Till social progress do us part: divorce and the historical evolution of social consciousness

Different historical epochs produce different levels of socio-economic development. And these differing material realities constitute the basis for variations in the social consciousness among the various generations. The late medieval period in Europe, for example, was characterised by very distinct beliefs and social truths in comparison with those during the Roman era. At the same time, the so-called Victorian society of the 19th century would have found it difficult to comprehend the social norms of the late medieval period. Paganism looks silly to a devout monotheist, whereas both paganism as well as all of the monotheist gods appear ridiculous to a secular mind. And inevitably, each generation judges their predecessors from their own perspective.

What is, unfortunately, not only not inevitable, but even highly unlikely, is for each generation to become aware of the fact that their successors will judge them in the same manner as they will have judged their ancestors. There are contemporary social beliefs and social truths which we today might not even be able to recognize as those that will be ridiculed, for instance, in three generations from now. However, we are capable of discerning at least some of them. And one might ask here - why should we even bother with this? What is the benefit of attempting to trace the historical development of social consciousness? Well, at least one such benefit is simply not to look stupid in the eyes of history.

The historical examples that will be used here to demonstrate the whole issue will concern the social understanding of marriage and divorce. Would we find acceptable today to have the fate of an unhappy marriage be settled by a parliamentary vote? Hardly so. And yet, there were times in England when “the Church of England’s resistance to divorce was so strong that the only route to a divorce was via an act of Parliament - a law voted through by both houses. Not surprisingly, few people had the means or inclination to expose their private unhappiness to the press, the public and 800-odd politicians”. And the differences in social consciousness do not stop here. Throughout a certain period in British history “a husband needed to prove adultery to obtain a divorce. By contrast, a wife was required to prove adultery and some other especially aggravating circumstance to have the same grounds”. When judging from our contemporary perspective, it is both the gender inequality as well as the idea that there must be a fault for a dissolution of a marriage that look ridiculous.

Such a principle of a “fault-based” divorce was likewise dominant in the first half of the 20th century in the USA. And it would be too easy to simply dismiss such social norms as silly. For as expected, there were plenty of conservative people in opposition to social change who assured that it would be “a long road to no-fault divorce becoming the norm”. Those conservatives of the day were not aware, did not care - or, most likely, both - about how stupid they would look today. And all of this applies to the conservatives of our times. But not in the sense of some lone lunatic who tries to argue in favour of taking the right to vote away from women. Rather, it means that those masses of people who are today opposed to gay marriage, who are against transgender rights and against abortion - they will look as stupid to the future generations.

Let’s return to the USA a hundred years ago. “In 1924 New York Supreme Court Justice Ernest Edgcomb denied eighteen-year-old Lottie Lazarczyk the right to have her marriage to husband Stanislaw Lazarczyk annulled. Lottie, the daughter of Polish immigrants, had married Stanislaw and given birth to a son before reaching the age of eighteen. Alleging that Stanislaw had physically abused her, Lottie sought escape from a marriage that she now viewed as a youthful mistake.” However, the judge “insisted that marriage was a sacred institution and that stable family life was essential to preserving American civilization”. And as if to conclude, this Ernest Edgcomb declared the following:

“It is better that a few be made to suffer and to lie in the bed which they voluntarily made, than to break down the walls which the church and civilization has built up about the marriage contract.”

Three things might be noted here in relation to this statement by a person who also claimed that “no community can long endure where family ties are forgotten and where marriages can be dissolved for the asking, and where free love runs rampant”. Firstly, it is self-evident that anyone today, nevermind a judge, would face a massive social backlash for such words. And if that was not enough, “Edgcomb believed Lottie that Stanislaw had been violent on one occasion, but he did not view this occurrence as a detriment to the marriage, arguing that one act of violence did not jeopardize Lottie's general safety, nor did it portend future violence”. The social consciousness of that generation would disagree with a suggestion that “‘misunderstandings, bickerings and quarrels between a married couple’ were sufficient grounds for the dissolution of a union”.

Secondly, as history proves once again, all the fearmongering by the conservative-minded persons regarding the societal collapse or the end of civilization due to the social change has been nothing but hot air. And obviously, Ernest Edgcomb was just one of many. In fact, it would have been very unusual if the clergy members would not have argued “that divorce destroyed families and thus threatened the very fabric of American civilization”. And yet, there has been no social apocalypse as a result of the abolition of slavery, of granting women the right to vote, or, indeed, of the liberalisation of divorce. And neither there will be due to abortion rights, for instance, or due to gay marriages.

And thirdly, more than likely, Ernest Edgcomb as well as many of his like-minded contemporaries would still hold those same social beliefs when on their deathbeds. Hence, with the passing away of that generation the scope of their respectively silly social notions was also reduced. This is the modus operandi of the natural death of outdated social norms, as well as of historical social change in general.

Needless to say, this whole panic about social and moral collapse was triggered by the gradually changing “gender conventions and sexual morals”. The above quoted judge Edgcomb was particularly concerned about the so-called trial marriages. Interestingly, “in spite of its rarity, the topic of trial marriage received outsized attention from the law, church, and media”. Here we find a perfect historical parallel to the contemporary issue of sexual minorities - “the small number of couples defining their relationships as ‘trial marriages’ versus the dramatic outcries against them”. And it should not come as a surprise that the “turn-of-the century popular culture outlets castigated divorcees, with particular attention to the moral failings of divorced women”.

And finally, how were the very first individuals to publicly suggest a more liberal attitude towards marriage treated? That’s right, they were denounced as “radicals” and “fanatics”. Just as the abolitionists of the day were attacked as radicals, or the suffragettes in the UK. So what lessons can one draw from the historical investigation here? Well, history shows us that it is more than likely that today’s radicals are the harbingers of the society of tomorrow. And that tomorrow the conservatives of our days will look very foolish.

Sources:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/heartbreaking-history-of-divorce-180949439/
https://daily.jstor.org/the-lost-history-of-no-fault-divorces/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24616589

Image by Freepik.com