks,
more
but their tendency
size of the load they bear.
than men to the
promote
As
and household burden is out of proportion to the
likely to carry out personal care
to report a greater It
seems
effects of stress
likely that
women are more
vulnerable
because of early socialization experiences that
sensitivity to relationships
and internalized responses
to strain.
Miller reports elsewhere (1990, 311), "wives' greater experience of
health strains [in caregiving] appears to be determined by a combination
222
"^
Close Relations
and traditional gender-role socialization." As such, change with changes in gender-role socialization.
of situational factors likely to
it is
Coping with Stress Many families deal with stress successfully. Families learn to cope by taking advantage of the resources they have available and by organizing their lives around handling their problems. Support from family, friends, and com-
munity agencies buffers the impact of caregiving, work, and family-role strain. A supportive work environment also reduces physical and emotional strains (Lechner 1993).
categories of resources — material and emotional/ —are key in deciding which families can withstand crises
Two broad psychological successfully.
They include money, time, and energy. Stressor events always use up large amounts of all these resources. When a family member develops a chronic illness, families have to pay for costly medication (even in Canada if the person is not in hospital, which happens more and more with health care cutbacks) and family members have to take time off from work to look after the ill person. Time and money alleviate these strains. Psychological and emotional resources are more difficult to define. They include the ability to accept that the stressor event has Material resources are easiest to define.
taken place, talk honestly about one's reactions, begin the process of adjust-
ment soon afterward, and acknowledge
the need for help from others.
Certain kinds of families are better than others at providing support.
Other things being equal, flexible and cohesive families have the highest level of well-being. Cohesive families are families in which the members feel attached to the family and to one another. Flexible families are families in which the members can change their ideas, roles, and relationships as the situation demands. Families in which cohesion and flexibility are weak have the lowest levels of coping with stress, because they can give their members
little
support.
However, even with the support and assistance of others, many people still have trouble handling the stresses life throws their way. In these cases, the family situation deteriorates, communication worsens, and unhappiness increases. When the family's ability to cope breaks down, individuals in that family each try to handle the stress on their own. Unfortunately, their individual efforts often end up increasing the stress and discomfort of the family as a whole. Intense and prolonged stress can lead to the breakup of the family. We can even see the decision to break up the family as a form of coping; however, this is personal coping. The family is unable to cope as a social unit of interacting individuals; that
they
must separate from
is
why members
the unit to help
of the family decide
them cope better.
A dysfunctional
Chapter
7
Stress and Violence
223 ^
is one that works so badly that its members would be better off on own. Dysfunctional families are notable for chronic conflict, child abuse
family their
or medical neglect, psychiatric pathology, or alcoholism (White et al 1984).
Families under the strain of chronic illness and treatment often reproduce and magnify their most troublesome characteristics. Families that were happy and healthy continue to be happy and healthy. However, in families with histories of drinking, marital strife, sibling rivalry, or financial instability, problems that begin as minor ones may explode into major ones.
Violence among family members is probably as old as the institution of the itself. However, the systematic study of family violence is a new
Violence
family
branch of academic research. publication of the ical injuries that
first
It
emerged only
in the 1960s,
launched by the
detailed case studies of seemingly inexplicable phys-
young children had
suffered.
How big a problem is family violence in our society? No one knows for sure. A large part of the difficulty in determining the extent or prevamethods used to measure To begin with, we have the problem of defining violence. Students of family violence come at the issue from a host of disciplines that include anthropology, sociology, psychology, social work, medicine, and criminology. Within each discipline, there are competing definitions of what counts as family violence and a variety of ways of measuring its extent. Thus, the lence of family violence in our society lies in the it.
studies that they conduct are often hard to compare.
The term "family violence" did not even exist before 1930 (Busby 1991, Some people must have been aware that violence did occur within families; however, an overwhelming social consensus sanctified family privacy, keeping researchers from asking, and victims from talking about, fam336).
ily violence.
'
That consensus broke
down in the
1960s, for a variety of reasons.
yf Family violence is an umbrella term covering a range of different kinds /ybf violence, among different sets of family members. The oldest recognized form of violence is physical violence (Busby 1991, 335), which ranges from such acts as slapping, shaking, pushing, punching, and kicking to using (or threatening to use) a weapon, such as a knife or a gun or even a baseball bat, with the intention of scaring, hurting, maiming, or killing. In addition, we need to include sexual violence, such as child sexual abuse, incest, and marital rape, which is likely to have a component of physical violence as well. Due •
to
its
qualitatively different nature, researchers categorize sexual violence
separately from non-sexual physical violence ^
and study
it
separately.
Researchers also study non-violent forms of emotional and psychological abuse,
which include anything from emotional neglect to psychoThe reasons for including non-physical forms of abuse in
logical torture. I
examinations of family violence are twofold. I
First,
emotional abuse often
22li
~)
Close Relations
accompanies violent
and, second, emotional abuse
acts,
destructive of the self-esteem
is
often as painful or
and healthy emotional development
of
its
vic-
tims as physical violence. Sociologists see
two additional problems
in
determining the prevalence
We generally lack access toJiospiTal re cot^s^nd tD"cases
of family yinlence:
gathered by social workers-^cause Jhese are confid ential^ASoTadequate
sampling and measurement
shame
is difficult.
Family violence remains a source of
most of its perpetrators as well as for its victims, and it continues to be largely hidden from public view. Even if people were completely forthright about what goes on behind closed doors in their families, measurement would still be complicated by the variation in what counts as violence, from one culture to another and often from one person to another. for
In spite of the difficulties in identifying family violence, sociologists
have developed better techniques for estimating its prevalence. According to one such estimate, "{a)t least one form of physical violence (slaps and pushes) occurs in more than half the homes in the United States" (Busby 1991, 374). Consider these facts about the extent of domestic violence in our society: •
Domestic violence remains the leading cause of
injuries to
women
more common than muggings, auto accidents, and cancer deaths combined (Dwyer, Smokowski, and Bricout 1995). aged 15
•
to 44,
and
is
Many male abusers (including incest offenders)
use physical, non-
sexual violence directed toward both partners and children living
within their •
The
homes
lifetime
(Stermac, Davidson, and Sheridan 1995).
danger of physical and sexual assault
of episodically homeless, seriously mentally
ill
in the histories
women
and physical battery are normal experiences ulation (Goodman, Dutton, and Harris 1995). that rape
•
Among runaway and
Admissions by the parents
When
pop-
and sexual abuse are commonplace.
(or caretakers)
themselves support the
credibility of these reports (Whitbeck, Hoyt,
ents, in
so high
homeless adolescents, reports of parental
neglect, rejection, violence,
•
is
for this
and Ackley
1997).
sexually abused girls under age 18 complain to their par-
over half the cases the incest continues for more than a year
following disclosure. Parents typically meet the disclosure with disbelief or •
blame the
Hispanic
girl
(Roesler
and Wind
1994).
women report more serious childhood sexual abuse than women do. The perpetrator is, more often than
non-Hispanic white for
Aragon •
member of their extended family rather member or outsider (Arroyo, Simpson, and
non-Hispanic women, a
than a nuclear family 1997).
Though they are similar in many ways to younger abused women, over 50 who are abused by partners or adult children are
women
Chapter 7
inaccurately perceived. often
fail to
As
225
Stress and Violence
a result, current intervention systems
help them (Seaver 1996).
is common, though abuse in lesbian relationships more frequently non-physical than physical (Lockhart, White, and Causby 1994).
•
Lesbian violence
is
Most commonly used today
—
lence
especially, for
in
measuring the extent of domestic vio-
purposes of criminal
—
justice intervention
is
Straus's
The first reliable and valid scale for measuring family violence, the Conflict Tactics Scales measure verbal aggression and physical violence on a continuum. This, in conjunction with a checklist to identify high-risk cases, focuses on two specific criteria. One is whether there have been three or more instances of violence in the previous year. The
Conflict Tactics Scales, developed in 1979.
NUMBER of women and men aged
15 YEARS AND OVER WHO REPORTED VIOLENCE BY A CURRENT OR PREVIOUS SPOUSE, BY TYPE OF VIOLENCE, PAST 5 YEARS (1999)
Figure 7.1
Sexual assault
Male victim
Used or threatened to use a gun or knife
Female victim
Choked Beat Hit with
something
Kicked,
bit
or hit
Slapped Pushed, grabbed or shoved
Threw something Threatened to
hit
Total violence by
any spouse 100
200
300
Number Note:
Some
400
500
600
700
800
of reported incidents
incidences involved multiple types of violence.
Source: Statistics Canada. 2000. Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Prople. Cat. 85-22Z(-XIE.
^
Close Relations
226_J
other
is
the violence of the act or acts. Factors used to rate violence include the
use of a weapon; injuries requiring medical treatment; the involvement of a child,
an animal, or a non-family member; drug or alcohol involvement;
extreme dominance, violence, or surveillance; forced
sex; extensive or repeated
property damage; and police involvement (Straus 1996).
Causes of Violence may be the most perplexing form of violence, as The most obvious is. Why do spouses abuse
Violence between spouses it
raises so
many
questions.
Of equal theoretical interest is the question. Why does an abused spouse stay with her or his abuser? We use the term "spousal violence" in this chapter, but unmarried couples also inflict violence on each other. In fact, one study found severe violence to be five times more likely among cohabiting than married couples (YUo and Straus 1981). Other, more recent research confirms that cohabitors are still more likely than spouses to engage in violent relationships (Jackson 1996). their partners?
Violating the Hippocratic Oath how
Just
pervasive
is
stress
The medical profession
is
and domestic violence? traditionally
ets to the state's 27,000 practising physicians,
seen as a
alerting
them
to
seek counselling
benevolent one, comprised of healers and caregivers
tions, relationship
who take an
The recent
oath to help others.
It
is
perhaps a
lit-
shocking, then, to hear stories of health care pro-
tle
in
Domestic violence
is truly
prevalent
when even those who are choose to take them instead.
trained to
families.
our society
save
lives
hunting
and
rifle.
fatally
An
Fortin said. "It respects
no income or societal guide-
lines.
I
think this
population
teria by
accused of stabbing
doctors
allergist
is
A
plastic
convicted of shooting his wife's lover tal
room.
ended up
All of
surgeon in a
is
is
a reminder that no sector of our
immune
to these things."
Stephen Bergman believes the
cri-
which medical schools judge potential is
flawed,
is
"Medical schools, by and large, select for very
hospi-
achievement-oriented, competitive, and self-cen-
these crimes of violence have tered people
in
how
society spokesperson Frank
allegedly shoots his wife with a
beating his wife.
reminder of
is,"
Psychiatrist Dr.
A dermatologist
drug addic-
problems and stress.
killings are "really a
pervasive violence
fessionals committing acts of violence against their
own
for
Massachusetts courtrooms
in
the
...
they have a risk of being discon-
nected," Bergman
said. That,
past several months.
when combined may cause
with the high stress levels of the job,
Coincidence? Maybe. In
the
wake
doctors to release their aggression
of those killings, the
Medical Society
is
Massachusetts
tive,
in
destruc-
and deadly, ways.
sending out information packSource: "Violence by Doctors Spurs Remedial Action Is
Alerting Physicians to
in
U.S. State;
Seek Counselling,"
(AP)
A Massachusetts Medical
Society
The Vancouver Sun, 2ijuly 2000, A12.
Reprinted with permission of The Associated Press.
Chapter
Stress and Violence
7
^273
Researchers debate the causes of family violence, but
the fact
is
that
we
are
still
unable to detect the relative contribution of any single factor. We can identify correlates of violent behaviour, but a correlate is
not necessarily a cause.
Some argue same
that the
social conditions
poverty, inadequate housing,
unemployment, and the social acceptance, even glorification, produce both of violence domestic violence and violent
—
crime outside the household.
Others argue that a high crime rate fosters an acceptance of aggression and hastens the deterioration of the
family unit, both of which increase domestic violence.
The variables most stronglyJ
C women usually suffer a
decline in their standard of liv-
A classic American study by Lenore Weitzman (1986) estimates a decline
of 73 percent in
women's standard
of livingTcompared to a 42 perc ent^fe^gie
men in the first year after divorce. This drop in living standard occurs even among less-advantaged subgroups, such as African American and Hispanic low-income adults. Most young minority men fare poorly after divorce in absolute economic terms. However, young minority women fare for
even worse, a disparity that stems, either directly or roles as primary child caregivers (Smock 1994). Finnie's (1993)
indirectly,
Canadian research also demonstrates
from women's
that both
men's and
women's income drops as a result of divorce, but women's income drops twice as much, on average. Men tend to recover lost income more quickly than women in the aftermath of divorce. Thus, divorce is much more likely to plunge divorced women into poverty, and keep them there for longer. This
is
particularly true
if
they have children for
whom
they are solely or
largely responsible.
Women usually experience a decline in their standard of living because women typically earn less than men in the paid labour force. Also, they usucustody of the children, which means that fewer dollars have to support a lot more people. And women with children may have taken time out of paid employment to have or stay with the children while they are young, thus reducing their years of income and work experience. Low income is the cause of higher levels of life strains reported by separated women, according to a six-year longitudinal study (Nelson 1994). ally get
W rO^
262")
Close Relations
effects are even more dramatic as single women women who divorced 20 years ago or more are worse
Adverse economic
grow
older. Elderly
than long-term widows, despite their (typically) higher education. is in part because they have not had the benefit of much shared income. In the past even the recent past widows were treated with off
This
—
—
by policy and by law than divorced women, having greater and greater rights to own property on their own and to get mortgages. Divorced women are also more likely to lack informal support systems and to rely on paid helpers (Choi 1995). The gender-related problems we are discussing are nearly universal. For example, divorced people in India and the United States experience similar problems with economic adequacy, social support, and psycho-
more
respect
access to their deceased husband's pensions, for example,
logical well-being. Furthermore, the predictors of divorce adjustment are
similar in both societies.
nomic
reasons, Indian
However,
women
combination of cultural and ecosuffer more hardship than American women.
Three factors are responsible for
for a
this pattern:
Indian women's extreme eco-
nomic dependence on men, traditional Indian cultural beliefs about women and marriage, and the patriarchal organization of the Indian family. The impact of divorce is long lasting. For divorced mothers, for example, stressful events and depressive symptoms heighten dramatically soon after the divorce, but then decline over the next three years. Healing is influenced by such variables as age of mother and child, potential for remarriage, coping skills, social networks, and income changes. Having a steady, satisfying job is associated with higher self-esteem and lower distress among divorced women. A good job provides meaning, social interaction and support, productivity, positive distraction, and, of course, income. Spirituality
helps
some women. Others may
nurturing a healthy body; they
improve
up
take
may
exercise or otherwise focus
take classes or take
may revamp
mental well-being; they ance to give themselves a boost. their
up hobbies
on to
their personal appear-
Effects on Children Traditionally,
many
couples avoided divorce and stayed together "for the
sake of the children." Their concern was, in
some respects, justifiable. Divorce
may have harmful effects for the children involved. However, recent research suggests that many couples might think in terms of breaking up "for the sake of the children." The research shows repeatedly that the effects of divorce, for children, as well as for parents, depend very much on what is
happening
in the family before divorce.
then divorce might provide Since the early 1970s,
If
the family
is
violent, for
example,
relief.
more than
a million
North American children
per year experience parental divorce (Ducibella 1995). Divorce
is
associ-
Chapter 8
263 ^
Divorce
ated with a variety of adverse psychological and health effects in these children. For example, children of divorced parents can display poorer
and psychological adjustment than children from non-divorced homes (Kunz 1992, 352). Parental divorce increases the risk of adolescent depression in two ways. First, it is a source of many secondary problems and stresses that social
cause depression. Second,
it
someEconomic hardships, a common out-
alters youths' reactivity to these stresses,
times increasing the depressive
effects.
come
of divorce for children, also increase the risk of depression (Aseltine
1996).
That these factors go together makes
sort out the
independent
it
challenging for researchers to
effects of divorce per
se.
Children of divorced parents show higher levels of depression and lower levels of self-esteem than normative samples of children from intact
with irrational beliefs and feelings about divorce are most likely to develop behavioural and psychological problems (Skitka and Frazier 1995). This shows the need for counselling that puts the divorce in perspective. As well, children who blame themselves for their families. In particular, children
seem to have particular difficulty adjusting to the sepaThe more recent the separation, the less likely children are to accept it and the worse they feel about it. As they settle into their new living arrange-
parents' problems ration.
ment, distress diminishes (Bussell 1995).
Adolescents from lone-parent and stepparent families generally suffrom lower self-esteem, more symptoms of anxiety and loneliness, more depressed moods, more suicidal thoughts, and more suicide attempts than children from intact families. Among adolescent children with divorced parents, boys appear to have more emotional problems in stepparent families and girls have more problems in lone-parent families (Garnefski and Okma 1996). To the extent that children do suffer from divorce, much of the ill effect stems from one of two sources. One is a diminished sense of personal security; the other is worse parenting. Much of the decreased sense of security may reflect a temporary decline in the parenting provided, possibly due to parental unhappiness or depression, or due to a reduction in the number fer
of parents present.
Separated and divorced parents often have
They may become
frustrated
difficult
problems
to solve.
when they choose, or are forced, to make own desires and beliefs. For example, the
decisions that conflict with their
court
may grant a
the mother
deems
father the right to visit his children periodically,
mother opposes the
visits,
she
may
be extremely frustrated, especially
the children exploit parental differences. For example, children their
though
the father incompetent or even dangerous. Because the
mother, "Well,
Daddy
lets us."
may
if
tell
This causes the mother to feel inse-
cure about her parental practices or resources as she struggles to both fulfill
the child's needs
and be the "favourite" parent, or at
least a liked parent.
264
')
Close Relations
Given her often-reduced
may
financial circumstances, she
not be able to
buy the food or clothes or entertainment that the child's father can afford, which adds to her frustration. Because of these conflicts and frustrations, parents are often too preoccupied to meet their children's needs completely. Failure to agree on custody is a common source of problems after divorce or separation. The child or children can become a pawn in a never-ending war between the parents, sometimes making repeated court appearances necessary. Some parents see the child as a prize rather than a person with needs of his or her own. Visitation or access and child support are often the touchstone issues. Moreover, these problems fail to improve much over time. On the other hand, separation and divorce can improve family functioning, especially if custody rules are clear and agreed-upon, civility is attained, and peaceful order is beneficial to both parents. Compared with sole custody mothers, mothers with joint custody report lower levels of parenting stress and better co-parental relations. This produces a happier set of
which will no doubt lead to better parenting. Teens from divorced families tend to be less well-adjusted than teens from intact families (Muransky and DeMarie-Dreblow 1995). Due to loss of parents,
may feel they have may have assumed
access or reduced access to a biological parent, they less social
support (Clifford and Clark 1995). Also, they
more family
responsibilities,
which could cut
into time they
ously have spent with friends, on sports, or with school
and Lasko 1995). However, it is not the process
might previ-
work (Gonzalez,
Field,
of divorce per se that shapes the children's
adjustment but the family environment
—the degree of parental
conflict, pater-
and Adams 1995). Children in divorced families are children from families that have experienced spousal conflict and dissatisfaction. So we should not focus too much attention on divorce as a cause of children's problems. Instead, we should emphasize what went on and what goes on between family members. The processes within a family matter more than what the family looks like. As we noted in an earlier chapter, studies have shown an association between parental divorce and juvenile delinquency. However, the correlation may be with all forms of "broken homes," not only those broken by divorce nal indifference, or lack of involvement (Weiner, Harlow,
but also those that are structurally intact but emotionally broken. Parental conflict has at least as
damaging an
effect
on children as does divorce. on children seem unwar-
Therefore, predictions of dire effects of divorce ranted. In fact,
many
studies
on the
improve the well-being of children
topic imply that parental divorce
if it
Other things being equal, marriage with the non-residential live
is
better than divorce. Children living
conflict, and with much contact have lower levels of well-being than chilin two-parent families without parental conflict. However, the
in single-parent families
dren who
may
stops parental conflict (Jekielek 1996).
with no parental
father,
still
Chapter 8
well-being of children Uving in peaceful single-parent families that of children living in two-parent families with
degree of parental conflict after divorce
is
is
higher than
much parental conflict. The
more important for the well-being
of children than contact with the departed father. That for the children of divorce to see
265 ^
Divorce
is
to say,
it is
better
Dad without Mom present if parental argu-
ments usually break out when both parents meet (Dronkers 1996). Divorce is also correlated with variations in children's behaviour. For example, in a family that is not abusive, divorce leads to deterioration in children's school performance; increased proneness to crime, suicide, and outof-wedlock births; diminished adult work performance; and likelihood of the children themselves becoming divorced later in life (Galston 1996). The experience of divorce may weaken trust in people and institutions, and impede the capacity to form stable, enduring relationships. These claims have some support. For example, parental divorce and remarriage have strong effects on children's attitudes toward premarital sex, cohabitation, marriage, and divorce. These effects persist even after controlling for parental attitudes (Axinn and Thornton 1993). Thus, children do not merely replicate their parents' values and attitudes toward non-marital sex, marriage, and divorce but develop an approach that incorporates their lived experience. Kozuch and Cooney (1995) note that results from studies using
The well being of children two-parent families with
in
peaceful single-mother families
much
conflict.
is
higher than that of children living
in
266
•)
Close Relations
parental marital status to predict sistent. In their
young
parental marital status predicted only
and
family.
By
adults' attitudes
two
nomically, and hold
earlier, cohabit,
more pro-divorce attitudes.
intergenerational transmission of divorce.
stant, interpersonal It
of five attitudes
seems
toward marriage
contrast, level of parental conflict predicted four of the five.
Children of divorce typically marry
some
have been incon-
own survey of young adults from a variety of backgrounds,
achieve less eco-
All these factors account for
However, holding these con-
problems account for the biggest share of the transmission.
that processes related to parental divorce increase the probability
wiU
that children
learn to exhibit behaviours that interfere with the mainte-
nance of stable and mutually rewarding intimate relationships (Amato
1996).
Divorce is associated with less formal schooling, possibly because young people with divorced parents may have less financial support for college from their family. The support they receive is much more likely to
come from their custodial than non-custodial parent (Grissett and Furr 1994). Thus, the lower educational and occupational attainment of children of divorce is more likely associated with reduced financial support than with a loss of confidence in higher education.
Despite
all
recent research will inevitably
the information
on how divorce negatively affects
children,
on this topic provides little basis for concern that divorce produce problem behaviour. Neither exposure to parental
divorce nor exposure to parental conflict affects the quality of attachment to adult intimates, nor the quality of parenting (Taylor, Parker, and
Roy
1995).
Parent-Child Relations Since divorce often results in the departure of the biological father from the
Although more children on average, adolescents in divorced families get less advice from their fathers and feel less satisfied with paternal support. Adolescents from intact families say they have better relationships with their fathers than do adolescents from divorced or remarried families. The father's departure in a divorce greatly reduces the likelihood his child will name him as someone to whom the child would go for help with a stressful event. However, this outcome may simply be because departure reduces the child's access to his or her father. Those fathers who maintain contact remain important functional people in their children's lives and an important source of support in times of stress (Munsch, Woodward, and family,
and
it
affects father-child relationships most.
fathers are maintaining
ongoing relationships
after the divorce,
Darling 1995).
High marital quality predicts a similar relationship with both parents. However, when marital quality is low, children usually "choose a parent" to
be close
to.
after divorce.
(Booth and
For example, the father-daughter
By
contrast, the
Amato
1994).
tie is
mother-daughter
particularly vulnerable
tie is
especially resilient
Chapter 8
Compared with
those
267 ^
Divorce
who grew up in two-parent families, the adult
children of divorced parents perceive their relationships with both mothers
and
fathers to be of lower quality.
The quality
is
generally two or
three times lower for fathers than for mothers. Usually,
memories
of
problems can explain the effect of parental divorce on relationship quality. Children of divorce also have much less current contact with their parents than adults from two-parent families (Webster and Herzog 1995). Although many stepfamilies work very well, they can pose problems for too, a variety of reasons. People form stepfamilies after divorce, and marital conflict usually preceded the divorce. So, there are problems to solve even before the new families begin. Chiefly, however, the problems associated with stepfamilies are due to the number and rapidity of changes a child must make. This is particularly true if the remarriage occurs within a few years of the initial divorce. Adapting to new parent(s) and potentially more siblings may cause confusion and stress for the child. Even the child who likes parental conflict or other family
his
new siblings may feel in competition with near-strangers for the affection
of his or her parent.
Moreover, remarriages are problematic
ronment
As we will
a higher failure rate
if
they create an unstable envi-
have than first marriages. Research also shows that changes
for the child.
see in the next chapter, remarriages
A House Divided? Two London
architects have
mate solution
House"
for
for
modern,
couples
come up with the
flexible living: a
who want to
ulti-
"Divorced
separate but keep
emotional reasons. Saunt and this is the first time a
Hills believe that
house has been
specifically
designed to meet the complex needs of a
split
their family intact.
household, and hope that the concept
The home, designed by Deborah Saunt and David
greater acceptance of these domestic arrange-
house containing two separate
ments, as well as encourage developers to use
Hills, is
basically a
apartments
for
living
more flexible— though not necessarily expensive-
private
designs and materials to accommodate changes
each parent, each with a
room and two bedrooms. Children have linking routes across a roof garden
and
via
back
doors which allow them to stay with either parent.
The dividing walls separating the two apart-
ments are sound-proofed
to
maximize privacy and
minimize problems that could arise with the of
new
arrival
partners.
Many separated
will lead to
in
family
life
and
size.
Despite the promising aspects of this domestic arrangement, some
critics
are concerned about the
long-term implications of the "divorce house," arguing that the physical and psychological boundaries of the relationship are likely to crumble once either
or divorced couples continue to
of the parents finds a
new
partner.
share accommodations for financial, practical, and Source: Jane Hughes. 1999. "Is This House the Answer to Divorce? Live Together,"
The Independent on Sunday (London, England), May 23,
10.
Reprinted with permission from Jane Hughes and The Independent on Sunday.
268
^
Close Relations
in parenting can significantly hurt a child emotionally.
These changes increase
the likelihood that a child will suffer poor grades, poor health,
low
self-
esteem, drug abuse, peer rejection, and lower self-reported well-being.
and mothers are unprepared for the unique and the inadequacy of counselling and support
After divorce, most fathers
problems they
will face,
services that are available.
Non-custodial fatherhood has increased due to trends in divorce and out-of-wedlock births. The standard divorce
—
i.e., the mother with custody, and visitation rights is most common in cases of longer marriage, higher male income, and younger children. Visitations are essential to non-custodial parents and, as we have seen, the nature of visitation rights is crucial to the quality of the subsequent father-child relationship. Visitation and child support are complementary, and joint custody improves support compliance (Fox and Blanton 1995). Divorce has a variety of effects on fathers, and on their children. For example, divorce affects non-custodial fathers' views of their parental role. Common themes among non-custodial fathers include divorce-related emotional distress; dissatisfaction with custody, visitation, and child support arrangements; perception of divorce proceedings as unfair; and ongoing
father with child-support responsibilities
conflicts
—
with former spouses (Dudley 1996). Because the father often views
himself as a victim of his spouse, his disempowerment, loss of legal custody,
and relegation
to the role of
an economic provider has a profound
impact on his masculine identity (Mandell 1995). Fathers typically have limited contact with their children
and
this contact
decreases over time.
As
fathers develop
after divorce,
new relationships,
they reduce the involvement with their children from their previous mar-
Not so
for mothers. Their remarriage affects only the probability of having weekly contact with their children. For the most part, characteristics of the mother and of the children do not affect post-divorce visitations except that fathers are more likely to see preschool age children riage.
fathers'
every week than school-age children (Stephens 1996). In sum, for children, parents,
and other relatives, divorce, like other However, we must be careful not to exaggerate the extent or permanence of harm done. With divorce, the stresses include economic hardship, parental adjustment, interpersonal conflict, or parental loss. Developing resources and protections can reduce the negative effect of these stresses. Higher levels of coping resources support a greater optimism about the future, fewer financial problems, more confidence in parenting ability, and a more satisfactory relationship with the former spouse (O'Leary, Franzoni, and Brack 1996). Factors that reduce the adverse effect of divorce on children include a strong and clear sense that both parents still love them, an understanding that they are not to blame for the divorce, and regular visits with the non-custodial parent. Children of divorce may need some help coming to terms with irramajor
life
events, can be stressful.
Chapter 8
tional beliefs
about divorce and feelings of sadness,
and Frazier
1995). Involved
Divorce
269 ^
guilt, and anxiety (Skitka and caring parents can help a child adjust to divorce. Parental distance, on the other hand, is likely to produce maladjustment. Parental conflict, as we have said so often, has a bad effect in both intact and divorced families (Wieneret al 1995). Though divorce may sometimes cause problems, it sometimes also solves problems. It may even bring benefits. People whose parents divorced
during their adolescent years display a much higher level of moral development than those whose parents did not divorce (Kogos and Snarey 1995).
Underlying the development of moral judgment tive-taking, necessary for children of divorce
is
an increased perspec-
who
witness differences in
opinions between their parents.
Concluding Remarks As we have
seen, divorce
level causes. Researchers
is
ses at these different levels.
theory that predicts
a
phenomenon with macro-, meso-, and micro-
have so
far
achieved
little
synthesis between analy-
We are still far from having a comprehensive
who will get divorced and why.
Some people have remarked on how the combined effect of increased divorce rates and escalating levels of unwed child-bearing have ensured that over half the children
homes
born in the 1980s will be raised in single-parent The decline of marriage has also led to
for all or part of their lives.
paternal disinvestment in children. Increased maternal earning capacity or
improved public investment has not compensated
for the decline in pater-
nal support (Whitehead 1996).
The conservative approach
to these
problems of increased divorce
teen pregnancies, suicides, violence, and substance abuse
is
to
rates,
blame the
emerging culture of tolerance and the expanded welfare state, contending that they undermine the benefits of self-reliance and community standards. Although the conservative approach is narrow, this perspective rightly emphasizes the role of the family in child-rearing education. Liberals recognize that increased unemployment, rising competition, and the need for dual-earner households have threatened the family. However, they overemphasize the extent to which government services can replace effective family bonds (Giele 1996). According to conservatives, strategies to
encourage the reinstitutionalization of the family would include
and of marriage, beginning with on entry into marriage, making divorce more difficult, protecting children from divorce, and changing the nature of family law so that we define marriage as a moral obligation between partners rather than a restricting the legal benefits of family life
tighter controls
personal contractual decision (Schneider 1996).
Though it is not the job is
of sociologists to favour
part of our responsibility to collect
one side or the other,
and examine data
that
it
would support
270_)
Close Relations
an important role to play in the process by which a democratic society makes the policies and laws that govern family life. The evidence shows us that divorce is correlated with unhappiness and trouble. The question is, does divorce cause the unhappiness and trouble, or does unhappiness and trouble cause the divorce? Further, does divorce prolong unhappiness and trouble or cut it short? While it is foolhardy to generalize about all divorces, certainly there is no evidence to show that divorce is the cause of most family-related unhappiness, or that divorce tends to prolong unhappiness that might be otherwise cut short. Though it is true that people benefit from stable family lives when those families are functioning well, it is also true that people suffer from family lives when either side. Here, sociology has
those families are functioning badly.
For better or worse,
up
it is
to the participants to
their family life is functioning well or badly. If the
family
and
is
working
efforts to
well, then to all intents
remedy
determine whether
people involved think the
and purposes,
it
really
the situation don't work, then divorce
is. If
not,
makes good
—
for the sake of the children as well as the spouses themselves. After
sense all,
a child can get
On
good parenting without father and mother living
together.
and
the other hand, conditions of stress, violence, unhappiness,
depression
make good parenting almost impossible.
We must assume, and
probably can assume, that the vast majority of parents take these factors into account
when
they decide to stay together or divorce. This being so,
on divorce has
the conservative viewpoint
little
to offer us.
Chapter Summary causes, and
This chapter discusses divorce
in
eral years, the divorce rate in
Canada has been hovering consistently around 30
Some
percent.
itself is
smooth and favourable option if
We
its
its
to zjo
a social pathology. Others suggest that divorce can be a for
they stay together than
if
many
families
who would be more harmful
to
one
they separated.
learned that the Industrial Revolution, by reducing the economic co-depen-
dency that once held family members together, played a part of divorce
effects. For the past sev-
sociologists argue that this statistic reflects a growing decay in family
values and that divorce
another
our society,
in
society.
As
well, legal
and
in
the growing acceptance
cultural views have gradually liberalized over the
past two centuries, freeing divorcees from the stigmatization that once beset them.
The causes of divorce are diverse and can be studied on three levels of causal explanation: micro-, meso-, and macrosociological. Microsociological causes include the
personal reasons that individuals cite to explain their desire for a divorce, such as infidelity or a
breakdown
in
spousal communication. Mesosociological factors include early age at
marriage; cohabitation before marriage; prior marriages; parental divorce; premarital child-bearing; the stage of marriage; place of residence; religiosity; and socio-economic
I
I
Chapter 8
class. Macrosociological
social integration,
Divorce
^
2/1 ^
causes include wars, economic cycles, gender expectations,
and cultural values.
One of the major effects of divorce ally decline following
a separation. This
is
is
economic.
In
general, standards of living usu-
especially true for
women, who
custody of the children and thus have more dependents to care
for.
are often given
Other effects of
divorce on the divorcees include emotional strain, depression, and interpersonal conflict.
Children are also adversely affected by parental divorce, showing higher levels of
depression and lower levels of self-esteem. These
ill
effects often
stem from
a dimin-
ished sense of personal security and worse parenting, and are the result of an unhealthy family environment rather than from the process of divorce
itself.
Other problems of
parental separation include the child's relationship with his or her parents, stepfamily conflicts,
and the
effects
on the divorcees as parents.
Key Terms selectivity: The theory that the kinds of people who are, for any given reason, predisposed to a given type of behaviour are, for those same reasons, also the kinds of people who are predisposed to a second, unrelated type of behaviour.
Adverse
Divorce: The legal and formal dissolution of a legal marriage.
No-fault divorce: A marital dissolution granted on the claim of marriage breakdown, without the requirement of a spouse accepting moral blame for the
breakdown
of the relationship.
Social pathology: Macro-scale social
ills
resulting from a breakdown in social structure, such as high crime and
divorce rates.
Suggested Readings Ahrons, Constance R. 1987. Divorced
esteem, depression, and risk-taking behav-
A Multidisciplinari/ Developmental New York: W.W. Norton. This book
The findings illustrate that the adofrom divorced families differed very little from those of intact families
Families:
View.
focuses on the family relationships of divorced individuals and illustrates the psychological effects of separation.
iour?
lescents
Jockin, Victor,
Matt McGue,and David
T.
David
Lykken. 1996. "Personality and Divorce: A Genetic Analysis," Journal of Personality and
Lasko, Jeffry Harding, Regina Yando, and Debra Bendell. 1995. Adolescents from
vides additional information on the possi-
Divorced and Intact Families," Journal of
ble link
Divorce and Remarriage 23: 165-75. This
divorce.
Gor\zalez, Ketty P., Tiffany
M.
Field,
arti-
Social Psychology 71: 288-99.
This article pro-
between genetics and the risk for The authors find that 30 percent
how the percep-
of the heritability of divorce risk consists
tions of adolescents vary as a function of
of genetic factors affecting personality for
cle
attempts to determine
divorce.
Do adolescents from divorced and
intact families differ in perceived relation-
ships with their parents
and
friends, their
family-associated responsibilities, their
self-
women, and 42 percent
affect
men.
Consequently, personality and divorce risk correlated largely as a result of these
mon genetic influences.
com-
272J
Close Relations
Kaslow, Florence Whiteman. 1987. The Dynamics of Divorce: A Life Cycle Perspective. New York: Brunner/Mazel. The author discusses the elements of a divorce, focusing on the psychological aspects and examines the family relationships of divorced people.
Kozuch, Patricia and Teresa M. Cooney. 1995. "Young Adults' Marital and Family Attitudes: The Role of Recent Parental Divorce, and Family and Parental Conflict," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 23: 45-61. This article emphasizes the need to look at
the role of family
and parental
conflict in
illustrating the effects of parental divorce
on
children.
It
finds that parental conflict
has the most consistent and widespread
young
influence on
adults' views.
Lester, David. 1997. "Correlates of Worldwide Divorce Rates," Journal of Divorce
and Remarriage
26: 215-19.
This article
illus-
trates the possible future trend of divorce. It
finds that divorce rates are associated with
urbanization and the level of development of the nation. to
The
modem way of life appears
be conducive
to
high divorce
Popenoe, David. 1996. Compelling
New
Life
rates.
Without Father:
Evidence that Fatherhood and
Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society. New York: Martin Kessler Books. This book looks at recent research on the importance of the paternal role model and the effects of its absence on
modern
families
and marriages.
of General or Specific Social Malaise?"
Schwartz, Lita L. 1997 Painful Partings: Divorce and Its Aftermath. New York: J. Wiley. This book examines the psycholog-
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 23: 203-05.
ical
repercussions of divorce, discusses
how
This article exemplifies research to answer
a separation affects family relations,
and
the controversy between conservative soci-
evaluates counselling strategies for
Lester, David. 1995. 'Ts Divorce
and
an Indicator
on the relaand societal breakdown or disorganization. The author ologists
liberal sociologists
divorced individuals.
tionship between divorce rates
Wallerstein, Judith
finds that 1980 divorce rates are associated
Sandra Blakeslee. 1999. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce. Hyperion. The authors tackle the
with suicide rates, not only of the divorced but also of the single, married, and widowed of the United States, indicating that divorce rates
may function as an indicator
of general social malaise.
S.,
Julia
M. Lewis, and
controversial issue of the effects of divorce
on
children, arguing that parental separa-
tion during one's childhood has psychological
consequences in adulthood, particularly
involving issues of love and commitment.
Review Questions 1.
What is first
2.
the estimated divorce rate for marriages in Canada?
5.
Define "adverse selectivity" and use it to explain why second marriages are more likely to end in divorce than first marriages.
6.
Identify five macrosociological causes that can influence a couple's decision
Why do liberal sociologists reject the "social pathology" explanation of
divorce? 3.
What are
the grounds for a "no-fault
to divorce.
divorce"? 4.
How is age at marriage a good predictor of divorce?
7.
Suggest two ways in which divorce affects the standard of living of women more drastically than that of men.
Chapters
8.
9.
what two ways does parental divorce increase the risk of adolescent depression? In
What are
10.
Divorce
273 ^
According
to the conservative approach, what is most to blame for the high divorce rate in our society?
the chief problems associated
with stepfamilies?
Discussion Questions 1.
common form of the marriage ceremony, partners take turns responding to the question, "Do you [Name] take [Name] to be your lawfully wedded husband /wife ... til death do you part?" Because approximately 37 percent of all first marriages will end in divorce, discuss, with ref-
Examine some of the issues that may emerge in a young couple's marriage.
In a
6.
phenomenon.
erence to the institution of marriage, this marriage vow remains appropriate in our current society.
whether
2.
Investigate the views
by various Confucian,
7.
etc.).
on divorce held
Muslim, Buddhist, Discuss the implica-
8.
on an unhappily married couple who remain together
3.
"Our culture has changed.
beliefs. .
. .
More peo-
ple today think of marriage as a place
and empathetic People who think that close relations are about intense emotions are more likely to cohabit, and, if they do marry, more likely to divorce, than people who think that close relations are about practical living arrangements." With which view of close relations do you agree with? Support your opinion with references to love, for self-actualization
relationships.
...
9.
on the well-being
5.
In Canada, young newlyweds tend to have high divorce rates. Why do they split shortly after
they are married?
of children.
"Though divorce may sometimes cause problems, it sometimes also solves problems. It may even bring benefits." Discuss some situations in which a divorce is a favourable option and other situations in which divorce is an unfavourable option.
11.
Does the gender of a couple's child have any effect on their likelihood to divorce? How might colour-coding babies (blue /pink) right from birth
filing for
divorce (i.e., infidelity, incompatibility, abuse, etc.) "largely unrevealing"?
current
10.
Why do you think sociologists find the grounds that people use when
What is your opinion of the
laws on divorce? Do you think the laws should make divorce tougher? Discuss these questions with a focus
marriage, and divorce. 4.
Imagine you are setting up a seminar for divorced parents and their children. Discuss what the parents can do to lessen the impact of divorce on their children and help them to develop a healthy relationship with both parents.
tions of religiosity
because of their religious
Given that divorces most often occur only after a lengthy period of conflict within the family, is it justifiable for parents to remain married solely "for the sake of the children"?
religions (Protestant,
Catholic, Jewish,
what way is the divorce rate associated with remarriages counterintuitive? Discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the proposed theories that attempt to explain this In
influence this process?
,274
Close Relations
^
12.
What are the effects of "getting dumped" on a person's level of social Does
vary from person to person? What circumstances or characteristics account for such differences in coping styles? interaction?
13.
19.
parents do not replicate any similar dysfunctional behaviours in relationships? 20.
increases the likelihood of divorce.
Discuss why.
support typically helps to
alle-
social
networks can help compli-
21.
cate as well as alleviate these stresses. 15.
What can communities do
16.
understanding these coryou in working with people in your future career? relations help
17.
22.
Discuss potential negative effects of remarriage and changes in parenting style on children. In your opinion, would a mandatory seminar course at a local community centre, informing parents about these issues, help? If so, outline the important issues to address in this seminar. Discuss
how
divorce
man's masculinity.
18.
Discuss why parenting children after a divorce can be difficult, especially for
women.
to help
more
our society? What role does the government have in helping people go through this transition more smoothly? effectively in
23.
Given
that the
government promotes
marriage and the nuclear family, what role and responsibilities should it have to people when marriage does not turn out "happily ever after"?
may impact a
feelings influence his relationships
What changes can be made
individuals cope with divorce
How might these
with co-workers?
how divorce rates, suicide
and alcohol consumption are
related. Will
to help
policies etc.)?
Discuss rates,
ensure the continuation of father-child relationships after divorce (i.e., activities,
Discuss typical causes for divorce. How are these influences intertwined? Do some causes support and inflate one another? How does the presence or absence of children mitigate these influences?
viate the stresses of divorce. Discuss
how
What
can be done so that children of divorced
this
Cohabitation before marriage
14. Social
Describe the concept of intergenerational transmission of divorce.
24.
Explain how emotional ties have come to play a large role in today's family. In particular, how does this effect /change the
work
of social
workers, nurses, and other caregivers in our society?
Activities 1
.
Students should divide the class into
groups and discuss how a typical breakup occurs while considering the following questions: Are there are stages to a breakup? What causes dissatisfaction in a relationship?
What
processes do people engage in
between dissatisfaction and a breakup? How does one conclude that things are not going well and a
relationship is about to end? Discuss realization as a process.
Examining the three different levels of casual explanation micro, meso, and macro determines which level provides the best understanding of divorce
—
—
for personal
and career
then should
split the class
use. Students
up according
to the level that provides the
most use-
Chapters
information /interpretation for their Groups can share ideas about how they could incorporate this information into their work (whether to betful
5.
careers.
ter
understand a
In groups, students are assigned an institution that people generally have
contend with while going through a divorce e.g., workplace, school, church, or legal system. Each group to
will
come up with ways
in
which
6.
institution provides support for a per-
ways do
these institutions
fail
7.
or lack
proper support mechanisms? How can the support mechanisms be improved? 4.
The
class will interview three or four
divorce, focusing tional stresses,
report on their findings. In small groups, students will discuss their findings and record any commonalities
between
their results.
share
commonalities with the
its
Each group
will
Research an incidence of divorce (either in your own life, in the life of someone you know, or in the news) in which a long, hostile custody battle took place. Investigate or speculate on the impact that such an experience
had on the
people about their experiences with
on financial and emoand write a two-page
Working in groups, students are to devise some strategies for forming stepfamilies so that the adverse impact on young children is minimized.
their
son involved with a divorce. In what
The teacher will provide a fictitious biography of a couple applying for
the division of property and other issues that may arise. This activity will be a lead-in to a discussion on the legal process of divorce.
the stress of a co-worker/employee). 3.
275
divorce. In groups, students must come up with arguments regarding
understand
client or
Divorce
8.
child(ren).
two groups, students will hold a debate on the causes and consequences of divorce, with one side arguing the conservative approach and the other arguing liberal views. In
class.
Weblinks more comfortable, expedient
http://www.divorcehelp.com
execution of a
Divorce Helpline provides information and a reading list about the legal aspects of
divorce, providing links to articles, books,
divorce, and offers a service locating professionals in the United States, Canada,
and abroad. http://www.divorceonline.com
Divorce On-line contains a wide variety of information on divorce, including articles concerning finance, legal, psychology, real estate, and domestic violence.
and seminars on divorce law, mediation, personal finance, and family counselling. http://www.kidsturn.org
Kids' Turn
is aimed at the children of divorced parents, featuring a children's FAQ on divorce, artwork and stories written by children, and a suggested reading list.
http://www.mal(inglemonade.com
Making Lemonade
http://www.divorcewizards.com
Network
Divorce Wizards brings together a group of professionals to assist in the planning and
articles archive,
— The Single Parent
offers chatrooms, anecdotes,
and
an
links for separated,
divorced, and single parents.
-)
CHAPTER
NINE
Fresh Starts: One-parent Families, Empty Nests, Cluttered Nests
Chapter Outline What
is
a Fresh Start in Family?
Widowhood
as a Fresh Start
Multiple Fresh Starts
Gay/Lesbian Fresh Starts
Singlehood as a Fresh Start
Fresh Family Starts
One-Parent Families Deliberately Seeking Parenthood on
One's
Own
Custody and Non-Custodial Parenting
Remarriage Cohabitation as a Fresh Start The Challenges of Stepfamilies
in
Later Life
Transitions out of Parenting: Empty
Nests
Sandwiched Families and Cluttered Nests Created Families
Concluding Remarks
I
^
Chapter 9
As we have seen,
Fresh Starts
^^77_)
and into parenthood are challenging times for individuals and families. At different stages of the family life cycle, new problems may include problems of work spillover, care for infirm family members, stress management, dealing with violence, and undergoing and adjusting to divorce. Transitions to different family situations are always challenging, including the transitions that happen after divorce. The phrase "fresh start" implies happy transitions to a new life and a wiping of the family-experience slate clean. However, some new starts are stale starts, and some fresh starts prove impossible. Others are indeed fresh and new, reflective of learning from mistakes and regrets of the past. In this chapter, we focus on life after separation or divorce, or widow-
We also consider some
families as they try to think
of the ways people rediscover or re-invent more deeply and constructively about what
they want out of their family
life.
hood.
What
the transitions into marriage
Is
a Fresh Start
in
Family?
Fresh starts addressed in this chapter are second or subsequent starts at
The processes through which a start comes from violence in a family relationship, an escape from an abusive practice sanctioned by the prevailing culture, a mutually agreed-upon separation or divorce, a death, or a myriad of other family changes over the life course. It can be a rediscovery of one's roots and a new basis on which to found and maintain a family, or even a discovery of cultural roots in a new setting or country. It can even involve a personal reinvention of family to meet one's particular needs. Fresh starts occur because things did not work out as planned, expected, or hoped for, the first time around. Fresh family starts may be begun reluctantly as one's idealism about family is tarnished by family dissolution. In this way, fresh starts reflect change, both individual and social, as well as personal learning and adaptation. One of the themes in this book is that families are immensely varied. Perhaps at no point is this clearer than when families make fresh starts. The multiple pathways of fresh starts include shrinking of family to its smallest families or familial relationships.
about are various.
It
can be a
unit, a single-person
flight
household with non-household-based
families, or to a
parent with a child. Fresh starts can also involve non-residential parenting,
and the development of intricate and large extended kin or non-kin networks. Another theme highlighted in this book is that family processes rather than forms provide the rewarding focus of family studies. In considering fresh family starts, we observe families and individuals actively engaging in family as process, in designing families anew, in negotiating family, and in striking bargains with former family members on how to endure as family. This is family dynamics in process, active development of
new
solutions to family challenges.
278j
Close Relations
Multiple Fresh Starts In today's
people
world of long
life
expectancies and rapidly changing families,
may expect to make not one but multiple fresh starts over the course
of their Uves. These might include marriage, with possible separation, divorce,
or remarriage, perhaps following a period of cohabitation, then possibly
widowhood and maybe another later life relationship each of these states of family
life,
of fresh family starts: into parenthood, into or out of
from being
or marriage. Within
mark other kinds
there can be phases that
working parenthood, grand-
in a two-earner to a one-earner (or no-earner) family, to
parenthood, stepparenthood, and so on. In families today, diversity
is
now
the norm, with almost endless possibilities.
Singlehood as a Fresh Start Most, or at least many, people
who
experience the end of a
marriage or a committed
rela-
tionship become single before becoming any other kind of
family. Is singlehood a fresh family life? Some might respond that a single person is not a family. Maybe so, but is a single person without family start in
any kind? A few people may most of us have families even if we live alone or are living separately from our of
be, but
spouses or partners. This raises
an important dimension of fresh family starts: that family is
not equivalent to household.
Families
and do
and
close relations can
exist,
and even
thrive,
across households.
Living solo is an option in popularity. The
growing
1996 Census of Canada reveals a 14.9 percent
growth
in one-
person households since 1981 (Statistics
Many people
start
singlehood as parents.
Canada
1998,
2).
The
largest proportion living alone
Chapter 9
Fresh Starts
,2/9 ^
among those aged 65 and over; 35.5 percent lived alone in 1996 comwith 33.7 percent in 1981. Significant proportions of those aged 30-49 pared occurred
(32.8 percent) also lived alone, a substantial increase
Among
Canadians under age
from
22.5 percent in 1981.
30, preference for living solo
stone, only 12.1 percent lived alone in 1996
compared
Living by oneself does not mean that one
is
dropped
like a
to 23.9 percent in 1981.
isolated
from family, however.
Findings from a national survey in Canada (McDaniel 1994) reveal that 35 percent of adult children live within walking distance of their mothers, while
another 19 percent live within 50 kilometres. Visiting between parents, par-
and adult children is frequent, as is contact by phone or Even among adult children who live more than 1000 kilometres from their parents, one in five is in weekly contact, and fewer than 10 percent have limited or no contact with parents. Among siblings, there is even more regular contact. These findings reveal the extent of family ties and connections across households and generations, regardless of the living arrangements of those involved. However, a clear pattern emerges: mothers have more contact than fathers and are more often sought out by adult children. For some, singlehood is a transitional stage to a new committed relationship. For increasing numbers of North Americans, however, living alone is a life choice, a preference, or better than other alternatives. The diversity of solo living, however, prevents us from making many solidly ticularly mothers,
letter.
based generalizations about it. People living alone include older people who are widowed, middle-aged professionals, and poor people who may have little prospect for marriage. This group also shll includes young people,
although the numbers of young people financiaUy able to
live
alone has
declined recently.
The growth in living alone may reflect, more than anything else, the capacity to do so. In the past, living on one's own was often not an option, particularly for women. One should not conclude, however, as some have, that the growth in living alone is indicative of declining interest in family, or growing individualism. Research evidence does not support such a claim. Is living alone good for you? That depends. A U.S. study (Marks 1996) of the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (sample size of 6876) finds that single
women
are found to score higher
on personality
characteristics associated
with better psychological well-being than married women. Single men, how-
do not compare so favourably with married men. As we noted in an earis better for men than for women, though both do benefit. For women, singlehood is relatively better than it is for men. ever, lier
chapter, marriage
One-Parent Families In the past, one-parent families
were most frequently
just that,
one living
parent (the other deceased) with dependent children (Morton 1992b). Today's
28o_)
Close Relations
one-parent families, created as they are most often by separation, divorce, or relationship dissolution, are often families
where one parent
lives
with the
children and one parent does not. In that sense, they are really two-parent
where the parents simply do not share a household. We have seen in Chapter 8, "Divorce: Trends, Myths, Children, and Ex-spouses," that some fathers do not maintain family ties with their children after divorce or remarriage after divorce. The reality that children have two parents who remain as parents although they no longer live together raises a number of complex challenges in determining who takes what responsifamilies
bility for the children. It
also raises a crucial clarifying point about families, discussed in detail
by Eichler
and "household" are not congruent. "One house"may encompass people who belong to two (or maybe more) family units that are not shared by other household members." An example would be a boy who lives with his biological mother and her husband and the husband's two children from a previous marriage. The boy's biological father may continue to parent him but does not live in the same household. A portrait of the boy's family, seen from his viewpoint, would involve at least two households. If he has a sister away at university who comes "home" to both his own principal residence and his father's, he might see himself as having a family that crosses three (or even more) residences. The assumption that a family is bound by the walls of a household may no longer be valid or appropriate, particularly now that e-mail, along (1997): "family"
hold," argues Eichler (1997, 96),
with the telephone, makes maintaining family relations so
much easier.
Marital or relationship dissolution can be the start of single parent-
hood, but
it is
not the only path. There has been growth in the numbers of
people having children without being in a committed relationship. However, here
we will focus on the more common pathway to lone parenthood, as a
result of marriage or relationship
breakdown.
Before discussing single parenthood as a fresh
shed some
start,
it is
important to
on the perplexing problem of defining single parents. numbers of single parents are based on a onetime sample, such as a census or a survey, and are looked at from the viewpoint of adults. The research question asked is: What proportion of adults at light
Typically, estimates of the
this
moment are living Three problems, at
in single-parent families? least, are
apparent in
this
approach. The
first is
that
unknown whether single parents of children are indeed living on their own and how many are cohabiting. A U.S. study based on it
often remains
—
a
sample from the 1990 U.S. Census finds that
cent of
all
2.2 million children (3.5 per-
children) live in cohabiting couple families,
and generally are
less
well off than children in married families (Manning and Lichter 1996). This a "chicken and egg" issue: do less well-off people prefer cohabitation, or does cohabitation lead to being less well off? Research evidence favours the former explanation. Second, without considering single parenthood from
is
Chapter 9
a life-course perspective,
it is
not possible to see
it
Fresh Starts
^
281 ^
as a process rather than a
state, to see how the experience affects adults and children, and to distinguish
between transitional and permanent arrangements. Third, and importantly, examining single parenthood in terms of adult relationships tends to divert attention away from single parenthood as it affects children. One innovative Canadian study (Marcil-Gratton 1993) turns data collected from the Census and a social survey at single points in time into studies of children's
family experiences
by generations
(or cohorts). This allows
an important look at single parenthood over time from the child's standpoint. Although the children followed are not the same children, it is possible to observe changes in patterns of children's exposure to single-parenting. The findings are striking and worth summarizing: In 1975, the proportion of "out-of-wedlock" births in
Quebec was
lower than elsewhere in Canada, but the proportion boomed to 19
percent in 1980, climbed to 33 percent in 1988, and reached an astounding 38 percent of
More
all
births in 1990.
children than ever experience
Canada. By age
20,
life
in a single-parent family in
one out of four children from the 1961-63 cohort had
experienced single parenthood; the same proportion was reached at age 15 for the 1971-73 cohort.
By age
15, 18
rienced single parenthood; the
percent of the 1961-63 cohort had expe-
same proportion was reached
at
age six for
the 1981-83 cohort.
Single parenthood has increased dramatically in recent decades. In Canada, the number of single-parent families tripled between 1961 and 1991, to 14 percent of all families (Lero and Brockman 1993, 92). The number has continued to increase, to 19 percent in 1996 (Statistics Canada 1998b, 4). In the United States in 1990, nearly 25 percent of all families were single-mother families (17 percent of white families, and 53 percent of African American families) (McLanahan and Garfinkel 1993, 16). The overwhelming majority of lone parents in both Canada and the United States are mothers.
The incidence of poverty is high among single parents, particularly Canada in 1993, 59.6 percent of lone-mother families were below the low-income cutoffs, making these families the group with the highest incidence of family poverty in Canada (Eichler 1997, 37), poverty that is most resistant to remedy (Dooley 1993, 117). This compares with a single mothers. In
among husband-wife families with children under age 18 living at home. "Among the surging number of single mothers who have taken refuge in temporary shelters [recently] are an entirely new class of homeless formerly secure career women," notes a recent report (Gadd 1997, Dl). Among the new homeless are single mothers who have lost their jobs and are not able to find new ones. Many women with dependent children tumble into poverty when their marriage ends. This occurs for a number of interconnected reasons. poverty rate of 12.5 percent
—
282 ^
Close Relations
Tears, Sneers, and Accusations There were tears, sneers and accusation last week as advocacy groups
abound
and distraught grand-
in
Toronto
Stories
for battered
women,
parents, of mothers leaving town with the kids to
of lonely
who
non-custodial fathers and grandparents unleashed
elude brutal former partners, and of fathers
pent-up resentments and complaints before the
have been denied visitation rights by mothers
Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the
who
House
of Commons on Child Custody and Access. The hear-
ings are part of a
when
compromise reached
to force delinquent
make good on
year
last
the Senate held up approval of a tough
new
...will
bill
weapon
to extort
money
if
way
fairness to both parents
to
do that
is
Is
guar-
to ensure that chil-
j^en have open and ample access to both parents
commitments.
and When
Source: "Where Kids Sit
only work
gnteed. The
parents-mostly fathers-to
their child support
wield access like a
owed.
to other family
members.
Families Split," Editorial, The Globe
and Mail, 6 April 1998, A20.
Reprinted with permission from The Globe and Mail.
Marriage, in our society,
is
a
presumed economic
alliance
between
a
man
can earn more and a woman who is to be economically subordinate or dependent while devoting herself to child-bearing and child-rearing.
who
When
the marriage ends,
women
find (as noted in Chapter
Trends, Myths, Children, and Ex-spouses,") that the
initial
8,
"Divorce:
disparity in
income and potential income has widened. As well, a woman with young dependent children and perhaps fewer work skills, less training or education,
and
sole responsibility for children,
may
not seem like a good
prospect to an employer.
Housing
is
a further challenge for
many single mothers, who may be
unable to find reasonably priced accommodation. The result
is
that they
quickly become poor, and tend to remain so, with disadvantages both for
themselves and for their children (McDaniel 1993). Not surprisingly, the consequences to men of divorce are seldom as financially bleak.
The positive experiences of mothers and
their children, are
members may world
Among other things,
learn the value of interdependence, of invention
vation, of self-reliance, of in a
living in a single-parent family, for both
not to be discounted.
mutual interdependency and
that too often fails to
do
and inno-
how to value women
so (CoUins 1991; Ferri 1993). Children from
deprived situations where love persists can learn to persevere, to aim high
deny themselves for future gain. These lessons can be beneficial in a world where many have so much that they do not see a need to struggle to succeed. A longitudinal study in in their expectations, to
Britain (Ferri 1993, 289) finds that
who had grown up in if not better, than their peers who
"many
of those
lone parent families had done as well, had enjoyed more stable family lives." This is a hopeful and not often heard message that bears noting. Knowledge of this sociological finding by family
Chapter 9
research can go a long, long
way toward encouraging
parent families to strive for success in
Latchkey children, children
283 ^
Fresh Starts
children in single-
life.
who are regularly left for some part of the
day without adult supervision two or more days per week, epitomize both the best and the worst of resilience. Of course, not all latchkey children are from single-parent families. Many are from two-income families where no one is home when they return from school each day. Both good and bad consequences are found for latchkey children in one study (Leung et al 1996). The positive outcomes include learning to be independent and responwell as learning useful skills such as how to start dinner for the how to grocery shop, etc. Among the negatives are loneliness, fear,
sible, as
family,
boredom, underachievement Unfortunately, there
is
in school,
and perhaps drug or alcohol abuse.
a stigma associated with single-parent families.
Some people believe that minority arrangements like lone-parent families are something of an affront to established beliefs about the nuclear family. If single-parent families can be seen to "work," they undermine the credibility of the
nuclear family, and this has subversive implications for the
inant economic
and moral order, which
to a great extent
dom-
depends on the
nuclear family (Collins 1991, 159).
One
transition to single
motherhood not often considered
is
when the
marriage or relationship ends because the husband "comes out" as gay. This is a more frequent occurrence than might be imagined, particularly with the societal encouragement of the recent past
to
deny same-sex
and marry anyway. Few marriage partners expect a change
tions
identity in their partners
In
one study of
attrac-
in sexual
when they marry.
this experience,
French (1991) finds that some couples
agree to stay together after the "coming out," while others separate but
maintain active parental involvement with the children. French points out
how becoming a lone parent can be a means of problem-solving for women in this situation.
She further reveals that
given, but a process sometimes
sexuality,
Uke family,
worked through
is
not
in family as the
static
and
means
to
new identities and lifestyles. Interestingly, French's study shows that as the men accept their gay identities, their interest in maintaining their father role continues, sometimes even intensifying. Self-help groups for women married to gay men have formed and can prove helpful to women, if primarily to provide support and to indicate that the
women are not alone
in their experi-
The study reveals that family is indeed a process and that husbandhood and fatherhood need not be synonymous, and need not be ences.
only heterosexual
roles.
and increasingly in Canada, have become the targets for cutbacks to social assistance (welfare in the United States) and vicious public labels. Single mothers are variously termed slothful, manipulative, inadequate mothers, irresponsible women, and selfish Single mothers in the United States,
takers of public monies.
Some
are even labelled as
women who
use their
284
Close Relations
~)
Table 9.1 changing family types (1971--96) # OF FAMILIES
FAMILYTYPE
1971
# OF FAMILIES 1996
PERCENT
CHANGE
837 865
+55%
1527955
2 729 775
+69%
3525210
5
108 085
+45%
3
970 580
+30%
137 505
+138%
053 165
All families
5
Families without children Families with children
Two-parent families
3 047 685
Lone parent families
^77 525
7
1
Note: From 1971 to 1996 the population of Canada increased from 22 million to almost 29 million. By including the overall populagrowth in Canada, we can see that the proportion of two-parent families of all families decreased from 60 percent in 1971 to
tion
50.6 percent
in
The increases
1996. Families with children also decreased in proportion from 69.7 percent in 1971 to 65.1 percent in 1996. types of families by proportion were in the lone-parent families up by 8% from 14% in 1971 to 22% in 1996. Also
in
the proportion of families without children increased by
5% from 30% to 35% in
1996.
Sources: Vanier Institute of the Family. 1994. Profiling Canada's Families, 22, 23;Statistics Canada. 1997. "1996 Census: Marital Status, Common-law Unions and Families," Tfie Daily, 14 October.
and reproduction to get public subsidies. That little of this has any seem to matter to belief systems that favour more and deeper cuts to social assistance and so-called incentives to single mothers to work outside the home, even if there are no jobs and few child care options for them. The campaigns against single mothers also have a clear basis in sexuality
basis in fact does not
efforts to preserve the nuclear family against other family forms.
Single-parent families have posed perplexing problems for policy-mak-
and deepening poverty. Many counhad policies that explicitly or implicitly build in the belief that women and children are the responsibilities of husbands and fathers (Baker 1995, 13). Only when this fails, do states believe they must act, reluctantly and under pressure. State family policies have ranged from providing incentives to single mothers to parent full-time (in the Netherlands, for example) to offering incentives for them to work in the paid labour force (Sweden and Australia) (Baker 1995). Europe, on average, does far more for single-parent families than does North America (Kamerman and Kahn 1988), enabling them to balance work and family ers because of these families' persistent tries,
including
Canada and
responsibilities
Behind
The
the United States, have
through a variety of supports.
social policies oriented to single-parent families are three
mod-
by the United Kingdom and the United States, where family is believed to be a private institution that ought to look after itself, with the state stepping in only on a casualty basis (Lesemann and Nicol 1994 117). This contrasts with the farrdlyoriented model (France and Quebec), which sees the state as having a pubels.
first is
the private family approach, characterized
Chapter 9
lie
interest in families.
The
third
is
the state-based
model (Sweden), which
sees state intervention as important not to help families but to
economic
participation as fully as possible.
models, using a
little
of each in
its
285 ^
Fresh Starts
promote
socio-
Canada is caught between these
approach
to policies for single parents.
Much attention has been devoted recently to how to provide the means to move lone mothers away from social assistance. An interesting and innovative Canadian study of 150 single mothers
on social
assistance offers
some
1993). Focusing on women's exit strategies from social assistance, Gorlick and Pomfret find that the main
important insights (Gorlick
and Pomfret
predictors of successful exits are social supports, including information,
and the women's
aspirations.
social assistance in social
Canada
and economic
The research finds
that single
strategies to exit social assistance.
Deliberately Seeking Parenthood on One's The
largest
growth
mothers on
are actively involved in an extensive range of
Own
in child-bearing outside marriage or cohabiting rela-
occurring
among women
in their late 20s
and early 30s (Ram
tionships
is
1990, 33),
although the rates of non-marital child-bearing have increased
most age groups. The exception, surprisingly, has been births to teens, which in Canada had been falling until 1997. If mature women are having for
births without being married, several factors could be at work. There could
be accidental pregnancies, as there always are. More women who accidentally become pregnant now choose to keep and raise their babies instead of giving them
up
erhood, even
if
for adoption. This is a deliberate choice in favour of
moth-
may not have been planned. There is also seeking motherhood on their own without
the conception itself
evidence that some
women are
the traditional step of marriage or being in a committed relationship.
Few
studies have looked at unmarried single mothers,
women who
One study (Clark 1993) unmarried single motherhood are evident 10 years after the first child is bom. Although there are no effects on likelihood of marrying, the risks of poverty are greater than for married mothers. As well, there is lessened opportunity to pursue education, thus further disadvantaging the unmarried mothers. As the children grow, however, the initial discrepancies between unmarried and married mothers decrease. Age at first unmarried motherhood matters greatly: the younger one is, the greater the disadvantage and the less likely one is to catch up later on. Children bom to younger unmarried mothers do less well in school and in IQ tests than other children. In deliberately seeking motherhood on one's own, options exist today that did not exist previously. With the stigma lessened of having a child outside marriage, it may not be surprising that some women are planning
begin single parenthood without being married. finds that the social
and economic
costs of
286
^
Close Relations
motherhood without marriage. This may be a generation of women who have been taught to get what they aim for in life, rather than waiting for all their dreams to fall into place by luck or chance. Some are successful, educated, thoughtful career women. Others may have become infertile earlier in their lives, but not given up their dreams of motherhood. Options now include reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization, informal means to access sperm for conception, private adoptions, and foreign adoptions. Let's look first at adoption,
although in
reality,
women
often look at
adoption only after considering the option of giving birth. Adoption not long ago was carefully controlled by churches and the state. For good or for bad, it was thought that adoptive parents should be married and matched
much as possible to the adopted men, cohabiting couples, lesbians, and gays. It also often left out the non-religious. Adoption has opened up considerably in recent years, most notably in private adoptions whereby the birth mother (or parents) can know and sometimes select the adoptive family for the baby/child. More single people have been able to adopt children too, although the waiting lists are lengthy and the screening tight and somein religion, region, child. This left
and
ethnicity /race as
out single
women,
single
times unnecessarily judgmental about
lifestyle.
A new option that has opened things up for couples and single women and men wishing to adopt has been foreign adoptions. These occur for numerous reasons. One is that strife and disruption in various world regions have created unwanted babies and children, either as war orphans or as a result of policies such as the forbidding of birth control and abortion in Romania a few years ago. Foreign adoption has meant that Canadians who may not meet or not wish to meet the requirements of domestic adoption agencies, may adopt. International adoption is costly and time-consuming, with lengthy screening and often frustrating international negotiations, but it is possible for a small minority of people to make a fresh start by becoming the adop-
—
—
tive parent of a child
born elsewhere.
The not-so-new reproductive technologies have also opened possibilities for fresh starts for single people and, to some extent, gays and lesbians. For example, artificial insemination has been used for a long time by women and by doctors to inseminate their patients. It has not been so routinely discussed until recently, however. Surrogate motherhood can be found in the Old Testament but has lately become more popular in North America, although regulation has lagged behind practice. In vitro fertilization, or test-tube conception, has a low success rate, but has been used to help women and couples conceive if one or both has fertility problems. These technologies have created
new
families
and challenged the bases on which
nuclear families have traditionally been
built.
Chapter 9
Fresh Starts
^287
Custody and Non-Custodial Parenting When spouses part ways, an important question arises: Who will have what new families that emerge? Custody and made by the couple without resort to the
responsibilities for the children in the
decisions are often amicable
courts but also can be the basis for immensely heated emotions, nasty court
and highly charged policy forums. The latter have been seen in Canada with the 1998 Senate committee hearings on divorce and custody.
battles,
Successes of fresh starts in families following divorce or separation can
depend on custody arrangements being satisfactory for all family members involved. Custody involves the children's entire well-being, including dayto-day care, control and protection, instilling of values, and future opportunities. Custody issues can relate to, and overlap with, issues of access to children by the non-custodial parent as well as issues of child support. As we saw in the last chapter, there is no simple solution to child custody disagreements. Debates about the rights of mothers relative to the rights of fathers and the rights of grandparents often overlook what is in the best interests of the child(ren), and how those interests can best be achieved. Even the concept of "custody" itself might better suit families if it were abandoned in favour of something that indicates a child-centred focus. "Parenting responsibilities" is one alternative. Designating one parent as "primary caregiver" has been another helpful suggestion (Richardson 1996, Others might be devised.
232).
Joint custody
is
rapidly increasing in both
Canada and the United work successfully except
However, many think that it is unlikely to where the marriage breakdown was amicable. Joint custody requires negotiations in good faith by both partners, and the capacity of each to have the best interests of the children at heart. It has clear benefits in good situations States.
but can create problems, too. For instance, the child(ren) can continue to be socially parented their
by both parents, which can help
their
development and
adjustment to the disruption of the separation and divorce. However,
if the mother and father have different standards of living, the kids may blame one or the other for the relative deprivation the child endures in that household. If Mom and Dad live in different regions, there can be a lot of travel and shuffling back and forth, creating a sense of rootlessness for the
child.
And
if
the child has regular contact with both parents, but the par-
ents don't co-ordinate their parental roles well, the child can play one par-
ent off against the other.
Remarriage Most divorced people remarry (Baker 1996, 30). In fact, the proportions of marriages in which one or both of the partners has been previously mar-
")
288
•)
Close Relations
ried
is
increasing. In
Canada in
1967, for example, only 12.3 percent of mar-
riages involved a previously married partner;
by
1991, the proportion
was
32.3 percent (Baker 1996, 30). Called "conjugal succession" or "recycling the
family" (Richardson 1996, 243),
it
seems here
to stay.
More than anything else,
the extent of remarriage after divorce underlines people's desire to have
committed, emotionally involving relationships. Divorce rates would mark a decline in family only if few divorced people remarried or subsequently
became involved
in long-term unions.
rate of remarriage
A trend is discernible toward a lesser
now in Canada than in the 1980s, but it should be remem-
bered that marriage rates overall have declined.
Second marriages, as
we noted in Chapter 8,
"Divorce: Trends, Myths,
Children, and Ex-spouses," have a higher risk of divorce than riages.
Most explanations
sociological.
When
first
mar-
for the higher risk of divorce in remarriages are
couples marry or form a committed relationship, they
begin a process of "social constructionof marriage," by which they create
own shared traditions and memories. Over time, they create a shared new world around them. When a their
definition of themselves in relation to the
marriage ends, riage
this social construction of self-identity in relation to
becomes shaky but
is
mar-
not forgotten.
and new social constructions must be developed to new social roles, and divisions of labour. The imprints of the past relationship are shadowed by the new relationship but In remarrying, different
through negotiation, agreeing
always provide implicit comparisons. Since the former relationship
is
in the
memories of it can be either overly rosy or overly bleak, with no reality checks. Both types of memories can have implications for the present relationship and make it more challenging to maintain. When_child£en, are involved, the increased number of relationships and the need to maintain an ongoing relationship with the ex-spouse can make remarriage even more
past,
challenging.
A study based on a
national survey in
adaptation to a second marriage
is
Canada (Wu
dissolution, age at marital dissolution, religion,
Less
is
known about
1994) finds that
related to the particular type of marital
and gender.
remarriage after widowhood.
One Canadian
study (Wu 1995), using event history analysis, has found huge differences between men's and women's probabilities of remarriage after widowis significantly higher for men (almost twice as high), parmen who are better off financially. Prospects for remarriage of
hood. Remarriage ticularly for
widows and widowers has dropped
recently, particularly for
young widyoung wid-
owers (Nault and Belanger 1996, 11). The drop was ows. Nault and Belanger (1996, 13) conclude, "The chances of widowed less for
persons remarrying are consequently
who
at older ages find
slanted against them."
much lower,
in particular for
women
themselves facing a marriage market strongly
r
Chapter 9
289 ^
Fresh Starts
Divorced Dads as "Non-parents" Separated and divorced families are a growing ity in
real-
today's society, [Ron] Kuban [past president of
Right now, fathers don't get
children and parents' equality society] told a small
traditionally
audience. So, divorced families, including fathers,
for
require
more
receive
it,
attention and support.
If
they don't
the consequences will be costly to
all
been the mom,
whatever
bias,
Tom Arnold.
...
for
whatever reason or
The non-custodial parent suddenly ceases to be the parent
is
Source:
support, he said
you continue to be the parent,
the traditional sense. He or she
in
becomes the access
levels of society...
much
"The courts are now saying to the parent, who has
a
misnomer
parent. But the access parent
for a large babysitter."
1997. "Divorced Dads Treated as Non-Parents," The
Edmonton Journal, June
11,
B4.
Reprinted with permission of The Edmonton journal.
The majority of couples succeed in meeting the challenges of a second marriage. What works is, not surprisingly, similar to what works in a successful first marriage: good communication, realistic expectations, honesty, and a shared sense of humour. IVIeyerstein (1997) suggests that advance preparation is highly useful in a good second marriage. It helps to recognize that a second marriage is not the same as a first, and that the first marriage cannot be repressed and forgotten but should be mined for lessons learned (Kheshgi-Genovese and Genovese 1997).
Cohabitation as a Fresh Start Assessing the degree to which cohabitation
breakup of a first relationship is not easy. Cohabitation, unlike marriage, does not have a clear date of beginning and ending, thus errors in estimates of cohabitation are likely. Language is a problem. Terms used include common-law unions, cohabitation, living together, persons of the opposite sex sharing living quarters (known as POSSLQ or PSSSLQ for same-sex partners), as well as street-language terms such as "shacking up," "living in sin," and "trial marriage." Whether these terms connote similar kinds of living arrangements is far from clear. No matter how definitions are spelled out on surveys and census forms, people's own self- and social definitions of what is and is is
a fresh start after the
—
not cohabitation come into play in their responses.
Growing proportions
Canadian children experience a fresh family start when one or both of their parents start a new family by cohabitation. "Three-quarters of the children from broken unions whose parents have ever engaged in cohabitation have at age sixteen experienced at least one new two-parent family and the integration of the new partner" (IVIarcilGratton 1993, 87-88). The proportion of children born to at least one parent
who has ever lived
of
in cohabitation has risen dramatically in the last 30
292_)
Close Relations
years.
The phenomenon barely existed
in the early 1960s (2.5 percent of
1961-63 birth cohorts), increased to 9 percent for children
bom in 1971-73,
climbed to 32 percent for those both in 1981-83, and reached 43 percent for those bom in 1987-89 (Marcil-Gratton 1993, 76). Fresh starts based on cohabitation seem to be more fragile than those
based on marriage (Desrosiers, LeBourdais, and Laplante 1995). However, a cohabiting family in which one or both partners is divorced is less likely to break up
if
there
is
a preschool child or children at the time of the formation
new uiuon, if a child is bom to the newly formed couple, or if only the man brings children into the new relationship (Desrosiers, LeBourdais, and of the
Laplante 1995).
The Challenges of Stepfamilies The number of step- or blended families is not fully known. Blended families are remarried families in which one or both partners bring children into the new relationship. In 1990, there were thought to be 343 000 blended families in Canada, or 7 percent of all families (Eichler 1997, 32). Eichler compellingly argues that this number should be doubled, since there is another person often (but not always) involved too, a non-custodial parent
who may still parent the children in another blended family. From the perspective of
numbers of children in different kinds of families, it is estimated Canada about 5 percent of children lived in some sort of
that in 1994 in
blended family (Peters
1997). In the
United
States,
it
has been estimated that
20 percent of children will have lived in some kind of stepfamily by the age of 18 (Church 1996, 82).
The terminology of blended families is as challenging as that for cohabThe terms "blended" or "reconstituted" make new families sound almost strange, ia contrast to "regular" families. One suggestion is the term "binuclear family" (Church 1996, 83), which also has drawbacks. Using the descriptor, "blended," "reconstituted," or "binuclear" highlights differences rather than similarities with other families that have not experienced divorce and remarriage. Similarities are likely large, and when differences are found, the question must be asked whether the differences are due to the blended family iting couples.
experience, to the divorce experience, or to family problems that might have
occurred anyway. These are not easy questions to sort out in research. However, the emphasis we tend to give to "blended" families as different
may
cause us to search there for the source of family or child problems,
appropriately or not.
Making
fresh families
biological parents
is
is
not easy or straightforward.
one challenge,
children of the stepparent.
for
What to call non-
example, along with what to
The terms can be perplexing
for
call the
both children
Chapter 9
Fresh Starts
^
291 ^
Table 9.2 male and female lone-parent family income IN
CANADA, 1995 AVERAGE INCOME
FAMILY TYPE Male lone parent
$40 974
Female lone parent
$27721
PERCENTAGE WITH INCOME UNDER $20 000 Male lone parent
26%
Female lone parent
46%
PERCENTAGE WITH INCOME ABOVE $60 000 Male lone parent
19%
Female lone parent
8%
Sources: Vanier Institute of the Family. 1994. Profiling Canada's Families
1
1,
114-15; Statistics Canada, 1996 Census, The Nation Series,
CD-ROM, 93FOO2OXCB96OO4.
and parents. Additionally, there are the mythologized images of the immensely happy Brady Bunch of TV fame and the opposite, but strongly compelling, images of the wicked stepmother of folklore and fairy tales. Cinderella's stepmother (and stepsisters) are vivid images for children of what stepfamilies can be and what they would not want (Valpy 1998). Stepfathers do not fare too well either in some children's literature, with images of stem taskmasters, of negligent men, or of propensities toward abuse, particularly sexual abuse.
There
is
also the
contemporary
reality of biological fathers
and moth-
who are not only alive but often a continuing part of the child's life. The child may make comparisons between the two "mothers" or "fathers," play ers
one against the
other, or
Stepparents, too,
deny
that the stepparent
is
really a parent after
all.
may make comparisons, experience self-doubts about their
parenting, or find that the necessary ongoing relationship with the absent par-
ent
is
challenging.
A particular challenge of life in blended families is the sharing of children at special family events, such as Christmas, Hanukkah, or Ramadan. Children we may think of as ours are away at the other parent's place for
some holidays, which laboration
among
Some parents,
too,
creates the
need
and
their other family
may deeply feel the absence of their
tant family times. Mother's
Day and
and close colmembers. children at impor-
for regular negotiations
the various parents
Father's
Day can
also highlight dif-
292 ^
Close Relations
ferentness
and
create longings
amongst children and parents. At the same time, living in a blended family is not all bad by any means. One little boy who lived with his mother,
and
stepfather,
younger
brother thought his situation
much better than that of his younger brother since he had two Dads and his brother had only one!
Family research
is
helpful
what works sucblended families.
in identifying
cessfully in
A popular research strategy is compare reconstituted families with so-called "intact" to
families. Nevertheless, this
research design has lems, in that the families ble. ilies
A
its
prob-
two kinds
of
may not be compara-
Members
of blended fam-
may have been through
family disruption and, for good or bad, have learned strategies for dealing with problems, while "intact" families may not have had such lessons. It may also be that in comparing "intact" and blended families, the implicit standard is set by the "intact" families, leading to inappropriate and prejudicial com-
particular challenge of
life in
blended families
is
the sharing
of children at special events.
parisons.
Nonetheless, the findings of what works well in blended families from
such studies bears sharing.
A significant predictor of success is the degree of
consensus on parenting between the
new spouse and
the child's parent
(Saintjacques 1995). Preparation for the stepparent role
including accepting the reality that both the
a previous family
life
that did not,
is
also important,
new spouse and stepchildren had
and never
can, include the stepparent
(Richardson 1996, 244). Stepparents also need to recognize that they
ulti-
mately have limited control over whether the child(ren) accept them. Trying too hard can be a mistake. Since women face more obstacles
and challenges
in
becoming stepmothers than men do
thers (Valpy 1998),
it is
important that
women
in
becoming
stepfa-
prepare more and under-
stand some of the particular challenges they face in advance (Morrison and Thompson-Guppy 1986). For instance, Valpy (1998), in citing research done
Chapter 9
by David Cheal
in
Canada, notes stepparenting can be
with the vivid wicked-stepmother imagery that we
women have
all
293 ^
Fresh Starts
stressful, especially
seem
to have.
Added
borne the major responsibilities for child care and child-rearing, meaning more contact with stepchildren and more points at which to encounter tender feelings on both sides. to this is the fact that
traditionally
on couples in mutual support groups as they from being lone parents to becoming blended families, Collins (1991) finds that there are both private, personal issues and social challenges. Unlike most researchers, Collins does not compare blended famIn research that focuses
make
the transition
with intact families but looks at fresh starts as process. He particularly examines the interplay between individual lives and dominant ideologies about marriage and families. ilies
Two there
is
forces
Second, there family 159).
draw lone parents
to remarry, according to Collins. First,
the desire to escape from the "cheerless life" of the lone parent, is
"the widespread view in Western societies that the nuclear
the proper setting in
is
Church
which
to
bring
up children"
(1996, 87) refers to this as filling the "kin
ological beliefs about restoring "order" to family
(Collins 1991,
vacuum." Often,
life
prevail.
ide-
They may
crowd out recognition in the light of day that lone parenthood has distinct advantages and that the nuclear family is not all that it is deemed to be for children or for anyone else. Research in Canada (Church 1996) finds that stepmothers define family in more fluid terms than members of other kinds of family. Stepmothers do not see household and family as directly equivalent. And roles, including gender roles in family, are seen as more flexible. Church concludes that stepparents may not want to try to be parents to their stepchildren immediately but would rather wait and see what new family relationships emerge.
Discontinuity of relationships between children in blended families
and
their
grandparents (the parents, usually, of the non-custodial parent)
has not been the subject of much research.
It is, however, of growing policy and legal importance as grandparents increasingly express their rights to have access to their grandchildren after divorce and after remarriages. One
study (Kruk 1995) discovers that grandparents whose adult children are non-custodial (mostly paternal grandparents) are at high risk for contact loss.
The primary mediators
in
ongoing grandparent /grandchild
relation-
ships are the daughters-in-law. Disrupted contact between grandparents
and grandchildren parents.
It is
is
not fully
found
to
have adverse consequences for the grandthe consequences are as adverse for
known whether
the grandchildren.
Widowhood as
a Fresh Start
Widowhood is now seen as an expectable life event. Given the difference between men's and women's life expectancies, a woman who marries or
294_J)
Close Relations
establishes a lasting relationship can realistically anticipate that she will be
widow. The good news, however, is that widowhood is occurring later than it used to (Moore and Rosenberg 1997, 31). In Canada, almost 80 percent of women aged 85 or over are widowed, while even at age 70 to 74, 40 percent are widowed. Since a majority of men at advanced ages are still married (55.7 percent of men aged 85+), while most women are widowed at left a
these ages, the implications for fresh starts are clear.
Older women, mainly widows, are much more likely than men to a change in their living arrangements late in life. Usually, these changes are related to health status, but they also relate to family. A man with health problems more often Kas a'buiTFih caregiver at home, while a woman with health problems, even at the same age, is less likely to have that benefit. Hence, she is more likely to move in with relatives or into an institution. Widowed women are less likely to remarry than widowed men (Gee and Kimball 1987, 89). Myths abound about widows. Mainly they are seen as sad and depressed. Depression does strike some, and at times it is debilitating. But it is not the only reality for widows. Eighteen months or so after the spouse's death, most widows are ready to start life over for themselves (Gee and Kimball 1987, 90). Most often this means reaching out to friends, siblings, adult children and others such as clergy. Some widows develop active new hobbies or interests. Contact with their peers seems to provide the most satisfaction for widows. Some even note that this is the first time that they have felt independent and that they enjoy it.
make
Gay/Lesbian Fresh Starts We
talked earlier about gay
who become
men who
stay married,
lone mothers after a marriage to a gay
and about
man ends.
women we
Here,
look at the fresh start of coming out as a gay or lesbian family. There have always been gay fathers and lesbian mothers, usually those who
have become parents
in a heterosexual marriage or relationship or, in
the case of lesbians, in
What
some
instances through sexual assault or coer-
newer is gay and lesbian couples having children together and raising them as a family unit. What is also relatively new is for the gay and lesbian couples that form after the end of a heterosexual relacion.
is
tionship or marriage, along with the children of one or both partners, to live together as a family.
Diversity exists among gay and lesbian families, as among all famiHowever, in gay and lesbian families, there is an added dimension of diversity: whether or not they are "out" as a family or, in other words, open about their relationship with all they know and meet. Miller (1996, 132), in describing his own gay family, has this to say: lies.
Chapter 9
Fresh Starts
295
The family I live in as a father is also the family I live out in as a gay man. I call it an 'out family' for three reasons: its openness to homosexual membership; its opposition to heterosexist conformity (the prejudicial assumption of heterosexuality as normal and proper); and its overtness within the contemporary lesbian and gay movement.... Mine is a family that opens out, steps out, and stands out. It opens out to people traditionally excluded from the charmed circle of Home; it steps out beyond the police and policed borders of the Normal; and it stands out as a clear nev^ possibility on the horithe Just Society. zon of what used to be called ...
Not
all
gay and lesbian families are "out"
Some remain cloaked
in this or
any other
sense.
in secrecy out of fear for the children or themselves.
Lesbian mothers became more visible in the 1970s and 1980s, according to Epstein (1996, 109) because they chose to claim their identities as both
mothers and
lesbians.
She notes, with sadness, that the claiming often occurred
where lesbians were typically defined The risk of losing custody of their children still gives lesbian mothers a strong motivation to conceal their orientation. A recent example in courtrooms in custody hearings,
as unfit mothers.
occurred in Alberta where a long-time, highly successful foster mother,
media reports as Ms T, was denied foster children when it was was lesbian (Abu-Laban and McDaniel 2001). Gay and lesbian families challenge the family status quo in several fundamental ways, according to recent family research. First, both gay and lesbian
referred to in
discovered that she
families
may provide important developmental learning for children in the
gender role expectations (Epstein 1996, how not to compete with other women but to bond with them to work together. Third, both gays and lesbians force a questioning of the assumptions and values of heterosexist nuclear families. Fourth, gay families raise vital questions about the presumptions we make about masculinity in families and in society. And fifth, gay and lesbian families are an effective force of change in family policies. Gays and lesbians' challenging family policies goes beyond gaining access to the same benefits that heterosexual couples have, although this is important. Epstein (1996, 108) asks readers to imagine what it is like to face possibilities of resisting confining 111).
Second, lesbians can teach daughters, in particular,
the following situations: •
Your
child
make any •
Your
is
in a medical
emergency and you are not allowed
decisions about the care the child
child's teacher will not
is
to
to receive.
speak to you about your child's
progress at school. •
You
are
assumed
to
be a single parent even though you
live
and
parent with your partner. •
The courts grant custody
of
your child
your sexual relationship with your partner
to is
your mother because
deemed immoral.
-)
296j
Close Relations
The challenges involve rethinking what families are, what spouses are and do, and what parenting is. These are profoundly important sociological endeavours at reconceptualizing families. It was, in large part, this sort of rethinking that has led, in recent years, away from defining family by form and instead defining families broadly on the basis of processes: what families do rather than what they are. Gay and lesbian families, in not reproducing the heterosexual model of family, tend not to be structured hierarchically by gender. They therefore do not have the same divisions of labour by gender that many heterosexual families have. They are chosen families, characterized by fluid boundaries, new roles, and little institutionalized symbolism. They can be creative in making families and in devising new ways to be familial. Lesbian couples deciding to give birth to a child must negotiate which one will become pregnant and then agree on the process. This necessitates closeness in talking openly about their feelings and innermost desires and longings. Epstein (1996) refers to parenting roles in lesbian couples being
based on personality attributes rather than gender, so one parent is the funny one, or the hard-liner, or the one pushing academics. One of Epstein's
Growth and Triumph I
am
from the Peigan Nation.
when was an I
infant so
tunity to live on
my
t
grew up
in
...
was adopted out ago
reservation. Eleven years
was reunited with my where my healing
I
have never had the oppor-
I
birth parents,
and that
1
is
Vancouver,
In
met the man
I
teen.
an average, middle-class white
would stay with
We were
both on the streets
some
searching for
for
was sevenand we learned I
to exist together, but neither of us really to love or respect each other
began...
I
twelve years; he was twenty-two and
knew how
because we were both
part of ourselves.
We
had a
was
daughter and eventually a son but our relationship
always applied to me. Sexual abuse, disruption
deteriorated — fighting, alcohol and drugs were
family
...
In
school, 'squaw'
was
a label that
always present and
home and my own longing to know who was welled up inside me and began to run away from home grew to be ashamed of who was
for
and remained so
that the
in
our
1
many years
until
we patterned our lives this way we separated for the last time.
I
...
tory, until
I
I
was
suicidal
care.
understood Canadian
I
reflec-
I
my wrists and
If
I
were to sum up my first
in
all
can offer to a teenager...
at every oppor-
hope that someone
my teens
...
in
a haze
the evils that street
life
half has
about healing
on a degree
spent the rest of
of drugs, alcohol
his-
...
and either ran away
tunity or slashed
would
I
understood that racism was a
tion of ignorance I
I
until
...
in
with myself...
1
lifetime,
am now in
would have
It
up that commitment
has been a struggle
...
It
it
is
hard to keep
has taken a long time for
me but those survival skills me through a lot of years.
the street to leave
Source: Florence Shone. 1998.
rest
have had to give up drinking and
drugs, kicking and screaming and
carried
to say
and working
university
native studies. I
I
been about pain and the
"It
Became Important
..."
Our
have
Voice, April, 8.
Chapter 9
297 ^
Fresh Starts
(1996, 119) respondents puts it well, "We're not modeling male-female power dynamics, we're modeling women doing everything that needs to be done in order to maintain life." Post-gender families is a description of relationships in which gender forms no part of the household or the domestic division of labour. This kind of relationship raises important questions about the social concept of "cou-
pledom" as well as about the ways in which gender determines much of what we are and do in families, and how a commitment to non-sexist principles as the basis on which to build families can create new sorts of family fresh starts. Oerton (1997) explores these issues
among
lesbian couples in
"Queer Housewives?" Her conclusion is that gendering processes may so intertwine with all domestic labour and
an
article
all
that
she evocatively
we
entitles,
are in family that inventing family without
but not impossible. She argues that creative
challenging
it is
new solutions to family processes,
might be found in closer study of lesbian and gay couples. Risman (1998) argues that some of these new solutions can be found among heterosexual couples as well.
particularly divisions of labour,
Fresh Family Starts
in
Later Life
Most research on fresh family 50.
But with increasing
life
starts
has focused on people under the age of
expectancy and divorce likelihood, the propor-
who are divorced has risen. Moore and Rosenberg (1997, 31) note that 5 percent of men and 6.1 percent of women aged 65 to 74 in 1991 in Canada were divorced, compared with 0.3 percent of men and 0.1 percent of women in 1951. People older than 50 remarry with increasing frequency and establish new non-married families as well. In France, for example, in 1992, 1.8 percent of all marriages involved a man over the age tion of those over age 65
of60(Caradecl997,47).
Transitions out of Parenting: Even without marital that
many
Empty Nests
dissolution, fresh starts in family occur.
families experience (and increasing
numbers
A fresh start
of others
may
empty nest. An empty nest, ideally, occurs when all the children grow up and move away. Children are still growing up, but they are moving away with less frequency. Findings from the 1996 Census of Canada show that an amazing 55 percent of those aged 15 to 29 lived in their parental homes (Statistics Canada 1998). This is up from 47 percent in
wish
to) is the
1981 This, suggests Statistics Canada, .
is
one reason
for the overall decline
households headed by people under age 30 in Canada. Census data in Canada reveal that most people over age 65 either live alone or with a spouse only (Desjardins and Dumas 1993, 67). So, in the proportion of
empty
nests are a reality for
most Canadians.
Among some elderly, there
2?8_J
Close Relations
who feel that there is no one, or only one person, on whom rely for help (Moore and Rosenberg 1997, 47). Among most,
are a minority
they could however, there are numbers of friends and family, both close and
far,
on
whom they rely.
Sandwiched Families and Cluttered Nests and family lives that two forms. One is the
Recently, there has been a shift in living arrangements in
some ways
constitutes a fresh family start.
It
takes
home of adult children, as well as the presence of adult who never left. This has become a common living arrangement, as
return to the family children
indicated above that "it
is
by
the 1996
now commonly
Census
data. In fact,
some
researchers argue
understood that midlife parenthood often com-
prises prolonged periods of coresidence with
grown adults"
(Mitchell 1998,
The other is elders living with middle-aged children (Rosenthal, MartinMatthews, and Matthews 1996). People in mid-life who live with or have responsibilities for both the young and the old are sometimes called the "sandwich generation^' It is rare for three or more generations to share living quarters, but it is far from rare for them to be dependent on each other in a variety of ways, even when they maintain separate households. 2).
Generations
living
together
in
families provide mutual support
and generally get along
well.
Chapter 9
Concerns have been raised that
Fresh Starts
299 ^
refilled nests are a crisis for those
whose homes are being refilled, struggling as they are with work, caring for elders, and looking after themselves, their homes, and their communities. The common perception seems to be that young people are sponging off parents and are layabouts. Recent research by Mitchell (1998) shows is an incorrect presumption. Generations living together in famprovide mutual support and generally get along well. Middle gen-
that this ilies
erations receive valued companionship
and the
satisfaction of facilitating
their child's transition into adulthood.
On the other side, adult children receive a number of valuable services, such as free or low-cost housing, food, access to a car perhaps. In other research (Mitchell and Gee 1996a), even marital satisfaction is unaffected by the presence at home of adult children, provided the kids do not leave and return
home multiple times.
Young
adults are
live in stepfamilies
more
than
likely to leave the parental
when
home when
they
they live in either single-parent or two-par-
ent biological families (Mitchell 1994). This raises the important question of long-term implications for social inequalities. their
disadvantage by leaving the family
some young adults increase
If
home earlier than others,
ultimate outcome could be widening social inequalities.
If
then the
combined with
early pregnancies, early family starts, or leaving school to support oneself,
the long-term consequences are magnified.
Created Families
A crisis, such as a life-threatening illness, can challenge one's idea of family and
precipitate the positive
outcome
of a fresh family start in creative
new
One study of the perceived families of persons living with HIV /AIDS reveals exciting new family options (Wong- Wy lie and DohertyPoirier 1997). When a number of people with HIV/ AIDS were asked who or directions.
what they considered
to
be family, the results were surprising.
For this group of respondents, family as process was paramount. To
be considered family, an individual must have a reciprocal relationship with the defining person (the person with HIV/ AIDS), and must be accepting, supportive, a source of health
and wellness
resources,
and an
inspira-
tional influence.
What kinds
of people
met these
criteria for the
respondents?
One
male respondent with HIV /AIDS saw his family as large and diverse. His closest family consisted of his partner (male), his daughter and his partner's daughter, and his 10 good friends, both male and female (two of whom were deceased). Beyond that, family to him was members of the HIV /AIDS Society, his parents and their siblings and friends, numbering 13 in all, and then his grandparents on both sides, three of whom were also deceased.
300
-)
Close Relations
Another respondent (female) saw her in-laws as being as important husband and father. Her many friends, both gay and straight (four of whom also had HIV /AIDS) were also part of her creto her as family as her
ated family.
Another respondent included his physician in his self-defined family in an equal place with his wife and son. In his case, all but one of the friends included in his family definition also had HTV/AIDS. Significantly, he specifically excluded some members of his blood family, such as his mother, from his family definition.
These findings emphasize the limitations of assuming we know what family is, or of examining families by structure alone. Family processes matter,
and we all possess the power to define family for ourselves. Most imporstudy shows that family, however we define it, is becoming
tantly, this
more, rather than It
less,
important.
need not take the
crisis of
HIV/AIDS
for us to create
new
families.
Many of us create families for ourselves—in a new land, in situations where we have lost our families through war or time, when we have irresolvable disputes with families, or when our memories of our families of origin are too horrid to forgive. In these cases, and endless others, we make families of our friends, our neighbours, those with whom we share something important, or
even our pets.
Concluding Remarks We have explored
multiple and varied fresh starts to family in this chapWith family being placed increasingly in the realm of ideology and politics, it sometimes seems as if different approaches to family are in competition for our hearts. The fresh starts to family discussed here are not arranged in sequence for the most part, nor are they arranged like a smorgasbord for us to choose what we like best. For most of us, the kinds of families we live in choose us. We do not necessarily make informed and deliberate choices about the ends of marriages or relationships. Sometimes ter.
the choice
is
not ours but our partner's or spouse's.
we do make choices. We and develop processes that define us as families. We do our best within the opportunities and constraints society offers. It is these choices, not the shape our families take, that matter most to our outcomes and the outcomes of our children, and to our happiness. In the contest over which kind of family is preferable or most sanctioned by society or religions, we can forget that all of us in families are In our various kinds of families, however,
engage
in
Chapter 9
30^ ^
Fresh Starts
sharing and caring for each other. Single- and two-parent families, for exam-
Nor
not the great divide.
ple, are
are heterosexual
and gay/ lesbian fami-
The similarities in daily family living far outweigh the differences.
lies.
Chapter Summary This chapter discusses transitions to different family arrangements: singlehood, one-
parent families, remarriage, stepfamilles, empty nests, and flights from family situations into
new
fresh ones.
We
some
learn that
fresh starts are Inventive
and create new kinds
of close relations. Others could better be called stale starts, since they merely lead to a repetition of old patterns
enon
in
human
The and
and old problems. Starting new families
not a
new phenom-
society.
perils of fresh starts in family include high risks of poverty for single
their children after separation
to have children
same
At the
is
and divorce. Similar
risks
apply to
women who choose
on their own without partners, a phenomenon growing
who become pregnant
time, teens
rather than giving
them up
for
long-term underachievement
adoption as
much more
are
mothers
likely to
popularity.
in
keep
their babies
the past. This creates risks of poverty and
in
among young mothers. Adoption
of children from other
countries can have perils as well; the children face the cultural trauma experienced early childhood. ily start,
Becoming
one that makes
ments create
new
a parent without a partner as a deliberate choice
for multiple kinds of
means
in
a fresh fam-
parenthood and families. Custody arrange-
kinds of parenting arrangements;
for their children. This
is
many divorced
a non-residential parent
Is
parents share custody
Involved
In
active parenting,
and that families can extend beyond the walls of a household. Blended families pose challenges to the ways
we think of families,
for
numerous reasons. New vocabularies
to
describe these relationships must be invented as the numbers of familial relationships both inside
and outside the household multiply.
We
learned that not
all
abuse, or from culturally sanctioned violence, into families. Living solo ties but not in their
is
a
Some people
fresh family starts are choices.
growing option
for
new
lives, in
the process creating
many people who maintain
own households. Counter
to this
is
flee
from
new
close family
the sandwich family, which
involves both youth and elders living together with the middle generation, or cluttered nests, a variant on this
home
theme where youth
to live. With aging, families
either never leave the family
change and fresh family
times have enabled post-gender families to develop and live
more openly.
starts are
home
or return
made. Changing
some same-sex
families to
Close Relations
502_J
Key Terms Artificial insemination: A process of introducing semen into a woman's body without sexual intercourse; may or may not be a medical process.
In vitro fertilization: Generally known as test tube fertilization; conception that occurs by bringing together ova and sperm in medical procedures.
Binuclear family: A term used to describe a blended family, or a family where the spouses each bring children and non-residential parents into a new family. This term enables us to capture the concept of family as extending
Kin vacuum:
family to gain approval from a society
who favors this circumstance. POSSLQ: Person of the opposite sex shar-
beyond household.
ing living quarters.
Blended family: Typically describing a family comprising two previously married spouses with children who marry each other and bring their children together in a
A term referring to parents
who have remarried to escape the "cheerless life." And to reconstitute a nuclear
Post-gender families: Families in which the division of labour is not based on gender.
PSSSLQ: Person of the same
sex sharing
living quarters.
new family.
Sandwich generation: Those
Empty nest: A family dwelling in which the grown children have moved out.
who are caring for young and
in midlife
old family
members.
Suggested Readings how complex families have become everyday lives and how many famrelationships now exist. A key point
"The Transition from
reveals
Lone Parent Family to Step Family," pp. 156-75. In Michael Hardy and Graham
in their
Crow
emphasized throughout the book is that family and household are not synonymous.
Collins, Stephen. 1991.
Lone Parenthood: Coping with Constraints and Making Opportunities in Single Parent Families. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. This article explores in detail (eds.)
the iniportant transition out of lone parent-
hood and
into a stepfamily.
It
shows
that
both material issues (poverty) and ideological issues (the desire to avoid the stigma of single motherhood for both mother and children) play a role but that the ideological pull of remarriage is stronger. Collins also
shows how women's status in life is determined by both labour market activity and by their family status. Eichler, Margrit. 1997. Family Shifts; Families, Policies
and Gender
Equality. Toronto:
Oxford
University Press. This book introduces and
explores the various models of family.
It
ily
Ferri, Elsa. 1993."Socialization
Experiences
of Children in Lone Parent Families: Evidence from the British National Child
Development Study," pp. 281-90. Hudson and Burt Galaway (eds.)
In Joe Single
Parent Families: Perspectives on Research and Policy. Toronto:
Thomson. An
original
study based on a long-term follow-up of children in lone-parent and two-parent families in Britain. The findings show only minimal differences between the two
groups of children. Much of this difference can be attributed to differences in income, housing, and labour-market experiences of lone parents rather than family structure or parenting styles.
Chapter 9
J., and Danette JohnsonSumerford. 1998. "Doing It Fairly: Study of Postgender Marriages/' Journal of Marriage and the Family 60: 23-40. This article is an original study of what authors see as a new
Risman, Barbara
303 ^
Fresh Starts
not the primary basis for deciding
who does
what. Risman explores this in great depth in
her 1998 book. Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
kind of family in which gender roles are
Review Questions 1.
2.
Give two examples of how immigration can produce family fresh starts. Is
it
will
what age group is child-bearing outside marriage growing fastest? In
in the 1970s?
Why is it expectable now that people make multiple
9.
other nuclear families?
Which family members tend
to maincommunications and ties among family members across households most?
10.
What are
11.
What is generally recommended to new stepparents in regards to disci-
tain
5.
Do men or women do better living 12.
Which kinds
13.
What stigmas
What are some of the problems with the way we measure single parenthood?
7.
Why do single mothers often experience poverty? Why do many women
the downsides of "sandwich families?"
and
benefits
plining their partner's children?
alone? 6.
What are some of the problems in comparing blended families with
fresh family starts
over their lives? 4.
when their marriages
end?
true that fresh starts in families
began largely 3.
enter poverty
Why?
of people were considered not "acceptable" to adopt? What has been done to rectify the problem for these people?
are associated with single-parent families?
Discussion Questions 1.
2.
In what ways were widows in the past similar to and different from single
Why are more women deliberately
mothers today?
riage or a
What are some by
families in
seeking to bear a child outside mar-
What are
the future implications of an increasing number of divorced older
of the challenges faced
which parents
rately but continue to
live sepa-
be active in
people?
parenting? 6. 3.
What would happen if single mothers one day were no longer stigmatized? this group
Would poverty among lessen?
committed relationship?
Have you created other family members in your life? If so, recall how they came to be an extension of your family and discuss similar processes that you may find between your "extended" family and your blood family.
|04_3 7.
Close Relations
Do you
school system have in preventing chil-
think the positive influences
dren from being unsupervised eral hours?
concerning "latchkey kids" (e.g., independence, helping out with dinner etc.) override the negative influences
Why do you think fresh starts in fam-
Explain and discuss the negative resistance that single mothers experience in our society. How can communities and community workers help to
occur less for those over 50 than those under 50?
increase their financial assistance and decrease the social stigma? Is the gov-
(e.g.,
boredom, anxiety)?
Why or why
12.
not? 8.
ily life
9.
In
some
life
situations,
ernment playing a large enough
one does not
have the choice of how life turns out, and in the end we all make the best of what was decided by other forces. Is the goal valuable enough even if it is
13.
Recently, grandparents have been expressing their rights to have access to their grandchildren. Is there anything that communities and social workers can do to help ensure that this relationship continues?
14.
What are the consequences of having so many single parents in our society?
and unattainable? Apply this to problem such as the quest for a happy marriage even when divorce seems increasingly inevitable.
a family
Discuss possible reasons why mothers tend to have more contact with adult children than fathers. What social forces are operating on men and women to influence this pattern?
Discuss the consequences for society, for the family, for the parents,
and
for
the children. 15.
11.
role
in helping these families?
ideal
10.
for sev-
Discuss both the social advantages and disadvantages of latchkey children. What role, if any, should the
How has becoming more accepting of different family structure
changed our
society for the better? For the worse?
Discuss.
Activities 1.
fresh start?
Consider gay/lesbian parents. Each group will be assigned one scenario
have worked and earned pensions are
policies
Should retirement be considered a
Do women ever retire? Consider how even those women who less likely to actually retire,
they continue to have
because
many of the
same responsibilities (such as house cleaning, cooking, caring for grandchildren) as prior to retirement age. In comparison, when men retire they are stripped of a large set of work-related obligations. In groups, consider both the negative and positive consequences for both
men and women.
2.
to consider
what
need
to
federal /provincial
be changed or created
to help eliminate the discrimination against these and other "different families." Also, have each group consider the role of a police officer or social worker in each scenario if
How could this person help to resolve the situation? Reconvene the class and discuss possible solutions. called in.
Chapter 9
3.
Find several fairy
books
in
tales, stories,
reasons? Are there different reasons
or
which stepparents are repre-
for
sented (for example, Cinderella or David Copperfield). How are stepparents generally presented in the literature? Who is the intended audience? 4.
305
Fresh Starts
5.
men and women?
You are
a marriage therapist
who spe-
cializes in divorce proceedings, divorce
mediation, and marital therapy. Clients of yours recently divorced, and the couple and their two young children are experiencing difficulty adjusting to life after the divorce. Design a divorce ceremony or ritual that will help your clients and their family gain closure after the marriage breakdown. Outline
Interview friends and /or family members who have recently divorced or are considering divorce. Ask them their reasons for divorce. In groups, analyze the reasons (e.g., make a chart or bar graph) to determine if there are more prevalent reasons for divorce. Do the reasons reflect micro, meso, or macro
guidelines, recommendations,
and
step-by-step procedures.
Weblinks http://www.divorcenet.com
http://www.divorcewizards.com
an interactive site with helpful features such as bulletin boards where users can post their divorce questions or read the
was developed by a profeswho was concerned by the breakup of families and the high cost of divorce. Creator Lynne Diamond brought
This
is
questions and replies of other users. The includes legal links and a real-time chat room. site also
This
http://www.divorceceremony.org
Web site displays a thorough step-by-
step procedure for a divorce ceremony.
It
was written by Reverend Faith Strong, who hopes the ceremony will help ease the pain of devastation, guilt, and failure that often result
from divorce; create an opening
for
mend and move
breakthroughs of awareness that can the broken circle; bless the past;
on with productive lives. The document may be downloaded. http://www.divorcehelp.com
planning and execution of divorce. The site has links to articles on divorce law, mediation, personal finance, and family counselling; information on divorce seminars; and reviews of the best books about divorce and related family issues. assist others in the
more comfortable and durable
http://www.l