Relating the Social Exchange Theory to Increasing Divorce Rates - Essay Example

?Relating the social exchange theory to increasing divorce rates Researchers have pointed out that divorce rates are increasing all over the world. It has been found that between 1970 and 2005, rate of divorce increased from 1.5 to 2.8 percent in England and Wales, in France, the hike was from 0.93 to 2.5 percent, the figures for Poland showed a progressing graph from 1.13 to 1.8 percent, from 0.32 to 0.8 in Italy, and in Norway, from 0.92 to 2.4 percent (Lamb, 196). The figures for the Asian countries through the years, 1979 to 2005, have also been revealing a similar trend- 0.3 to 1.4 percent in China, 0.72 to 2.75 percent in Taiwan, 0.39 to 2.6 percent in Korea, and 1.2 to 2.1 percent in Japan (Lamb, 196). Coming to South American countries, divorce rates increased from 0.21 to 0.7 percent in Mexico, from 0.17 to 1.9 percent in Costa Rica, from 0.36 to 1.2 percent in Trinidad, and from 0.28 to 0.7 percent in Jamaica (Lamb, 196). These figures show that this phenomenon is almost universal. While trying to understand the increasing divorce rates based on social exchange theory, the analysis has to consider as its variables, cost, benefit, outcome, comparison level, satisfaction, and dependence inside the institution of marriage (Clarke-Stewart and Brentano, 20-21). This has to be so because these are the yardsticks to measure change or stability in a system, as prescribed by the social exchange theory. The theory suggests that after marriage, “people evaluate their relationship in terms of costs and benefits” (Clarke-Stewart and Brentano, 20). And the survival of the marriage is ensured only when the costs like additional work, additional responsibilities, sharing of personal things etc. are balanced by the benefits that include “love, support, companionship, emotional security, social status and connections, and sexual relations, as well as property, financial resources and assistance with daily tasks” (Clarke-Stewart and Brentano, 20). So it naturally follows that a marriage becomes a success only when there is an almost equal exchange of benefits. Also it is theorized “the decision to divorce is shaped by the resources of the spouse and the rewards of the relationship compared with alternative attractions outside the marriage- a new love interest, a sense of freedom, more independence, or potential for self-actualization” (Clarke-Stewart and Brentano, 21). So, according to social exchange theory, if alternative attractions and resources are stronger as compared to the rewards, divorce happens. In general, social exchange theory presupposes that “all interpersonal behavior including dating, marriage and family relationships, is assumed to involve a process of negotiation and bargaining (Baker, 78). Usually from a social scientist’s common perspective, the reasons for divorce can be “delays in age at first marriage, rising non-marital cohabitation, and increases in non-marital births” and also “women’s growing education and economic independence, a decline in religious influence, an increase in individualism, and a corresponding decline in communalism (Lamb, 196). The risk factors that bring about a divorce as identified by researchers also constitute a very long list (qtd. In Lamb, 197). This list includes, factors like: Marrying a teenager, being poor, having a low level of education, having no children from the marriage, bringing children from a previous union into the marriage, being in a second or higher order marriage, cohabiting prior to marriage, having no religious affiliation, not sharing the same religion with one’s spouse, living in an urban area, and growing up in a household without two continuously married parents (Lamb, 197-198). Other findings of social science research in this regard have suggested that education has a positive association with the risk of divorce (qtd. by Lamb, 198). Many more immediate causative factors of divorce have been identified as well. These comprise of “frequent arguments, repeated expressions of negative affect, domestic violence, infidelity, and low levels of emotional support, commitment, love and trust between spouses (qtd. by Lamb, 198). In all these explanations on divorce, a common factor has been that, it is the losses and injuries (mental, physical, financial, social etc.) that one partner suffers, result in divorce. So all these causes can be directly linked to social exchange theory. It can be seen that it is the cost and benefit that matters, in all these cases. For example, when there is domestic violence inside a marriage, the victim can be said to be paying a huge cost without having any benefit of love and protection inside the marriage. When the victim of domestic violence assesses the outcome of such a marriage, compares it with the more successful marriages that he/she sees in the outside world, and realizes that his/her satisfaction level is very low, chances for a divorce increases. If the victim in this case has enough resources to live an independent life, or if he/she has found an alternative love relationship, again the probability of a divorce gets enhanced. Similarly, if a man is married to a teenager and she does not show the mature approach that is expected in a marriage; if a woman is married to a poor man and she cannot meet her needs in her life because of that; if a person is married to a person having a low level of education and this causes communication gap or social embarrassment; if somebody is not having children from a marriage; if by marrying a woman, a man is compelled to take care of her children in a previous marriage; if the spouse is not sharing the same religion with one’s partner in marriage; if one partner is having an extra-marital relationship- in all these instances, one partner has reasons to think that he/she is bearing a cost which is not reciprocated and the other enjoys an unduly benefit. Hence, in such marriages, the social exchange is not equal, at least according to the notion of one partner. And it can be observed, “when one partner feels that he or she contributes more time or emotional energy to a relationship, feelings of resentment may develop and he or she starts looking elsewhere for gratification” (Baker, 78). In a ‘traditional family’, i.e., in pre-industrialized societies of Asia or Latin America, production, reproduction, consumption and socialization largely remain inside wide kin networks. These families exist and survive on land based agricultural units that produce their own food. In such a family system, not only the partners in marriage but also each and every family member share the costs and benefits of marriage, to an extent (Parrenas, 2001, p.105). ‘Traditional families’ are also strongly patriarchal. This wider network of shared costs and benefits is what makes a marriage in such a traditional family more stable compared to ‘modern families’. It was industrialization that saw the genesis of ‘modern family’, which invented a private space for individuals and also a clear-cut labor division between man and woman. Concept of a modern family can be described as follows: Modern family consists of two adults and at least one child who is the biological offspring of the two adults; the couple were married before they had children; All parental and marital tasks were performed exclusively by the married couple; and family members belonged to only one nuclear family and had boundaries that had legally, geographically and biologically explicit ( Elkind, 1995, p.27). As the division of labor became more prominent, the calculations of costs and benefits have become more precise and easier to carry out. Also, the globalization and the global restructuring of human relations have been reinforcing the cost-benefit calculations and thereby increasing the relevance of social exchange theory. And the result is the collapse this strong modern family structure. It has been observed that: The modern nuclear family, often idyllically portrayed as a refuge and a retreat from a demanding world, is fast disappearing. In its stead, we now have a new structure- the post modern permeable family- that mirrors the openness, complexity and diversity of our contemporary lifestyles (Elkind, 1995, p.1). The rise of women as a well-educated group and also as wage earners is viewed as one major factor, which caused this shift that made women more proficient in making cost-benefit calculations and assessing the outcomes. Also the resources that women have acquired over time, through education, career opportunities and a developing sense of self esteem have made them more capable of living an independent life. The public exposure that they get in the modern society has also made them capable of making comparisons of their marriage with examples in the outside world. Last but not least, women’s rising self-esteem has made them more demanding and less satisfied with the secondary citizenship that they have in a patriarchal society. The book, ‘Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy, has drawn attention to the fact that in U.S, “men were still found to spend only 1.7 hours per week by 1995 in scrubbing, vacuuming, and sweeping, whereas women still spent 6.7 hours per week performing these particular chores” (Ehrenreich, 1993, p.13). Also research has revealed that “ in UK, it is only when women are employed full-time that men do more of the un-paid household work, and even then this amounts to only around 27 percent of the household’s un-paid work” (Rubery, Fagan, 1998, p.200). Here, one is reminded of the disadvantageous position that women hold as far as costs and benefits suggested by social exchange theory is concerned. While this is the situation in a countries like U.S. and U.K., where the most liberated women in the world are supposed to reside, there are a huge number of households in the third world countries where women are considered as domestic servants. Hung Cam Thai (1993), author of an article in the book, Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy, has quoted a Vietnamese woman who narrates her experience on domestic work. She says, “I don’t mind cooking for my husband, but I don’t want it to be forced on me. That’s what the men in Vietnam feel like; they feel that their wives are like their domestic workers. Men in Vietnam never do anything in the house.” (p.236). Sociologists have called this “sexual division of domestic labor” and make it clear that “a general male right to superior personal service and to leisure is evident. This is a source of considerable tension between men and women, but men’s self- interested resistance to change is usually quite effective.” (McMohan, 1999, p.4). Also the concept of “natural caregivers” has been associated with the female gender since generations and this notion also creates a disadvantageous situation for women (Rivas, 1993, p.62). For example, a study had showed that “married women who worked for pay and whose husbands did not share the housework were most likely to consider divorce” (Baker, 78). From all these, it is evident that while calculating the costs and benefits, and considering the outcome of a marriage, women suffer more costs than benefits. As women became educated and they started having resources of their own (because now they are also wage earners), they began to realize this outcome very clearly. The women in developed societies have been trying to free themselves of the compulsive domestic work even within the marriages- a consequence of the cost-benefit calculations that they make. They have the freedom to choose a paid job instead but the irony is that men have not come forward to take up their share of domestic work to balance the situation. This has created a ‘care crisis’ for which men naturally accuse women as the culprits (Ehrenreich, Hoschchild, 2003, p.5-12). So men are also deeply dissatisfied by the situation within a marriage. If viewed from the patriarchal view-point that men has internalized through generations, the cost-benefit calculations in the present scenario of a marriage show only loss. This prompts men also to go for a divorce, increasingly. Another important factor is the pressure that each individual in a fast society like ours faces, in terms of time management. So the possibility of one partner in a marriage thinking that he/she is not getting enough care or attention of the other partner has become amplified. This again will tilt the balance of the cost-benefit calculations in a marriage leading to more divorces. The general rise in the mobility of individuals inside a society and also the changes in social values have caused the number of extramarital relationships to go up. When one partner discovers that his/her spouse is having an extra-marital relationship, the cost of keeping fidelity in a relationship is seen as not being paid back. Also, the disloyal spouse is understood to be having enjoying the benefits of shared responsibility provided by the marriage and all the same enjoying the freedom to have other love relationships. This is an unequal exchange again and will create dissonance in the marriage. In each and every factor discussed above, the reflections of different aspects of social exchange theory can be seen. And in this way, social exchange theory can be understood to have the logic and assessment tools to explain the increasing rate of divorces. References Baker, Maureen, Families, Labour and Love, Vancouver: UBC Press, 2001. Print. Cam Thai, Hung, Clashing Dreams: Highly Educated Overseas Brides and Low- wage U.S. husbands, In Barbara Ehrenreich & Arlie Russel Hochschild (Eds.), Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy (230-258). New York: Henry Holt & Company, 2003. Print. Clarke-Stewart, Alison and Brentano, Cornelia, Divorce: Causes and Consequences, Yale: Yale University Press, 2007. Print. Ehrenreich, Barbara, Hochschild, Arlie Russel, Introduction, In Barbara Ehrenreich & Arlie Russel Hochschild (Eds.), Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy (1-14), New York: Henry Holt & Company, 2003. Print. Elkind, David, Ties That Stress: The New Family Ibalance, Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1995. Print. Lamb, Michael.E., ed. The Role of the Father in Child Development, London: John Wiley and Sons, 2010. McMohan, Anthony, Taking Care of Men: Sexual Politics in the Public Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print. Parrenas, Rhacel Salazar, Servants of Globalization: Women, Migration and Domestic work, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.Print. Rivas, Lynn May, Invisible Labors: Caring for the Independent Person, In Barbara Ehrenreich & Arlie Russel Hochschild (Eds.), Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy, New York: Henry Holt & Company, 2003. Print. Rubery, Jill, Fagan, Colette, Women and European Employment, London: Routledge, 1998. Print. Read More