Let’s call a spade a spade: a lot of academic research – especially in the social sciences – either reports on the bleedin’ obvious, or backs up the arguments of the researchers, and usually goes some way to maintain or augment their grant.
BBC Radio 5 Live was awash with this latest research [1] the other day, commissioned by the Family Lawyers’ Association to mark Family Dispute Resolution Week.
They found that the children of divorced parents fare worse in school, and some can experience eating disorders, while some turn to alcohol and drugs. I know: I was shocked, too…
This led me to a wider issue: Why on Earth do we feel we need research to prove every single thing we believe? Why this apparent need for “experts” to impinge upon the eons-old act of bringing up children to be happy, balanced and get good grades?
Not only am I asking if we need it, but does it even do good? While correlation is not the same as causation, consider this. As intervention (or “help”) in the family unit has increased at great pace since the 1960s, teen pregnancy, sex-related violence, anti-social youth behaviour and marital breakdown have increased, too. Surely it couldn’t be the case that what has been masquerading as the cure has in fact been the poison…
Back to the data. One entry in the comments section from the London Independent link above says a lot: “Did they do a control group of outcomes for children with toxic parents who stayed together?”
It leads me to a lot of my own questions. Why do we have divorce rates so unfathomable to anyone, say, 50 years ago? In modern-day Britain – which is a more “mature” divorce nation, given Irish laws are only 17 years old –divorce rates are hitting about 50% [2]; in 1960 they were roughly 7%. So, are we saying that that the remaining 43% differential in 1960 lived in abject misery largely to avoid the societal shame that divorce used to entail?
Given that those who so wisely and sagely guide us are so determined to minister for our betterment, perhaps they could deliver some useful advice.
Resolution Chairwoman Jo Edwards said: “It underlines just how important it is that parents going through a split manage their separation in a way that minimises the stress and impact on the entire family, especially children, otherwise their exam results could suffer. Divorce and separation is always traumatic, but there is a better way to deal with it.”
You may notice that nothing Ms Edwards said passed any judgement on separation and divorce; like hip parents who give their teenagers alcohol at home, there seems to be little awareness that individual behaviours and societal influencers are inextricably linked.
So, as state agencies – and, in turn, much of society – has adopted the amoral position of non-judgementalism, the problems in society they claim to wish see lessened have actually increased.
Perhaps, rather than angling for business via mindnumbingly obvious “findings,” the likes of Resolution could redirect their influence away from trying to make bad situations more manageable to decreasing the number of those bad situations altogether. Prevention, after all, is better than cure.