The Breakthrough of a Post-Materialistic Marital Ideology

Abstract

During the 1960s and 1970s in Sweden, both the labour force participation rate of married women and the divorce rate increased more than any other period of the 20th century. Higher levels of extramarital fertility, non-marital cohabitation, and increasing age at first birth accompanied the rise of these two rates. These developments exemplify phenomena associated with the second demographic transition (SDT), and were markedly evident in Sweden during the 1960s and 1970s. By investigating the debate on divorce in national newspapers during the 1960s, this study traces the impact of these demographic and socioeconomic changes prior to the implementation of the permissive 1974 divorce law in Sweden. The main finding of the study is that a normative shift occurred in Sweden during the 1960s. From 1964 to 1969, publicly expressed attitudes towards divorce were increasingly characterized by post-materialist and individualistic values and a marital ideology prioritizing individual autonomy and emotional fulfilment started to dominate the debate. Conversely, representatives expressing a conservative view on marriage that framed the conjugal family rather than the individual as the most important social unit were increasingly marginalized in public discussions.

Keywords:

• divorce
• Sweden
• 1960s
• gender regime
• second demographic transition
• post-materialism
• welfare state
• de-familialization

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Evers, ‘De lever i ett samvetsäktenskap’.

2. Goode, World Changes in Divorce Patterns, 26; Roderick Phillips, Untying the Knot, 224–9.

3. Lesthaeghe, ‘The Second Demographic Transition in Western Countries’.

4. Lesthaeghe and Surkyn, ‘Cultural Dynamics and Economic Theories of Fertility Change’, 1–45; Lesthaeghe and Vanderhoeft, ‘Ready, Willing, and Able’, 240–64.

5. Sandström, ‘Time–Space Trends in Swedish Divorce Behaviour 1911–1974’.

6. Surkyn and Lesthaeghe, ‘Value Orientations and the Second Demographic Transition’.

7. Unilateral no-fault means that divorce can be attained single-handedly by one of the spouses and that the person filing for divorce need not give any reasons to why they want a divorce. Phillips, Putting Asunder, 571.

8. Lesthaeghe, ‘The Unfolding Story of the Second Demographic Transition’, 12, 20; Surkyn and Lesthaeghe, ‘Value Orientations and the Second Demographic Transition’; Phillips, Putting Asunder, 571.

9. Catrine Andersson has discussed the views on divorce expressed by the two committees on family law from 1964 and 1972. However, her focus is on how the state problematized and conceptualized marriage in the light of changing public behaviour rather than on the views on divorce in civil society. Andersson, ‘A Genealogy of Serial Monogamy’; Andersson, Hundra år av tvåsamhet.

10. Edvinsson, Growth, Accumulation, Crisis, 169.

11. Åmark, ‘Women’s Labour Force Participation’, 323–234; Florin and Nilsson, Något som liknar en oblodig revolution.

12. Stanfors, Mellan arbete och familj, 79–83.

13. Svensson, ‘En historia om löneutjämning’, 14–44.

14. Goode, World Changes in Divorce Patterns, 26; Phillips, Untying the Knot, 224–9.

15. Becker, A Treatise on the Family, 30–79.

16. Sandström, Strömgren, and Stjernström, ‘Socio-Economic Determinants of Divorce’; Hoem and Hoem, ‘Dissolution in Sweden’.

17. Svensson, ‘En historia om löneutjämning’, 25.

18. Esping-Andersen, Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, 45–94.

19. Lesthaeghe and Vanderhoeft, ‘Ready, Willing, and Able’; Lesthaeghe and Surkyn, ‘Cultural Dynamics and Economic Theories of Fertility Change.’

20. Hirdman, ‘Kvinnorna i välfärdsstaten’, 190; Florin, ‘Skatten som befriar’, 106–35.

21. Lena Lennerhed, Frihet att njuta, 119–40, 247.

22. Lennerhed, Frihet att njuta; Andersson, Hundra år av tvåsamhet, 99.

23. Melby, Pylkkänen, and Rosenbeck, ‘The Nordic Model of Marriage’.

24. Ekeberg, Äktenskapslagstiftningen, 40–4.

25. Committee on Family Law, Marital Law: Section 2, Motivations; Special Advisers on Family Law, Family and Marriage: Report.

26. Committee on Family Law, Marital Law: Section 2, 5; Special Advisers on Family Law, Family and Marriage: Report, 57–60.

27. Special Advisers on Family Law, Family and Marriage: Report, 52.

28. The terms ‘reformist’ and ‘conservative’ are not meant to imply a political connotation and are here strictly used to label the positions taken for and against restrictions to divorce. It is important to note that the paper uses the term ‘Liberal’ as it is interpreted in the European context. Consequently, liberal does not denote a ‘Left-wing’ political position as is sometimes assumed in a US context, but rather theemphasis of freedom from state regulations of personal affairs and being against the regulation of economic markets.

29. Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization; Lesthaeghe, ‘The Second Demographic Transition in Western Countries’; Lesthaeghe, ‘The Unfolding Story of the Second Demographic Transition’; Surkyn and Lesthaeghe, ‘Value Orientations and the Second Demographic Transition’.

30. Hirdman, ‘Genussystemet’, 146–61.

31. Therborn, Between Sex and Power, 188–9; Bradley, ‘Family Laws and Welfare States’, 39–43.

32. Ekeberg, Äktenskapslagstiftningen, 40–6.

33. Committee on Family Law, Marital Law: Section 2, 182–4.

34. Nordmark, ‘I åtta år utredde de samlevnaden’.

35. Committee on Family Law, Marital Law: Section 2, 5.

36. Ibid., 16–17.

37. Ibid., 312.

38. Ibid., 196–217.

39. See note 36.

40. Ibid., 324.

41. Ibid., 217.

42. Marital law prior to the reforms in 1974 contained obligations to provide economic maintenance to a spouse that had no income. Differently from economic responsibilities within marriage as denoted by the term ‘maintenance’, the term ‘alimony’ is used exclusively to denote post-divorce economic obligations ordered by the court in terms of one spouse being ordered to pay for the living costs of a former spouse. The term is used separately from the term child support, which denotes economic transfers specifically given to support children shared by former spouses.

43. ‘Riktig reform’; Lindén, ‘De som gifter sig för pengar riskerar mista del av kakan’; ‘Sänkt ålder för giftermål’; ‘Äktenskapsrätten reformeras’; ‘Ny lagstiftning om äktenskap’.

44. ‘Bräcklig trygghet’.

45. ‘Giftorätt och laglott’.

46. Per Gahrton, ‘Ny utredning om äktenskapet’.

47. Per Gahrton, ‘Kvinnan och familjerätten’.

48. ‘I tidens’; ‘På väg mot en ny äktenskapsyn?’; ‘Föråldrad äktenskapslag’.

49. ‘De förslag’; ‘I tidens.’

50. For examples of this position see ‘Frånskilda männen behandlas för snävt’; Johanisson, ‘Yrkeskvinnan övergav sin 60-årige hemma-man’; Johanisson, ‘De skildes för att han bara såg på TV’; Johanisson, ‘Hustrun krävde hela hans ATP’; Bjuvstedt, ‘Får männen rättvisa?’; Lövqvist, ‘Den ensamme mannen’.

51. ‘Alla har inte råd att skiljas’.

52. Rosengren, ‘Kvinnors rätt att få samma ställning som mannen i äktenskap’; Wigforss, ‘Sammanhållning eller promiskuitet’; ‘Kvinnokongress kritiserar äktenskapslagstiftningen’; ‘Fredrika-basen till storms mot försörjningsprincipen i äktenskaps lagstiftningen’; ‘Familjerätt på kvinnokonferens’; ‘Svårare Och Lättare’.

53. For a summary of the consultative reactions see ‘Bräcklig trygghet’; Silbersky and Nordmark, Älska i lagens namn, 21–7.

54. Gahrton, ‘Ny utredning om äktenskapet’.

55. Silbersky and Nordmark, Älska i lagens namn, 25.

56. Håkansson, ‘Social trygghet ska inte bero på sexuell trohet’.

57. Nordmark and Evers, ‘En hemmafru har aldrig råd att vara otrogen’.

58. Silbersky and Nordmark, Älska I Lagens Namn, 25.

59. Ibid.

60. Edvardsson, ‘Skadlig medling’.

61. Lesthaeghe, ‘The Second Demographic Transition in Western Countries’, 19.

62. Kjellander, ‘Lättare eller svårare att skiljas nästa år?’.

63. ‘Snabbskilsmässa’.

64. ‘Äktenskapet och familjerna’.

65. ‘Kvinnokongress kritiserar äktenskapslagstiftningen.’

66. ‘Frivillig samlevnad’; Evers and Nordmark, ‘Vad vet du egentligen om otrohet, Herman Kling’.

67. See, e.g., ‘Giftas’; ‘Äktenskapet i TV’.

68. ‘Giftas’

69. Nordmark, ‘I åtta år utredde de samlevnaden’.

70. Werner, ‘Äktenskapsdebatten’; ‘Äktenskapslagstiftingen’; ‘Gift eller sammanboende’.

71. ‘Äktenskapslagstiftningen’; Karlsson, ‘Indoktrinerad kärleksyn’; ‘Gift Eller Sammanboende’

72. See note 27.

73. See note 36.

74. See note 58.

75. See, e.g., the bill introduced to parliament by the party leader CH Hermansson, which deemed the proposal for a new law in 1973 too restrictive and argued for a more extensive deregulation of marriage and divorce. SKP even argued for a complete removal of the term ‘marriage’ from the legal text. Motion [Parliamentary bill] 1973:1793 i anledning av Kungl. Maj ds proposition 1973:32.

76. Lesthaeghe, ‘The Second Demographic Transition in Western Countries’, 19–20.

77. Ehrenreich discusses male resistance to the traditional provider role in post-Second World War United States, and argues that the increase in female labour force participation was rather a reaction to decreased marital stability than the cause of it. See Ehrenreich, The Hearts of Men, 169–82.

78. Sandström, Strömgren, and Stjernström, ‘Socio-Economic Determinants of Divorce in Sweden 1960–1965’; Hoem and Hoem, ‘Dissolution in Sweden’.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Glenn Sandström

Glenn Sandström is a Senior Researcher in History, associated with Department of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies and Centre for Demographic and Aging Research (CEDAR) at Umeå University, Sweden. Sandström’s research covers a wide range of issues regarding changes in family dynamics and gender relations. Most of his previous research has focused on how economic, normative, and institutional restructuring have resulted in changes in family stability and fertility in Sweden and other European countries from the late 19th century to the present. His latest publication concerned changes in the preferences for male and female children in Germany during the Demographic Transition. Address: Department of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden. [e-mail: [email protected]]