Children of Divorce

November 19, 2015

Not So Boring After All

Twenty years ago, on what would have been an otherwise normal day in Penang,

Malaysia, my parents made the decision to get married. Born in the same hometown, they had

met at work after returning from college overseas. There was no fanfare, no grandiosity, no

surprisehaving begun dating in their mid-twenties, their goal had always been eventual

marriage. After two years together, both were on the verge of entering their thirties, financially

stable, and ready to start a family. As a young child, I had always asked my parents to recount

the story of how they had met, hoping for it to be something akin to the princess movies that

consumed most of my free time. However, their story sounded wholly underwhelming; it was a

staid picture that I in no way wanted to be reflected in my own relationshipthere was no

romance, excitement, or sense that what they had experienced was anything other than the

expected narrative for a conventional life. However, after learning about the ideal conditions for

a successful marriage in class, I have come to develop a new appreciation for my parents

relational timeline, and have found new meaning in facets of their relationship that had seemed

staid and unadventurous. By analyzing the past and present of my parents marriage utilizing the

tools that we have learned in class, I have discovered elements that serve to explain the

continued success of a relationship that had initially seemed boring to me. In addition, upon

talking to my friend Nathan, a sophomore at NYU, my parents marriage through the lens of the

information learned in class has provided a grounds for comparison to burgeoning relationships.
 Upon asking my mother what she saw in my father that led her to believe that he would

be a good spouse, she replied that he was the most generous person Id ever metalways

willing to give to others in need, whether it be in terms of time or even financially, despite the

fact that he was still getting on his feet. He was very open and honest with me about stuff, and it

led me to think that hed be someone who I could growth with and who would challenge me to

be better every day. My father, in response the same question, said that my mother was always

so caring and considerate. She would bring me food before tennis matches and offer to give me a

lift in her car after work so I didnt have to walk home. She always knew what I needed before I

even askedI thought that was pretty special. Both of my parents assessments of the

appealing qualities of the other reveal individualistic ideals, specifically in my mothers desire

for someone to challenge her and make her better and stronger. In addition, companionate

concepts were also present, and can be seen my parents beliefs that the other was considerate,

generous, or caring qualities that indicated a spouse who they loved and wanted to be around.

Furthermore, the qualities given by students in Fehrs study of Prototypical Lovehonesty,

trustworthiness, and caringare similar to those divulged by my parentsgenerosity, honesty,

being open, and caring. The conclusion reached by Fehrs studythat the closer the relationship

to prototypical love, the higher the satisfaction in the relationshipmay reflect why my parents

marital quality has remained high over so many years, and continues to increase as they grow

closer together.

When asked about their conflict patterns, my mother recalls a particularly intense

fight that she and my father had when I was about three or four. He didnt use to be very

understanding, she says, and hed always do this thing where hed say that youd never

understanding or you wont get it. It was pretty disheartening. When we had that really bad
fight he actually said that if it really wasnt working we should just get a divorce, but after that

we made the decision to never bring that up again as even an option. My father, on the other

hand, revealed that your mom used to always bring up a laundry list of what I did wrong. It

would get so infuriating I just couldnt deal with it. My mothers insight regarding her and my

fathers initial pattern of conflict reveals invalidating interactionsin saying that my mother

wouldnt understand him, my father invalidated her attempts to be empathetic and see from his

side of the situation. However, my fathers insight reveals a cycle of flooding and stonewalling:

my mother would tell him a long list of things that she thought he was doing incorrectly, and in

response to the tidal wave of information, he would shut down and accuse her of not

understanding him. This pattern of conflict, defined by John Gottman in Love Lab as a bad

argument, could possibly have been an indicator of divorce had it continued on throughout their

marriage. Now, however, in their arguments, my mother tries to always think about what Jesus

would dobe slow to speak and slow to get angry. she reveals that Dad is also a lot better

about trying to give me credit for attempting to understand what he feels, and that helps a lot.

Other than that big fight, though, we hardly ever fought and fight even less now; just little tiffs

here and there but no big arguments. Weve always been a team. My parents conflict patterns

show gradual ascent, going from a place that was invalidating and emotionally harmful to a

place where my father would give credit to my mother for her feelings and she, in turn, is a lot

more emotionally rational when she arguesshe doesnt attack [my Dad] or point fingers. This

indicates that the way they fight now is validating and provides an environment where they can

maintain engagement to understand a shared goalqualities characteristic to a good argument,

according to John Gottman. In addition, the fact that after one proposal to divorce resulted in a
commitment to never mentioning it as option again reveals that they no longer have zero-sum

conflicts; this further proves that their conflict environment has come from being malicious to

constructive. By viewing their conflicts through the lens of Belsky and Hsiehs 1998 study, my

parents conflicts most closely follow the Stays Good pattern. The brunt of their most serious

conflicts occurred during the first few years of my lifeas reflected in Belsky and Hsiehs

research findings that marital quality declines within early years of parenting. Even during this

time, however, their arguments were inconsistent and not a defining factor of their relationship.

Therefore, as their arguments went from being seldom, albeit invalidating, to even more sparse,

yet constructive, their pattern mostly closely follows Stays Good.

According to Amato and Hohmann-Marriots study, common risk factors for couples

who divorce include being children of divorce, experiencing prior cohabitation, having

permissive family values, and possessing the belief that divorce is an acceptable solution. By

viewing my parents relationship through this lens, the success that they have found in their

marriage could be attributed to the fact that they check none of these boxes. Neither of them

have divorced parents, and prior to marriage had never lived with each other or with any

previous boyfriends or girlfriends. In terms of family values, my parents upbringing in

traditional Chinese households as well as the religious values that they personally chose later in

life both presented restrictions to their being able to advocate permissive morals and divorce

being an acceptable solution to a problematic marriage. After that one fight, my father says,

we made a promise to each other that no matter how bad it got, we wouldnt get a divorce

because its not what God would want us to do, and its not what we want to do for each other

and for you guys. The values that my parents have, furthermore, can be seen as Barriers,

according to Levingers Social Exchange Theory. The Social Exchange Theory, which seeks
to explain why couples choose divorce or continue to stay together, assesses relationships on the

basis of three factors: Barriers, Attraction, and Alternatives. My parents moral standards,

created out of a combination of both cultural upbringing, familial pressure, and religion, are the

Barriers that they would have to overcome were they to get divorced. In addition to cultural and

religious Barriers, financial Barriers are equally high. My father, being the sole breadwinner of

the family, has assumed this role since my mother stopped working when I was bornthis

would make it extremely difficult for my mother to become financially independent should they

divorce. My fathers reasoning that divorce would be something that they wouldnt want to do in

order to care for my sister and I, furthermore, is another Barrier to divorce connected to the

Family Systems Theory. This theory, postulating that something that happens to one member of

the family would also have an effect on the rest of the family, pulls my sister and I into the

equation and thus heightens the costs were my parents to get a divorce. Attraction refers to the

balance of pros and cons of the marriage. In my parents case, the pros of their marriage could be

summarized as emotional and romantic companionship, financial stability (on the part of my

mother), and keeping the family intact. When I asked her about the cons of their current

relationship, my mother replied that [your father and I] have been together for so long that the

little things that irk us about each other are so tiny that they dont matterwe know the real

basis of our relationship and, frankly, nothing at this point except abuse or infidelity could shake

that. The high pros and low cons could be yet another reason why my parents continue to

maintain a strong relationship. Alternatives, the final aspect of Social Exchange Theory, refers to

other options for mating that could possibly undermine the stability of the relationship. After

having moved from Malaysia when I was two to Beijing, later to Hong Kong, and then Shanghai,

my parents have been in big cities all throughout their married lives. While, according to
Levinger, alternatives are high in cities as there are many attractive potential partners and never

married women, my parents still manage to be faithful to each other because of their religious

stance. Im not the most attractive woman, my mother says, Im getting old and I know that

especially because your father works in a pretty high-profile position, if he wanted it would be

easy for him to be unfaithful to me. But he has he never has and I believe him because I trust

him, and I believe that hes a man of God who know limitations even when temptation is

present. While in terms of Social Exchange Theory, the high presence of Alternatives should be

a weakening factor in terms of my parents relationship, the Barriersin this case, religion

prove to be so strong as to prevent Alternatives from being an issue.

In contrast with my parents, who have been married for twenty years, my friend Nathan

is nineteen and a student at NYU. Nathan was born and raised in the United States, and has only

traveled internationally a few times. After meeting his current girlfriend through mutual friends,

he is just beginning to feel his way into his second relationship. When asked what he looked for

in a potential girlfriend, he responded that how she is around people tells me a lot about how

shell be in a relationshipif shes a people person, if shes confident, if shes calm in the face

of stressful issues, all of those things tell me that, yeah, I want to be with this girl because shes

not going to blow up in my face like a grenade. It tells me that shed be someone who I could

foster deep, lasting connections to. Im attracted to intelligence, too. I love it when a girl can tell

me things that I dont know about so I can learn from her. Id also love a girl whos definitely

interested in trying new things and having new experiencesI think thats really cool. The

qualities Nathan looks for reveal his primary outlook on relationships to be a combination of

individualistwanting someone who he can have new experiences with and who can teach him
new thingsand companionatesomeone who he can have a deep connection to. Furthermore,

his desire for someone whos is good around people, confident, and calm during difficult times

reflects Belsky and Hsiehs study, which revealed that neuroticism, agreeableness, and

extraversion were qualities that most high marital quality. When asked what the dynamic of his

current relationship is, Nathan responds that my girlfriend and I are both pretty new to this

relationship thingwed both been with people in high school, but that fizzled out because

nobody wanted to do long distance. I get a warm kind of feeling around her, and she makes me

really happy. Shes a great girl. I just like spending time with her and doing little things for her,

like maybe washing her dishes or helping her carry her laundry up from the basement. We have

great conversations and can just be together, and I feel like she really understands me. By

looking at Nathans current relationship through the lens of Sternbergs Triangular Theory of

Love, he and his girlfriend clearly possess Intimacy and Commitment. By doing little things for

her and always wanting to be around her, Brandon has developed both a cognitive attachment to

his girlfriend as well as emotional closeness to her; his desire to help her out with household

chores is indicative of a sense of revolving his actions around her needs and thus rearranging his

concepts of self and his world to include his new girlfriend. Seen through the lens of Fishers

Three Brain Systems for Love, Nathan most obviously possesses the Attraction and Attachment

aspects of love. In terms of Attraction, he claims that he is a romantic. Im kind of into the

cook dinner for her so she can come back to her favorite food, take her for walks on the High

Line, bring her on nice outings kind of thing. Nathans self-proclaimed status as a romantic

falls in line with Fehrs findings that men are more likely than women to subscribe to passionate

or romantic love over companionate love. The stable bonding and companionship present in the

Attachment facet of Fishers theory is evident in his desire to do things for his
girlfriend, and also in how he enjoys deep conversations where she shows that she has an

understanding of who he is. When asked when he might consider getting married, Nathans

replied that once the financial side of my life is taken care of, I would definitely consider it

more, especially if were both at the right age. He continues, saying that if were both going to

be working together either the same vocation or in the same location, at least, maybe not doing

the same job but doing things in line with each otherand also when our families give us the

okay to get married. In this case, an Institutional aspect of his views towards marriage are

revealed in his concern for finances, practicality of being together in the same place, and family

consent. Regarding how he approaches conflicts with his girlfriend, Nathan explains that he

tries to find a good time to open dialogue, and is always trying to understand what she might

be feeling and why she might be reading in such a way. One of his primary concerns is always

letting her know that I still care about her, whatever form that might takewhether it be saying

Im here for you or giving gifts. Nathans approach to conflict has many qualities of what

John Gottmans Love Lab would describe as a successful argument. His concentration on open

dialogue and attempting to understand what his girlfriend might be feeling, as well as analyzing

his own actions to see what might be read in a negative way are examples of understanding that

conflict is not necessarily about right or wrong, but about a disagreement about how to reach a

shared goal. By being empathic in difficult situations, Nathan is able to maintain engagement,

and his concentration on always creating a supportive environmentregardless of whether he

disagrees with his girlfriend or notnot only avoids attacks or accusations to drive her away, but

is also an example of a validating interaction. Finally, when asked about his take on divorce

culture, Nathan explains that while he doesnt personally hold beliefs that divorce is acceptable,

now that divorce is more of a social force, [he] doesnt feel quite as bad about it as
before. His views reflect the trend that has taken place in modern day society where, as

Individualism has risen, sociological and psychological Barriers to divorceas described in

Levingers Social Exchange Theory as most commonly being moral or religious, social, or

financialhave fallen.

By comparing his views towards his blossoming relationship with the information that we

have studied in class, Nathans relationship seems to be moving in a direction that, eventually,

could prove a good environment for marriage. Interestingly enough, healthough born decades

later, raised in a country where permissive values are rampant, and exposed to a culture that

emphasizes the individual experience as being one of the most important keystones to being a

proper member of societyseems to hold many views similar to those which my parents had in

the infancy of their relationship. Now, after twenty years of marriage, my parents relationship

continues to hold strong, and when I see them at home they are happier and more bonded than

ever. The continued success of my parents story and how, so many years later, Nathan envisions

a similar path for himself and his girlfriend, indicates that although perhaps their stories may not

contain the firework-bright passion of the fairy tales of my Disneyfied youth, they may prove to

be more consequential and stable in the larger scope of life. Ultimately, what these perspectives

on love have taught me is that quiet love echoes just as loudly as that which is painted on

billboards all over the world, and the stories that we paint for ourselves will be as vivid as we

choose to view them.