Divorce in the twenty first century
Talk of divorce in our society is almost always met with a certain level of antagonism almost second to murder. Conservatives collectively agree that marriages are built to last forever and that nothing should come between two people bound by love and god almighty. Conservatives in this case would refer to mostly “Christian conservatives” who quote the Paul’s New Testament passages to emphasize their point. To these people, divorce is a western creation like homosexuality, atheism, pornography and trans-sexuality which must be barred from taking root in Africa, or in this case, Kenya.
When I decided to delve a bit into divorce in Africa, most of what I found was contemporary information. There’s not much record of pre-nineteenth century African literature to go around. However one thing is clear, bonds of marriage were far more permanent in the past than they currently are. A surge has been witnessed in divorce rates the last thirty years so. But there’s something else to consider: however permanent those ancient marital ties were, there was a level of intimacy that was eroded along the way if not lacking right from the start. To be blunt, intimacy was diluted due to things like polygamy, FGM, the idea of procreation-driven instead of pleasure-driven sex, and in the unlikely scenario, misandry. When you had intercourse with your spouse knowing well enough that they had intercourse yesterday with partner number three and are bound to have intercourse tomorrow with partner number one, where’s the intimacy in that? Eventually women would lose interest in the sex (which is effectively the marriage) and retreat to the child rearing mission until the day they die if they won’t secretly keep a lover sooner. She wouldn’t go anywhere, alright, but her marriage was effectively over. This is divorce in a more subtle form.
But that wasn’t the only scenario since there were many instances where divorces happened, especially when the man decided so or if the woman was royalty and could afford to leave. My own grandfather divorced his first wife before he married my grandmother; so yes, divorce isn’t something new.
In the unlikely event that a marriage is no longer working, people shouldn’t be blackmailed into believing that it’s sinful to let go as letting go has always been part of the marriage institution since its invention. And this is not an attempt to encourage divorce when a marriage is no longer working, this is pragmatism. Realistic about our expectations of other humans. When the love dies, when the parties have irreconcilable differences, when the violence escalates, and yes, when the two people are no longer making each other happy, what is the point of hanging in there until you turn from being each other’s heroes to villains?
Plus if divorce is a western creation, so is monogamy and so is Christianity. I believe we can interrogate some positions without dismissing opportunities for honesty and pragmatism in the pretext that “it’s alien.” I don’t believe that all marriages are built to last forever. Some are, some aren’t and we must be willing to accept that. Having honest conversations as individuals in our own private spaces as well as the society at large can help steer that boat in the right direction. I can’t begin to imagine how difficult it can be. Some might argue that a culture of divorce encourages promiscuity, immorality and instant gratification that denigrates patience. I don’t know. There’s an argument for children as well. There’s extensive research by social scientists and cultural anthropologists and psychologists indicating that kids from two parent homes fair better in life than those from single parent homes. The argument here is that marriage provides stability which is good for kids, which is true in part. Children thrive on constancy, familiarity and sameness, but a failed sameness is far worse than a stable difference. It’s difficult to have conversations that involve emotions, but if people can converse a wide array of subjects like parenting, goals and expectations before merging their lives, they surely can chart an exit strategy in the event thinks go south.
Divorce is one of the most difficult choices any human couple can make, but it could be the one thing standing between an individual and their happiness. So if indeed we aspire to a culture of happier and more equal individuals, we could start being more open about marriage and her evil twin: divorce.
Where kids are involved, a visitation plan can be charted. Where property is involved, laws should be free of prejudice. That’s why it’s important for women to be empowered. Giving up a career, a dream or an education for a marriage not only makes a woman vulnerable to forces of psychological and physical assault, it further disenfranchises a woman in the eventuality of a split.
As we have these conversations, maybe it’s time we talked about benefits of marriage that divorce the notions of “achievement” and “gaining social status”, especially for women. Many women stay in dysfunctional unions because a contrary move is like a demotion or a contrary move will leave them with nothing for all their years in the marriage. Marriage, as an investment, is not entirely a new idea. It’s the reason aristocrats used to marry aristocrats and royalty, royalty while the lower classes would scramble for whoever was in their own respective classes. As long as marriages procreate, this concept will never entirely die, but creating that consciousness is not only vital, it’s urgent.
Society also needs to be socialized into accepting divorced women more. A divorced man is far likelier to remarry than a divorced woman. This is especially so when a woman is past a “certain age”, with kids, wealthier or poorer or all these combined. Women can’t have it both ways and that’s a trend we can help shift. We should find ways of having candid conversations about even the most emotions-arousing topics if we ever expect to do better. I think it is possible.
Catherine Amayi is a Scientist and an Author
Twitter: @Catherine_amayi