Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/303

 .__-'_Ii=-—-—-‘.w ‘

The Causes of Divorce BY THE EDITOR

Divorce: A Study in Social Causation. By James P. Lichtenberger, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Sociology. University of Pennsylvania. Columbia University Studies in Political Science, v. 34, n0. 3. Pp. 225 + index 4. Columbia University, New York. (82.)

of this increase is co-extensive with the un precedented development of commercial enter prise in this country since the Civil War suggests the line of reasoning selected.

R. JAMES P. LICHTENBERGER, of

of the real signiﬁcance of increasing divorce

the department of sociology of the University of Pennsylvania, has made a study of the causation of divorce which is of scientific value despite an apparent tendency to indulge in speculation concerning subjects for which social science has scarcely yet furnished tools for accurate investigation. His point of view and general method of treatment are the right ones, and the outline of the causes of the rapid increase in the rate of divorce in the United States can be ap proved exoept in some minor particulars, while the fundamental propositions that divorce is the cause rather than the result of

is missing. Are we to consider that there is three times the weakening of family ties now that there was in 1867? Obviously not, for

divorce legislation, and that the restrictive

affection in the family life. Legal divorce can never be more than an approximate index to the actual divorce in a population." Admitting this principle, however, he never theless seems not to go quite far enough in applying it. Human nature can undergo no great change in such a short period as forty years. and the presumption against which Dr. Lichtenberger has to contend is that the increase of legal divorce is of only superﬁcial signiﬁcance, no fundamental modi ﬁcation of family institutions having been likely to take place. The author does not even recognize the existence of this pre

power of the law cannot materially check the evil, are of course sound. In this regard the attitude of the author deserves to be cordially endorsed when he declares (p. 146) :— Mistaking the eﬂect for the cause. and without adequate a rehension of the nature of the social forces whic are roducing changed conditions throughout our w ole social fabric, many have looked u n the spread of divorce as an unmiti gated evi and have sought to re re the divorce movement by more stringent an uniform divorce laws. This is to treat the symptoms rather than the disease. This method 0 procedure will pro duce many good results. but its futility in respect to its inﬂuence u n the divorce rate needs no fur ther demonstration than a clear apprehension of the causes involved.

The ﬁrst thing one looks for in a monograph of this kind is a statement of the extent to which divorce has actually increased in the United States. Dr. Lichtenberger presents official statistics covering the forty-year period from 1867 to 1906 and analyzes them at length. He ﬁnds that the ratio of divorces to marriages is constantly increasing, being in 1905 approximately three times what it was in 1870. Other interesting deductions from the statistics are made, but this threefold increase is the fact of greatest importance to the general reader, while stress laid in another chapter on the fact that the period

At the outset, however, a precise estimate

legal divorce and real divorce are not identical;

there may be a disruption of the family without recourse to legal remedies. Legal divorce is not the only possible symptom of the disintegration of the family, for it may show itself in many forms of immorality not necessarily leading to divorce. The truth of this the author himself seems to recognize when he says (p. 143) that "the study of divorce statistics can only be of service in

indicating imperfectly the degree of dis

sumption, but treats the increase in legal

divorce as if it fairly approximated the actual tendency toward the disruption of matrimonial ties. He therefore fails to take into account considerations which might have led him to correct an error of perspective necessarily resulting from taking the statistics as the point of departure for discussion of the main theme. In consequence, the symmetry of the treatment is mutilated by the omission of an important topic. Before we study divorce we must consider marriage itself. Divorce results from the operation of forces disrupting the family after marriage, but it may have