It's taken me awhile to accept it, but I've gradually embraced this as truth: Divorce isn't always bad--sometimes it can even be good.
I know. The cultural stereotypes and prejudices surrounding divorce are well-rooted, so to some, the idea of divorce being a good thing sounds just plain wrong. It's akin to saying there is no hope--that every broken thing cannot be fixed, or that every conflict cannot be resolved. When you think about it, that's what a divorce is: the result of a really big conflict that can't be resolved.
After my divorce, I was determined to be a better resolver of conflicts. I would pay more attention to them, address problems early on, and learn about techniques for avoiding and resolving clashes. Sure, conflict resolution is never a perfect process, but it seems better than the alternatives: to continue feeding the fire or to just walk away.
I thought my self-improvement plan was all going quite well. I'm married again, and my new husband and I have many fewer conflicts than my first husband and I did, right from the start. I'm older and wiser, and I decided that I must be doing a good job at figuring this conflict resolution thing out. It works! It's possible!
So I was a bit miffed when someone I know suggested that the whole idea of "conflict resolution" was a fantasy. We were at a church meeting, no less, among a group of people who should specialize in conflict resolution, and she was telling us we were fooling ourselves if we thought we could really resolve conflict.
What she was saying, though, is not that the process is false, but that the end goal is unrealistic. I realized she had a point. Just the term "conflict resolution" implies that, if done properly, you will emerge with the conflict resolved. To resolve something is to bring it to an end, or to settle it conclusively. How often is that really possible, when it comes to differing opinions and goals and desires, whether in a business, a church, or a marriage? And if it isn't possible, how long should we struggle away, pretending like it is?
That's the key question for two people who are deeply unhappy in their marriage: How long and hard should we work at this before admitting defeat and calling the lawyers?
There isn't, of course, a one-size-fits-all answer to that question, but there are some important terms and definitions to consider. First, "conflict" is not synonymous with "misunderstanding." Most marriages--even strong ones--include plenty of misunderstandings, which can usually be cleared up by expressing yourself one more time, with just a bit more care.
Conflicts can't be cleared up that easily. True conflict is foundational and prolonged. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as the "competitive or opposing action of incompatibles: antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons)."
And then there's the word "resolve," which I addressed a few paragraphs up. Often, two people with different needs and opinions simply can't come to a conclusive middle ground. They might be able to live with their differences--to agree to disagree--but that doesn't mean the conflict is resolved.
In other words, I'm not saying that people who disagree or misunderstand one another should file for divorce; nor am I advocating that all people in conflict with their spouses should give up on their marriages. Usually there's a lot of difficult, important work that should be done first, before you can fully understand what's going on.
But I do wish someone would have said this to me, when I was in the midst of my own hopeless struggle and frustration: "Not all conflicts can be resolved. That's okay."
Maybe, when it comes to conflict, we're trying to accomplish the wrong thing, which inevitably leads to disappointment and failure. Maybe rather than striving to put an end to conflict, we should be working toward peacemaking--making peace with our situation and with one another, so we can move on to a better place.
Follow Kristin Tennant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kt_writes
Looking back I always think what life would have been like if I had conformed to her world to family her "rules". If I could go back and do it all over again it would probably result the same but I would sit her mother and father down alone and dictate my expectations. If I didnt see some understanding and capitulation I would have left anyway.
They made all her decisions for her. She turned into a 12 year old in the company of her parents and family and I was vetoed along with being told "theirs beer in the kitchen in a cooler" (they drank wine and champaigne).
But there was a time in my life and her when we were free and inlove and young and in a growing colorful adventure. I hope she treasures those times as much I do if she did it wouldn't seem like such a wasted time.
But I also believe that divorce can be the "lesser of two evils" for some children and families. There are so many factors at play—everything to the level and nature of conflict between the parents when they are married to their post-divorce ability to always work toward the children's best interests—that it is impossible to "prove" this point here. All I can say is that my children and my stepdaughter are more happy and whole and sure of who they are now than they ever were when their parents were in unhealthy marriages. That doesn't mean the situation is perfect, but I do believe it's better. What's more, the kids each have four parents who are loving and devoted to their best interests, and who are able to work together as a parenting team. It is possible.
http://goo.gl/N2tCa
http://goo.gl/J00iJ
http://goo.gl/gVkov
http://goo.gl/kxPrN
http://goo.gl/w2Zmw
http://goo.gl/53yNd
http://goo.gl/X1Ud5
http://goo.gl/5zFLp
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pdfs/fcs482.pdf
http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/archivespring07/kraynak.pdf
and here's the one I posted above again -- it talks about whether divorce makes people happy and how committed spouses remain married:
http://goo.gl/2T174
Secondly, yes, actually, it is a stereotype that divorce isn't good for children. I'd suggest considering the unique character of each and every relationship. There is not one cure all conflict resolver. If there were, we'd all be using it and be one big happy family. Consider the child of abuse. Would the commenter suggest that divorce should be avoided to spare the child who is being beaten? Or when the conflict has risen to a point where misery is evident to any and all? How is that good for a child?
Finally, I would posit that these people the commenter refers to who are "maintaining happy marriages with unresolved conflict" are either fooling you or fooling themselves. Tennant makes a distinction between misunderstandings, which happen pretty much daily in most families, and real, hard, soul-rocking conflict.
People who make broad statements about divorce need to realize that they aren't familiar with every nuance of every relationship. To broadly suggest that people simply aren't committed is both unfair and far too easy an assessment to make from a distance.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/divorce-and-suicidal-idea_n_812456.html
If the conflict "resolved," then it wasn't a terribly useful process. If the conflict was used to garner a deeper understanding of both parties' own needs and the other party's needs, well then now we're cookin' with gas.
I love how you put this: "...the conflict was used to garner a deeper understanding of both parties' own needs and the other party's needs." Yes! Thanks for that perspective.
Granted, some conflicts cannot be resolved. But they can be reduced if the partes can agree on the intended result.
Claire N. Barnes, MA
Executive Director, Kids' Turn
www.kidsturn.org
And divorce with children is a zero sum game -- scratch that -- it's a less than zero sum game. Someone might come out a winner, but it just means someone else has to lose all that much more. The kids always lose at least half the parenting time.