Sociological Theories Of Divorce

ivorce is often seen a decline in family values and changing attitudes to marriage (Van Krieken 2010). In Australia, in recent decades the divorce rate has declined, however historically the number of divorces per 1,000 people per annum had increased between 1975-1976 prior to the inclusion of the Family Law Act (Castells et al 2013). This essay will attempt to understand divorce in Australia the prevalence prior to the law changes. Using symbolic interactionism and later conflict theory, I will attempt to apply both sociological theories in order to from a perspective on the everyday life example of divorce and its prevalence. To understand which theory best explains the reasons why people may divorce I will look at the definitions of marriage

Therefore, when applying symbolic interactionism theory to divorce, it is the undoing of these meanings of marriage; it is the process of dissolving these sacred symbols (Hopper 2001). As Hopper (2001) discovered the process of divorce overtime has become socially acceptable because of the change in symbols and values that define marriage and subsequent divorce. When relationship is in divorcing stages people attempt to redefine what the divorce symbolizes whilst still upholding what society’s views of the marriage sacrament are, such as explaining the separate reasons for their divorce whilst still maintaining and standing-by the meaning marriage (Hopper 2001). This is synonymous with Mead’s original theory that symbols or gestures have been associated with a common meaning by society and individuals also have their own views on what these symbols mean to them. Another different point of view that could be applied using symbolic interactionism to explain divorce is that as the prevalence of divorce has increased it has allowed new meanings to emerge. The stigma surrounding divorce has changed somewhat, making it more acceptable for people to initiate, symbolizing freedom or a new beginning, rather than failure (Hopper

As previously mentioned, it is this notion of micro-analysis or smaller interpretation of interactions that receives the most criticisms as the theory does not take into consideration the broader social questions, as does a theory such as the Marxian conflict theory. However, one could argue the reverse when researching social behaviour through conflict theory, as conflict theory does not address the micro interactions or roles of indivduals. Rather, conflict theory looks at the broader circumstances of power, class and inequality that function with