Sunday Mornings: Coffee, Reflections and Music

I have mentioned here before my parents’ divorce when I was a teenager. What I haven’t done is give details of the long, tortuous process their separation was. One reason is simple to understand: what I reveal about my personal life is I want other people to know. To me there is still such a thing as privacy. The second reason is that the leading characters in what was a three-actor play are still alive and kicking and although my parents can’t speak English (my dad can mumble a bit in it) I wouldn’t like anyone to translate a post in which they are misrepresented. The third reason is that I am still trying to come to terms with what happened in the build-up to my parents’ marital disintegration and the conflicts that ensued thereafter. This post addresses this very third reason.

The trigger for this column was the results of a recent survey published this week by an association of family lawyers called Resolution. Its chief focus was on the damage divorce does to children. According to the poll, some of the harmful effects to youngsters caused by separation were an increase in drug consumption and academic failure, amongst others.

I agree with the study in principle. But I would have also liked to have seen a link between an unhappy marriage and the same effects described above in relation to divorce. Whilst parents splitting up permanently can be detrimental to the mental, physical and spiritual health of a young person, a marriage where there is a lack of respect is equally poisonous.

Think of the little people, please

 When I look back on my childhood, I remember seeing around me friends whose parents had separated. With the sole exception of two (including me), the majority of my mates lived in single households. At that point I had close to twenty friends, enough for two baseball teams with a couple of pinch-hitters on the bench. They felt jealous of me on account of my status as the child with the – still – two married parents, but I saw no reason for their envy since I was the only one who knew what was going on at home. What went on at home was a mix of hostility, rowing, bickering and cheating (my dad on my mum). The fact that this situation stretched for three or four years made it worse. This is, I believe, where the sanctity of the marriage institution comes into question: is it better for a couple to stay together for the sake of their children or go their separate ways and stay on good terms? Resolution’s survey does not address this issue, but why should they? Imagine polling the same amount of young people who averred to psychological, emotional and physical trauma as a consequence of their parents’ divorce and asking them what the situation was like when their folks were still together. I don’t think anyone would be surprised to find out that the damage started earlier, probably long before family lawyers got involved.

My experience was far from unique. I have spoken to other people who survived marital breakdown when they were younger and most of us seem to arrive at the conclusion that when our parents finally read the last rites to their relationship we felt liberated. I know it sounds selfish and unfair but the almost absolute silence that greeted me at home eevry day after my dad upped sticks and moved with his mistress was soothing. That the din that eventually replaced the peace was a combination of my adolescent hormones conflicting with my mother’s anxiety is not relevant to this post today.

When it comes to divorce and its effects on youngsters, I think that sometimes people rush to make comments that lack empirical evidence, either because they are after a soundbite or because deep down they want to uphold the values and morals of institutions they still regard highly, i.e., marriage. It is fair to say that there are amicable separations in which there is minimum damage to children and marital unions that are really a sham. The latter ends up causing more harm and hurt than we might think. That is one survey whose results I would like to see.
 

© 2014

Next Post: “Killer Opening Songs”, to be published on Wednesday 3^rd December at 11:59pm (GMT)

Urban Dictionary

Urban Revolutionary (n):        A latter-day species commonly found in the region comprising the postcodes EC1, EC2, E8, N1, N8, NW1 and NW3 in London. Urban revolutionaries are a natural progression from previous species, including the Anarchic Anti-capitalist Protester and the Bearded Socialist. In the case of the Urban Revolutionary, he (also a “she”, but we’ll settle for masculine for now), he is the result of a strange mix of late 90s ‘oxton gentrification and mid-noughties Shoreditch hipsterism.

Urban Revolutionaries are socially active creatures with deep concerns about the state of our world. In this respect their role in society is to be welcomed. However, URs (don’t we love acronyms?) have a weakness: most of their activism happens online. Whereas both the Anti-capitalist Protester (the name is self-explanatory) and the Bearded Socialist took to the streets in the past to show their displeasure at the way our modern polities were run, the Urban Revolutionary’s best friend is the mouse. Not the rodent, but the computer one. And sometimes not even the palm-sized, technological version of a real Muridae, because who needs a pointing device when one has a smartphone?

Fashion-wise, the Urban Revolutionary look is über-chic, poster-boy Russell Brand, from the out-and-proud teeth (in permanent “smirk”mode, especially when interviewed by Evan Davis) to the Jesus-like hair and beard. Tight-fitting T-shirts and skinny jeans complete the sartorial package.

Time for a comeback?

In the past, the battlefield against globalisation was Seattle, for instance. Nowadays it is change.org. At the click of a mouse you can start your own petition and the Urban Revolutionary has been at the forefront of this new approach to politics. In his favour, he has the vigour of youth, a good, all-round education and possibly, although not always, an affluent background. On the other hand, critics are quick to point out the short-termism of his campaigns. This could be seen as a detrimental factor in – paradoxically – putting people off politics. Too many campaigns being waged at the same time deprive a social movement of the necessary pabulum it feeds off. There are further complications in that, when trying to mobilise support for a cause he deems just, the Urban Revolutionary might overlook the root causes of the problem. You can quite rightly campaign to ban a misogynist from entering Britain, but it would be better to look at the reasons why some people thought it was a good idea to invite him in the first place. Whilst some might rage at an art exhibition that supposedly denigrates a particular ethnic group, Bob Geldoff and his merry Band Aid 30 get away once again with patronising Africans with the three-decade-old question: Do They Know It’s Christmas? They bloody do, Sir Bob, they bloody do. But sadly, the Urban Revolutionary is not available to start an online petition to stop this musical travesty. He is too busy, clicking, swiping, clicking, swiping, clicking and swiping... ad infinitum.

© 2014

Next Post: “Sunday Mornings: Coffee, Reflections and Music”, to be published on Sunday 30^th November at 10am (GMT)