Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:30:23.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutions of Divorce, Family, and the Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Paul Bohannan  and
Karan Huckleberry
Paul Bohannan
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Karan Huckleberry
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Social scientists are accustomed to thinking of the family as a primary social institution. They are less accustomed to thinking of it as one of the primary “back-up institutions” of American society. A back-up institution carries out the work of some other institution of society when that other institution fails in its task. The back-up institution might have been called an “institution for redundancy,” defining redundancy with Hall as “information [or action] from one [institutional] system which is backed up by other systems in case of failure.” Thus, if the original institution fails in its purpose, some other institution takes over its tasks or goals, and fulfills its functions in either the original or a modified form.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , June 1967 , pp. 81 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © 1967 by the Law and Society Association

Footnotes

Authors' Note: The work on this paper was carried out, in part, under grants from the National Science Foundation (GS-61) and the National Institute of Mental Health (Nos. MH 06551–01 and MH 06551–02). We acknowledge our gratitude to both foundations.

References

1. E. Hall, The Hidden Dimension (1966).

2. P. Bohannan, The Differing Realms of the Law, 67 Amer. Anthropolocist, 33 (1965).

3. H. Kantorowicz, The Definition of Law (1958).

4. M. Hunt, The World of the Formerly Married (1966).

5. K. Llewellyn, Behind the Law of Divorce, 32 Colum. L. Rev. 1281 (1932–1933).

6. Note, Interprofessional Approach to Family Problems, 22 U. Kan. City L. Rev. 1 (1953).

7. S. Kinney, Lawyers and Marriage Counseling—a Therapeutic Approach, Dicta (1951) 28–30.

8. Q. Johnstone, Divorce: The Place of the Legal System in Dealing with Marital Discord Cases, 31 Ore. L. Rev. 297 (1952).

9. P. Alexander, Our Legal Horror—Divorce, 19 J.B.A. of Kans. 322 (1951).

10. J. Bradway, Why Divorce? Duke L.J. 217 (1959).

11. D. McIntyre, Sr., Conciliation of Disrupted Marriages by or Through the Judiciary, 4 J. Fam. L. 117 (1964).

12. H. Glieberman, How to Negotiate a Divorce Case Settlement, 45 Chi. B. Rec. 139 (1963).

13. E. H. Carr, What is History? (1961).

14. R. Redmount, Perception and Strategy in Divorce Counseling, 34 Conn. B.J. 249 (1960).

15. T. McNamara, Should Divorce Be Made Respectable?, 41 Chi. B. Rec. 84 (1959).

16. Alexander, supra note 9, at 323, 330.

17. V. Baum, Law and Social Work: Marriage Counseling, 3 J. Fam. L. 279 (1963).

18. Johnstone, supra note 8, at 307.

19. B. Brown, Natural Law, the Marriage Bond and Divorce, 15 Jurist 24 (1955).

20. M. Fenberg, Can Divorce Be Made Respectable?, 14 Women L.J. 63 (1956).

21. W. Palmer, Fact Against Fiction: A Judge's Findings on a Serious Problem, 38 A.B.A.J. 653 (1952).

22. T. Walker, Our Present Divorce Muddle: A Suggested Solution, 35 A.B.A.J. 457 (1949).

23. C. Smith, Lawyer's Guide to Marriage Counseling, 50 A.B.A.J. 719 (1964).

24. W. Lattimer, The Family and the Law, 27 Dicta 409 (1950).

25. R. Redmount, Analysis of Marriage Trends and Divorce Politics, 10 Crime & Delin. 352 (1964).

26. M. Kargman, Lawyer's Role in Divorce Reconciliation, 6 Prac. Lawyer 21 (1960).

27. Redmount, supra note 14, at 262–66.

28. M. and F. Harper, Lawyers and Marriage Counseling, 1 J. Fam. L. 73 (1961).

29. P. Alexander, Public Service by Lawyers in the Field of Divorce, 10 Ohio S.L.J. 17 (1952).

30. Redmount, supra note 14, at 249.

31. Baum, supra note 17, at 288–89.

32. N. Kohut, Rehabilitation of Broken Marriages by Attorneys, 10 Prac. Lawyer 75 (1964).

33. Kargman, supra note 26, at 21.

34. Kinney, supra note 7, at 31.

35. Kohut, supra note 32, at 76.

36. B. Davis, Illinois' Cooling-Off Law: Is It a Constructive Step Toward Solving the Divorce Problem? 28 Penn. B.A.Q. 292 (1957).

37. Smith, supra note 23, at 720.

38. Kohut, supra note 32, at 85.

39. J. Bradway, Family Law Should Be a Required Course in Law Schools, 31 Bar Exam. 59 (1962).

40. R. Levy, Perilous Necessity: Non-legal Materials in a Family Law, 3 J. Fam. L. 138 (1963).

41. Id. at 148.

42. Johnstone, supra note 8, at 309.

43. Redmount, supra note 14.

44. McIntyre, supra note 11.

45. Harper, supra note 28, at 82.

46. Bradway, Divorce Litigation and the Welfare of the Family, 9 Vand. L. Rev. 665 (1956).

47. Id. at 671.

48. Id. at 673.

49. Bradway, Suggestion: The Family Lawyer, 45 A.B.A.J. 381 (1959).

50. Lattimer, supra note 24, at 412.

51. McIntyre, supra note 11.

52. M. Virtue, Family Cases in Court (1956) and O. Gorman, Lawyers and Matrimonial Cases: A Study of Professional Practice (1963).

53. E. Melson, Family Breakdown and the Family Court, 17 Fed. Probation 3 (1953).