Definition:
Marital instability may be defined as the state of imbalance in the relations of the spouses according to the cultural norms of the society.
Marriage is universal conceived as a permanent tie. All societies design to secure this end. No society encourages dissolution of the union in principle because to do so would be tantamount to denying the permanence of the marriage tie. However, in practice, all societies recognize that certain conditions, diversely defined, make it better to terminate a marriage than have it continue as a failure, that means every society provides some means of bringing an end to the marital instability.
Reasons:
The reasons for marital instability vary widely from one society to the next, even from one period to another in the history of a single society. The ethnographers cite the following reasons:
- Adultery or infidelity (Muria Gond and Savaras in India; Comanche Red Indians in USA; Tiv of Nigeria; Kurtachi of Soloman islands; and wogeo of Melanesia; Chinese, Indians and Europeans).
- Sexual impotency (Baiga, Gond, santhal, Oraon and Bhil in India, Ojibwa Red Indians in USA, Ifugao of Philippines and siwai of Soloman Islands; several peasant and modern societies in the West, Asia, America and Australia).
- Quarrelsomeness of spouse (Muria in India, Subanum of Philippines, Chinese, Egyptians, Japanese, Rajputs in India and numerous modern societies).
- Stinginess, laziness or violent temper (nopi Red Indians, Chinese, Rajputs and Mexicans).
- Did not like each other (Baiga in India, Ojibwa Red Indians in USA, Aymara Red Indians of Peru).
- Incompatibility of husband/wife (Muria Goods and Bondo in India; Hopi Red Indians in ;U$A; Kipsigis of Kenya; Pukapuka, wogeo and Trobriand Islands in Melanesia; Iban of Borneo; Ifaluk in Micronesia and Murngin in Australia).
- Childlessness or sterility (Kamar, Muria and Gond in India; Siriono of Bolivia; Ganda of Uganda; Chiricahua Apache Red Indians; Chinese; Rajputs in India; Peasant communities in Europe and America).
- Mistreatment or cruelty of husband (Savara and Koya in India; Apache Red Indians and Comanche Red Indians in USA ; Tallensi in Ghana; Mundugamor in New Guinea; Chinese, Indians, Mexicans and Australians).
- “I could not satisfy her” (Muria in India)
The time of annulments and separation. According to Good sell (1915} and Leyburn (1935) Christians, Hindus and Chinese in certain historic periods did not permit formal divorce because all these societies considered marriage as sacred and indissoluble tie. Divorce was unthinkable; however, when exigencies of realities forced the people to be practicable, they resorted to annulments and informal separations as the most honorable means. After separation they could practice common-law marriages.
Divorce and separate living or remarriages:
Divorce and separate living or divorce and remarriage are also considered as a way of escaping from the unsatisfactory marriages. According to Murdock (1950), out of the 40 societies he studied, in 30 Societies like the Chiricahua Apache Red Indians, Hopi Red Indians etc., it is as easy for women to secure as it is for men in 6 societies like Kurds of Iraq, silwa of Egypt, Baganda of Uganda, Siriono of Bolivia, Guayana of Granchaco of South America and 3apanese, divorce is easy for men to secure than women; and in 4 societies like the Kwoma of New Guinea, Dahomeans of west Africa, Yurok Red Indians of California and witotos of Brazil, divorceis easy for women to obtain than men. Thus sexual rights in initiating divorce are related to the relative status of men and women in the societies concerned.
Grounds of Divorce:
Grounds for divorce usually match with the grounds for marital instability, in some societies, such as the Ojibwa, Samoans, Kaska, Hopi orIfaluk where divorce is accomplished without legality of ceremony, the reasons for divorce are the very reasons for marital unhappiness.
On the contrary, in societies like the Kurtachi of Soloman islands and Pukapuka of Melanesia where divorce is a legal proceeding, the grounds for divorce are at times more in the nature of excused justifications than they are the real reasons for breaking a marriage. Among the Kurtachi, for example, adultery is a ground for divorce, but people are committing adultery all the time. Adultery is used as an excuse, when a person wants a Divorce for some other reason (Blackwood: 1935). A similar situation exists in Pukapuka (Beagle hole and Beagle hole: 1938).
- “My older wife could not stand it when I married a second ‘ (Muria in India).
- “She was a thief” (Muria in India).
- “She eloped from her parent’s house before coming to me” (Muria in India).
- “Wife quarreled over work” (Muria in India).
- “She was a bitch” (Muria in India).
- “I was ill and she did not like to stay with me” (Muria in India).
- “Bad dreams’ (I ban of Borneo)
- “Bad housewife” (Ukrainians in Russia)
Solutions:
Types of Solutions:
Researches of Murdock (1950), Stephens (1963) and several other anthropologists have shown that no society has ever found the formula for perfect marital harmony. The ethnographers report that marriages in the societies they have studied are not blissful, free from strife and disharmony.
Murdock (1950) and Stephens (1963) report that the societies where marital instability occurs, have sought ways and means to overcome the problem of instability, the societies have found the following
Solutions to solve the problem of marital instability:
- Annulments and informal separations
- Divorce and separate living
- Divorce and remarriage
Annulments and informal separations:
Annulments and informal separations exist as “a way out”, an avenue of escape from marriages in which that stress and strain has become intolerable. The very grounds for annulments and informal separations are
Divorce Procedures:
Divorce procedures are simple in some societies like the Arunta, Baganda, Hopi and Apache. Among the Arunta, a man sends his wife away on the slightest pretext , whereas the woman has no right to a divorce at all . If she is badly treated or her marriage is otherwise make intolerable, her only resource is to run away, and even then she is subject to recapture and may be made to return to her husband.
Among the Baganda, a man divorces his wife at will , sending her back to her family and demanding the return of the bride-price , He is almost sure to do this if she is barren , for barrenness is not only a great, misfortune but a positive danger to the fruitfulness of his gardens. However, a barren woman has practically no change of remarriage, her husband may simply neglect her, reducing her to the status of a household drudge and near slave The Baganda woman cannot divorce her husband , though she is badly treated , At the most she runs away and claims the aid of her clansmen. These individuals seek a meeting with her husband and attempt to mend matters. If the woman for good reasons persists in running away, she will be given sanctuary by her kinfolk and all or part of the bride-price will be returned to the husband.
Among the Apache, Hopi and Iroquois, divorce is easy to both the parties to secure. When a man and woman want to divorce, they simply separate, each retaining his or her own property. The man leaves his wife’s joint family to return to his own or remarry, unless the man or woman is aguilty party, a divorce has no difficulty in remarrying. Similarly among the Ojibwa, Samoans, Kaska and Ifaluk divorce is obtained without legality or ceremony. It amounts to nothing more than an informal separation.
On the other hand, among the Subanun, Pukapuka and Kurtachi, there is legalistic divorce, in all these societies, the marital dispute leads to a divorce. The legal authorities set the case to decide the disposition of the bride-price, family property, and of the children, by determining which of the two parties is primarily responsible for the trouble and then making the decisions in favour of the other party.
Frequency of divorce:
The following patterns of divorce frequency occur among the tribes, peasants and advanced societies.
- There are several societies where divorce is very frequent. Among the Alorese of Indonesia, & of men, 1/3 of the women get divorced in a year (Dubois: 1944). Of the total population of Reindeer Chuck Chee, 1/3 of the women get divorced every year (Bogaras: 1909). In Hopi Red Indian populations, 33% are divorcees. Among the Aymara Red Indians of Andes in South America, the Kaska Red Indians in western Canada, the Kurtachi of Soloman islands, the Lesu in Melanesia, the Ojibwa Red Indians in USA and the Papago Red Indians of Northern Mexico, the Somalis in East Africa, the Toda in South India and the Trobriand Islanders in Melanesia, the divorce is said to be very frequent (Stephens 1*963).
- There are some societies where divorce is rare. Coming under this category are the Kipsigis of Kenya, Lepcha of Sikkim and Siriono of Bolivia. Among the Muria Gonds in the state of Chhattisgarh, less than 3% of the people are divorced (Elwin: 1947). Among the ifaulk of Micronesia, about 17% of the people are divorced ones (Spiro: 1949). in the Chinese village of Taitu only one divorce took place in 30 years (Yang: 1945).
- In some societies divorce is frequent before children arrive and much less common after there are children. Among the Siwai of Solomon Islands, 40% of the marriages are dissolved before children are born, 10%are broken when the first child is an infant, 6% are terminated during the childhood of the first born and 2% are dissolved when the second child is an infant (Oliver : 1955).
Among the Plateau Tonga of North Rhodes!a, about 30% of the men and 20% of the women get divorced but most of these divorces are in the early trial-marriage period before there are children (colson: 1958).
Out of the 500 broken marriages, examined among the Navaho Red Indians in Arizona, New Mexico, 50% occurred during the first year of marriage, 30% occurred before the. Second year after marriage and 20% occur in the third year after marriage (Kluckhohn and Leighton: 1948).
In an Egyptian village called Silwa, 50% of all divorces occurred in the first two years of marriage, 77% occurred in the first five years after marriage, and 91% occurred in the first ten years after Marriage (Ammar: 1954).
- In several societies divorce is rare after children are born. Among the iban of Dorneo, wurngin of Australia, Subanum of Philippines, and Woga of Melanesia divorce is less likely after arrived of children (Stephens: 1963). Among the Kaingang of Brazil, early divorces are legion; however, divorce is rare after the children were born (Henry: 1941). Among the Copper Eskimo of Arctic Canada, a woman marries and divorces two or three times in a single year, After children come divorce is rare (jennes: 1922).
There are several societies where there are no divorces impediments to divorce. Thus among the Aymara Indians of Andes in south America, Chuck Chee of Siberia in Russia, Hopi Red Indians of Arizona, New Mexico, Ifaluk of Micronesia, Ojibwa Red Indians of Ontario, Canada, Pukapuka in Polynesia and Negroes in Jamaica, divorce is easy to secure, obstacles to divorce are totally absent.
Impediments to divorce:
However, in other societies a person bent upon divorce runs into various obstacles. The following account gives the various effective impediments to divorce
1. One effective impediment to divorce is the disposition of the children. In this regard , the most widespread one is parent’ s love for children. In some cases like the Lepcha, Papago Red Indians, Samoa , Siwai , Somali and Subanum, the children are divided between the separating parents. In some societies like the Kutachi, Lesu, Navaho, Siriono and Trobriands, the wife keeps all the children with her. William N.Stephens (1963) states that the parents love for their children is the most widespread effective deterrent to divorce because in a number of societies, most divorces occur in ‘the first few years of marriage. That means the arrival of children Curtails divorce, specific ethnographic instances clearly reveal how love of one’s children keeps. A person from leaving his or her spouse. In all these instances, the spouses use the threat of divorce as a weapon against ill-treatment or irresponsibility. Thus children really do impede divorce. Btu as to why children hold marriages together, there may be many reasons.
2.Another effective impediment to divorce is a financial-legal nature , the marriage payments. Among the A!or and Kipsigis , bride-price must be returned at divorce; but the wife ‘ s family and kin are loath to give up the bride-price they have received for her. This makes it very difficult for a woman to initiate a divorce, in cases of divorce among the Subanum, disposition of the bride-price depends on which spouse was in the wrong. if the divorce is judged to be the wife’s fault, bride-price is returned , but if it is the husband ’s fault, he does not get his money back. Thus repayment of bride price acts as an effective deterrent to divorce among the subanum. Disposition of the bride-price depends on which spouse was in the wrong. if the divorce is judged to be the if the divorce is judged to be the wife’s fault, bride-price is returned , but if it is the husband ’s fault, he does not get his money back. Thus repayment of bride price acts as an effective deterrent to divorce among the subanum.
3.Another obstacle to divorce is the punishment, social restriction imposed on the spouses or continuous marriage arrangements. For the Iban, Ifugao, Subanum and Toda, the “guilty” party in divorce proceeding must pay fines, Among the Papago, the spouse who was “in the wrong” was publicly whipped. In the Chinese village of Taitu, a divorced wife may not remarry, although her husband may (Stephens 1963). Elwin (1947) says that the marriage ceremonial among the Muria Gonds of Chhattisgarh state acted to inhibit separations and divorce. Benjamin Paul (1950) who studied the Mayan village of san Pendro la Laguna said that marriage ceremony in san Pedro consists of a series of visits and gifts exchanges between the extended families of the bride and the groom but also sets up moral machinery to help stabilize the union. This machinery does not always hold the marriage together, but it helps. The system relies, more on force of parental authority and fear of shame than on independence judgment and the dictates of conscience’. Among the Navabo, a divorce may disrupt a continuous marriage arrangement between two families or kin groups. The thr4eat of such disrupted can mobilize family pressure against a divorce.
4.A final obstacle to divorce is alimony: a separated or divorced husband must contribute to the support of his former wife’s children. Alimony is a custom practiced in a few societies including non-literate and literate societies, Alimony rules occur only in those cases where the nuclear family is relatively isolated from larger kin groups. Thus the Copper Eskimo, the Iban of Borneo and the blacks in Jamaica, have something in common; absence of unilineal kin groups, frequent neolocal residence, and general weakness of extended kin groupings, in all these societies, large kin-groups are well developed. The support of the children is no problem in cases of divorce. A divorced woman and her children can always be provided for by other relatives. In an advanced society like USA, the marriage customs are simple and the marriage ceremonials and marriage finances so common among other societies, are absent there or nearly so. Among the marriage- related customs mate-selection highlights great freedom but divorce is relatively difficult because it carries financial – legal penalties. Marriage in an advanced society like that of USA is rather unusual combination of freedom and restriction: it is easy to begin , but hard to end.
Conclusion:
Just as marriage exists in all societies, marriage instability occurs in almost all societies to a greater or lesser degree; all societies provided some procedure whereby marriages may be dissolved in terms of informal separations in some advanced societies at one point of their
History. Marriages may also be dissolved in terms of formal divorce. The grounds for divorce may or may not match with those of unhappy marital life.
Divorce is universally a cultural practice admitted -by necessity, for no society appears to recognize in principle that marriage is not a permanent union. Both the recognized causes for divorce and the ease with which divorce may be obtained vary widely in different societies, in some societies, divorce is difficult and may be secured especially by women, only under the stress of intolerable conditions; in others, divorce is relatively easy for both men and women to achieve, Nevertheless, there are universal techniques whereby pressure of one sort or another may be brought to bear upon those dissatisfied with married life, Even in divorce there is the support for the ideal that marriage, once contracted, should be a permanent tie.
Murdock (1950) finds 16 non-literate societies in which 41the stability of marital unions is noticeably greater than an American society, In the remaining 24 societies, constituting 60% of the total, the divorce rate manifestly exceeds that among us. Despite the widespread alarm about increasing “family disorganization” in an American society, the comparative
Evidence makes it clear that we will remain well within the limits which human experience has shown that societies can tolerate with safety”. Murdock further says (1950) that in nearly all societies there is a constant effort toward the end of encouraging and rewarding permanent unions, not toward dissolving them. in the words of Murdock, the general attitude toward divorce “is clearly that is regrettable, but often necessary, it represents more of a practical concession to the frailty of mankind, caught in a web of social relationships and cultural expectations that often impose intolerable pressure on the individual personality. That most social systems work as well as they do, despite concessions to the individual that appear excessive to us, is a tribute to us, is a tribute to human ingenuity and resiliency”.