The remainder of this essay composing tutorial is depending on a short sample 'divorce essay' (about 1,000 words).
To carry out all from the associated tasks, it is easiest when you have the sample essay in front of you.
A major change that has occurred inside Western family is undoubtedly an increased incidence in divorce. Whereas during the past, divorce was a relatively rare occurrence, in recent times it has become very commonplace. This change is borne out clearly in census figures. For example thirty years ago in Australia, only a person marriage in ten ended in divorce; nowadays the figure is even more than 1 in three (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996: p.45). A consequence of this change has become a substantial increase inside the amount of one parent families as well as attendant problems that this brings (Kilmartin, 1997).
An important issue for sociologists, and indeed for all of society, is why these changes in marital patterns have occurred. Within this essay I will seek to critically examine many different sociological explanations for that 'divorce phenomenon' and also consider the social policy implications that each individual explanation carries with it. It will be argued that the ideal explanations are to be found within just a broad socio-economic framework.
One particular type of explanation for rising divorce has focused on changes in laws relating to marriage. For example, Bilton, Bonnett and Jones (1987) argue that increased rates of divorce do not necessarily indicate that families are now even more unstable. It is available, they claim, that there has always been a degree of marital instability. They suggest that changes inside of the law have been significant, seeing that they have provided unhappily married couples with 'accessibility to some legal method to pre-existent marital problems' (p.301). Bilton et al. therefore believe that changes in divorce rates could be optimum explained in terms of changes on the legal strategy. The problem with this type of explanation however, is always that it does not consider why these laws have changed inside number one put. It could be argued that reforms to family law, at the same time given that the increased rate of divorce that has accompanied them, are the product of further fundamental changes in society.
Another type of explanation is just one that focuses precisely on these broad societal changes. For example, Nicky Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995) argues that increases in divorce and marital breakdown are the result of economic changes that have affected the family. An individual example of these changes is the raised material aspirations of families, which Hart suggests has put pressure on equally spouses to become wage earners. Women as a result have been forced to become equally homemakers and economic providers. According to Hart, the contradiction of these two roles has lead to conflict and this is the main cause of marital breakdown. It would appear that Hart's explanation cannot account for all cases of divorce - for example, marital breakdown is liable to occur in families where only the husband is working. Nevertheless, her method, which is to relate changes in family relations to broader social forces, would look to be increased probing than a person that looks only at legislative change.
The two explanations described over have very different implications for social policy, notably in relation to how the problem of increasing marital instability can be dealt with. Bilton et al. (1995) offer a legal explanation and hence would see the solutions also being determined with this domain. If rises in divorce are thought to be the consequence of liberal divorce laws, the obvious way to stem this rise is to make them less obtainable. This process, one particular imagines, would lead to your reduction in divorce statistics; however, it cannot really be held up as a genuine method to the problems of marital stress and breakdown in society. Indeed it would appear to be to be a method directed even more at symptoms than addressing fundamental causes. Furthermore, the know-how of social workers, working on the area of family welfare suggests that restricting a couple's obtain to divorce would in some cases serve only to exacerbate current marital problems (Johnson, 1981). In those cases where violence is involved, the consequences could be tragic. Apart from all this, returning to a good deal more restrictive divorce laws appears to be a treatment small favoured by Australians. (Harrison, 1990).
Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995), producing from the Marxist-feminist position, traces marital conflict to changes while in the capitalist economic platform and their resultant effect in the roles of men and women. It is difficult to know however, how this kind of an analysis could possibly be translated into practical social policies. This is on the grounds that the Hart program would appear to require with the earliest put a radical restructuring belonging to the economic strategy. Whilst this may be desirable for some, it is not really achievable within the current political climate. Hart is right however, to suggest that a lot of marital conflict tend to be linked in some way to the economic circumstances of families. This is borne out in quite a few statistical surveys which display consistently that rates of divorce are higher among socially disadvantaged families (McDonald, 1993). This situation suggests then that social policies want to be geared to providing assistance and security for these varieties of families. It is very little cause for optimism however, that in recent years governments of all persuasions have demonstrated an increasing reluctance to fund social welfare programs of this kind.
It is difficult to offer a comprehensive explanation for your growing trend of marital breakdown; and it is even far more difficult to obtain solutions which may ameliorate the problems created by it. Clearly though, as I have argued in this particular essay, some of the most useful answers are to be found not within just a narrow legal framework, but inside of a broader socio-economic a person.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that, whilst we may appear to be living inside a time of increased family instability, research suggests that historically, instability may have been the norm rather than the exception. As Bell and Zajdow (1997) point out, within the past, one parent and step families had been a whole lot more well-known than is assumed - although the disruptive influence then was not divorce, but the premature death of one particular or both equally parents. This situation suggests that in studying the trendy family, 1 needs to employ a historical perspective, such as the possibility of shopping to the past in searching for ways of dealing with problems from the current.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). Divorces, Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Assistance.
Bell, R. and G. Zajdow (1997) Family and household. In R. Jureidini, S. Kenny and M. Poole (eds). Sociology: Australian Connections. St Leonards. NSW: Allen and Unwin
Bilton, T. K. Bonnett and P. Jones (1987). Introductory Sociology. 2nd edition. London: MacMillan.
Haralambos, M. (1995). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 3rd edition. London: Bell and Hyman.
Harrison, M. (1995). Grounds for divorce. Family Matters. No 42 pp 34-35.
Johnson, V. (1981). The Last Resort: A Women's Refuge. Ringwood: Penguin.
Kilmartin, C. (1997). Children divorce and one-parent families. Family Matters. No. 48. ( Readily available On-line )
McDonald, P. (1993). Family Trends and Structure in Australia. Australian Family Briefings No 3. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.