Lindsey Tells Why Married Life Fails
New York, Jan. 13—At last the eternal interrogation which has long supplied drama, novel and social philosophy with varying forms of subject matter has a direct answer. Is marriage a failure?
“Yes, as a social institution marriage has failed. Here are statistics to prove it.” The answer was supplied by Judge Ben B. Lindsey. “We have got to face the most serious social problem of modern times,” he said. “Do you know that for every marriage in Denver during 1922 there has been a separation? For every two marriage licenses issued there has been a divorce suit filed. And what makes the tragedy so alarming is that what is true of Denver is true of every city in this country. What statistics prove of the West will hold good for the East. There is one thing we cannot get away from and that is the one-ness of the American people.
“Think of it—in the last four years the marriage and divorce ratio has changed from four to one to two to one. These statistics show the number of separations arising from non-support and desertion which have come under the observation of my own Domestic Relations Court. Up to Dec. 16 of 1922, in the City and County of Denver, 2,908 marriage licenses were issued and 1,492 divorce cases filed. That makes the divorces 49.5 per cent of the marriage licenses. Now add to these my own figures, recording 1,500 cases of separation, and it makes the number almost 3,000—2,992 to be exact. Allowing an estimate of 50 cases for the remaining days of December, that would bring the divorces up to 1,542, compared with 1,497 of 1921. And even allowing 100 marriages for those same remaining days, the marriage licenses granted in 1922 for Denver would be 3,008, compared to 3,626 of 1921. The increase in divorces was 45. The decrease in marriages was 618.
. . . .
“Why has it failed?”
“The answer is almost circular,” said the Judge. “Marriage is a failure because of changing conventions, and the conventions are changing because marriage is a failure. But to be more explicit—young people today are reluctant to accept a convention called ‘Right’ when they see it proved wrong. Consider the effect upon conventions of the constantly repeated knowledge which these statistics represent—when interpreted into tragedies of domestic failure.
“I believe the seriousness of the problem is augmented by the reluctance, or perhaps I should say, indifference of society in facing social truths and inevitable situations. We cannot get away from the changing conventions and we cannot fail to see that the percentage of people who think and talk along these lines, seriously, constructively, is very small.”
“But what are the definite reasons for the failure of marriage?” the interviewers insisted.
“Well,” replied Judge Lindsey, “an important reason is that young people are having it constantly drilled into them that marriage is a failure and they can see no use in entering a relation which is obviously a failure. Youth instinctively shuns anything savoring a lack of success.
“But the most significant reason is the broadening viewpoint of the present generation; its refusal to recognize as sin what convention has heretofore established as such. The whole thing is coming to a recognition of two standards—one that is and the other what is to be.”
“And what is to be?”
“That people may live together without being married in the conventional way,” rang out the Judge’s reply.
“You approve of this?”
“It is not a question of what I approve, but what is going to be. It is not a question of my approval, but what the failure of conventions has brought about. But perhaps I should have placed my third reason first, as it is the most direct in its effect,” said the Judge. “I mean the economic independence of woman is a vital reason for the failure of marriage.”
“Surely you do not think her economic independence a bad thing for our social life?”
“No, it is not a bad thing,” replied Judge Lindsey, “but it is forcing us to a different standard of so-called morality.”
“Just what do you mean?” was the natural question.
“I mean that since so many people fail to live together after the conventional formality of marriage they are justifying themselves in living together without that formality. If they disagree, a separation is much simpler than the expenses and difficulty of a divorce. Thousands are doing this without making a general announcement before the world at large. But they are justified in their small groups—in their own little worlds. How long will it be before these little worlds merge and form the big world?”
“But how does the economic independence of women enter into the case?”
“Oh, yes—but it does,” exclaimed the Judge. “In the past what we have termed the success of marriage depended almost entirely upon the economic slavery of women. Today women are no longer slaves.”
“Still, if the marriage ceremony were abolished, women as a whole would be the worst sufferers, wouldn’t they? Naturally economically independent women might solve their own destinies, but there are others—the hordes of others—”
“My goodness,” cried the Judge, aghast. “I do not advocate abolishing the marriage ceremony.”
“Just what do you advocate?”
The Judge’s reply fairly burst from him.
“Respect for people who love each other although unmarried. The right of the child to be b orn. Recognition of the child of the unmarried mother. That is the first thing of importance in adjustment to changing conventions.”
“But—”
“You are going to ask me—I see it coming,” interrupted the Judge, “if that would not lead to so-called immorality? My answer is—do not the lack of respect and the failure to recognize children of unmarried couple lead to murder—the destruction of infant life?”
“Still, if the conventional union called marriage is a failure, just how does the unconventional relationship better the situation?”
“I do not say that it betters the state of union. I insist that it betters the state of the child. And it is the child in whom my interest centers.”
“What is to become of the child, according to your theories of unconventional mating?”
“What is to become of the child of married relations?” retorted the Judge. “You seem to assume that the child is all right under the conventional married state. Let me assure you that marriage is not a guarantee for the future of a child. It is not even a guarantee of a father, because of the fathers separating from the mothers.
“In a recent survey of a typical American city 32 per cent of legitimate children in a school had no father at home. These children were being brought up under artificial paternity. Please do not misunderstand me and think that I would abolish marriage. Far from it. But we must face a vital situation. Will we not be forced to the recognition—for the child’s sake—of another standard?”
“Do you think a change in the marriage laws would make things better?”
“I doubt it very much,” replied Judge Lindsey. “We are becoming too paternal. We are trying to regulate the lives of others too much. We are preparing the path for youth when we should be preparing youth for the path. There are two kinds of paternalism, a wholesome, helpful one, and an unwholesome, dangerous one. In trying to uphold one we are encouraging the other. This unwholesome one, based upon hypocrisy, begins by putting too many restraints upon society. One of the best things we could do would be to psycho-analyze our social life.”
“Remove social inhibitions?”
“Yes,” replied the Judge. “We recognize the beneficial effects of psycho-analyzing the individual, freeing suppressed desires. Well, the soul of society is quite as responsive to treatment as the soul of the individual. The social conscience can be reached and stirred to proper reactions. I believe that in the subconscious mind of society there are urges which are driving us to recognize the changing conventions.
“We must recognize the fact that we are facing a terrific conflict between instincts and conventions. Social life today is a matter of artificial restraints. Just as in the case of the individual subject of psycho-analytical treatment—life should be regulated by natural, not artificial restraints. We have only to look about us at the shifting sands of conventions to realize that in the conflict between instincts and conventions instincts are winning.”
“But,” he was reminded, “restraints are expressed in laws, and you, a Judge, believe in laws—”
“We are surfeited with laws,” he replied. “I have placed 52 new laws on the Colorado statute books and have, among others, changed the law making the domicile the wife’s and not the husband’s home. We must not be oppressed with laws. They do not always bring satisfactory remedies. The law that conquers is the law of the heart. We are depending too much upon artificial restraints when we should depend upon natural ones. The best law is the self-imposed one in contrast to the artificially imposed one. And that is just where the changing conventions are making the world of tomorrow different from the world of yesterday.
“We know that divorce would not be so overwhelming in the Western States if the conventional marriage institution had proved a success. Hasn’t marriage failed when there are as many break-ups as make-ups?”
‘You think we must change the conventions?”
“Must!” echoed the Judge. “It isn’t a question of must but of what is.”
“Do you believe divorce and separations avoidable or necessary?”
“They are necessary until conditions that cause them are corrected. We can never raise the standard of morality by checking divorce. The church has failed to safeguard the married state by decrying divorce. It not only has failed in the past but it always will fail. In re-reading Lecky’s ‘History of European Morals’ recently, I was fortified in my belief by discovering that during a period of 500 years, when there was not a single divorce, a more immoral epoch in the world’s history was never known, nor was woman’s position so degraded.
“Whether I believe in certain conventions, whether you believe in others that are crumbling to pieces, is beside the point. Our individual approval or disapproval has nothing to do with the matter. Within our own days we will see such radical changes in our conventions regarding unions of men and women that both marriage and divorce statistics will be materially changed.”
“For the betterment of society?”
“Oh, that is a question I cannot answer. I am not a prophet—but merely a student of social conditions—trying to help children. These things affect the great interest of my life—the child. For the child’s sake we must face this most important problem. In these changing conventions the child must be protected.”
From page 2 of the Durham Morning Herald, Jan. 14, 1923
No comments:
Post a Comment