|
In response to the alarming rates of divorce
among America's married couples, two different studies were
undertaken to understand the root cause and propose behavioral
solutions to improve the longevity and quality of America's
marriages. The two findings were significantly different.
Both studies found that America's divorce rate was a secondary victim
of the modern pressures felt upon everybody's time. The observers
noted that in prior, "simpler", times married couples
existed among a large formal and informal support network. Using this
network, the individuals were able to seek and receive support from
family and community members by simply providing similar support for
their "extended family" and "community". The
beauty of this ages-old social contract is simple. People draw upon
these resources during their hour of greatest need and seek support
in the area they are least able to provide for themselves while
freely helping others in their own hour of excess or rest by
providing services that they are either well skilled to perform or
find personally pleasing. Thusly, one might bake an extra pie to give
to a neighbor that might help care for a well child during a family
illness. The baker takes delight in providing a service to a friend
with no kitchen skills (at a pittance of extra effort on their own
part) but receives the bounty of child care where their own skills
are lacking. This "social contract" of sharing duties among
a group according to individual needs and abilities is what made the
"simpler" days simpler. The reliance upon and support of
these voluntary and self-adjusting systems maximized the benefits
received by the extended group while minimizing the individual
investment required of each member.
But in the current "hurry up" world of rootless relocation
and time and performance pressures from all quarters the ages-old
support networks have all but vanished. The couple finds that
they have no resources to draw upon and, because no relief is
provided from their own most difficult responsibilities, little or no
extra time or energy provide relief to others. Thus the terrible
baker is required to spend untold hours in the kitchen, or their
family is forced to either make do with "store bought" or
simply do without. Similarly, the head of household with a sick child
is forced to distraction by providing care for the well siblings, or
forced to hire said services or the other children are forced, again,
to "do without". In this mode, the family and the
individual move from crisis to crisis, never being able to get ahead
of the endless requirements on their time. Of course, money will
allow the purchase of some services, whether it be
"home-cooked" meals from the grocery store deli or
well-child care during a family illness, but the economic pressure
then rises to now "require" a two-paycheck (or more)
income. Sometimes a second job is taken, resulting in more expenses
quickly gobbling up the excess earnings. It is a wonder that,
in this crazy environment, so many marriages succeed, not that so
many fail.
|
|
The first study found the obvious pattern to
solve the dilemma and rescue the typical marriage from failure. It is
only when two strong individuals come together in a marriage, they
found, that the marriage has a propensity to succeed and thrive. In a
mis-balanced marriage, there is often one spouse overcome personally
by the external time and financial pressures. They personally feel
the loss and damage from these external sources, and in their
personal co-dependence, latch onto their spouse to be saved. These
individuals, victimized externally and lacking the ages-old support
network that all humankind societies have been based upon, attach
themselves toxically to their independent minded spouse, slowly
drawing the life out of them. By depending upon their spouse, where
independence is obviously called for, they neither solve the
immediate problem (be it food or family-care) and simultaneously
distract their own mate from their personal accomplishments. The
independent spouse becomes the victim of diminished personal
accomplishments, and it slowly becomes obvious that they must choose
between self-actualization and accomplishment and the quagmire of
co-dependence, diminished fulfillment, and eventually inevitable
personal failure.
At the end of that bleak road, the personal choice becomes obvious.
Despite the psychological harm to the abandoned spouse, the financial
catastrophe of dividing the estate and incurring doubled expenses,
despite life long negative impacts to their children, and despite the
new necessity of doing EVERYTHING for themselves (both food AND
family care) without even ONE PERSON in their "support
network", such an individual is forced to choose to save
themselves and free themselves of the anchor of their poor marriage
decision. When all efforts to get the dependent spouse to grow to act
and achieve independently fail, the independent one must choose to
free themselves to self-actualize, regardless of the costs and tragedies.
|
|
However, the second study reached a surprisingly
different conclusion. They saw a parallel between the marriage
contract and the original social contract. "From each according
to their ability, to each according to their needs" does not
work among too large or too small a group. But with the rootless
migrations and terrific time pressures, some couples are forced to
make due. While past days would permit a core of four, six or maybe
eight people to share the load informally assisting during difficult
times, modern times often permit only a group of two; husband and wife.
For these two to achieve the time-proven successful contract will
require particularly difficult measures.
First, the two must be nearly or exact opposites. There are no extra
bodies to spread around responsibilities, so these two must each
bring diverse skills and, where they are lacking, a "good
nature" to firstly "do your best" and secondly accept
from the other "less than perfect". Many couples fail
this first requirement.
Second, wealth is still a great lubricant. A significant income is
required, but also a judicious application of its fruit. No luxurious
homes or commercial trappings of false happiness can be afforded.
Extra money is required, but its intelligent application to specific
problems is too. In this way, such a couple can essentially
"earn" a second income by controlling of spending, and
apply the large but limited wealth in lieu of the ages old support network.
But lastly, these couples need to communicate, openly, honestly,
non-judgementally, and in both subject and degree. In years
past, there was no shame, no harm in asking for the extra pie or the
well-child care. It was offered without question, accepted without
shame, and repaid during the bountiful times that always followed the
tumultuous times. There was no "I did that" and "you
only did this" in the social contract. Everybody gave what they
could and accepted what they could not provide for themselves. It was
the very backbone of the social contract.
So this third requirement is the most tricky. Each spouse MUST
somehow communicate, without prejudice, without torment, without
judgment and in complete unconditional acceptance firstly what they
NEED from the other, and secondly what they can naturally PROVIDE in
exchange. With just two people in the circle, there is no butcher,
baker or candlestick maker to provide specific skills. Consequently
quick and appropriate decisions must be made to insure that the
better provider (while not always perfectly skilled) attacks each
task in the name of both recipients. Also, each must forthrightly and
without fear or trepidation list what they need to receive, whether
at their own hands or the hands of their spouse. When the list is
built, it can then be honestly divided between the two parties so the
appropriate party performs the task they are best suited for (while
not necessarily perfectly skilled in a given area) while freeing the
other to perform those tasks best suited to their nature. Again, the
more unalike the two parties (in both skills and preferences) the
better off for the couple. Thus the least-worst child care
provider baby-sits while the least-worst cook makes dinner. Of
course, in a perfect world one would be gifted and interested in
child care while the other would be likewise in cooking, but this is
neither necessary nor likely.
The only thing necessary is that each freely brings forth all the
skills and gifts that they have, and that those skills are applied
logically with little or no waste. Each must be forthright
with their needs, so that they are personally responsible to see that
they keep themselves recharged and able to "pull their
weight" in this tiny support network of two. Each is responsible
to apply their skills, achieve their best, and provide for their own
personal needs, but in the name of the two, not the one. Each
must be patently self-interested, not to achieve personal success
but to achieve the most possible when measured among the results of
the pair. What good if one earns frequent flyer points if the
other is bedridden? If one becomes a chef while the other requires a
medically limited diet? Yet reversing these very same conditions
instead maximizes the life quality for each pair. This way the
bedridden enjoys delightful cuisine from a joyous spouse while the
world traveler just orders from a special menu.
Honest communication, and the totally selfless sharing of gifts
achieved by the individual accomplishments of each individual,
tailored to optimize their skills and preferences among the two not
the one, will cause such a marriage to succeed.
Is such selfless selfishness possible? Not for many. Can two-people
be a support "network"? Again, not for many. Can such a
proposal be made to two typical individuals, where marriage vows and
personal commitments are held in high esteem only when
"convenient"? How can such an arrangement succeed when a
typical American "talks the talk" of selfless commitment to
their marriage and offspring but cannot bring themselves to "walk
the walk"? Obviously, such a complex relationship can't.
But does the difficulty in achievement prove the model false? Or does
it only prove that it has become politically accepted that
"promises are made to be broken" and likewise accepted that
dark human nature makes all relationships either jailer/prisoner or
"every man for himself"? Is this the natural outgrowth of
the "sexual revolution"? Has the once obvious advice to
abandon a marriage only where physical abuse is present been now so
widely prescribed that divorce is now an acceptable option to avoid
simple inconvenience or diminished personal accomplishment?
And what of the children? And what of the financial hardships upon
everybody? Lawyers will tell you there are none, but those lawyer are
lying. Psychologists will tell you that children are not adversely
impacted by dissolved marriages, even once claiming that such
children were even more dynamically adaptable then their poor,
unchallenged peers from long-term single marriage couples. These
psychologists also lie.
This second study uncovered a different root cause of the staggering
divorce problem (of course, setting aside those obvious cases of
physical abuse or lawlessness). They found that marriages succeed
when one party freely expresses a need or shortcoming to the spouse,
and it becomes the spouse's duty to provide. This way,
when the tables are reversed, they must each expect, nay
unquestionably bank upon the fact that such blind support will be
returned. The baker shall bake and the caregiver shall tend. And
strong one will provide and the weak or weary will receive. And the
process shall repeat indefinitely with the two parties reversing,
like two delighted children laughing while they play upon a
teeter-totter. Each has a turn at the top and a turn at bottom. Each
has a turn with their feet dangling in mid-air and a turn with them
both planted firmly upon solid ground. Each delights in the joy that
they freely give and freely get from the other, without measurement
and without expectation. And when one walks away, the delightful game
is ended for both.
|