Conceptualizing the Divorce Process: Renegotiating Boundaries of Intimacy and Power in the Divorced Family System

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The topic of divorce has attracted a great deal of attention from social scientists over the last two decades. Both clinicians and researchers have written much about the experience of divorced families. These accounts agree that, socially and psychologically, divorce is not a single event but a process of change that can extend over long periods of time (e.g., Cherlin, 1992; Emery, 1988; Hetherington, 1989; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Despite widespread agreement on this point, few integrative conceptualizations have been offered about the process of divorce. In this article, we outline our conceptualization of divorce as the renegotiation of boundaries of intimacy and power in the relationships between members of the divorced family system. The first author has discussed this conceptualization elsewhere in relation to marriage and parenting (Emery & Tuer, 1993), family conflict (Emery, 1992), and the mediation of child custody disputes (Emery, 1994). In this article, we briefly outline the conceptual model as applied to dyadic and triadic relationships between divorced parents and their children, as well as between the former partners themselves. We also speculate about how family members experience these relationship changes as individuals. Throughout the article, we focus on concepts and clinical experience rather than research findings, although we note that the model is broadly consistent with research evidence that we have reviewed in detail elsewhere (Emery, 1982, 1988; Emery & Forehand, in press; Emery & Kitzmann, in press). BASIC CONCEPTS: INTIMACY AND POWER BOUNDARIES Family relationships do not end with a divorce. Parent-child relationships obviously continue after a separation, but ironically, even former partners must maintain some form of a relationship if they also are parents. Thus, the divorced family is defined by shared relationships and not by a shared residence. Relationships transcend households, and the functioning of individual family members, particularly children, cannot be understood apart from these interdependencies. This family systems view of divorce is particularly apt in the first few years following a marital separation, when many children have fairly frequent contact with both of their parents (Seltzer, 1991). The model still may apply many years later, even among children who rarely see their nonresidential parents. Many children in this circumstance still list both of their parents as members of their family (Peterson & Zill, 1986), for example, and the influence of the physically absent parent is indexed in various other ways, such as by the avoidance of certain topics of conversation. It is obvious, of course, that family relationships do change dramatically when a marriage ends. What is not obvious is what the changes will (or should) be The uncertain boundaries of altered family relationships create problems for mental health professionals, the legal system, and family members themselves. Relationship Boundaries We need to define the concept of boundaries clearly. Boundaries are the explicit or implicit rules that define the structure of family relationships (P. Minuchin, 1985; S. Minuchin, 1974). Family boundaries can be seen as analogous to international boundaries. Instead of defining physical territory, family boundaries define the psychological territory of an individual or of a relationship. For example, parents draw a boundary around their intimate relationship to exclude other family members. Various rules mark this boundary, such as the avoidance of discussions of sexuality in the presence of the children. Boundaries are negotiated over time in a marriage based on preexisting expectations, direct discussions about rules and roles, and particularly the actions of family members (Emery Tuer, 1993). In divorce, a major goal is to redefine these boundaries. Boundaries are difficult to renegotiate following a marital separation, however, because of uncertain normative expectations, intense and painful emotions, incompatible desires, limited contact and communication, and loyalty dilemmas. …