Analytical Essay 1 Analytical Essay 1 Shaun Doty Psychology 3 Honors, T/Th Professor Wynne November 17, 2004 Analytical Essay 1 Yes Side 1. The authors arguing that divorce harms the children involved are Judith S. Wallerstein, Julia Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee. Their major conclusion in the work The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce is that ultimately children of divorced parents are harmed by the separation, at any stage of a child�s life, in various subtle and obvious ways. 2. The major premises for their conclusion are the following: P1: Divorce is a scar with many and varied long-term negative consequences (151) P2: Most family scholars agree that children of divorced homes are less well adjusted as adults than children of intact homes (151) P3: Divorce is a cumulative experience, increasing its harm over time (151) P4: Many children of divorced parents have difficulties establishing relationships of lasting commitment (151) P5: Wide differences are seen between children of divorced and no divorced families (151) 3. The assumptions, qualifiers, and counterarguments are the following: A1: The impact of divorce is blatantly obvious to anyone A2: Divorce is an event that ends childhood altogether A3: Children isolate themselves from overburdened parents A4: The changes made to society over the years occur too rapidly to measure A5: Divorce allows adults to do what they want to do; freedom is established. A6: Women in society today owe their freedom and identity to divorces A7: There is greater love for the spouse than for the family and children A8: Women are more prone to divorcing, thus are more likely to be the hostile ones in the relationship (154) A9: People today are more needy with marriages A10: Divorce is the only way to regain happiness and escape for children and adults A11: Marriages are now based on false hope A12: Most divorces are one-sided and almost always create stress for one person and jubilee for the other A13: Divorce is not a spur of the moment decision A14: Children are inundated with conflict and make feckless theories about the family�s demise. A15: Children agree that marriage is fragile and that love is easily lost A16: There is false hope for parent-child relationships A17: Everyone in a post divorce family is helpless A18: Unhappy remarriages outnumber remarriages that are well-functioning with spouses who are more stabilized. A19: Children who were dependant on interests and strengths were more able than those who acted independently and tried to help their family and self. A20: The only life experiences out of divorce are negative ones A21: Divorce is a cause for social deviance like earlier sexual experiences and alcohol consumption A22: Children of divorce will grow up and be helpless in terms of stabilizing relationships on their own, almost certain that relationships are fated to end with divorce. A23: Children victimized by divorce cannot see the rationale behind successful relationships A24: Children often pick pour spouses by the result of divorce A25: The only way to gain something out of a relationship is to either have a stable relationship or have one with troubles, but to not divorce at all. A26: Children afflicted by the consequences of divorce have trouble being independent. A27: Bonds between parents and divorced children almost never exist A28: Children can attain personal security in life as both young adults and adults, but is a dim achievement to attain. A29: Children who have secure families do not need to worry about succeeding. A30: People from divorced families are more prone to be successful and determined A31: People from divorced families can never forget the pain they endure A32: No one will be left to love if everyone divorces Qualifiers: Q1. The person must have experienced the divorce while as a an adolescent, child, or young adult to have any real effect. Q2. There must not be able helpful activities, hobbies, places, interests, or even friends that can help out with the divorce process. Q3. The children must not have a close bond with one respected adult after the divorce Q4. The children must not have two parents who rebuilt happy lives after divorce Q5. Fathers must not remain in contact with sons, and mothers with daughters. Q6. One must not want to achieve or undertake an enormous self-upheaval to achieve. Counterarguments: CA1. A main counterargument is opting for the practice of divorce through the statement which states �children and adults are able to escape violence, abuse, and misery to create a better life,� (154) Obviously this contradicts the conclusion and statements that imply that the act of divorcing is full of harrowing and brutal consequences for both the children and possibly adults. CA2. Another counterargument focuses on how children and adults are able to rebound to build well-functioning, emotionally gratifying parenthoods after a divorce. (155) However, the author notes vaguely that this either was not an area of her work, or that she did not encounter too many of these cases. Either way, they counter the conclusion. CA3. The last counterargument given is that many children of divorce have been able to achieve in life, and have learned from their own failed relationships. On that token, the information that some children are able to establish successful careers, and maintain an unaffected work performance, is presented. This is a counterargument because even if children are affected by divorce, the lasting effects can be refuted. It also shows that these people are more cautious with relationships, something the authors interpret as being cursed with sorrow. (157) 4. Credibility. The credibility of the authors is very important to this argument. In the subtext of the selection pertaining to this argument, it is noted that Judith S. Wallerstein is a clinical psychologist, Julia Lewis is a professor of psychology, and Sandra Blakeslee is a science and medicine correspondent for the New York Times. Obviously, Wallerstein and Lewis are psychology majors, but poor Blakeslee is not necessarily so. Another concern is if either Wallerstein or Lewis identify with child developmental psychology. In the text, it is stated that a writer has had considerable experience (around thirty years) dealing with children and parents that have gone through divorce. I believe that Wallerstein is the person who argues the point, for her name is emphasized in the preface. If that is the case, then Wallerstein is an expert in her field. A concern is whether Wallerstein and/or her colleagues are representing a certain program or are externally influenced to portray their findings in a certain way. The book makes no mention of their relationship with any party, and therefore cannot hold any substance for the credibility of her claims. Wallerstein�s credentials prove to be valid, as she mentions that she is in the process of writing another book, as well as referring to one that was already written, in this latest book of hers. The preface also indicates Wallerstein as one of the leading researchers on the effects of divorce. Her argument is pulled from her book published in the year 2000, so she is currently up-to-date with her knowledge base. She also has first hand knowledge of the issue due to traveling the world, talking to professional, legal, and mental health groups, as well as spending a considerable amount of time with her subjects. Her methods of analysis derived from the immediate and long-term effects of certain individuals after their parents decided to get a divorce, as well as analyzing behavioral patterns and temperaments. However, for the selection, not much data was presented at all. A feeling of cajoling with common sense and poetic writing seemed to replace statistics. Overall, though, I feel that I would believe her work, but would appreciate much more in terms of data and reinforcement with statements. 5. Major Premises that are Acceptable and Consistent: P1. Children worry that parent-child relationships are unreliable and can break any time. (155) P2: Both moms and dads had a lot less time to spend with their children and were less responsive to their children�s needs or wishes. (155) P3. Children who needed more than minimal parenting were soon overwhelmed with sorrow and anger at their parents (155) P4: Children of divorce worry about following in their parents� footsteps and struggle with a sinking sense that they, too, will fail in their relationships (156) P5: Their fears of disaster and sudden loss rose when they felt content. And their fear of abandonment, betrayal, and rejection mounted when they found themselves having to disagree with someone they loved. (156) P6: They go on to repeat the same mistakes their own parents made, perpetuating problems that have plagued them all their lives. (157) P7. Some young women found it very difficult to separate from their moms and to lead their own lives. (157) 6. Major Premises that provide good support for the conclusion: P1: Children today receive far less nurturance, protection, and parenting than was their lot a few decades ago. (154) P2. Children raised in divorced or remarried families are less well adjusted as adults than those raised in intact families (154) P3. In adulthood [divorce] affects personality, the ability to trust, expectations about relationships, and ability to cope with change. (154) P4. Many children are forced to move, leaving behind familiar schools, close friends, and other supports. (155) P5: what they remember vividly as adults is the loss of the intact family and the safety net it provided, the difficulty of having two parents in two homes, and how going back and forth cut badly into playtime and friendships. (155) P6. Their lack of inner images of a man and a woman in a stable relationship and their memories of their parents� failure to sustain the marriage badly hobbles their search, leading them to heartbreak and even despair. (156) 7. Biases The authors arguing that divorce harms children try to show both sides of the argument in this speech, but are convinced that divorce truly does harm children. One fundamental bias is located on page 153 where Wallerstein states that forty-five percent of all marriages break up, and that sixty percent of those who go on to pursue a second marriage end in divorce. Understandably, the author is tipping the numbers in her favor, even though there is a fifty-five percent chance that all marriages stay together. In pursing this bias, these numbers do not explain the rationale behind the divorces, or if all of them have an impact on the children. Another bias, which is inferred from the writing, is that the boiling up of heated arguments and turmoil leading to a divorce is not as extreme as the divorce process itself. The author makes it seem as though a short period of time elapses and that the decision for a divorce is entirely preplanned. Furthermore, the author neglects to mention any of the families that underwent family counseling and any successes that could have prevented, or did prevent, divorces. 8. Fallacies A. Part-Whole Fallacy: Wallerstein definitely exercises this fallacy by assuming that whatever is true for the parts is true for the whole. This is seen by the subjects she has studied over time, and her conclusion that since she only dealt with mostly seriously harmed children as a result of divorce, that all children are harmed by divorce. She even argues this point knowing full well that she includes counterarguments in her writing, but remains confident in her decision. B. Card Stacking Fallacy: Wallerstein does not allow much information about the benefits that can come from a divorce, nor elaborates on the safety or well-being of children who were raised in horrible families that benefited from the divorce. In fact, she rarely mentions any successes that are not coupled with a pessimistic excuse. She also does not mention any means of support through child care or parental counseling. Obviously, the argument is in her favor by doing this, but if she elaborated more on the successes and how divorce does not harm all children, then her claim would not exist. 9. Facts A. First marriages stand a forty-five percent chance of breaking up and that second marriages have a sixty percent chance of ending in divorce. (153) B. A million new children a year are added to our march of marital failure. (153) 10. Opinions A. Without our noticing, we have created a class of young children who take care of themselves, along with a whole generation of overburdened parents who have no time to enjoy the pleasures of parenting. (153) B. The children concluded early on, silently and sadly, that family relationships are fragile and that the tie between a man and a woman can break capriciously, without warning. (155) No Side 1. The authors arguing that divorce does not permanently alter children are E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly. Their major conclusion in the work For Better or For Worse is that while divorce can have some harmful effects for children in the short term, most of the children will eventually become well adjusted. 2. The major premises for their conclusion are the following: P1. Divorce carries no inevitable long-term effects because people have and do overcome this event (151) P2. Three rigorous, longitudinal studies show that the legacy of divorce is largely overcome by adulthood. (151) P3. Parent, child, and sibling relationships seldom deteriorate in adulthood. P4. Children of divorce may have more problems, but many are caring spouses and parents. P5. Coming from a no divorced family does not always protect a person against becoming a troubled young adult. 3. The assumptions, qualifiers, and counterarguments are the following: A1: Child is more attached to father and that the mother plays a minor role in parenthood A2: The diaries portrayed truthful events A3: Casual sex is a trigger for suicide A4: Faulty marriages could be resolved if given the proper time. A5: External changes in society have more control over ones love for a person A6: Nurture is predominate over the effects of heredity and genetics. A7: Good things can result from deviant behavior, and can bind families. A8: The people who participated in the VLS were are doomed for failure. A9: A non-divorced family can be just as bad as a divorced family. A10: The effects of divorce does not influence the future for young people from divorced or remarried families. A11: A bad home is worse than divorcing and then re-stabilizing with another marriage. A12: a child is less likely to be nurtured by a man if in a divorced family A13: Sometimes time cannot diminish the effects of a divorce for a family. Qualifiers: Q1: Children must demonstrate that they are well adjusted and heal over time Q2: External influences, such as revolutions or opportunities, must not be present. Q3: The children must learn to reflect upon the divorce and understand it Q4. Adults must not live a hectic lifestyle with the burdening of chores. Q5: Divorced couples should remarry to truly forget the divorce and prosper. Q6: Children and adults should not mope or pity themselves for the divorce, but move on. Counterarguments CA1: The ambience and social surrounding plays an ultimate role in whether a couple divorces or not, not due to economical or deviant behaviors. (159) CA2: At the end of the VLS, troubled youths were having difficulty at work, in romantic relationships, and in gaining a toehold in adult life. They had the highest academic dropout rate and the highest divorce rate in the study. (160) Obviously, the effects of divorce can stretch into the long term. This counters Hetherington�s claim that nearly all children are often better as a result of divorce. CA3: In Mostly Happy: Children of Divorce as Young Adults, the writer claims that through a deviant behavior and abnormality of stalking, a trusted bond was formed, and the future looked bright for the subjects. However, this is not applicable to the idea of divorce. CA4 The following claim is a major counterargument against the ability for children of divorce to move on with a healthy life: Children of divorce are often reluctant to commit wholeheartedly to a marriage, have fewer relationship skills, and in some cases show a genetic predisposition to destabilizing behaviors like antisocial behavior, impulsivity, and depression. (162) CA5: A counterargument is extended in the text when Hetherington states that after a twenty year period after a divorce, a minority of her subjects and families still exhibited emotional and social problems, and had difficulties with intimate relationships and achievement. (163) 4. Credibility One potential area that I feel is lacking is the authors� amount of credibility. Things just do not seem to be portrayed properly. E. Mavis Hetherington is a developmental psychologist, and while she has been in the field of observing children/parent relationships for forty years, her credibility is questionable. Mavis claims that she has done research for a while, and has also participated in the Virginia Longitudinal Study (VLS) for a couple years. However, Mavis does more work relating to external resources than offering experiences of her own. In fact, it is truly hard to distinguish between the two in the writing. As for John Kelly, well unfortunately he is just described as a writer. Since anyone can easily be deemed a writer, and since Kelly and Hetherington have only written one apparent book, it is truly hard to believe the credibility of these two authors. Another main concern is whether these two authors are being supported by a third party. Honestly, there is no feasible way to mute that concern. Nowhere does it mention that these two act alone, and are making unbiased claims in the name of science. I take note of Kelly�s status as a writer, but can only imagine that his intentions are to not further a book for his own career. I hope that is not the case. Another point of concern is Hetherington�s specific first-hand knowledge of the issue of children and divorce. She starts off by saying that her interest in fathers and daughters sparked her interest for learning about the consequences of divorce. While she has dedicated about thirty years of her life to the subject, she does not seem all to convincing. She claims she has been in a VLS study, using never-before-seen techniques such as surveys and interviews, but that only lasted for a couple years. All of the other points she reflect upon seem as though they were pulled from external sources and other studies. All in all, I believe that the two authors are not as credible as Wallerstein�s group, but then again, I am not saying I believe they are credible. 5. Major Premises that are Acceptable and Consistent: P1: A subgroup of girls even become exceptionally competent as a result of dealing with the challenges of divorce, enjoy a normal development, and grow into truly outstanding young adults. (160) P2: A piece of good news about youths was that their antisocial behavior declined as a they matured. Much of the adolescent exploration, experimentation, and sense of invulnerability had abated. (161) P3: Children, like adults, take many different routes out of divorce; some lead to unhappiness, others to a rewarding and fulfilling life. (161) P4. Parent, child, and sibling relationships that have been close in childhood seldom deteriorate in adulthood (162) P5:Conflict usually diminishes once the protagonists are apart and contact becomes optional. (162) 6. Major Premises that provide good support for the conclusion: P1: While most were not exactly the New Man or New Woman, they were behaving the way young adults were supposed to behave. They were choosing careers, developing permanent relationships, ably going about the central tasks of young adulthood, and establishing a grown-up life. (161) P2: For every young man or woman who emerged from post nuclear family life with problems, four others were functioning reasonably or exceptionally well. (161) P3: Gender affects a person�s divorce risk more than the kind of family the person was brought up in. (162) P4: For most youths, the legacy of divorce is largely overcome. Twenty years after divorce, most men and women who had been brought up in divorced families and stepfamilies are functioning reasonably well. (163) 7. Biases The authors exhibit a couple biases throughout their book. The most noticeable one pertains to Hetherington�s overconfidence in the techniques she used to obtain her data. With remarks on how she virtually perpetuated surveys, questionnaires, and interviews, the situation definitely looks grim for her. If she perpetuated these instruments, then how can she be certain that they are not biased towards a certain sample or ideology? The journals that she made everyone keep notes in are pretty much flawed themselves. She had direct contact with her subjects, and the subjects could have easily faulted their work for security reasons. Another bias stems from the author�s viewpoint of gender specification. Hetherington almost never mentions anything about boys in her work For Better or For Worse. And even when she used the selection Mostly Happy: Children of Divorce as Young Adults, she chose a very strange subject who came off as hostile and harrowing versus the housewife who remained determined and calmed. If only Hetherington was able to give a broader viewpoint instead of generalizing through the use of the word �children,� things would be better defined and hold more meaning. 8. Fallacies A. False Cause Fallacy - On page 159, Hetherington states that �though suicide attempts were rare in the VLS, the seven that did occur were all attempts by women, and all were triggered by casual sex.� This is truly hard to believe, especially since before this statement she claims that �casual sex produced extreme depression and feelings of being unloved in many women.� Not only is she basing this on a population size of seven, but that there are so many other factors that could have triggered suicide attempts. For instance, all of these people are being studied for the effects of divorce, and at the same time, most of the adults have children too. Sex is not an uncommon thing to these people, but the act of divorce is. I believe she mistakenly attributes sex to suicide attempts, and should get a larger, unbiased sample size before she meddles with that again. B: Popularity Fallacy - Hetherington states that �whatever phrase people chose, everyone agreed: America was in the midst of an unprecedented social change.� (159) Obviously, it would be absurd to believe that everyone felt this way, let alone want to conform to the ideology. The fallacy is only used as propaganda, and none the less, it is a very broad and uncertain claim. 9. Facts A. Eighty percent of children from divorced homes eventually are able to adapt to their new life and become reasonably well adjusted. (160) B. Ten percent of youths in no divorced families, compared to twenty percent in divorced and remarried families, were troubled. (161) 10. Opinions A. In the blink of an eye, the entire country seemed to jump from the paternal certainties of Father Knows Best to the postmodern chaos of The Brady Bunch (159) B. And since over the course of life, new experiences are being encountered and new relationships formed, protective and risk factors alter, and the door to positive change always remains open. (162) The Better Argument It is in my honest opinion that I feel that Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee had the better argument in comparison to Hetherington�s and Kelly�s. I feel this way because Wallerstein provided a considerable amount of evidence for her primary conclusion, most of the evidence stemming from her own studies conducted. Her credibility is superior to that of Hetherington�s, and her credentials also surpass those of the other side�s. Wallerstein also provided the information clearly, and did not stray off on as many tangents as Hetherington did. Wallerstein remained focused on her conclusion by adding correct premises that gave ample support, which ultimately convinced me to favor of her side. Hetherington had an inferior argument because of the way she presented herself. It seemed as though her facts were obtained from others� work, and that while she has done some work in her field, none of it seemed to be convincing. She has experience handling mostly women and girls in the case of divorce, but gave no insight on how boys cope with the experiences. In that light, Hetherington�s premises were not focused on the main conclusion that while divorce may be harmful, the pain eventually subsides. The information she provided seemed lumpy, and at best, partially attributed. If she had chosen more facts, presented more situations and observations, and only reinforced her work through the longitudinal studies, which should have been more than a couple years long, then I would have been more favorable of her position. All she did was reinforce Wallerstein�s views, and marginally made it apparent that children can regain stability. Alas, that�s exactly what Wallerstein�s article portrayed, too.
Welcome to my life
