An Interview With Constance Ahrons

Introduction by Richard Farson
With this interview we get right to the core of social issues, the changing nature of family. The policy implications are profound and extensive. To discuss it with us we are indeed fortunate to have ILF Fellow Constance Ahrons, whose brilliant research has thrown a completely new light on marriage, divorce and most recently on the misunderstanding of the effects of divorce on children. She is Professor Emerita of Sociology at the University of Southern California, and former head of its training program in marriage and family therapy. With her books, The Good Divorce and most recently We're Still Family, she has compellingly shown that the popular ideas about the damage done to the children of divorce are largely unfounded.

To add further expertise to this interview, Connie has invited two of her most esteemed colleagues to participate. Joining Connie will be Stephanie Coontz and Steven Mintz. Professor Coontz is a leading historian of marriage whose articles in the New York Times you may have read with as much interest as I did. She is Professor of History and Family Studies, The Evergreen State College and Director of Research and Public Education, Council on Contemporary Families. Her new book is Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage (Viking). Professor Mintz, a top historian of the American family, also brings unconventional ideas about children and family. He is Professor of History at the University of Houston, the current co-chair of the Council on Contemporary Families, and author of Huck's Raft: A History of American Childhood. Welcome to all of you.

Richard Farson

Connie, I'll again use executive privilege and ask the first question. The term "children of divorce" has always conjured images of individuals with some permanent psychological damage. Your new research has put the lie to that formulation. Would you tell us what led you to take the path through which you developed such a completely different view?

Steven Mintz
For many Americans, the 1950s is the golden age of the American family. As recently as 1960, 70 percent of American households were just like Ozzie and Harriet’s, consisting of a go-to-work dad, a stay-at-home mom, and two or more kids. Today, in contrast, substantially fewer than 10 percent of households fit that pattern.

It’s easy to see why many Americans think of the 1950s family as an ideal. Life seemed more family and child-centered then. In contrast, our families seem much more conflict-riven, unstable, and highly stressed. Our business climate and our culture seem much less family and child friendly.

In fact, the 1950s family was a historical aberration, a product of circumstances unlikely to ever return. It was, in part, a reaction against the hardships of the Great Depression and the upheavals of World War II. It was also a product of the booming postwar economy, which allowed men to marry very early (average age, 22), and to support a family on a single income.

Nor was family life in the 1950s quite as idyllic as we think. Two-thirds of non-white children and 20 percent of white children grew up in poverty. And the 1950s family depended on the willingness of women to subordinate their individuality for their family’s good.

Our lives inevitably involve trade-offs. We have higher expectations for marriage and for our material well-being than did our parents. We believe that women have a right to a fulfilling career and to financial independence. These improvements have come at a price—but I doubt many of us would be willing to trade what we have today for the world of half century ago.

Constance Ahrons

In a word, Richard, "outrage."

For well over a decade, one study on the effects of divorce on children has dominated the current thinking about divorce. A small, clinical study of 60 Marin County families had managed not only to garner most of the media attention but also to set policy for judicial decisions.

Publishing three trade books consisting of poignant and sad composite stories, Judith Wallerstein has painted a very grim picture and has managed to convince policy makers that the "unexpected legacy of divorce" is the insidiously harmful ways it leaves its mark decades afterward.

That these sweeping negative findings are based on a small clinical sample, recruited by offering counseling in exchange for participating in the research, seemed to be known only by her academic critics. The following characteristics of the sample appear only in Wallerstein’s first book (and then only in the appendix) "…fifty percent of the men and almost half of the women were chronically depressed, sometimes suicidal ….and an additional 15 percent of the men and 20 percent of the women …had histories of mental illness…"

What is most disturbing about this is that a small sample of sixty such troubled families has made headlines, and the claim that the subjects are representative of typical American middle-class families. Few people read the fine print and her findings have given rise to sweeping conclusions and exaggerated negative findings about the long-term effects of divorce on children.

Although I had tucked away my own longitudinal study of postdivorce families, the conservative climate and regressive policy discussions about divorce so disturbed me that I felt compelled to interview the grown children of the divorced parents I first interviewed in 1979. These now adult children revealed a much more nuanced and complex picture of the effects of divorce. The findings are much more positive, with the majority doing as well as most of their peers, and a 20 percent minority who appear to have long-range adjustment problems related to their parents’ divorces.

What I am most concerned about, however, is how difficult it is, in this current social and political climate, to influence policy makers that parents in diverse family structures can raise healthy children. In 1996, it was my frustration about this issue that led me to organize a small group of family researchers, theorists and practitioners. The Council on Contemporary Families, a non-profit national organization committed to promoting the strength and welfare of all families, emerged from this ‘think tank.’

Participant
Hi Constance, I'm looking forward to this opportunity to learn more about the subject. It's hard to imagine that a sampling of only 60 families could have such an impact on social policy. What was the size of your own sampling? Why do you think policy makers have been so eager to embrace Wallerstein's findings? What's in it for them?

Participant
Constance: As someone from a different "era" - I am celebrating today an 85th birthday -- it seems to me that your research is taking you down a faulty path. I agree that there should be more research and understanding about the impacts on children of divorce, and an attempt to minimize unfortunatge results. But at the same time, I believe that there should be more attention paid to the responsibility of NOT HAVING CHILDREN until and unless the marriage seems to be a "keeper". In my old fashioned view, these are two important directions to follow that are part of the same important goals - a return to the importance and responsibility of having children. If this could also result in FEWER births, that would also be a plus in the population problems of the current and future generations.

Participant
Connie, as you know, I was also infuriated by one of Wallerstein's publications--even wrote a letter to the editor of the journal Psychiatry, and was further infuriated by her response, which also showed little understanding of scientific research. In her latest, she advises couples to stay married for the children's sake, almost no matter what may divide them. But Kip asks the right question. What is it that makes her work appeal to policymakers and judges?

I should warn you and Stephanie and Steve, nobody in our conferences gets away with talking about families without hearing from Don Straus (who was president of both the American Arbitration Association and Planned Parenthood) about responsible population control! Just kidding, Don. Happy Birthday.

Thanks for that quick picture of the 1950's family, Steve. Were there ever any good old days for the American family? Or for any families? Anywhere? Is 1950 as close as it got? Don't we have a better family life now? Dad's are more involved, aren't they? Or is it made worse by the erosion of community, working mothers, day care instead of playing in the neighborhood, etc.?

Constance Ahrons
Kip, one reason that both the media and policy makers embraced the Wallerstein study is that bad news about divorce serves to protect and reinforce the institution of marriage. If the ‘secret’ got out that indeed many families that don’t fit our ‘mom and pop’ household ideal are healthy, it would challenge the basic societal premise that marriage and family are synonymous. We would then have to face the fact that marriage is increasingly becoming optional.

As Steve noted, and Stephanie will elaborate on, we cling to nostalgic images of family life. When we cling to the past as an ideal for the future, we need to preserve that picture by slaying the dragons that we perceive as threatening. Divorce heads the list of those threatening dragons.

The divorce research is now quite consistent in showing that, although divorce is a very painful transition, the majority of children grow up to be reasonably competent, happy and healthy. The other consistent finding is that on-going high conflict between parents is detrimental to the well-being of children, whether parents are married or divorced. In fact, recent findings suggest that high-conflict marriages are more devastating to children and that many of the children in divorced families actually were very distressed prior to the divorce.

Don, I couldn’t agree with more about paying more attention to the responsibilities of having children. In fact, at least 50 years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead suggested that we have renewable marriage contracts. And prior to having children, a married couple should make a decision whether to renew their contract before taking on the responsibilities of parenting. I was quoted in the NYT almost 15 years ago suggesting that we have starter marriages that could easily be dissolved prior to having children.

Most divorced parents are not irresponsible. They don’t divorce easily. They value their children and, in the midst of great emotional turmoil, try to meet their children’s needs. Newer, less adversarial methods of divorce are emerging that will help parents cooperate better as parents after divorce, but they are primarily grass roots efforts with little support from societal institutions.

The broader issue is how we can begin to embrace the families we live in and the not some mythical ideal of the past.

Participant
Constance: I like your suggestion to have renewable marriage contracts before having children. The problem is that one is faced with the "human" fact that most couples in the first few months of sleeping with one another are also at their least responsible period for recognizing the future responsibility of becoming pregnant. At least in my opinion, if your energy could make room for both a better understanding of the children of divorce AND the need to educate those who choose to live together with the responsibilities of pregnancy, you have just added one more enthusiastic friend! :)

As Dick has pointed out, I am also worried about "over population". But your activities are surely an important first step on a long journey!

Steven Mintz
In addition to the everyday kinds of strains that afflict marriages--financial strains, challenging children--today's marriages face two structural problems that I think greatly contribute to their instability.

One is well-known--the challenge of sharing domestic responsibilities (cleaning, cooking, childcare). More affluent families are much better able to address this tension than are their less affluent counterparts, precisely because they can purchase help.

Less well known, but at least as important, is the challenge of "parallel lives." In two-career families, helicopter marriages, where couples interact relatively infrequently and often superficially, are the norm. No longer do we assume that one spouse will live through the other's achievements. In practice, it is often very difficult for a couple to remain connected emotionally and intellectually when the vast bulk of their lives exist apart.

Stephanie Coontz
HI all -- sorry for the delay in joining you. I was in Washington DC. From my perspective, Connie's work is so important, and predictions of doom such as that by Wallerstein are so unhelpful, even when they include a kernel of truth, because we are in the middle of a revolution in marriage and family life that is not going to be reversed. Over the past 150 years, we have moved inexorably away from the economic and political roles that that marriage used to play in society and from the relationships between husband and wife that marriage used to enforce. And marriage has changed more in the past 30 years than in the previous 3,000.

The revolution in marriage, I argue, is as huge and irreversible as the Industrial Revolution. Like the Industrial Revolution, it comes with big costs and poses major challenges to the way we used to organize social life. But we can no more go back to a system of universal, mandatory, lifelong marriage than we can turn everybody back into self-employed farmers. So we have to figure out how to meet the challenges, not try to wish or scold them out of existence.

This is what Connie's important work on divorce does. She doesn't deny the challenges and the problems. But she shows what can be done to minimize or alleviate them. And that's what we need to know if I am correct and the marriage system we used to know is a thing of the past. (Incidentally, the revolution in marriage is an international phenomenon. In places such as Japan where divorce is still stigmatized, marriage rates are much lower than they are here in the US)

Participant
Connie, Steve and Stephanie:

Except for the phenomenon that after the fact any divorcing couples can describe reasons their marriage was flawed, my understanding is that it has been difficult to establish a correlation between the quality of a marriage and divorce, with good marriages ending in divorce as often as bad ones. Maybe even more often, because of higher expectations not being met? What is your understanding of that?

Participant
Stephanie writes: "The revolution in marriage, I argue, is as huge and irreversible as the Industrial Revolution"

I will not pretend that I can speak with the knowledge of Stephanie, but I can submit the following from my own experience. In the perhaps privileged group that I have lived among, the goal of a good and life-long marriage still exists and, to some extent remains possible. There are of course even in my "group" , many divorces. But almost always there is an after-divorce desire for "trying" again to find a permanent spouse, and often with success.

My own (fortunate - I will not claim skilled) experience has been a marriage of now 65 years and at this time a "crutch" of great help as a mutual supports for each other through the less glamorous times of aging.

We have three children, all of whom are now in middle age and married to the first and only spouse.

Our grand children are "modern" in that they are not virgins. But they all distinguish the difference between living at times with someone of the opposite sex until the hoped-for marriage comes along that will be as successful as that of their parents.

It is a close family, with all three generations fond of each other and often helpful in various ways to each other.

The above is not a boast, but a fact. I recognize that this description of a family is less common than it was some generations ago, but I have seen it blossoming even in these difficult times, and not always by any means only among those in the higher economic rungs of society. I appreciate the research and wisdom of Connie. It is not only useful, but necessary today. But I would hope that updated visions of old fashioned marriages will not be allowed to disappear along with the horse and buggy.

Participant
Connie, in re Stephanie's 15:12 This is what Connie's important work on divorce does. She doesn't deny the challenges and the problems. But she shows what can be done to minimize or alleviate them. I'd like to know more about what can be done.

Constance Ahrons
Richard, I don’t know of any studies that address the issues of a correlation between divorce and the quality of the marriage that preceded it. And if there were any such studies I wouldn’t trust the findings. If we could even agree upon what a good marriage is, we’d have to take time in to account. What might have felt good to spouses married five years may not feel good on their 15th anniversary. And yes, the expectations of marriage today are much ‘different’ (some would disagree with the word ‘higher’) than they used to be and people, especially women (who initiate about ¾ of the divorces not only in this country but in many others as well), are less willing to tolerate a bad marriage today.

Kip and Stephanie, thanks for reminding me to speak about to the impact of my work. It’s difficult for me to say that in a few words without risking making it sound simplistic. But here goes: The prevailing myth about divorce is that it destroys families and ruins children’s lives. I challenge this myth and show that there is no such thing as "the divorce" but instead there are many different kinds of divorces (as there are marriages and families) and parents have very different ways of working out their family relationships; some of the ways result in better functioning children and families after divorce and others cause damage. I use the findings from the research to provide parents with knowledge and role models to help them work through the difficult and complex changes in their family lives in ways that minimize the negative consequences. As you can see, Don, this also reminds parents of their responsibilities for their children's well-being.

One of the most destructive stereotypes is that divorced spouses must, of necessity, be warring foes. It was only 25 years ago that a very influential professional book reminded therapists that any indication of attachment between former spouses was pathological. Only 5 years later, in spite of much opposition, joint custody legislation emerged and over 20 years became an option in almost every state, and now is the preferred or presumed option in many states. How we can hold these two conflicting messages of divorced parents as bitter enemies and at the same time jointly responsible to and for their children continues to baffle me.

But I think we are seeing some changes toward more acceptance of separating out the role of spouses and parents: spouses may divorce but parents don’t need to. But any change that makes divorce more acceptable is viewed as threatening the institution of marriage.

The current judicial and legal system make it difficult for parents to divorce responsibly and constructively. The adversarial process still predominates but new options are becoming available to allow parents to avoid having individual lawyers, or choosing lawyers who choose to mediate and negotiate rather than litigate. I do see positive changes in the attitudes of judges and lawyers (perhaps because many of them have experienced their own divorces) and there is a movement under foot to totally revamp the current family court system. Of course, there’s also a larger movement that believes the divorce rate can be reduced by getting rid of no-fault divorce, returning to fault-based divorce and sole custody arrangements.

I’ve gone on much longer than I intended, but that’s what you get Richard for giving me a soapbox!

Participant
Constance: I am sure that everyone here will agree with me that your "soapbox" is both fascinating and timely. So if my often negative-sounding entries seem negative it is only my clumsy way of showing my interest! Here is my negative question of the day:

In long and "successful" marriages, child rearing is only a relatively small part of the story. Relationships of the parents with each other, and their relationships with the children goes through many phases and challenges. But for those of us who have had the privilege of experiencing these different relationships, they become increasingly important and challenging. And as I suggested in my #14, in a long and loving marriage relationship the help each can give to the other as they grow older opens up a whole different perspective when discussing marriage.

That is why in my # 14 I asked you to consider adding "updated visions of old fashioned marriages" to your research. With perhaps unwanted hubris, I suggest that this might add balance and perhaps an even more interesting following if you did.

Participant
For a book she was writing (but never published), my ex-wife interviewed dozens of women in her circumstance (married to men with children from a previous marriage) and found that the "First Wives' Club" syndrome, where the first wife hates her replacement, didn't hold, but was actually reversed, with the first wife being quite civil, and the hatred coming from the second wife to the first...and very strong hatred it was in the great majority of the cases. I listened to the tapes. The hatred was made even stronger when the husband was accommodating to the first wife ("Can you take the children this weekend rather than next"...to which the husband replies "Of course" without having checked with his current wife.) It appeared also that when the husband hated the first wife and refused to have anything to do with her, it was regarded by the second wife as a kind of gift.

Does any of that square with your experiences?

Participant
Connie, can you assess which is the stronger move toward divorce policy changes--the liberalizing one or the return to proven fault and sole custody? I assume the latter is fueled by the growth of the religious right?

Participant
You three represent such a powerful resource for us I can't stop asking questions. As I understand the history of divorce, the earliest reasons were adultery, desertion, infertility and brutality. Without disappearing, those gave way to religious differences, in-law troubles and financial difficulties, which in turn gave way to communication problems, disagreements about child-rearing, and lack of a fulfilled sex life. The latter findings are about three decades old, and I heard some commentator say that money has returned as #1.

What are the current reasons given for divorce?

Stephanie Coontz
I'll leave Connie, the expert in this, to answer Richard's last questions, but let me see if I can assure Donald that I favor helping people work out "updated visions of old fashioned marriages" in the sense that he is talking about. And many people are working on that. Psychologists Philip and Carolyn Cowan, for example, have structured many interventions to help couples cope with what happens when a baby arrives and a wife quits work to stay home with the child. (The usual result is a sharp drop in marital quality, but the Cowans have found ways to work with couples to resolve their tensions.)

So I favor helping people construct lasting marriages. But let me lay out the conclusions I reached in my new book on the history of marriage, to explain why I think it is irresponsible social policy to out all our eggs into that one basket. For thousands of years, marriage was a strong institution in part because the personal relationship between the partners took second place. People married to raise capital, conclude business deals, get larger social support networks, expand the family labor force, even make peace treaties. Women were economically and legally subordinate to their husbands. As late as the 1970s, many American states and most European countries had "head and master" laws giving the man the right to make final decisions in the family. Few women could support themselves out of marriage. And men too faced enormous social pressure: Banks could refuse loans and employers often refused promotions to men who weren't married by a "respectable" age or who had been divorced.

One result was that people got and stayed married. But another was that many of them entered loveless marriages or put up with relationships that were if not miserable at least hollow. Even in happy marriages, the rigid rules of marital gender roles prevented people from negotiating more flexible, individualized relations, and this was a particular problem for women. At the end of the 1950s, a national poll showed the 90% of housewives -- even the ones who considered their own marriages very happy -- did not want their daughters to follow in their footsteps. Instead, they wanted them to postpone marriage, get more education, and gain some job experience.

Today, women don't have to enter or stay in marriage just in order to survive. And when couples do marry, they can construct their own individualized roles. I think that marriages that work are fairer, more flexible, more loving, and better for their members' well-being than ever before. But the same things that allow people to negotiate better marriages allow them to leave if negotiations break down, or not to enter marriage at all. The same forces that have made marriage more fulfilling have made it more optional, and harder to bear when it doesn’t live up to our new expectations. And we're not going to jawbone that reality away.

So we can and should help people enter marriage more wisely, and work on sustaining their marriages. But neither in our personal lives nor our social policies can we afford to assume that all commitments, dependent care, and child-raising will be organized through lifelong marriage. We need to stop assuming this is a sentence of doom and find innovative ways to help all of today’s diverse families meet their responsibilities, build on their strengths, and minimize their vulnerabilities.

Participant
Stephanie, thanks for that most helpful history and analysis. The divorce rate went up in the middle of the last century, but has stayed close to 50% for at least a couple of decades, hasn't it? So with the growing change in the idea of lifelong commitment, do you expect it to climb even higher? While the marriage vows remain traditional (although I know one preacher who says, "As long as you both shall love") I suppose it's conceivable that people will expect to go through several marriages, just as they now go through several careers in a lifetime. Whatcha think?

Connie, while you have clearly shown that divorce is not damaging as previously thought, from my experience I would say that it remains terribly painful at the time, especially if children are involved. Is that your reading?

Constance Ahrons
Hi All,

Stephanie, thanks for providing such a clear overview of why and how the institution of marriage is changing. I couldn't agree with you more.

Richard, three marriages is a lifetime, all with different purposes, was proposed by Margaret Mead some 60 years ago.

And indeed, for a large segment of the population, this appears to be what's happening.

Yes, divorce is very painful for both parents and children. It's not only the loss of the everyday life that provided security but its the loss of the hope and dreams for the future. And because it's usually not a mutual decision, anger on the part of the person who feels left dominates the process. I don't think we can, or should, expect divorce to be less painful, but if we had some rituals that helped a couple grieve, it might help people cope with the loss and pain more effectively. It would also be helpful not to enter the legal and judicial system, which often escalates the anger. So, yes, it painful, but if we had a more humane approach to it, accepting that the loss of a marriage requires some grieving, and if the continuance of the family in a rearranged form was normative, I think it would help the family cope better.

On to your other insights and questions. Looking at the history of divorce there have always been swings toward liberalizing it followed by regressive movements. The recent covenant marriage movement, which essentially removes the no-fault divorce option, appears to have failed, except for a small religious group. That tells me that we're not ready to give up individual rights in marriage.

There's really not much data on the first wife/second wife issue. At the three and five year interviews with the post divorce families, I also interviewed all the stepparents (3/4 of the men and half the women had remarried by then). What I found was that the relationship between the two women was much emotional than the relationship between the two men (father and stepfather). The 'mothers' were either bitter enemies or quite amicable, while the 'fathers' for the most part were cordial. So much depended on the relationship between the ex-spouses, the fathers relationship with his children, and of course, the personality of the mothers. My clinical impressions are that second wives often feel threatened by the tie between the father and his children, and often his ex-wife as well. When the first wife includes the second wife and accepts that she is part of the child's family, it goes better. My data showed that when fathers remarried quickly, and most do within two years of the divorce, the relationship between the two women was usually negative.

I think your assessment of causes is correct. Although money may be an issue, the most commonly stated reasons are lack of communication, growing apart, etc. The issues of adultery, desertion etc.(which were the only causes that allowed for divorce) come up occasionally but they have diminished greatly.

I think Stephanie's last paragraph (15:21) sums up the situation well. What will it take for us as a society to embrace the reality that we have diverse ways of being family today and that one form is not universally better than another?

Stephanie Coontz
To add to Connie's answer to Richard's question, I'd point out that the divorce rate has been rising pretty steadily since the 1880s, with a surge in 1946 following WWII and a new one in the late 1970s. Divorce rates reached their all time high in 1979-1981 and have actually come down by a bit since then. Some experts suggest that perhaps 40-43 percent of marriages will end in divorce, as opposed to half. Part of the reason for this decline is a decline in marriage rates, but part is actually an increase in the chance that a marriage will last. We don't know why: maybe it's that men are finally adjusting to their wives new work roles; maybe it's the increase in higher education (in a reversal of the past, college-educated women are now much less likely to divorce then other women). I think divorce rates have probably leveled off here, just as they have done in several Western European countries. But I don't foresee them falling back to earlier lows. Cohabitation, single-hood, divorce, and remarriage are all here to stay, and we need to figure out how to make the best of it.

Participant
Thanks for all that, Connie. Many years ago I remember Margaret Mead telling a group of us that she advocated five-year marriage contracts. I once mentioned her idea to a journalist, who, even though I had explained it was hers, somehow thought it was mine, and printed it. I was deluged with hateful responses, so I can only imagine what Margaret must have gone through.

For second wives, there is the concept of the "first family", an image that somehow continually haunts them, and actually is given some support by the way the public views the legitimacy of marriages. As I recall, second marriages are found to be of richer quality than first. Sad then that they should be less legitimate. Paradoxically, they are shorter! I'm told by a sociologist friend that third marriages are even richer, but shorter still.

So perhaps I have several more marriages to look forward to! At my age they will definitely be shorter. From my perspective, even five-year contracts seem a bit long.

How do you three think marriage vows should read? Or should there even be public weddings, with the community committed to sustaining the marriage?

Participant
Thanks, Stephanie, for that explication of the changing divorce rate. It is encouraging in a way. In many ways, actually. Interesting that college education, at least for women, is related to fewer divorces. Especially because it's a reversal of the past, where they were more likely to divorce. Any idea how that works?

Participant
Connie, Stephanie, Steven: A belated good day to you!

It's interesting and encouraging to see formal recognition of the changing 'dynamic' around marriage – the motivation, pressures responsibilities, stereotypes etc. But how long will it take for social policies and legal frameworks to adjust in order to support these changes? Obviously this is partially rhetorical – but I'd be interested in (collectively) your views on this. Behind the question is a reference to children – (weighted) custodial rights, maintenance, responsibility, equity etc. The law (in the UK, for example) surrounding marriage and divorce does not reflect the modern reality and (I believe) is guilty of exacerbating areas of conflict between parents (which can't be helpful to the children) – despite the intention to protect children and families.

Stephanie Coontz
1. On Richard's question about the changing predictors of who does and does not divorce, I am not an expert on this, but I suspect two factors are at work. From a historical perspective, we've seen a sea change in women's options outside marriage. That's made it easier for women to refuse marriage or to leave it, but it's also increased their negotiating power within marriage, and that's especially true for educated or higher-earning women. And one of the best predictors of marital satisfaction today -- for men as well as women -- is more egalitarian attitudes toward sharing housework and childcare. But it's also true that the income and security gap between college-educated and non-college educated workers has grown immensely. So there is less economic stress.

2. As for Andrew's question, that's the big one, especially in the United States and the U.K., where politicians, pundits, and other leaders are particularly prone to put their head in the sand and hope these changes will go away before they have to do the hard work of adjusting law and social policy. In recent years, I don't know how many articles I've seen hopefully announce that perhaps the tide has turned: divorce is falling; people are rediscovering marriage; teen pregnancies have fallen; women are quitting work to be with their kids. As I said in an earlier post, there is good reason to believe that many countries have reached the saturation point of transformation, which has led to a leveling off of change and some stabilization. But it is irresponsible wishful thinking to confuse such stabilization with a return to the past. One of the reasons that we need groups such as the Council on Contemporary Families, which Connie has talked about before, is because they take that approach that in today's world, the relevant research and policy question is not what kind of families we wish people would live in, but what can we do to build healthy relationships and sustainable commitments along the whole spectrum of diverse living arrangements we find in the modern world.

Participant
Suppose that we couldn't work on relationships directly, but were limited in what changes we could make to affecting only system and physical design. Are there architectural and urban planning designs involving, say automobiles and housing and working hours and other infrastructures that could be rethought, in the way, for example that Jane Jacobs encouraged downtown development that would enable families to live over businesses, creating stronger, less spread out communities?

Constance Ahrons
Richard, one of the strongest predictors of divorce is age at marriage. The later one marries, the less likely they'll divorce. That would speak to the issue of why college educated women have lower divorce rates. However, it doesn't speak to why remarried people have a slightly higher divorce rate.

Andrew, I completely agree with you that the laws, both here and in the UK, only add more conflict to divorce. Although custody, etc., is supposedly based on the "best interests of children" there is no agreement about how to define 'best interests.' When gender roles were clear and traditional, the best interests of children was defined as belonging with their primary caregiver, almost always mother. Now, with the shifting and confusing gender role definitions, and the increasing involvement and interest of fathers, custody determination is unclear. The easy way out of that dilemma was joint custody. It was a quick way to resolve custody disputes. Although it is often more equitable for parents, it is not always in the best interests of children. For example, settling a parental custody dispute by awarding joint living arrangements to highly conflicted parents can be disastrous for the kids. For cooperative parents, it can be a good solution given that they have similar values, live close to one another, etc. The current thinking of those working in the field is that it needs to be a case by case decision, that parents need education and counseling to learn how to manage a dual household family, etc. An emerging professional role is that of the 'parenting coordinator." But all of this takes money and funding is not forthcoming for any programs that appear to improve divorce outcomes.

Steve, as you look at the history of childhood, were there any times when children resided in more than home? Or times, perhaps, when parents were less central in children's lives?

Participant
I'll be most interested in Steve's response.

Sociologist Jessie Bernard once said that there is never one marriage. There is his marriage and her marriage, and they are quite different. In her day, at least, she thought his marriage was better than hers. And his divorce also. Think that is still true? Or was it ever?

Participant
As an advocate of children's rights, I have long thought that if children were actually treated as full persons under the law, there would be more accommodations to them, and more options than just going with one or both parents. It is difficult to decide what is in the best interests of the child when going with the divorcing parents is the only option.

Participant
Undoubtedly there are things that professionals could do to help parents in difficult custody cases, but the idea of "parenting coordinator" is a bit of a problem for me because I find the word "parenting" so distasteful. It is a new word, meaning the technology of parenthood, and by and large, doesn't offer much. Parenthood is too important to be technologized. As I understand the current research, almost nothing that parents do deliberately as a parenting technique matters much in terms of whether their children do well in any important area. What parents ARE matters a great deal, but they (we) have little control over that.

Participant
I have followed these exchanges with great interest, and I am sure that those of you who have participated in recent study of raising children under 21st century conditions are contributing greatly to an understanding of what is best for children. What I find missing are detailed accounts of individual experiences, good and bad, of children of broken "marriages".

For example, literature and studies of traditional "marriages", good and bad, are plentiful. But I find it difficult to understand how a child's life shuttling between two parents can come close to that of a child in a "good" marriage. It would also be interesting to see some speculation of the welfare of a child in a "good" arrangement after a divorce compared to that of a child in a "bad" marriage".

Without claiming that this is a correct understanding of our discussion here, I feel that it would be useful to have as one benchmark for a "good arrangement" for a childhood might be that of a child in a successful marriage. With that understanding as a starting point, researchers would accept as one goal arrangements for children of broken "marriages" some of the good things of a good marriage. Without that exact definition, I know that Dick has given this a lot of study and speculation.

Even if this does not seem to add much to the research now going one by those of you who are professionals, it might provide a better bridge between those of you who are real 21st century people and those of us who are stuck in the 20th century. Or another approach would be a SPECIFIC list of ingredients for a "good childhood upbringing" under any arrangements - marriage or other.

Participant
I would love to read what Connie has to say about your question, Don, let alone what the historians, Steve and Stephanie, say. For me, the most interesting part of your question is its modernity. That is, it is concerned about the healthy psychological development of children.

Only a few centuries ago children were not very important to the adult world, except as workers. A lot of them died early, so you had to have many to keep a few. Parents didn't keep track of their ages. Until the 13th century there were no children depicted in paintings as members of society. About the 17th century the clergy became interested in keeping children from sinning (that was the beginning of schools) and about a century later parents got into the act, and parental child rearing became a responsibility. But in the US, over the last century, we have become perhaps the most anxious parents in the world. Not the gentlest, but the most anxious. Increasingly we must do what is good for our children. To my way of thinking, that has become terribly oppressive, believing that we do have the ability to develop our children in almost every way.

"Parenting" is now not only a big business, but a monstrous burden. Everything people do with their children has to be good for them. That has backfired, and now parents do many things that are not good for them, like abuse them. Estimates are in the hundreds of thousands of child abuse cases a year in the US, and run as high as over four million.

Paradoxically, as the Goertzels have shown in their studies, about two thirds of the most eminent people of the last century had a wretched childhood.

Participant
I wonder if there is any difference for children of divorced parents that are in an extended family situation, and those in the nuclear family arrangement. I would assume that the extended family would provide more support - the world as the child knew it would not change entirely. Why has the extended family not been commonly practiced in the US and much of Europe? It seems like such a healthy living arrangement all round.

Participant
This is an attempt to answer my own question in #34: what might be a:

SPECIFIC list of ingredients for a "good childhood upbringing" under any arrangements - marriage or other.

• Love from and for those who are raising us
• Understanding from those who are bringing us up - how soon and how to assume steps towards independence
• Friends and the ability to enjoy and understand them
• The ability and desire to share things and ideas
• Nurturing a sense of humor
• A feeling of some security
• An appetite for learning new things
• Good manners - the ability to interact with others
• Ability to talk and understand in at least one other language
• An understanding of the history of ones "country" and a minimum awareness of foreign cultures

and of course many others

Participant
A good list, Don. But if you were to submit it to someone running a parent training class, they would technologize it. The bumper sticker, "Have you hugged your kid today" is indicative of how it works. They would teach these values as parenting skills. An appetite for learning new things might be translated into the parents buying books with varied subjects for them and systematically reading aloud to them. But recent research shows that apparently doesn't lead to the goal. Children do no better in school after that kind of treatment. What does matter is when the parents are themselves interested in new subjects, own and read their own books. Then the children do better.

Language and manners can obviously be taught as skills ("Before you start eating, put your napkin in your lap"...I wonder how many times I've said that) but even then it is better for them to learn them as examples from their parents. For me, the other subjects on the list should not be considered a matter of parenting technique.

Participant
Connie, now that you have supplied definitive evidence on the children of divorce question, what is ahead for you? Where are your impulses, inclinations, curiosities, desires, internal pressures leading you? Is there a new book in your future?

Constance Ahrons
My apologies for disappearing yesterday. Life got in the way.

Richard, although the issue of what parenting is and should be, and whether there are skills to be learned or not, is one worthy of discussion, it can take us a bit astray here. The major work of a parenting coordinator for divorced parents is to reduce the conflict between parents and intervene in their power struggle in order to reduce the stress on children. It's not about teaching parenting skills, except perhaps to help them learn to negotiate their differences.

Jane, one of the most salient findings is that the children who were most resilient had a significant relationship with a loving grandparent, an extended family member or some other adult, ie. teacher or neighbor. The extended family relationships can be a very important resource when parents are in crisis, but many children don't have access to them.

Our high mobility in the U.S. is a major reason that most children can't rely on the support of their extended family. It would be interesting to see some research comparing children whose parents divorce and who live in the isolated nuclear family with children who had close relationships with extended family members. I think looking at separation/divorce in African American families in which there are extended family relationships(whether they are biological kin or quasi-kin relationships) would shed some light on this. Of course, one would have to control for social class, because poverty is the major source of stress and distress in families. And unfortunately, the body of divorce research is based on middle class families.

Richard, the big question of what's next. I am most focused now on policy issues that address family diversity. I'm sure I will remain active in the culture wars conversations, however, I am still a recovering academic and not quite sure which path I now want to follow. Actually it is quite nice, for the first time in my adult life, not to have a major writing commitment hanging over me, and I'm enjoying my own curiosity and exploration of what's next.

Participant
This week has gone by so fast, thanks to the most responsive participation by our interviewee and her colleagues. I hate for it to come to a close. I want to thank Connie, Stephanie and Steve for illuminating so clearly a family dynamic so widely misunderstood. I know we have all benefited, and I look forward to publishing the entire interview in the next issue of the ILF Digest.

.

-END-

< top >