Divorce

Divorce March 4, 2009
Diane Vaughn’s work on divorce made me feel kinda bad, and I’ve never even been divorced! But putting this in context of other relationships, such as dating relationships, has pretty much tagged me as a jerk. Moreover, it made me think about the importance of having clear communication, even with people whom I don’t like very much. (“Wow,” you’re thinking. “This guy doesn’t like the girls he dates. He is a jerk!”)

I’ve been on both sides of the break-up; I’ve been the initiator before. I was the advantaged. I was in the decision-making position. I was whom Marx was preaching against—the emotional Bourgeoisie; only the factors of production I controlled and limited were DTRs, physical affection, and time spent together. The one-woman Proletariat would issue pleas of “Let’s talk about it;” and “Tell me what you’re thinking;” and “don’t shut me out.” I don’t remember precisely how I responded, but it probably included something about having cake, actually eating it while you have it, and how that’s a ridiculous, selfish desire to have. (Of course, the one who ACTUALLY was the ridiculous and selfish one was...)

I had the higher ground in the relationship. Most of the time the higher ground gives you a clear picture of what’s going on below: like how a lifeguard can see down into the water from his perch. (Man, those were some cool 15 year-olds up there.) Or we talk about going to the temple and keeping the commandments in order to be on spiritual high ground—to get above the foggy haze of indecision and meanness. Pres Hinckley asked why we have to be so mean and rude to each other. You think you know the answer, until you have to break up with someone. Then you find yourself on the sharp, poisonous, stinging end of Pres Hinckley’s inspired rebuke.
In Vaughn’s idea of the big “D,” the higher ground doesn’t represent clarity of mind. Here, higher ground is tactical. It is militaristic. Higher ground is my pretending that everything is normal and all right for as long as it takes me to establish an alternative to the status quo, and then jump from one ship to the other without rocking the boat too much.

Why must I first have the alternative? 1) Because I don’t want to end up down by the river in a van. 2) Because I don’t exist outside of experience. Therefore, if I have nothing to go to, then I won't exist, and I won't be able to leave. (Hence, the battered woman syndrome we spoke about.) 3) No one wants to get divorced, even if that ends up being the final decision. Despite this, some still revert to that option. The alternative that has been built up and established by the Initiator allows divorce to offer itself as the preferred option. Can you believe that? The fact that divorce has become the better option, the option that delivers less grief, the option that is the lesser of two evils really says something about the perceived badness of the marriage relationship. Separation becomes a source of relief. Moreover, that feeds into an explanation of why some dads become deadbeats. They are separated from the world that includes their children. Because they are not part of their children’s world, they have no need to contribute to making it better.

The status quo in a marriage, as many people believe, is to continue being married. That’s the default setting. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it doesn’t fit in with any other part of a responsible, rational person’s life. Who goes to their job and does not try to do it better in hopes of a raise or promotion? What guy goes to play basketball on the weekend with his buddies without an expectation of winning at least one of the games or scoring a few points? We go to school and strive to do better with each assignment or test that comes along. I’m not talking, necessarily, about competition. I’m talking about our motivations to participate—in anything. That is in some way to leave better than we came. Otherwise, why do we come in the first place?