Your friend tells you he's getting divorced. You're shocked because he and his wife always seemed like the perfect couple. You're worried for them and their young kids, and their divorce causes you to reflect about a lot of things you've observed about marriage.
You know enough from your own parents' divorce how unhappy things can be for the kids, how emotionally and financially hard it can be for one spouse or the other, how even a "good" divorce can be fraught with complications once new loves arrive on the scene.
Beyond that, they're the third couple in your circle of friends to divorce in the past year. You start to question your own marriage -- are we next? Are we being blind to our own issues, not so different from those of our friends? Are we truly as happy and committed as we say we are, or others believe us to be?
You feel somewhat helpless but anxious: What do you do? What should you do? What can you do, if anything? Still, you know that some marriages can't -- and shouldn't -- be salvaged.
We wed in a great public display of love and commitment. Divorce, however, is a totally private and personal event. But, is it really?
Perhaps not, suggests M. Christian Green, a senior fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University and a former lecturer at Harvard Divinity School.
Divorce doesn't just affect a couple and their immediate family; friends, neighbors and entire communities are impacted as well, she writes in "There But for the Grace: The Ethics of Bystanders to Divorce," an article in the Institute for American Values' newsletter, "Propositions."
Green suggests it may be wrong to view divorce as merely a personal choice with limited impacts. In looking at "the public effects of the divorce revolution, its implications for both the moral formation of individuals and the well-being of society, and what, if anything, organizations of government and civil society should do," divorce might be better seen as a decision that has far greater implications, she says. Like other so-called private actions, divorce may have "wider, sometimes unintended and unanticipated, effects on surrounding communities and the wider society," she states.
Do others who witness a divorce experience a "there but for the grace of God go I" moment? Does this witness produce bystander anxiety? Does it produce something like survivor's guilt? How does witnessing the divorce and family disruption of others affect the bystander's own worldview when it comes to normative images of marriage, family, society and self? Extending the circle of bystanders even further, what effect does the witness of divorce have on society as a whole? Has the divorce culture produced a kind of cultural trauma?
It's clear the "divorce revolution" is impacting twenty- and thirty-somethings, especially men, many who are delaying or avoiding marriage altogether.
Green cites studies that suggest divorce is somewhat contagious, not in a disease sort of way, but in its ripple effect -- one couple's divorce can influence divorce among siblings, friends, neighbors and even co-workers.
In addition to "contagion" theories, there's the "generational dimension" -- adult children of divorce tend to divorce, too.
Finally, she says, the breakup of a family may be no different than other trauma, such as war, terrorism, genocide, natural disasters and unemployment, in a child's eyes. Green suggests our current definition of cultural trauma -- although "controversial and contested" -- is broad enough to include divorce. A child of divorce may experience the same economic deprivation, relocation, shame, guilt and memories that "shape moral formation" as those who have experienced other traumas.
Ultimately, she says, all of us are impacted by divorce, even if it's not our own.
"(W)hen we bring research on divorce into conversation with rich, emerging bodies of work on social contagion and cultural trauma, we see that bystander effects, while indirect and diffuse, may be no less real or consequential, and that they beckon us to individual and collective reflection on the broader effects of the 'divorce revolution.'"
Does that mean we, as bystanders, have a right to ask more of those who may be considering divorce? Should couples think beyond their own needs and desires when they weigh the pros and cons of dissolving their family? Should bystanders have any say in a couple's divorce?
It would seem somewhat crazy to tell a friend that his divorce is not only causing you distress, but that it also may put ideas into your spouse's head, which may lead to your own divorce, thus impacting your kid's "moral formation" -- and could he please just give counseling one more try? After all, it's none of our business. But, perhaps it is.
What do you think?
Follow Vicki Larson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/OMGchronicles
If id only known those lessons back when...well who knows? My point is, its' other people's problems if they let someon'e divorce upset their apple cart. The couple divorcing isn't to blame. As for children of divorced parents being more likely to divorce...both my adult children are in happy, stable marriages with wonderful spouses. Generalizing is a bit dangereous don't you think?
YES!!!
How dare any of us protect adulterers?
“My husband was a church elder and business leader. We have 12 children together. Amazingly, I discovered how many adulterers were in our church as a result of his betrayal of me and our children. He gave communion, counsel and prayer during his 4 year affair with his secretary.
My husband has now married this woman and the people who profess Christ are the LOUDEST voices that cheer them on. My husband divorced me to marry this promiscuous woman and the assistant pastor has also done the same.
Both men divorced their wives of 20 and 35 years in the fall of 2008 and remarried their other women in the spring and early summer of 2009. The senior pastor even stood as best man for the assistant pastor in his European wedding!” --Anonymous/Washington State
Over and over the world is appalled by people who have dishonored their marriage covenant (John Edwards) but not in the church, they are not appalled---they are the greatest defenders of such actions.
http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html
http://marriedtosingle.blogspot.com/
If you're concerned at all... notice the 40 year old woman who left her entire life and home and financial security and took nothing but her kids because that's all she really cares about and look at the guy living the same life as always in the big house all alone and do the calculations..maybe you'd realize that my divorce has more of an effect on me and my kids than it could ever have on you and it IS the right decision for us! Maybe you'd invite us over for dinner and make us feel like we're still a part of your lives instead of backing off because it's so hard on YOU!
http://lessonsfromtheendofamarriage.com
One way to limit the negative impacts of divorce would be to free marriage from its current connection with religion, which imposes a lifelong term on marriage. Instead, make marriage akin to a civil contract with a set term, with provisions for renewal for one or more additional terms if the parties mutually agree to renewal of the marriage. If the two parties were to enter into a marriage knowing that it has only a limited term unless they both agree to extend it, the "emotional trauma" associated with the end of a marriage should be reduced significantly.
In addition, you are assuming that a marriage that lasts a lifetime should be the goal. Other than for religious reasons, why should that be the case? Why not just get married with the expectation that the marriage will last as long as both parties to the marriage want to continue the marital relationship, and only that long?