by Peter Hart-Brinson, Sp.D.
prepared for the Brinson Sociological Institute
For decades, sociologists have struggled to explain the sudden rise in the divorce rate in the United States. As shown below, earlier in the 20th Century, the divorce rate hovered around 25% until the late 1960s and early 1970s, when it increased sharply. By the late 1970s, the divorce rate had reached 50%, and it has remained there ever since.
Scholars have attempted to account for this sudden change in a number of ways, but all of them suffer from critical shortcomings. Here are some of the most popular theories, along with reasons why they could not be true.
Sexual Revolution--Some sociologists have argued that the "sexual revolution" of the late 1960s is responsible for the rise in the divorce rate. According to this view, the "free love" ethos of the end of the 1960s made people less inclined to enter into monogamous relationships, especially for life. People used to sexual promiscuity became unsatisfied with having only a single sex partner, and many of them became disenchanted with the constraints on individual freedom placed on them by the institution of marriage. However, this theory could not explain the rise in the divorce rate because relatively few people participated in the sexual liberation of the 1960s--certainly not enough to account for 50% of all marriages. Moreover, if it was just an effect of that period, the divorce rate would have dropped after a short period of time. But that never happened.
Moral Decline--Some scholars, especially those with conservative religious points of view, explained the rise of the divorce rate in terms of moral decline of the American population. From this point of view, it was not just the sexual revolution of the 1960s, but a series of developments from that time period that contributed to a systematic devaluing of marriage across the entire population. Among these developments were anti-war protests, the feminist movement and its alleged bra-burnings, the increasing popularity of long hair among men, and the increasing openness of gays and lesbians. However, this theory could not explain the rise in the divorce rate because no firm link to marital quality has ever been demonstrated. In short, these things simply don't have anything to do with whether or not a couple decides to get a divorce. Moreover, the narrative of moral decline covers a much longer time span than the decade from 1968-78 and is thus inconsistent with the data.
No-Fault Divorce--The strongest of the theories, most scholars now assume that the implementation of no-fault divorce laws throughout the United States by the early 1970s is responsible for the increase. Although many states had these laws earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court made these laws universal at about the same time that the divorce rate sharply increased. Because legal barriers to divorce were eliminated, it became much easier for couples to get divorced. In particular, wives who were dissatisfied with their second-class status and subservience to their husband now had more freedom to exit a relationship they viewed negatively. The problem with this theory is that it neglects culture. It assumes that people were rational actors, who followed legal developments in the news, and who rejected mainstream (at the time) cultural values that women should be subservient to men. These are all dubious assumptions. Culture survives because individuals uphold and maintain it; never underestimate the complicity of people in their own domination!
In place of all these theories, I build on the doctrine of preposteriority to advance an economic-cultural theory of the rise in divorce. This theory offers a simple explanation for the rise in the divorce rate. The prime suspect in our "whodunnit" story is: the wedding industry.
The wedding industry is here defined as all forms of commercial enterprise that draw a significant portion of its annual revenues from weddings. Among the people and organizations that are part of the wedding industry are: wedding planners, jewelers, florists, rental companies (e.g. tuxedos, limousines, etc.), wedding cake bakers, dress manufacturers and retailers, catering companies, photographers and videographers, honeymoon tourism agencies, etc. Even priests and county governments are part of the wedding industry because of fees that are charged for ceremonies and marriage licenses.
Why is the wedding industry responsible for the rise in the divorce rate? The fundamental reason is that, prior to the 1960s, the wedding industry was operating from a fundamentally-flawed business model. While many things are important for a good business model (not just location!), among the most important is a dedicated and expanding customer base. The wedding industry's growth was limited by the fact that it was unable to expand its customer base. Because marriage is "for life," there were simply no repeat customers. In this case, satisfied customers behaved counter to the predictions of classical economics: they did not return. They stayed married. They never requested the services of the wedding industry again.
Realizing this fundamental flaw in their business model, the wedding industry worked out a solution. From their decades of expertise, leaders of the wedding industry knew that divorce frequently resulted in remarriage. Rather than giving up on marriage, people who divorced would try marriage again, believing that their previous choice of partner was the problem, not the institution of marriage itself. Thus, the wedding industry would be able to expand its customer base, and hence, its revenues, if it were able to increase the divorce rate.
Easier said than done, right? How easy could it be to overturn a cherished centuries-long tradition of lifetime monogamous partnering? Well, as it turns out, increasing marital strife and the divorce rate was much easier than anyone expected. All it took was the right formula: economics + culture. The wedding industry, with the assistance of the revenue-starved state and local governments, possessed all the necessary means to do just this. They dramatically increased the prices for all services and commodities at the same time that they launched an extensive media campaign to enhance the cultural image of the wedding. Combined, these two changes succeeded in virtually doubling the divorce rate in less than a decade.
Here's how it worked. Let's look at culture first. It used to be the case that weddings were small, modest community affairs that were relatively inexpensive and simple. What mattered most were the people. Sure, it was common for the parents of the bride to provide food and drink for those in attendance, but people spent only what they could afford. Today, weddings are extravagant, lavish affairs that feature the finest food and drink, glamorous attire and decorations, in which every whim and desire is satisfied. This change happened because the wedding industry launched a systematic cultural propaganda campaign to enhance the image of weddings. Just like Debeers, the diamond company, single-handedly set diamond rings as the American standard for engagement rings with the "Diamonds are Forever" advertising campaign, the wedding industry launched a campaign to raise the standards and expectations that young brides and grooms would have for their wedding. Especially for brides, weddings came to be seen as the iconic moment in their life: they would be a princess for a day, the most special day of their life. Wedding scenes dramatized in movies and television helped create this expectation, and young couples developed elaborate fantasies from a very early age about exactly what their wedding would be like: the type of dress, the kind of cake, the color of the cumberbuns, the length of the limousine. Through this campaign to create the ideal wedding in young people's minds, the wedding industry raised the bar for what counted as a good wedding and increased the sheer amount of services and commodities that couples would purchase from the wedding industry.
Now, this raises the question of economics. Not only did couples begin purchasing more products and services from the wedding industry, but the wedding industry dramatically raised the prices. When demand increased, the price did not go down, as we would normally expect. The cultural campaign had the effect of making demand "inelastic" in relation to the price. This means that couples would pay almost anything for a product or service because they wanted it so badly. If their fantasy for their special day included a chocolate fountain, they would be willing to pay upwards of $1000 for it, simply because it was their "special day." Even if people knew they were being ripped off, the couples would still do what it took to make their wedding perfect. There were no alternatives, typically, because individual businesses could raise their prices just as much as their "competitors" in the wedding industry and they would keep their customers. So customers would simply have to pay what the suppliers charged, or their special day wouldn't be special.
The immediate result of increasing the prices is well-known: the average price of a wedding skyrocketed. Today, it is over $25,000; and it is not uncommon for weddings to cost over $40,000. We are all appalled by these numbers, because most families cannot afford to spend that much money on a single day. It is as much money as almost 1/2 of the American public makes in a year. This was obviously of great benefit to the wedding industry, who saw immediate increases in their profits. But these changes had long-term effects as well.
To pay for the weddings, couples would have to take out loans and go deeply into debt. And this is why the divorce rate increased. One of the most common causes of discord within relationships is--you guessed it--money. Because more married couples went into debt early in life, more married couples began fighting earlier in the relationship, and more married couples came to the conclusion that the marriage was "a mistake." Thus, the divorce rate went up. And because the ex-wives and ex-husbands attributed their failed marriage to their partner rather than to its true cause, they rejoined the pool of potential customers for the wedding industry. All of those divorcees who found new partners and got remarried just became the repeat customers that the wedding industry longed for.
Many readers may be wondering how the government allowed this to happen. Astute readers may have identified several instances in the account above that is of dubious legality. For example, the wedding industry did what amounted to price-fixing when it raised the prices. Why did the government not intervene to protect consumers? Moreover, how did the wedding industry so easily mount a propaganda campaign to shift Americans' cultural ideals about weddings?
The answer is simple: the government allowed it all to happen because the government itself would benefit from the changes. State and local governments continually struggle to balance budgets, especially in tight economic times and when anti-tax attitudes are so prevalent. The exorbitant fees that county governments charge for increasing numbers of marriage licenses provided an important source of revenue for them. In addition, governments would benefit from increased sales tax revenues from the wedding industry. Governments thus facilitated the wedding industry's plan by turning a blind eye to the economic law-breaking. In addition, governments facilitated the cultural campaign by making advertising expenditures tax-deductible.
Thus, the rise in the divorce rate can be explained simply by the rational, profit-seeking behavior of the wedding industry and the ability of the industry to shape Americans' cultural tastes through standard practices of advertising and entertainment. Its efforts to alter the economic and cultural landscape in which weddings were traditionally practiced had both the short-term effects of increasing profits and the long-term effects of increasing the market for their goods and increasing the divorce rate.