Determinants of Divorce in Nineteenth-Century Flanders

Abstract

In 1830, the year Belgium became independent, there were four divorces in Belgium. From about 1870 to 1910, there were about one hundred divorces per year, and since 1910, there have been about 1,000. The aim of this research is to investigate the factors that played a role in the increase in the number of divorces in Belgium in the course of the nineteenth century. The research relates to information from four Flemish municipalities for the period 1800-1913. Results indicate that an explanation of the rising divorce rate can be sought in the psychological and social consequences of the more pronounced shift in marriage, gender, and family expectations. Increasing numbers of women threw themselves more and more into their gender-specific expressive gender role, whereas the objective opportunities and attainability of this role did not increase commensurately. The result was role strain: high marriage and family expectations soon come up against intrinsic limitations. As a result of this, both individual and general frustration increased, and this was an ideal social substratum for facilitating divorce.

Socio-economic determinants of divorce in early twentieth-century Sweden

“…A relatively universal result in previous research on divorce is that urban environments are more conducive to divorce than rural areas are (White, 1990, p.905;Matthijs et al, 2008;Glenn & Shelton, 1985;Taussi Sjöberg, 1988, p.72;Sandström, 2011). This empirical relationship is also confirmed in this study.…”

“…That urban environments are conducive to divorce has been firmly established in previous research (Sandström, 2011;Taussi Sjöberg, 1988, pp.68-72;South & Spitze, 1986;Van Poppel, 1997, p.53;Matthijs et al, 2008). Scholars argue that more densely populated areas provide a better supply side in the marriage market, which increases the chance of finding an alternative partner, which in turn increases the alternative cost of staying married as opposed to divorcing.…”

“…Roderick Phillips provides descriptive support for this line of reasoning, showing that individuals from the higher social strata made up a disproportionally large share of petitioners in divorce cases during the late nineteenth century in the United States, England and Australia (Phillips, 1988, p.608). However, few tests have been done on Goode's hypothesis of an inverse relationship between social class and divorce during the early phase of the divorce revolution using inferential methods that control for other known risk factors (exceptions are Van Poppel, 1997;Matthijs et al, 2008;Kalmijn et al, 2011). On the basis of these theoretical arguments, the hypothesis is thus that during this early period in Sweden, when economic and cultural constraints were still comparatively strong, the divorce rate among males in an occupation was positively associated with the mean income of that occupation.…”

Ready, Willing, and Able to Divorce: An Economic and Cultural History of Divorce in Twentieth-Century Sweden

“…Previous research reveals that high divorce rates are strongly connected to urban environments because these milieus exhibit less social integration and control, which in turn reduce the social barriers to divorce. 29 It is also quite possible that a high density of urban environment is more conducive to normative change, facilitating the spreading of new norms. Sociologist Göran Therborn argues along these lines in his research on family patterns, stating that urbanization ''challenged the traditional authorities of all kind, including patriarchy, by its display of heterogeneity, its offers of option, and its escapes from social control''.…”

Love during divorce : development of the Sorokin Psycho-Social Love Inventory (SPSLI) and testing of a predictor model.

“…Even the Shoshone Indians who were some of the first people to occupy North America in the territory that is now California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, simply consummated divorce by a wife placing her husband's possessions outside their dwelling (Coontz, 2007). Compared to today, divorce was a rare phenomenon but it started to increase during the French and Industrial Revolution (Matthijs, Baerts, & De Putte, 2008). After the American Revolution states legitimized divorce, some say, as a metaphorical response to the notion that marriage, like government, was based on consent and, therefore, either were subject to revocation (Basch, 1999).…”