|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 11
[11] See also p. 98.
[12] See also p. 154.
[13] Two books may be suggested: Forel on The Sexual Question and
Havelock Ellis on Sex in Relation to Society (Vol. VI of Studies in the
Psychology of Sex).
[14] See p. 70 sq. for a discussion of collusive desertion.
III
CHANGES OF EMPHASIS IN TREATMENT
Unconsciously and imperceptibly, the point of view about the treatment
of desertion has been changing during the past fifteen years. The case
worker's attention used to be focussed on the danger of increasing the
desertion rate by a policy of too sympathetic care for deserters'
families. Little study was made of individual causes, and in so far as
there was a general policy of treatment it was to insist, wherever a
desertion law existed, that the deserted wife go at once to court and
institute proceedings against her husband. He was often not seen by the
social worker until he appeared in court. The policy toward the family
meantime was to reduce its size by commitment of the children until
their mother could support herself unaided; or, if relief was given, to
give smaller amounts than to a widow or the wife of a man in hospital.
As soon as the man had been placed under court order or had returned
home, old records generally show that the social worker's efforts were
relaxed, and often the final entry is, "Case closed--family
self-supporting."
There were excellent reasons underlying much of the practice. Few laws
were at that time in existence or at all adequately enforced, and any
man who desired was at liberty, so far as the community was concerned,
to walk off and leave his family at any time. The multiplicity of
sources of relief in the large communities and the absence of anything
resembling investigation constituted almost an invitation to men to
desert. It did not occur to the charitable public to draw any line
between the widow and the deserted wife, or indeed to inquire which of
these two a woman was, so long as she was a good mother and "seemed
worthy." No wonder that the pioneering social agencies, busy forging
tools out of the very ore, took a rigid stand on such a question of
social policy as this. Although their deterrents failed to eradicate the
evil of desertion or indeed to touch its sources, there is little doubt
that they did lessen its volume by creating a wholesome respect for the
power of the law in the mind of the would-be deserter and by fostering
in his wife a disposition to stand up for her rights. The more lenient
and more constructive policies now in force have been made possible in
part by these changes of attitude. The very fact that the collusive
desertion, once fairly common, is now seldom met with, illustrates the
salutary effects of the earlier methods of treatment.
But the fact remains that no marked change has been seen in the
desertion rate, that successive desertions have not been prevented in
individual cases. Hardly any statistical figure in the work of family
social agencies shows so little fluctuation from year to year and
between different cities, as the percentage of deserted families. It
generally forms from ten to fifteen per cent of the work of any such
society.
Gradually, therefore, the repressive features of the earlier treatment
have been abandoned, and there has come about a realization of the
complexity of causes that bring about family breakdowns. In particular,
the relation of sex maladjustments to failure in marriage have received
the serious attention of the social worker. On the question of court
intervention there has been almost a right-about face; the best social
practitioners now say, unhesitatingly and unequivocally, that they take
cases into court only as a matter of last resort, after case work
methods have been tried and have failed. In no other case where court
action is undertaken by one individual against another does the relation
between them remain unchanged. One could not conceive of a business
partnership failing to be annulled by one partner who brought suit
against another; yet we expect the marriage relation to survive this. As
a matter of fact, such is its vitality that it often does. But many
times the result of court action is only to deaden once and for all the
tiny spark from which marital happiness might have been rekindled. As
long as it survives, both man and wife feel in their inmost hearts that,
no matter what his offense, to "take him to court" is treason against
the intangible bonds that still hold between them. No matter how far
apart they have drifted, or how unforgivable has been the deserter's
offense, something irrevocable does happen to the fabric of marriage, a
few poor shreds of which may still exist between the two, when his wife
appears in a court of law to make complaint against him. It is an
instinctive realization that she is abandoning hope which underlies many
a woman's reluctance to "take a stand against her husband." Many social
workers (including some probation officers and court workers) now feel
that such a stand should be urged only in the full conviction that the
protection of the woman and children demands it, and that there is
nothing else to be done.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|