State and Society Scramble for Measures to Prop Up the Sagging Institutions of Marriage and Family - Essay Example

Research Paper 2: and Society Scramble For Measures to Prop Up The Sagging Institutions Of Marriage and Family ________________________ Name of Student _____________________ Date of Submission Abstract In many Christian churches, marrying couples are given a sacrament called holy matrimony, in which the officiating person secures their vow of togetherness for "richer or poorer" and "in sickness and in health." This conveys the impression that entering into marriage is making a covenant with God. Going through a marriage ceremony is, therefore, akin to swearing by the Bible in legal proceedings to "tell the truth, the whole truth" which, if violated, will cause the filing of a perjury case. The problem with a marriage certificate is that violation of its edict, which is being blatantly committed in this day and age, cannot be prosecuted. As a result, states and society at large watched helplessly by for some time as the institutions of marriage and family fall apart. Lately, when the social and economic costs sustained from scuttled marriages and broken families began to spread and reach alarming proportions, state authorities in many places have started to take a hand in the problem. This paper discussed the ill effects of the breakdown of marriage and family and the prevention-intervention measures that are increasingly adopted to address the problem. It highlighted the negative influences of marital distress, cohabitation and divorce on people's productivity, physical and mental health as well as on the quality and character of children produced from such a troubled family environment. Finally, the paper examined the effectiveness of measures designed to strengthen the institution of marriage as catalyst for social stability. 1. Introduction When a man and woman exchange marriage vows, they enter into a legal agreement to start a new family unit and care for each other and for any children that they might have. Since marriage is a legal instrument, it is the duty of the state to ensure that the contracting parties in marriage adhere to these provisions. Until recently, however, intervention in marriage and family was not part of public policy (Benson, 2005). This thinking started to change as research after research unmistakably showed that the mounting cases of physical and mental illnesses and the dwindling levels of productivity in the workplace (Stanley, 2001) are attributable to failed marriages. Illnesses that require medical care create a drain on public resources while low productivity hampers the march to economic growth. These are as much a concern of the state as the Christian churches, which represent the only entity that used to undertake efforts at instructing couples on the sanctity of marriage and the adverse effects of marital distress. Realization that the state presence is needed in the deterioration of marriage gave further impetus to activities designed to achieve better understanding of the dynamics of the modern-day marriage and family with an eye on preventing marital distress and divorce. 2. Literature Review 2.a. Marriage & Family Breakdown When the National Council on Family Relations in the US conducted its annual meeting in 2003, the theme was: "What is the Future of Marriage" This captured the essence of the problem on the changes that erode the value of marriage and family. Marriage as a social institution has vastly deteriorated because of such factors as the increased opportunities for sexual relationships outside marriage, greater tolerance of single parenthood, declining marital fertility, improved job opportunities for women and changing specializations within marriage (Casper & Bianchi, 2002). People are becoming less fit for closer and more dependable and long-term marital relationships as evidenced by the declining rates of marriage and rising divorce rates (Saggers & Sim, 2005). Both men and women are taking their time to marry and those with limited economic resources never marry at all, such that marriage has lost its attraction as a lifetime commitment and childbearing and rearing are being increasingly done outside the bounds of marriage and family (Casper & Bianchi, 2002; Saggers & Sim, 2005). Family stability is being challenged and endangered by such social trends as cohabiting couples, divorce-extended families, inter-racial marriages and same-sex couples. The net result is the increasing incidence of marital distress that exacts a heavy toll on work productivity and physical and mental health of the populace. Over time, as marriages and families break apart in greater numbers, the idea to integrate this problem into public policy began to gain impetus (Stanley, 2001). There used to be a perception that marriage is a matter just between the couple involved such that the community has no business intruding into the "family affair." Gradually, this mindset has been supplanted by the view that failed marriages are in some degree the concern of the state and society at large because of the heavy social and economic costs sustained from the breakdown of marriage and family (Waite & Gallagher, 2000). In 2003, the US government through the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) commissioned a group of researchers from four major American universities to develop new models of research and data collection that would afford a better understanding of family variation and change. This was the first large-scale admission that the family as an institution is being torn apart by a multitude of environmental factors, which situation calls for a concerted multi-sector action. In the past 25 years, an unmistakable trend away from marriage has also been observed throughout UK. The Office of National Statistics (2004) reported that of the total births recorded in UK in 2004, 41 percent were born from unmarried mothers, up from only 12 percent in 1980. Another phenomenon noted in the report was that 75 percent of the cases of family breakdown involving children were traced to unmarried parents (ONS, 2004). Children produced by unmarried parents often become liabilities to society. A study of 36,000 American families, for example, found that primary schoolchildren from unmarried families do worse at school, while those in the secondary level do worse in terms of behavioral and emotional growth (Brown, 2004, in Benson, 2005). Kiernan & Smith (2003), cited in Kline (2004), made the same observation that children born to unmarried parents grow up having more problems at school, at work and with their overall well-being. The same undesirable outcome is expected for children born to married parents but characterized by high parental conflict. In effect, the quality of relationships determines the kind of children that couple produce. Well-rounded children come into this world if family relationships are stable, there is less parental conflict and parenting style is good. This relationship is separate from other known influencing factors, such as education, economic status and health (Benson, 2005). 2.b. Benefits of Marriage Some people stay away from marriage because of popular beliefs that a man and woman are better off in a relationship outside marriage. Among these are the notions that: a) marriage is a one-way street that favors only men, b) singles fare better economically since they are spared from the expenses attendant to marriage and raising a family, c) the obligations of marriage take their toll on one's physical and mental well-being, d) marriage dampens sex, and e) marriage is a license for violence. These beliefs, however, have been consistently proven untenable by recent research. According to Waite & Gallagher (2000), new research proves that, compared to single or cohabiting people, married couples are healthier, live longer, experience fewer heart attacks and other diseases, face fewer problems with alcohol use, behave in less risky ways, have more sex in terms of frequency and satisfaction, and acquire more wealth. This particular study says that, contrary to the belief that marriage diminishes one's earning capacity, married couples actually accumulate more wealth. The reason is that marriage encourages couples to invest in real estate, save for the future and enjoy the economies of scale. Thus, married couples pay for one set of bills and one apartment and split labor for domestic care. Cohabiting couples do not save and gather wealth the same way because, being tentative about their relationships, they are less inclined to invest together in homes, stocks and furniture and are more likely to keep separate bank accounts and take separate vacations (Waite & Gallagher, 2000). On the notion that marriage constrains one's sex life, the National Sex Survey conducted by the University of Chicago said marriage actually makes sexual activity easier to initiate since it costs less in terms of time, money and energy. For this reason, the survey found that 43 percent of married men had sex at least twice a week, while only 1.26 percent of single men had sex that often. In terms of satisfaction, 50 percent of the married men surveyed found sex physically and emotionally satisfying and 42 percent of married women did the same. On the part of cohabiting men and women, the figure was an identical 39 percent. Taking issue with the view that marriage is a surefire way to court domestic violence, a Crime Victimization Survey held by the US Department of Justice revealed that 65 percent of violent crimes against partners were committed not by current spouses but by boyfriends and ex-husbands. Husbands currently living with their wives accounted for only 9 percent of the said offenses. The possible reason is that cohabiting couples or those into other informal sexual relationships are less committed to each other and more isolated from the wider social networks and controls. These conditions are ripe for child abuse since boyfriends and stepfathers are more capable of abusing children than married husbands and biological fathers (Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Even the persistent theory that one family member acting as head makes all the decisions and does so in the best interest of all members has been rendered irrelevant by the advent of individualism. Thus, the children's role in family decision-making expanded as they seek to assert their individuality and independence and gradually move away from their parents' home. This gives rise to the phenomenon called "non-resident" family members, which are children living on their own or adults living with their grown-up children (Selzer, et al., 2005). All these heighten the areas of potential conflict of interest between spouses and among prospective partners. 2.b. Interventions Studies consistently show that well-taken public policies and prevention-intervention programs improve family stability (Birch, et al., 2004 in Benson, 2005). Among the specific intervention programs that showed real promise are those that emphasize pro-marriage policies, relationship education and parenting education. An example of the intervention program that gives importance to pro-marriage ideas is the so-called Community Marriage Policy (CMP), the concept of which was first implemented in Modesto, California. The initial success achieved by the program in reducing the county's divorce rate by half and teenage pregnancy and truancy rates by one-fourth was so encouraging that as of late, there were 122 CMPs being pursued in as many counties in the US (Birch, et al., 2004, as cited in Benson, 2005). A small-scale CMP program has also been adopted on a trial basis in the UK cities of Bath, Bristol, Swindon and Newport (Benson, 2005). In some parts of UK, relationship education for couples is also available through Community Family Trust and other organizations seeking to improve the quality and stability of family relationships. This is separate from intervention and education programs being carried out in UK by such organizations as Positive Parenting and Family Caring Trust, which give emphasis to parenting education by specifically steering parents towards the authoritative style of parenting. The authoritative style of parenting is acknowledged as the most desirable of the four known parenting styles because children reared in that manner tend to be more academically successful, with less problems on social integration and behavior (Benson, 2005). For this reason, the research literature associates the authoritative parenting style with a high degree of warmth, responsiveness and structure. The other three parenting styles are called authoritarian, disengaged and permissive. Authoritarian is the exact opposite of authoritative because the former is associated with low warmth and high anger and structure. As for the disengaged type of parenting, the description is "low degree of warmth and structure," while the permissive style has high warmth and low structure. 2.c. Premarital Education Governments and society at large have joined religious organizations, which used to be the only sector that pushes for pre-marriage education to forestall marital distress and divorce. The reason is that the goals of premarital education coincide with the very purpose of governance, which is improving the quality of life for adults and children alike. However, preventing marital discord may be a difficult task such that the more realistic word is "reduce (Stanley, 2001)." This is precisely what many state-sponsored programs aim to accomplish, such as a program that encourages couples to undergo premarital education in Florida and Texas, a program that promotes covenant marriages in Louisiana and Arizona, and the effort to strengthen marital and family relationships in Oklahoma. Premarital education can yield the following benefits: 1) It can slow down couple to foster deliberation. 2) It can send the message that marriage is important. 3) It can help couples to learn of options if they need help later. 4) In some couples, it can lower the risk for subsequent marital distress or termination (Clements, et al., 2004). It is not uncommon for couples to rush into marriage even before they know each other fully, which becomes a risk factor. The extra time spent in a premarital counseling session will therefore enable couples to reflect and deliberate on the marriage plan. In the process, the couple may develop notions related to the impracticality of marrying in haste, or discover characteristics that are undesirable in a lifetime partner (Parkinan, 2000, as cited in Stanley, 2001). The Catholic church has long ago recognized the risks posed by quick unions to the sanctity of marriage, such that it requires couples to file a marriage application six months before the planned altar date, during which premarital counseling is conducted. The most beneficial effect of premarital education, however, is its potential to point out the all-negative consequences of cohabitation. The "cohabitation effect," as Kline (2004) calls it, is strongly associated with adverse marital outcomes. In the US, for example, cohabitation before engagement was found at the root of low marital satisfaction, lower interpersonal commitment among men, poorer perceived and observed communication in marriage, higher marital conflict, higher rates of wife infidelity and higher perceived likelihood of divorce. The reason is that cohabitation causes changes in attitudes about marriage and relationships (Johnson, et al., 2002). Better understanding of cohabitation is believed necessary because of the growing popularity of this arrangement. The survey of Johnson, et al. (2002) and Casper & Bianchi (2001) showed that most couples cohabit as a "trial run" to see if marriage would work for them. In fact, 61 percent of young adults interviewed in one survey said cohabitation is useful for improving one's chances at a successful marriage (Casper & Bianchi, 2001). Clinical therapy is helpful for couples having marital problems if it is focused more on behavior and emotion and less on psychological factors (Baucom & Epstein, 2002), such that it is labeled behavioral therapy instead of psychotherapy. In this effort, there are important preconditions that must be met. The first order of business is for the therapist to establish his credibility and competence, thereby impressing upon the couple coming to him that he can deal adequately with their problem. He should also give the impression that he can be depended upon to behave in an ethical manner by maintaining confidentiality and impartiality and collaborating instead of dominating. Once these conditions are emplaced, the next step for the therapist is to set an initial goal for the therapy sessions, which is related to the problem confronting the couple. Other goals are expected to present themselves as the session proceeds and uncovers other marital issues. The basic role of the marriage therapist is: 1) to immerse couples on the dynamics of relationship, communication and decision-making; 2) to increase the partners' awareness of the macro-patterns of behavior, cognition and emotional responses; 3) to discuss what is expected from the couple within and outside the sessions; and 4) to balance the need for directness and collaboration with the couples (Baucom & Epstein, 2002). 3. Methodology In the 2003 National Survey of Families and Households in the US, membership of the research team was drawn from a variety of field specializations in recognition of the multiple nature of marital and family dysfunction. The experts came from the fields of biology, anthropology, economics, psychology and sociology (Seltzser, et al., 2005). The NSFH conducted earlier suggested that integrating and exploiting the complementary nature of these disciplines would do family-focused research a world of good. From the perspective of biologists, for example, family is vital for the survival of human genes, while anthropologists are expected to dwell on the shared meanings that individuals assign to their choices about being in different types of families, on the role that family plays in the culture and organization of society as a whole, and on the competing interests that foster some family forms over others (Seltzer, et al., 2005). On the part of psychologists, they would focus on how individuals develop family relationships and processes that affect the durability and consequences of these relationships. As for economists, they emphasize individual choices and the benefits that can be derived from a healthy family life, while the sociologists believe that these choices are constrained by institutions and norms, the structure of power relationships and inequality in the distribution of wealth. Another US study called "Marital Instability over the Life Course" was the most ambitious undertaking in the US to determine the extent of the influence of parental conflicts on children's well being as well as family stability. Every four years, the research subjects made up of 2,000 adults and their children were interviewed about their relationships. This activity was carried on for 20 years. To determine how cohabitation affects the institution of marriage, Kline (2004) surveyed 136 couples that cohabited before engagement, after engagement and at actual marriage. There were 59 couples in before-engagement cohabitation, 28 couples who lived together after engagement, and 49 couples at marriage. The survey sought to establish the quality of interaction, commitment and relationship between the cohabiting couples. In an effort to uncover the frequent causes of divorce, Clements, et al. (2004) followed 100 couples for 13 years, starting from the time the marriage plan was taken up until the 10th year, which is identified in the literature as the risk period for divorce. 4. Results Evidence continues to mount that pre-marriage education programs work for couples by increasing marital satisfaction, reducing the incidence of divorce, and improving the quality of parenting up to 3 years later (Stanley, 2001). In the study of Carroll & Doherty (2003, in Benson, 2005), the conclusion was reached that "premarital intervention programs are generally effective in producing significant immediate gains in the communication process, conflict management and overall relationship quality, and that these gains appear to take hold for at least 6 months to 3 years." Moran, et al., (2004, in Benson, 2005) also provide evidence that education programs on good parenting can improve both adult skills and child outcomes for both the clinical and non-clinical sectors of the population. However, the effects vary in that some interventions appear to benefit children but not their parents, while other programs benefit parents more than the children. The conclusion is that for these programs to yield the expected benefits, both parents should attend the course. If only one parent did, this can lead to increased parental conflict (Benson, 2005). Of the couples that underwent the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program within 6 months of their intended wedding date, 10 to 15 percent decided not to marry (Olson, 2000, in Stanley, 2001). The figure increased for couples that took up PREPARE 6 to 10 months before the scheduled marriage. Couples that take too long to seek help found that so much damage had occurred in the interim (Waite & Gallagher, 2000). The 20-year US study about Marital Instability over the Life Course found that children well-being was highest in low-conflict marriage and after a high-conflict marriage that ended in divorce. During a low-conflict marriage or after a low-conflict marriage that ended in divorce, children well-being is lowest. The conclusion drawn from the study is that any divorce following a low-conflict marriage is as detrimental to children's well-being and their relationships with parents and peers as staying in a high-conflict marriage ((Benson, 2005). As for adults, Waite & Gallagher (2000) reported that in matters of physical health, the mortality rate is 50 percent higher for unmarried women and 250 percent higher for unmarried men. Marriage has been demonstrated to boost the immune system such that married patients are more likely to survive a major surgery than unmarried patients. Moreover, research showed that marriage increases life expectancy such that 9 out of 10 married men alive at age 48 made it to 65, whereas only 6 of 10 bachelors lived to the usual retirement age (Waite & Gallagher, 2000). On the Clements, et al. (2004) study related to the factors that influence divorce, it was found that events and attitudes before marriage determine if the couple will stay satisfied or become distressed and join the booming statistics on divorce. The most recurrent influencing factors were conflicts on money matters for first marriages and disagreements about children for re-marriages. In short, a marriage is headed for divorce if there is a conflict of interest between the couple and the relationship suffers from deficits in commitment and personal communication. According to ONS (2004), two-thirds of divorce in UK takes place during the first five years of marriage and almost all the increased risks for such a breakup occur during the first 10 years of the union. If the couples pass this critical period still together, family life tends to stabilize. An interesting part of the ONS report was the finding that the risks for divorce are lower for first marriages and higher for re-marriages. 5. Discussion A successful, wrinkle-free marriage has been demonstrated to be beneficial not only to the couples involved but also to the community and society as a whole because it begets well-turned children and contributes to the eradication of illnesses and to the promotion of workplace productivity. A reading of the literature shows that there is an urgent need to restore marriage to its valued place because of the increasing rates of divorce and the new thinking that couple would be better off in a relationship outside marriage. Enough empirical evidence has been found to dispel some unfavorable ideas about marriage, such as that single people and unmarried couples do better financially, that marriage dampens sex, that it places couples in the path of domestic violence, that it shortens one's life expectancy or at least puts one's health at risk. Proof also starts to pour in that premarital education is helpful in preventing a breakup of marriage since it gives couples some time to ponder on the wisdom and long-term effects of their decision to marry. More than that, prevention and intervention programs orient couples on the importance of marriage. References: 1. Baucom, D.H. & Epstein, N.B. (2002). "Enhanced Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Couples: A Contextual Approach." Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 2. Benson, H. (2005). "What Interventions Strengthen Family Relationship: A Review of the Evidence." Bristol Community Family Trust, London. 3. Casper, L.M. & Bianchi, S.M. (2002). "Continuity and Change in the American Family." Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 4. Clements, M.L., Stanley, S.M. & Markman, H.J. (2004). "Before they say 'I Do': Discriminating among Marital Outcomes over 13 Years." Journal of Marriage and the Family. 5. Johnson, S.M. (2003). "The Revolution in Group Therapy: A Practitioner-Scientist Perspective." Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 29. 6. Kline, G.H. (2004). "Timing is Everything: Pre-Engagement Cohabitation and Increased Risk for Poor Marital Outcomes." Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 2. 7. Office of National Statistics (2001). "Marriage, Divorce and Adoption Statistics." SeriesFM2, No. 27, London. 8. Saggers, S. & Sim, M. (2005). "Diversity: Beyond the Nuclear Family." In Changing Families, Changing Times, Chapter 4. M. Poole (ed), Allen & Unwin: Sydney. 9. Seltzer, S.A., Bachra, C.A., Bledsoe, C., Casper, L., Chase-Landsdale, P.L., Diprete, T., Hotz, V.J., Morgan, S.P., Sanders, S.G. & Thomas, D. (2005). "Explaining Family Change and Variation: Challenges for Family Demographer." Journal of Marriage and Family 67. 10. Stanley, S.M. (2001). "Making a Case for Premarital Education." Family Relations, Vol. 50, N0. 3. 11. Waite, L. & Gallagher, M. (2000). "The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier and Better off Financially." New York: Doubleday. Read More