Agreements and Disagreements

When we consider the arguments and perspectives of both Coontz and May on the subject of divorce in America, some disagreements emerge, though by and large the two agree in principle if not on all of the details. From the above discussion of the two authors' points-of-view on divorce in America, it is more than evident that there is some disagreement in what the authors believe to be at the heart of current rises in divorce rates in the United States. Coontz, on the one hand, argues that changes in the underlying cultural attitudes and beliefs about marriage shifted around two hundred years ago, and that these new beliefs are still having an effect on the institution of marriage, specifically through divorce. May, on the other hand, looks to socioeconomic changes in the history of the country to account for rising divorce rates, and ties the historical rise in divorce rates over the last century to rising affluence and the pressure of "keeping up with the Joneses."

While these two perspectives seem irreconcilable, there are fundamental similarities and agreements that actually bind these two arguments closely together. Both of the authors agree that the roots of the current problems with the institution of marriage have deep historical roots in America. Rather than look to contemporary changes in U.S. culture and cite these as the causative factors underpinning higher divorce rates, both authors go deeper to analyze some of the formative developments in marriage in the United States that occurred between a century and two centuries ago. This point of agreement is important, and could even hint at the premise that both arguments are aspects of larger cultural and socioeconomic changes that were occurring in America at that time with long-reaching effects on marriage and divorce rates.

Differences in Methodology, Tone, and Conclusions

Despite this obvious similarity, there are some differences between the two studies. Namely, Coontz's study is largely qualitative, while May's is quantitative. Both types...

Coontz's methodology, unlike May's, involves historical analysis and conjecture no doubt based on existing data, but which is not necessarily presented to the reader. May's willingness to showcase much of her data set for her readers grants her study a greater impact that Coontz's analysis of philosophical and ideological changes fails to accomplish.
Personal Evaluation and Conclusions

Ultimately, both these arguments present a rich historical range of reasons why divorce rates in the United States have been rising for the last century. Instead of focusing on contemporary issues that may be too transitory to register an appreciable effect on divorce, May and Coontz reach back into the history of the country to evaluate the long-term factors that could have had such an effect. Their results and analyses are different, but no less useful in understanding the changes that occurred in America that could have lasting impact on divorce rates. While personally I am more drawn to the statistical and numerical rigor of May's study, it appears that there may be more merit to Coontz's approach. Though evidence exists to support May, her argument seems very similar to critics who cite contemporary issues to explain divorce in America. Coontz, on the other hand, considers the larger historical scope of marriage and divorce before formulating her argument. In the end, a greater reliance on quantitative data in Coontz could go a long to way to improving that argument and providing a valuable new and historical reading on the manifestation of divorce in America.

Works Cited

Coontz, Stephanie. "The Origins of Modern Divorce." Family Process 46.1 (Mar. 2007): 7-16.

May, Elaine Tyler. "The Pressure to Provide: Class, Consumerism, and Divorce in Urban American, 1880-1920." Journal of Social History 12.2 (Winter 1978): 180-193.