The Economist has a cover story on "gendercide," the massive rate of abortion of girls in Asia.
At birth in natural populations there are about 103 boys for every 100 girls.
In many Asian countries, especially China and India, aborting girls has become so common that that ratio has become 120 to 100. Some provinces of China - the richer ones, where the one-child policy is better enforced and raising children costs more - the ratio is above 130 to 100.
Something I had not appreciated before is that the ratio goes up dramatically for each later birth. In India, which does not have an official limit on the number of children, there are more girls among first-borns than in China. For the second child, though, many Indian parents who already have a girl are more likely to keep aborting a second girl until they get a boy. For a third child, the ratio of boys to girls is 200 to 100 in some regions.
This rate of killing girls is horrible in itself. It also so short-sighted and dangerous. Those unmatched boys will grow into tens of millions of unattached men. Then we will all reap the whirlwind.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Do Men Delay College Graduation in Order to Grow Up?
There are 133 women in college to every 100 men. By age 25 there are 141 female college graduates for every 100 male graduates. The headline news has been that at age 22, the traditional age for college graduation, the ratio of female to male college graduates is 185/100.
Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, whose work I often cite in these pages, have opened the question of why men take longer to graduate from college.
It is well known that all through adolescence girls, as a group, are more mature than boys. I think that is one of the main reasons that girls are more likely to stay in school and go straight through to college commencement in the first place. The senior women at Centre often lament that their male counterparts aren't as mature as they are in thinking about marriage and children. I think this is one of the reasons that, on average, women pick husbands who are a couple of years older than they are - to try to equalize their maturity levels.
So here is my gruntled, hopeful, silver-lining-seeking hypothesis: men are taking longer to graduate than women because they are trying to catch up to the women in maturity.
Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, whose work I often cite in these pages, have opened the question of why men take longer to graduate from college.
It is well known that all through adolescence girls, as a group, are more mature than boys. I think that is one of the main reasons that girls are more likely to stay in school and go straight through to college commencement in the first place. The senior women at Centre often lament that their male counterparts aren't as mature as they are in thinking about marriage and children. I think this is one of the reasons that, on average, women pick husbands who are a couple of years older than they are - to try to equalize their maturity levels.
So here is my gruntled, hopeful, silver-lining-seeking hypothesis: men are taking longer to graduate than women because they are trying to catch up to the women in maturity.
Monday, March 08, 2010
Anonymous Sperm Donation is Harder Than it Looks
Sperm donation is easy, um, mechanically. As the donors say, they get paid to do something they do for free anyway. And the sperm donor business is so successful that there are for-profit companies, as well as many labs and non-profits. The technological and economic aspects get better and easier every day.
What is getting harder is to stay anonymous. The Donor Sibling Registry brings together children of the same father to compare characteristics. The biographical facts that donors give about themselves are becoming easier to search and cross list. And if the donor is ever in a DNA registry, each of his children is full of enough comparable genetic information to establish a match. Sperm banks are starting to back off of their claim of permanent anonymity. They promise that the bank will not release the donor's identity, but admit that technological advances may make them findable anyway.
I think the other part of anonymous sperm donation that is getting harder is the belief that children made from your sperm are not, in a deep way, related to you. Of course donors know that they are the fathers of the children made with their sperm. I think they have underestimated how strong a tie that actually makes, even if they never meet their children. For several generations social science has convinced the educated public that nurture trumps nature. As a card-carrying sociologist I was trained in this view. I have changed my mind over years of study and parenthood. I am holding the line at 50/50 in the nature/nurture debate.
I think there are so many points of biological similarity between fathers and their children that it would be an unusual man, and a very unusual child, who would not be moved by the similarity. Moved to try to make a personal connection. Which would make anonymously donating sperm and walking away forever harder to do.
What is getting harder is to stay anonymous. The Donor Sibling Registry brings together children of the same father to compare characteristics. The biographical facts that donors give about themselves are becoming easier to search and cross list. And if the donor is ever in a DNA registry, each of his children is full of enough comparable genetic information to establish a match. Sperm banks are starting to back off of their claim of permanent anonymity. They promise that the bank will not release the donor's identity, but admit that technological advances may make them findable anyway.
I think the other part of anonymous sperm donation that is getting harder is the belief that children made from your sperm are not, in a deep way, related to you. Of course donors know that they are the fathers of the children made with their sperm. I think they have underestimated how strong a tie that actually makes, even if they never meet their children. For several generations social science has convinced the educated public that nurture trumps nature. As a card-carrying sociologist I was trained in this view. I have changed my mind over years of study and parenthood. I am holding the line at 50/50 in the nature/nurture debate.
I think there are so many points of biological similarity between fathers and their children that it would be an unusual man, and a very unusual child, who would not be moved by the similarity. Moved to try to make a personal connection. Which would make anonymously donating sperm and walking away forever harder to do.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Zen and the Art ... Reconsidered
One of the books that had the greatest impact on me in high school was Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. He argued that Quality is what we like; Quality is the interaction of subject and object that produces them both; Quality is the undefinable root something from which all else that we know comes. This idea stuck with me more than I knew.
A few months ago I read Atlas Shrugged. While I appreciate some of its sense that quality work is worth celebrating, I thought its view of human life was way too simplistic. And the story was very silly. However, a few people told me that it was a very important book to them in high school. It made them feel vindicated as smart kids, and gave them a larger vision of the world and the ideas behind it.
This got me thinking that it would be fruitful to re-read the books that most influenced me in high school. I got talking to a study group friend, and we agreed to re-read one another's influential books together. Zen and the Art is my nominee.
I am pleased to say that the book holds up well. It is mostly a "Chautauqua" about metaphysics, framed by a father-son road trip story. The pursuit of metaphysics made the father insane. He is now trying to reconstruct the argument, without the insanity, in the form of both talks to the reader and conversations with his son. Both parts of the story are based on Robert Pirsig's real experiences, including the insanity.
I see now that my later interest in Alasdair McIntyre's argument about the incoherence of ethical philosophy, and his further discussions of the good of practices, grows right out of appreciating Pirsig. I see, too, an affinity in my sociology, which does start with "what we like" as an important bit of evidence of what is good and true, with Pirsig's approach to Quality.
On the other hand, I am now more puzzled than I was in high school at why Pirsig does not think God is even worth talking about in his consideration of what Quality is and where it comes from. That is the question I want to pursue with the study group, and beyond.
A few months ago I read Atlas Shrugged. While I appreciate some of its sense that quality work is worth celebrating, I thought its view of human life was way too simplistic. And the story was very silly. However, a few people told me that it was a very important book to them in high school. It made them feel vindicated as smart kids, and gave them a larger vision of the world and the ideas behind it.
This got me thinking that it would be fruitful to re-read the books that most influenced me in high school. I got talking to a study group friend, and we agreed to re-read one another's influential books together. Zen and the Art is my nominee.
I am pleased to say that the book holds up well. It is mostly a "Chautauqua" about metaphysics, framed by a father-son road trip story. The pursuit of metaphysics made the father insane. He is now trying to reconstruct the argument, without the insanity, in the form of both talks to the reader and conversations with his son. Both parts of the story are based on Robert Pirsig's real experiences, including the insanity.
I see now that my later interest in Alasdair McIntyre's argument about the incoherence of ethical philosophy, and his further discussions of the good of practices, grows right out of appreciating Pirsig. I see, too, an affinity in my sociology, which does start with "what we like" as an important bit of evidence of what is good and true, with Pirsig's approach to Quality.
On the other hand, I am now more puzzled than I was in high school at why Pirsig does not think God is even worth talking about in his consideration of what Quality is and where it comes from. That is the question I want to pursue with the study group, and beyond.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
"Color Him Father"
In my recent search for non-country songs that covered the life-cycle of a marriage I was introduced to this fine song, the Winstons' "Color Him Father." Thanks to NSangoma on the Booker Rising blog.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Cohabitation Still Bad for Your Marriage Chances
A large new report on the effects of cohabitation, led by Pamela Smock, has just been released. Some see it as new evidence that "Cohabiting has little effect on marriage success"as the USA Today head line put it. Others say it shows "Cohabitation Linked to Exponential Increase in Relationship Failure Risk" as LifeSiteNews.com puts it.
Both are right. In fact, these findings are nothing new. For at least a decade it has been clear that people who cohabit before marriage do not improve their chances of marital success. Cohabitation is not a good way to "kick the tires," to test your compatibility. This new study confirms that conclusion. However, there is a big difference between people who are already engaged - with a ring and date - when they start cohabiting, as compared to those who live together with no definite plan for the future.
Engaged cohabiters act more like marrieds. "Just living together" couples do not.
Both are right. In fact, these findings are nothing new. For at least a decade it has been clear that people who cohabit before marriage do not improve their chances of marital success. Cohabitation is not a good way to "kick the tires," to test your compatibility. This new study confirms that conclusion. However, there is a big difference between people who are already engaged - with a ring and date - when they start cohabiting, as compared to those who live together with no definite plan for the future.
Engaged cohabiters act more like marrieds. "Just living together" couples do not.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Habeas Corpus is a State Right for All in America
I think habeas corpus is a core centrist issue. It should be the foundation of any discussion about the law, the basis on which the center can bring together left and right. Habeas corpus was suspended by the previous administration to deal with the post-9/11 emergency, and has been restored by the current administration.
Some people argue that habeas corpus is a right of citizens, but does not apply to anyone else we capture and call an enemy. Some even want to strip citizens of their legal rights if the government calls them an enemy.
Last night I got to ask the Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court something that has been bothering me: is habeas corpus a fundamental human right, or a right granted by the state that applies only to citizens? Justice Minton had no better answer than I did; fundamental human rights is not an issue that state courts rule on. But the discussion led in interesting directions afterwards.
On the one hand, I think that suspending habeas corpus is about the most dangerous habit any government could get in to. If the government can imprison anyone without even a chance to establish their right to a charge and a trial, the rule of law is destroyed. On the other hand, I am reluctant to declare that there is such a thing as a fundamental human right, absent an authoritative body to make it stick. Rights are rights against the state, and ultimately the state or a state-like body (like the International Criminal Court in the Hague) has to enforce rights to make them real.
Mrs. G., who is a lawyer, suggested a helpful middle position: habeas corpus has been a state-made right that applies to all English-descended states since Magna Carta, which applies to all people within that state. This means all the people under the hand of American law, whether citizens or not, have a right to habeas corpus. This seems to me a sensible position - not simply at the whim of the current government, but not unrealistically universal.
Some people argue that habeas corpus is a right of citizens, but does not apply to anyone else we capture and call an enemy. Some even want to strip citizens of their legal rights if the government calls them an enemy.
Last night I got to ask the Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court something that has been bothering me: is habeas corpus a fundamental human right, or a right granted by the state that applies only to citizens? Justice Minton had no better answer than I did; fundamental human rights is not an issue that state courts rule on. But the discussion led in interesting directions afterwards.
On the one hand, I think that suspending habeas corpus is about the most dangerous habit any government could get in to. If the government can imprison anyone without even a chance to establish their right to a charge and a trial, the rule of law is destroyed. On the other hand, I am reluctant to declare that there is such a thing as a fundamental human right, absent an authoritative body to make it stick. Rights are rights against the state, and ultimately the state or a state-like body (like the International Criminal Court in the Hague) has to enforce rights to make them real.
Mrs. G., who is a lawyer, suggested a helpful middle position: habeas corpus has been a state-made right that applies to all English-descended states since Magna Carta, which applies to all people within that state. This means all the people under the hand of American law, whether citizens or not, have a right to habeas corpus. This seems to me a sensible position - not simply at the whim of the current government, but not unrealistically universal.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
The Search for a Non-Country Song That Covers the Whole Life Cycle
I posted this query on Facebook recently:
This has proven a rich and interesting discussion.
The main thing I have found is that country, and its cousins folk and bluegrass, are the popular music genres richest in songs in which people court, marry, raise their kids, help with their grandchildren, grow old, and die.
In the other popular genres - pop, rock, rap, hip-hop, rhythm and blues - it is hard find examples of songs that cover the full life cycle.
I think the main reason for the paucity of songs about marriage and the rest of your life in popular music is that popular music is mostly for young people. The audience for country music is a little older, and is more likely to be married with children, than is the population as a whole. Nonetheless, this small difference in the demographics of the audience is not enough, I think, to explain the wide disparity in content among the genres.
I note that when men write songs in which they imagine a future life together, they say something about how the family life they imagine will be paid for. This is less often the case in women's "imagining a family" songs.
The main point of this post: Country music is the place to look for songs about the full cycle of happy family life.
Below I reproduce the whole long dialogue with dialogue with friends, neighbors, students, and some professional colleagues, FYI. I would welcome additions and suggestions. I have interspersed comments and suggestions from others with my replies.
“Always” by Atlantic Starr
"Always" only gets as far as "let's make a family" - I don't think they are even married yet by the end of the song.
I can think of a bunch, but they're not universally positive about marriage. Of course, there are lots of country songs about d-i-v-o-r-c-e.
Oh, yeah - lots of good divorce songs. I have more songs for that week than I have days.
“Just the Two of Us” -Will Smith but that’s more about parenthood.
"Just the Two of Us" is a fine daddy song (a genre I particularly like). However, the kid doesn't get past early elementary school, and "it didn't work out for me and your mom."
Yea its a tough assignment. Most r&b love songs are about the chase or the wedding not the marriage.... I can think of songs about weddings but not marriages...go figure. I like "100 Years" but it's more about one man's journey through life than a couple's-- I suck at this...
I don't think it is you, I think it is a limitation of the target demographic for pop, rock, rap, and r&b.
Try April Barrows - " burning the toast for you" "my dream is you" & "an old stuffed sofa". Marc Cohn - "True Companion"
Thank you for April Barrows - I did not know her work. And you have me wondering whether there might be more life-cycle songs in jazz. However, she is just too obscure. YouTube only has a cover of "Burning the Toast for You" - a funny song, but it only gets as far as the honeymoon. The other two are not available. I found a version of "True Companion," but they aren't even married yet, and Cohn only refers to when the couple will be old. And none of them have kids.
Crosby Stills Nash, "Our House"
"Our House," while a gorgeous song, is a moment somewhere in the life of a couple. And two cats in the yard are just not enough of a stand-in for children to cover most marriage's life cycle. :-)
There are many Christian songs on that theme...don't know, but wouldn't be surprised if they had a C-VH1.
I think you are right, but I don't know the genre well enough to generate examples.
"Lady in Red"? (I know, it doesn't specify in the song that they're married. But I heard an interview with the songwriter, in which he specified it was about catching a glimpse of his wife at a party and seeing her with fresh eyes.) "Wonderful Tonight," maybe? Presumably they're married or she'd leave his drunk ass at the party. And of course there's "Secret Lovers," "Part Time Lover," and "Saving All My Love." For the 7 yr itch stage of marriage.
While "Wonderful Tonight" is a lovely song about a man appreciating his wife (?), it is a tiny moment - no kids, not long-shared life, no growing old. The others in that first set are really just love songs possibly set within marriage.
Oh, how about "Whatta Man" by Salt n Pepa?
"Whatta Man" is a courtship song. It has the abysmally low standards of good family life common in hip-hop songs. He is a good man because he spends quality time with his kids "when he can." The singer is going to have his baby. No mention of marriage. Sigh.
Paul McCartney's "When I'm 64", is, if you read the lyric, a proposal of marriage. Don't know if its available as a video, but it, and Paul and Linda's marriage, certainly speak well of the institution.
"When I'm 64" is more like it. I'd never noticed before that, while they imagine having grandchildren (Vera, Chuck, and Dave), they make no mention of their hypothetical children.
My student friend Katie made this excellent suggestion: July For Kings--"Normal Life."
"Mushaboom" by Feist is about planning a home and children and sticking it out. Doesn't mention marriage, so may not fit your parameters. But relatively current.
"Mushaboom" is sweet, and does have a real vision of a full life.
Try Bob Dylan's "Don't Think Twice. It's all right."
Oh, all the popular music genres are full of songs about marriages and romances that did not work out. That seems to be something that songwriters have lots of experience with.
Ok trying again-- "Superwoman" by Karyn White
"Superwoman" does have a married couple a few years past the wedding, but they may not make it through the whole life course. And no kids.
"Something in Red"-Lorrie Morgan (I know its country but it seems to fit your parameters)
"Something in Red" is a wonderful song, and I admire its concision in taking us through at least the first three years of a courtship and marriage. It is, though, as you note, a country song.
Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne's version of Pete Seeger's "Kisses Sweeter than Wine." I don't consider this country.
That is doubly helpful. The song is a good example of what I am after. And folk is a genre I had not looked at enough. But I think folk is at least a close cousin to country.
What about "Faithfully" by Journey?
"Faithfully" does seem to be a faithful marriage, but, as he says, the road is no place to raise a family - so (I infer) they don't.
"Grandpa Was a Carpenter" by John Prine.
"Grandpa Was a Carpenter" is a good one; it implies a full life of marriage and children, though we see nothing of the in-between generation. I would call Prine at least half-country (Wikipedia does, too).
Students suggested "Cat's in the Cradle" today, which I think qualifies.
Isn't "Cat's in the Cradle" a depressing view of the life cycle, though? By the way, I know it's country, but I like the song "Remember When?" more than a lot of others.
"Cat's in the Cradle" is wry, at best, and not nearly as celebratory of the life cycle as "Remember When."
Beau Weston is showing music videos about married life in class. There are many good country videos on the married life course. I am having trouble finding non-country songs about the married life course. Suggestions?
This has proven a rich and interesting discussion.
The main thing I have found is that country, and its cousins folk and bluegrass, are the popular music genres richest in songs in which people court, marry, raise their kids, help with their grandchildren, grow old, and die.
In the other popular genres - pop, rock, rap, hip-hop, rhythm and blues - it is hard find examples of songs that cover the full life cycle.
I think the main reason for the paucity of songs about marriage and the rest of your life in popular music is that popular music is mostly for young people. The audience for country music is a little older, and is more likely to be married with children, than is the population as a whole. Nonetheless, this small difference in the demographics of the audience is not enough, I think, to explain the wide disparity in content among the genres.
I note that when men write songs in which they imagine a future life together, they say something about how the family life they imagine will be paid for. This is less often the case in women's "imagining a family" songs.
The main point of this post: Country music is the place to look for songs about the full cycle of happy family life.
Below I reproduce the whole long dialogue with dialogue with friends, neighbors, students, and some professional colleagues, FYI. I would welcome additions and suggestions. I have interspersed comments and suggestions from others with my replies.
“Always” by Atlantic Starr
"Always" only gets as far as "let's make a family" - I don't think they are even married yet by the end of the song.
I can think of a bunch, but they're not universally positive about marriage. Of course, there are lots of country songs about d-i-v-o-r-c-e.
Oh, yeah - lots of good divorce songs. I have more songs for that week than I have days.
“Just the Two of Us” -Will Smith but that’s more about parenthood.
"Just the Two of Us" is a fine daddy song (a genre I particularly like). However, the kid doesn't get past early elementary school, and "it didn't work out for me and your mom."
Yea its a tough assignment. Most r&b love songs are about the chase or the wedding not the marriage.... I can think of songs about weddings but not marriages...go figure. I like "100 Years" but it's more about one man's journey through life than a couple's-- I suck at this...
I don't think it is you, I think it is a limitation of the target demographic for pop, rock, rap, and r&b.
Try April Barrows - " burning the toast for you" "my dream is you" & "an old stuffed sofa". Marc Cohn - "True Companion"
Thank you for April Barrows - I did not know her work. And you have me wondering whether there might be more life-cycle songs in jazz. However, she is just too obscure. YouTube only has a cover of "Burning the Toast for You" - a funny song, but it only gets as far as the honeymoon. The other two are not available. I found a version of "True Companion," but they aren't even married yet, and Cohn only refers to when the couple will be old. And none of them have kids.
Crosby Stills Nash, "Our House"
"Our House," while a gorgeous song, is a moment somewhere in the life of a couple. And two cats in the yard are just not enough of a stand-in for children to cover most marriage's life cycle. :-)
There are many Christian songs on that theme...don't know, but wouldn't be surprised if they had a C-VH1.
I think you are right, but I don't know the genre well enough to generate examples.
"Lady in Red"? (I know, it doesn't specify in the song that they're married. But I heard an interview with the songwriter, in which he specified it was about catching a glimpse of his wife at a party and seeing her with fresh eyes.) "Wonderful Tonight," maybe? Presumably they're married or she'd leave his drunk ass at the party. And of course there's "Secret Lovers," "Part Time Lover," and "Saving All My Love." For the 7 yr itch stage of marriage.
While "Wonderful Tonight" is a lovely song about a man appreciating his wife (?), it is a tiny moment - no kids, not long-shared life, no growing old. The others in that first set are really just love songs possibly set within marriage.
Oh, how about "Whatta Man" by Salt n Pepa?
"Whatta Man" is a courtship song. It has the abysmally low standards of good family life common in hip-hop songs. He is a good man because he spends quality time with his kids "when he can." The singer is going to have his baby. No mention of marriage. Sigh.
Paul McCartney's "When I'm 64", is, if you read the lyric, a proposal of marriage. Don't know if its available as a video, but it, and Paul and Linda's marriage, certainly speak well of the institution.
"When I'm 64" is more like it. I'd never noticed before that, while they imagine having grandchildren (Vera, Chuck, and Dave), they make no mention of their hypothetical children.
My student friend Katie made this excellent suggestion: July For Kings--"Normal Life."
"Mushaboom" by Feist is about planning a home and children and sticking it out. Doesn't mention marriage, so may not fit your parameters. But relatively current.
"Mushaboom" is sweet, and does have a real vision of a full life.
Try Bob Dylan's "Don't Think Twice. It's all right."
Oh, all the popular music genres are full of songs about marriages and romances that did not work out. That seems to be something that songwriters have lots of experience with.
Ok trying again-- "Superwoman" by Karyn White
"Superwoman" does have a married couple a few years past the wedding, but they may not make it through the whole life course. And no kids.
"Something in Red"-Lorrie Morgan (I know its country but it seems to fit your parameters)
"Something in Red" is a wonderful song, and I admire its concision in taking us through at least the first three years of a courtship and marriage. It is, though, as you note, a country song.
Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne's version of Pete Seeger's "Kisses Sweeter than Wine." I don't consider this country.
That is doubly helpful. The song is a good example of what I am after. And folk is a genre I had not looked at enough. But I think folk is at least a close cousin to country.
What about "Faithfully" by Journey?
"Faithfully" does seem to be a faithful marriage, but, as he says, the road is no place to raise a family - so (I infer) they don't.
"Grandpa Was a Carpenter" by John Prine.
"Grandpa Was a Carpenter" is a good one; it implies a full life of marriage and children, though we see nothing of the in-between generation. I would call Prine at least half-country (Wikipedia does, too).
Students suggested "Cat's in the Cradle" today, which I think qualifies.
Isn't "Cat's in the Cradle" a depressing view of the life cycle, though? By the way, I know it's country, but I like the song "Remember When?" more than a lot of others.
"Cat's in the Cradle" is wry, at best, and not nearly as celebratory of the life cycle as "Remember When."
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Centrism and Alcohol
Today Danville, KY, is voting on whether go from "moist" to "wet."
UPDATE: Danville went wet, 57% to 43% in heavier-than-expected turnout (2,508 to 1,911).
For those outside the South this whole concept may be odd. When we moved to Danville twenty years ago it was dry, meaning that selling and serving alcohol was illegal. A few years ago we voted to go "moist." Restaurants that seat at least 100 and get at least 70% of their revenue from food were allowed to sell alcohol by the drink. What all this means is no bars, no liquor stores, no downtown cafes selling a glass of wine. This kind of minute regulation of alcohol distribution is fairly common in all the Baptist-majority counties of the South. I can tell you, though, it is a very difficult concept to explain to, for example, a traveling group of Irish actors or Russian musicians, as has happened at Centre.
Today we are voting on whether to go "wet." This would allow liquor stores, beer and wine sales in other stores, smaller restaurants and cafes, even bars. No town in Kentucky has gone from moist to wet before, and I really do not know how the election will turn out.
I have been torn about how to vote. I am a teetotaler, so I my own consumption is not the issue for me. But I do care about the health and well-being of my neighbors, and the economic health of the town. I also do not want to see bars in Danville. I think they are a danger anywhere, but are a menace in a small college town.
Nonetheless, in the end I voted yes.
What does this have to do with centrism? I believe that alcohol is an irreducible part of human society. I don't care for it myself, but I know that others enjoy it. I think alcohol in moderation is OK. Jesus made wine - it can't be all bad.
Instead, I believe that we should actively and persistently promote, teach, and model moderation in alcohol consumption. This is especially important for adults teaching young adults, such as the hundreds of college students in our charge. I have long favored drinking licenses for 18, 19, and 20 year olds. I think the adults of the community should teach the young how to drink moderately. Drinking is not the menace; drunkenness is.
UPDATE: Danville went wet, 57% to 43% in heavier-than-expected turnout (2,508 to 1,911).
For those outside the South this whole concept may be odd. When we moved to Danville twenty years ago it was dry, meaning that selling and serving alcohol was illegal. A few years ago we voted to go "moist." Restaurants that seat at least 100 and get at least 70% of their revenue from food were allowed to sell alcohol by the drink. What all this means is no bars, no liquor stores, no downtown cafes selling a glass of wine. This kind of minute regulation of alcohol distribution is fairly common in all the Baptist-majority counties of the South. I can tell you, though, it is a very difficult concept to explain to, for example, a traveling group of Irish actors or Russian musicians, as has happened at Centre.
Today we are voting on whether to go "wet." This would allow liquor stores, beer and wine sales in other stores, smaller restaurants and cafes, even bars. No town in Kentucky has gone from moist to wet before, and I really do not know how the election will turn out.
I have been torn about how to vote. I am a teetotaler, so I my own consumption is not the issue for me. But I do care about the health and well-being of my neighbors, and the economic health of the town. I also do not want to see bars in Danville. I think they are a danger anywhere, but are a menace in a small college town.
Nonetheless, in the end I voted yes.
What does this have to do with centrism? I believe that alcohol is an irreducible part of human society. I don't care for it myself, but I know that others enjoy it. I think alcohol in moderation is OK. Jesus made wine - it can't be all bad.
Instead, I believe that we should actively and persistently promote, teach, and model moderation in alcohol consumption. This is especially important for adults teaching young adults, such as the hundreds of college students in our charge. I have long favored drinking licenses for 18, 19, and 20 year olds. I think the adults of the community should teach the young how to drink moderately. Drinking is not the menace; drunkenness is.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Is Authoritarianism a Helpful Idea?
This is the last that I will be blogging on a very interesting new study, Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler's Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.
Some readers have objected that "authoritarianism" is simply liberal prejudice against conservatives dressed up in academic language. A reader offered that "it is wrong-headed and morally offensive to 'psychologize' political and ideological differences." It clearly takes several rounds of talking about what Hetherington and Weiler mean by the term to begin to see what they are arguing.
The core of H & W's definition of authoritarians are those who see the world in black-and-white terms, who fear that the social order is being disrupted, and who want a muscular response to restore order. I think that position may be fairly characterized as "authoritarian."
It also makes sense to me that people who are fearful will act the way we all do when afraid. That includes asserting your view of the world as a dangerous place so forcefully that you ignore, don't seek, and don't know inconvenient contrary facts. We don't do our best thinking when we are afraid. I don't think it is right to call fear-driven politics "authoritarian." It does, though, make sense to me that the fearful are more likely to see the world in black and white and want a muscular response.
So, IF people who think social order is in danger from evil forces and want to fight forcefully for good are "authoritarians," then we would expect that ALL people could be authoritarian sometime, but SOME people are authoritarian all the time.
Hetherington and Weiler report that when they surveyed Americans on whether there is a struggle between good and evil in the world, on a seven-point scale 30% took the extreme "yes" position, while only 12% took the extreme "no" position. When they separated the High Authoritarians from the Low Authoritarians, 40% of the former said yes to the max, while 25% of the latter said no to the extreme. Authoritarianism is not the only important factor in American politics, but I think Hetherington and Weiler have clearly demonstrated that it is an important factor.
The main point of their book is this:
“Political elites are polarized on the issues, but ordinary Americans are only better sorted, not polarized.”
Some readers have objected that "authoritarianism" is simply liberal prejudice against conservatives dressed up in academic language. A reader offered that "it is wrong-headed and morally offensive to 'psychologize' political and ideological differences." It clearly takes several rounds of talking about what Hetherington and Weiler mean by the term to begin to see what they are arguing.
The core of H & W's definition of authoritarians are those who see the world in black-and-white terms, who fear that the social order is being disrupted, and who want a muscular response to restore order. I think that position may be fairly characterized as "authoritarian."
It also makes sense to me that people who are fearful will act the way we all do when afraid. That includes asserting your view of the world as a dangerous place so forcefully that you ignore, don't seek, and don't know inconvenient contrary facts. We don't do our best thinking when we are afraid. I don't think it is right to call fear-driven politics "authoritarian." It does, though, make sense to me that the fearful are more likely to see the world in black and white and want a muscular response.
So, IF people who think social order is in danger from evil forces and want to fight forcefully for good are "authoritarians," then we would expect that ALL people could be authoritarian sometime, but SOME people are authoritarian all the time.
Hetherington and Weiler report that when they surveyed Americans on whether there is a struggle between good and evil in the world, on a seven-point scale 30% took the extreme "yes" position, while only 12% took the extreme "no" position. When they separated the High Authoritarians from the Low Authoritarians, 40% of the former said yes to the max, while 25% of the latter said no to the extreme. Authoritarianism is not the only important factor in American politics, but I think Hetherington and Weiler have clearly demonstrated that it is an important factor.
The main point of their book is this:
“Political elites are polarized on the issues, but ordinary Americans are only better sorted, not polarized.”
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Coffeehouse and Pub
This is the fourth and final installment in my Centre Seminar series on Coffeehouses and public life.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Authoritarianism: Some Clarifications
This week I will be blogging on a very interesting new study, Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler's Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.
My last few posts on authoritarianism have drawn interesting comments - some of which show that I have not done a good enough job of making clear what Hetherington and Weiler mean by authoritarian.
When an individual feels threatened, he or she tends to fear and dislike the source of the threat, favor a harsh and muscular response to the threat, search for information that confirms that the threat is real, and shut out disconfirming information. This is a normal, partly physiological reaction that can happen to anyone, and does happen to just about everyone at some times. When a group fears that the social order is threatened by another group, all these same responses come into play, but on a social, even macro scale. And when a group feels that the social order faces continuous threats, they can develop a whole worldview that shows these same responses. Authoritarianism is a worldview developed in response to a feeling that the social order is under continuous threat.
Authoritarianism is not the same as conservatism, libertarianism, or the ideology of the Republican Party. There are many people in each group who do not feel the social order is in danger, who do not advocate harsh and muscular responses, who are well informed and seek to be even better informed. Nor is authoritarianism confined to the right end of the political spectrum, though Hetherington and Weiler find that there are many more right authoritarians than left authoritarians.
I had left the numbers out of the previous posts in the interests of brevity. However, some commentators thought the claim that authoritarians are less politically well informed was simply bias, rather than empirical. To test their theory, Hetherington and Weiler constructed an authoritarianism scale, based on the above definition, which they then compare with responses to factual knowledge questions about politics in several different surveys.
The National Election Survey is the benchmark political survey used by scholars of American elections. In 2004 the NES asked respondents to identify the offices of four men then prominent in political life: Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, William Rehnquist, and Dennis Hastert. The order ranges from most correct to least - 86% of Americans knew that Cheney was Vice President, while only 11% knew Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House. However, there were large gaps in knowledge between the least authoritarian and the most.
Cheney: 99% vs. 70%
Blair: 91 vs 45
Rehnquist: 55 vs 16
Hastert: nonauthoritarians 3 times more right than authoritarians (percent not given)
In 2006 Hetherington and Weiler conducted their own survey of American adults. They asked whether weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, and whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Here they report not the responses of the people at the poles of this scale, as they did above, but the more generous standard of below or above the midpoint of the authoritarianism scale.
WMDs (% wrong): 15 vs. 37
Hussein 9/11 (% wrong): 19 vs. 55
This survey is especially helpful for today's post because they also report Republican responses, showing that GOP and authoritarian are not the same. They do not report Democratic responses. The lower half vs. upper half of the authoritarian scale (Republicans only):
WMDs (% wrong): 33 vs. 62
Hussein 9/11 (% wrong): 36 vs. 68
My last few posts on authoritarianism have drawn interesting comments - some of which show that I have not done a good enough job of making clear what Hetherington and Weiler mean by authoritarian.
When an individual feels threatened, he or she tends to fear and dislike the source of the threat, favor a harsh and muscular response to the threat, search for information that confirms that the threat is real, and shut out disconfirming information. This is a normal, partly physiological reaction that can happen to anyone, and does happen to just about everyone at some times. When a group fears that the social order is threatened by another group, all these same responses come into play, but on a social, even macro scale. And when a group feels that the social order faces continuous threats, they can develop a whole worldview that shows these same responses. Authoritarianism is a worldview developed in response to a feeling that the social order is under continuous threat.
Authoritarianism is not the same as conservatism, libertarianism, or the ideology of the Republican Party. There are many people in each group who do not feel the social order is in danger, who do not advocate harsh and muscular responses, who are well informed and seek to be even better informed. Nor is authoritarianism confined to the right end of the political spectrum, though Hetherington and Weiler find that there are many more right authoritarians than left authoritarians.
I had left the numbers out of the previous posts in the interests of brevity. However, some commentators thought the claim that authoritarians are less politically well informed was simply bias, rather than empirical. To test their theory, Hetherington and Weiler constructed an authoritarianism scale, based on the above definition, which they then compare with responses to factual knowledge questions about politics in several different surveys.
The National Election Survey is the benchmark political survey used by scholars of American elections. In 2004 the NES asked respondents to identify the offices of four men then prominent in political life: Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, William Rehnquist, and Dennis Hastert. The order ranges from most correct to least - 86% of Americans knew that Cheney was Vice President, while only 11% knew Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House. However, there were large gaps in knowledge between the least authoritarian and the most.
Cheney: 99% vs. 70%
Blair: 91 vs 45
Rehnquist: 55 vs 16
Hastert: nonauthoritarians 3 times more right than authoritarians (percent not given)
In 2006 Hetherington and Weiler conducted their own survey of American adults. They asked whether weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, and whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Here they report not the responses of the people at the poles of this scale, as they did above, but the more generous standard of below or above the midpoint of the authoritarianism scale.
WMDs (% wrong): 15 vs. 37
Hussein 9/11 (% wrong): 19 vs. 55
This survey is especially helpful for today's post because they also report Republican responses, showing that GOP and authoritarian are not the same. They do not report Democratic responses. The lower half vs. upper half of the authoritarian scale (Republicans only):
WMDs (% wrong): 33 vs. 62
Hussein 9/11 (% wrong): 36 vs. 68
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Authoritarianism and Nonauthoritarianism
This week I will be blogging on a very interesting new study, Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler's Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.
Everyone needs some sense of order in society. And everyone can feel that the social order is threatened sometimes. What makes authoritarians stand out is that they think the social order is threatened nearly all the time. They then respond the way most people do when threatened:
Hetherington and Weiler also present a portrait of nonauthoritarians, a subject that has been less studied. Nonauthoritarians are likely to:
Everyone needs some sense of order in society. And everyone can feel that the social order is threatened sometimes. What makes authoritarians stand out is that they think the social order is threatened nearly all the time. They then respond the way most people do when threatened:
- Feel threatened by, and dislike, outgroups
- Desire muscular responses to conflict
- Be less politically well informed
- Be less likely to change their ways of thinking when new information might change their deeply held beliefs.
Hetherington and Weiler also present a portrait of nonauthoritarians, a subject that has been less studied. Nonauthoritarians are likely to:
- See "fairness" as outgroup preference, especially for groups that have been historically discriminated against
- Have an "accuracy motivation" that makes them seek out accurate and unbiased information, especially about contested issues
- Have an aversion to ethnocentrism
- Value personal autonomy over group conformity
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Authoritarianism and Parties
This week I will be blogging on a very interesting new study, Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler's Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.
Authoritarians tend to vote Republican these days. But this was not always so. Hetherington and Weiler show that the big partisan gap that we see now, as compared with, say, 40 years ago, is because the Republican strategists have been successful in getting authoritarians to become solid Republicans. They argue that the American electorate is not more authoritarian than it used to be. It is just better sorted into parties now that it was before.
The beginning of this big sort came in the wake of the civil rights legislation, which was led by Democrats but passed by bipartisan majorities. Republicans' suffered a crushing defeat in the Goldwater - Johnson election in 1964. At the same time the Democrats succeeded in shifting black voters to the Democratic Party. Republican leaders then adopted the "Southern strategy" to "go hunting where the ducks are" - that is, to get Southern whites who thought civil rights and integration would upend the social order, to switch to the Republican Party. This strategy worked so well that the GOP successfully recruited other groups who feared that the social order was in danger from the movement for equal rights for women, and today's movement for equal rights for homosexuals.
There are, of course, authoritarians and nonauthoritarians in both parties. But there has been a clear movement of most authoritarians into the Republican Party, which has been a key part of GOP success since 1980.
Authoritarians tend to vote Republican these days. But this was not always so. Hetherington and Weiler show that the big partisan gap that we see now, as compared with, say, 40 years ago, is because the Republican strategists have been successful in getting authoritarians to become solid Republicans. They argue that the American electorate is not more authoritarian than it used to be. It is just better sorted into parties now that it was before.
The beginning of this big sort came in the wake of the civil rights legislation, which was led by Democrats but passed by bipartisan majorities. Republicans' suffered a crushing defeat in the Goldwater - Johnson election in 1964. At the same time the Democrats succeeded in shifting black voters to the Democratic Party. Republican leaders then adopted the "Southern strategy" to "go hunting where the ducks are" - that is, to get Southern whites who thought civil rights and integration would upend the social order, to switch to the Republican Party. This strategy worked so well that the GOP successfully recruited other groups who feared that the social order was in danger from the movement for equal rights for women, and today's movement for equal rights for homosexuals.
There are, of course, authoritarians and nonauthoritarians in both parties. But there has been a clear movement of most authoritarians into the Republican Party, which has been a key part of GOP success since 1980.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Authoritarianism: The Spectrum
This week I will be blogging on a very interesting new study, Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler's Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.
Hetherington and Weiler say that the underlying factor organizing American politics for the past generation has been a spectrum running from authoritarian to the somewhat colorless "nonauthoritarian." Authoritarians want order. They see the world in black-and-white terms, and want a muscular response to any threats to the social order.
Everyone sees the social order threatened some times. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 triggered a nearly universal sense in the United States that we were under attack and in real danger. People at the authoritarian pole see our social order as being under dangerous attack all the time. People at the nonauthoritarian pole, by contrast, see the world in more nuanced terms, and try to solve problems with negotiation instead of force whenever possible. They are more accepting of difference because they don't see it as threatening.
Partisan politics forces people toward the poles by forcing choices between one candidate, or party, and another. Political elites are more polarized that regular people are. The strategy of political elites is to push and pull the mass in the middle toward one pole or the other.
Social scientists have put much effort into studying authoritarians. An interesting innovation in Hetherington and Weiler's approach is that they focus on the nonauthoritarians. The authoritarians, they argue, are fearful all the time, no matter what happens in reality. What makes for change in politics comes when the middle mass of the spectrum is made more fearful, or more hopeful.
This analysis strikes me as very useful to centrist analysis. I will unfold their argument hereafter.
Hetherington and Weiler say that the underlying factor organizing American politics for the past generation has been a spectrum running from authoritarian to the somewhat colorless "nonauthoritarian." Authoritarians want order. They see the world in black-and-white terms, and want a muscular response to any threats to the social order.
Everyone sees the social order threatened some times. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 triggered a nearly universal sense in the United States that we were under attack and in real danger. People at the authoritarian pole see our social order as being under dangerous attack all the time. People at the nonauthoritarian pole, by contrast, see the world in more nuanced terms, and try to solve problems with negotiation instead of force whenever possible. They are more accepting of difference because they don't see it as threatening.
Partisan politics forces people toward the poles by forcing choices between one candidate, or party, and another. Political elites are more polarized that regular people are. The strategy of political elites is to push and pull the mass in the middle toward one pole or the other.
Social scientists have put much effort into studying authoritarians. An interesting innovation in Hetherington and Weiler's approach is that they focus on the nonauthoritarians. The authoritarians, they argue, are fearful all the time, no matter what happens in reality. What makes for change in politics comes when the middle mass of the spectrum is made more fearful, or more hopeful.
This analysis strikes me as very useful to centrist analysis. I will unfold their argument hereafter.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Beyond Rebuilding: Conclusion
For the last five Sundays I have been responding to the individual essays in Beyond Rebuilding: Shaping a Life Together. Today I want to say a brief overall assessment of this debate.
The core issue is whether the church should seek to build up the authority of its national leaders to lead the whole denomination, or whether it should break down any power accumulating in its national leaders to tell anyone what to do.
I say you can't have authority without power. When Jesus was praised as one who taught with authority, that was not just a personal compliment. His authority was the reason that he should be listened to and followed. When Jesus gave the keys to Peter, he was confirming that Peter had the authority to use the power that is necessary to run the church. The church serves the powerless, but it does not serve them by being powerless.
Every organization needs power to run. The more that power comes from the authority of its leaders, the better. Authority comes from other people recognizing and following. No recognition of authority, no following of leaders, no church.
The best organizations coordinate the authority of individual leaders into a group that works together, following a coherent vision, for the good of the whole organization. They seek to reproduce that coherent group of leaders for the good of the organization in the future. That is an Establishment.
I think it is clear that the church should seek an Establishment. Whether it will find one even then is still unknown. But I think it is clear that if we do not even seek an Establishment, if instead we undermine any possible Establishment, then we will have a weak church that continues to decline.
The core issue is whether the church should seek to build up the authority of its national leaders to lead the whole denomination, or whether it should break down any power accumulating in its national leaders to tell anyone what to do.
I say you can't have authority without power. When Jesus was praised as one who taught with authority, that was not just a personal compliment. His authority was the reason that he should be listened to and followed. When Jesus gave the keys to Peter, he was confirming that Peter had the authority to use the power that is necessary to run the church. The church serves the powerless, but it does not serve them by being powerless.
Every organization needs power to run. The more that power comes from the authority of its leaders, the better. Authority comes from other people recognizing and following. No recognition of authority, no following of leaders, no church.
The best organizations coordinate the authority of individual leaders into a group that works together, following a coherent vision, for the good of the whole organization. They seek to reproduce that coherent group of leaders for the good of the organization in the future. That is an Establishment.
I think it is clear that the church should seek an Establishment. Whether it will find one even then is still unknown. But I think it is clear that if we do not even seek an Establishment, if instead we undermine any possible Establishment, then we will have a weak church that continues to decline.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Coffeehouses and the Public Sphere
The third (and penultimate) of my Centre Seminar vlog posts on coffeehouses is up.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Preventing Divorce in the Two Kansas Cities: A Great Natural Experiment
Kansas City, MO has the high divorce rate we find in most of the country. Kansas City, KS, has cut its divorce rate by 70% in a decade.
Led by Rev. Jeff Meyers, a white pastor from suburban Christ Lutheran Church, and Rev. Leroy Sullivan, a black pastor of the inner-city Bread of Life Church, Kansas City, KS adopted a Community Marriage Policy in 1996. The ministers in town agreed not to perform any marriages until the couple had worked through a pre-marital inventory and worked with mentor couples.
I have long supported Community Marriage Policies. This is the best side-by-side comparison I know of showing how well it can work.
Led by Rev. Jeff Meyers, a white pastor from suburban Christ Lutheran Church, and Rev. Leroy Sullivan, a black pastor of the inner-city Bread of Life Church, Kansas City, KS adopted a Community Marriage Policy in 1996. The ministers in town agreed not to perform any marriages until the couple had worked through a pre-marital inventory and worked with mentor couples.
I have long supported Community Marriage Policies. This is the best side-by-side comparison I know of showing how well it can work.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Average Income and Happiness
Yesterday I noted Daniel Kahneman's contention that Americans report their happiness rises with their income up to a point, but after that point, there is no correlation with happiness. The point he named was $60,000 in household income per year. I noted that this is about the midpoint of the income distribution in the U.S.A. now.
An anonymous respondent pointed out that more money has meant more contentment for her family, and where you live makes a big difference in whether $60,000 buys basic contentment or not. She offered that in her California neighborhood, $60,000 would not go very far. She reports that now that they make $200,000 they are more content than they were when they made half that.
This criticism is just. To apply Kahneman's insight about the nation as a whole to any particular place we would need to adjust the number to local conditions. The median household income in California as a whole is about $60,000. However, of the 100 communities with the highest median household income in the United States, 19 are in California (far higher than California's proportion of the national population). The top of the list: Atherton, CA, with a median household income just over $200,000.
To turn Kahneman's finding into a general proposition, I propose this hypothesis: happiness correlates with income up to the median household income of your community.
An anonymous respondent pointed out that more money has meant more contentment for her family, and where you live makes a big difference in whether $60,000 buys basic contentment or not. She offered that in her California neighborhood, $60,000 would not go very far. She reports that now that they make $200,000 they are more content than they were when they made half that.
This criticism is just. To apply Kahneman's insight about the nation as a whole to any particular place we would need to adjust the number to local conditions. The median household income in California as a whole is about $60,000. However, of the 100 communities with the highest median household income in the United States, 19 are in California (far higher than California's proportion of the national population). The top of the list: Atherton, CA, with a median household income just over $200,000.
To turn Kahneman's finding into a general proposition, I propose this hypothesis: happiness correlates with income up to the median household income of your community.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Happiness Flatlines Halfway Up the Income Ladder
Boing Boing reports this gem from the TED conference [TED used to mean Technology, Entertainment, Design; now it means Ideas Worth Spreading in many fields]:
$60,000 is about the midpoint of the income scale for American families - 50% makes less than that, 50% make more. This is a reachable income standard for nearly all two-income couples, and for the great majority of college graduates by themselves (and much more with a second income in the family).
Once your basic survival needs are met, even in an expensive country, happiness mostly depends on who you spend time with and how well you interact.
Psychologist and Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman says millions of dollars won't buy you happiness, but a job that pays $60,000 a year might help. Happiness levels increase up to the $60K mark, but "above that it's a flat line," he said.
$60,000 is about the midpoint of the income scale for American families - 50% makes less than that, 50% make more. This is a reachable income standard for nearly all two-income couples, and for the great majority of college graduates by themselves (and much more with a second income in the family).
Once your basic survival needs are met, even in an expensive country, happiness mostly depends on who you spend time with and how well you interact.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Geek Barbie
Barbie is now a computer engineer. She has a binary code tee shirt. And heels.
I think this is progress.
I think this is progress.
Monday, February 15, 2010
A Fifth of Singles Have Tried Internet Dating
A new study from Duke sociologists Rebecca Tippett, S. Philip Morgan, and Jessica Sauter have found that 18% of single people with access to the internet have tried online dating. The people who use online dating are most likely to be educated white people in cities or their suburbs.
In my survey of Centre College alumni I find that 5.8% of the married alumni met their spouses online. I did not ask how many of the still-single had also tried online data, but I expect the Centre results match those in the Duke study.
In my survey of Centre College alumni I find that 5.8% of the married alumni met their spouses online. I did not ask how many of the still-single had also tried online data, but I expect the Centre results match those in the Duke study.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Beyond Rebuilding 5
John L. Williams contributed the last essay in Beyond Rebuilding, a volume of essays in response to my Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment. He entitles his response "Thought Provoking, But Insufficient." He agrees with much of what I say, but differs on a couple of points. I feel the same way about Rev. Williams' analysis.
Rev. Williams notes that my critique and proposal is mostly about rebuilding the polity of the church, and does not deal sufficiently with the church's culture and theology. This is largely true. The one crucial area of culture that I deal with is our culture of undermining authority within the church. That is specifically what I am trying to change. Williams rightly notes that the whole world has changed when it comes to authority since the 1960s. This is true. But it is also true that the organizations that have grown and prospered since then have rebuilt their authoritative leadership on a more inclusive basis. The organizations that only dismantled the old structures of authority, without building a new culture of authority, are floundering.
On theology, I think my experience of how the church works is different from Rev. Williams'. I contend that the church's official confession is meant to be the authoritative working summary of the church's theology. As I look at how the church actually employs its many confessions these days, I don't see that. The confessions are quoted when convenient, and ignored otherwise. All the struggles in the church that have consequences are over the rules of order, not the confessions. I do not believe this attitude toward the confessions are simply "a few well-publicized cases" of defiance, but a widespread view that the confessions are for individual guidance, but have no institutional authority.
Rev. Williams, a former synod executive, rightly says that I "would have considered me [Williams] part of the PC (USA)'s Establishment." Not just would have, but do now. Rev. Williams is still part of the Presbyterian Establishment, and has both the experience and, I think, the duty, to lead. Thus, when he writes
Rev. Williams notes that my critique and proposal is mostly about rebuilding the polity of the church, and does not deal sufficiently with the church's culture and theology. This is largely true. The one crucial area of culture that I deal with is our culture of undermining authority within the church. That is specifically what I am trying to change. Williams rightly notes that the whole world has changed when it comes to authority since the 1960s. This is true. But it is also true that the organizations that have grown and prospered since then have rebuilt their authoritative leadership on a more inclusive basis. The organizations that only dismantled the old structures of authority, without building a new culture of authority, are floundering.
On theology, I think my experience of how the church works is different from Rev. Williams'. I contend that the church's official confession is meant to be the authoritative working summary of the church's theology. As I look at how the church actually employs its many confessions these days, I don't see that. The confessions are quoted when convenient, and ignored otherwise. All the struggles in the church that have consequences are over the rules of order, not the confessions. I do not believe this attitude toward the confessions are simply "a few well-publicized cases" of defiance, but a widespread view that the confessions are for individual guidance, but have no institutional authority.
Rev. Williams, a former synod executive, rightly says that I "would have considered me [Williams] part of the PC (USA)'s Establishment." Not just would have, but do now. Rev. Williams is still part of the Presbyterian Establishment, and has both the experience and, I think, the duty, to lead. Thus, when he writes
What then will propel us forward? I believe it will require a yet-to-be-defined combination of theological restatement for our time, deep contextual analysis, clarity of purpose, shared vision, courageous leadership, and attention to congregational worship, nurture, and spiritual formation, remembering always that Jesus Christ is Lord of all and head of the church.I say yes, DO IT. Leaders lead. Members of the Establishment earn their authority by making that restatement, doing that analysis, courageously leading - not by pushing it off on others.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Czech, Please
The background one needs for this joke is:
1) Mrs. G's first name is Susan; and
2) The Gruntleds still haven't forgiven Neville Chamberlain for selling out Czechoslovakia.
I sent this message to our eldest daughter:
"I am going to take Mom to the Czech Republic. They have the best Sue datin' land."
I cc'ed Mrs. G., and waited for her to open email. I knew she had opened this message when a belly laugh emanated from her corner of the bedroom.
She forwarded the message to her relatives.
Daughter #1 replied: "Feel the inter-state GROAN. Don't just hear it, FEEL it."
My father-in-law replied: "Very possibly the worst pun I have ever heard or read (or smelled)."
1) Mrs. G's first name is Susan; and
2) The Gruntleds still haven't forgiven Neville Chamberlain for selling out Czechoslovakia.
I sent this message to our eldest daughter:
"I am going to take Mom to the Czech Republic. They have the best Sue datin' land."
I cc'ed Mrs. G., and waited for her to open email. I knew she had opened this message when a belly laugh emanated from her corner of the bedroom.
She forwarded the message to her relatives.
Daughter #1 replied: "Feel the inter-state GROAN. Don't just hear it, FEEL it."
My father-in-law replied: "Very possibly the worst pun I have ever heard or read (or smelled)."
Friday, February 12, 2010
Older Fathers Increase the Risk of Autistic Kids
A new large-scale study in California found that father's age, more than mother's age, increases the risk of having an autistic child. The core finding:
The new study suggested that when the father was over 40 and the mother under 30, the increased risk was especially pronounced — 59 percent greater than for younger men.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Why Men Are More Likely to Do the Driving
Eric Morris wrote a Freakonomics blogpost about why men are more likely to drive when a couple travels together. It drew such a disparate and impassioned response that he wrote another. The core finding is this:
This an issue in our family. There are three female drivers in the Gruntled family now, and they all almost always prefer that I drive. I always ask Mrs. G. (we were trained as '70s feminists in gender power, after all) and she almost always asks me to drive.
I can think of two reasons for the gender imbalance in who drives, both well rooted in sex differences.
First, men as a group find spatial problems easier to solve. So if we are taking a trip that might include parallel parking, the ladies in our family would rather that I handled it. This varies quite a bit from individual to individual, so your mileage may vary. Still, the sex difference in handling spacial issues is well-attested, so it should show up as a tipping factor in some driving decisions.
Second, women like to look at their conversation partner when talking, whereas men often do not. If she is driving and talking to him, she may often turn to look at him to see his reactions. Taking her eye off the road while driving is scary to both of them. On the other hand, if he is driving and talking to her, she can look at his face without danger, while he will be much less tempted to swivel to look at her at each turn in the dialogue.
The 2001 National Household Transportation Survey ... showed that, on a typical day, when household members shared a car men were more than three times more likely to be the driver as opposed to a passenger.
This an issue in our family. There are three female drivers in the Gruntled family now, and they all almost always prefer that I drive. I always ask Mrs. G. (we were trained as '70s feminists in gender power, after all) and she almost always asks me to drive.
I can think of two reasons for the gender imbalance in who drives, both well rooted in sex differences.
First, men as a group find spatial problems easier to solve. So if we are taking a trip that might include parallel parking, the ladies in our family would rather that I handled it. This varies quite a bit from individual to individual, so your mileage may vary. Still, the sex difference in handling spacial issues is well-attested, so it should show up as a tipping factor in some driving decisions.
Second, women like to look at their conversation partner when talking, whereas men often do not. If she is driving and talking to him, she may often turn to look at him to see his reactions. Taking her eye off the road while driving is scary to both of them. On the other hand, if he is driving and talking to her, she can look at his face without danger, while he will be much less tempted to swivel to look at her at each turn in the dialogue.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Centre Seminars: Coffee Houses, Part 1 and 2
Centre College has launched a web seminar series. This gives me another chance to talk about coffee houses and public life. The first two episodes have been posted on YouTube. I am pleased to share them.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
The Tebow Ad Was Charming
The Super Bowl ad that succeeded in getting the most publicity was the Focus on the Family spot with college football star Tim Tebow and his mother. Pam Tebow was a missionary in the Philippines when she was pregnant with the Tebow's fifth child. She was so ill from a tropical disease and the treatment for it that doctors told her to have an abortion. Pam and her husband rejected that option. After a difficult pregnancy, they had their "miracle baby," who has gone on to obviously glowing health. At the end of the ad, Tim Tebow humorously tackles his mother, which lets her say, smiling, "you gotta be tough."
I can't find a direct link to the ad, but if you go to the Focus on the Family site and click on "The Tebow Story," a link to "Watch the Tebow spots" will appear immediately.
The actual ad that they made is charming. It is very low key. It says nothing about abortion, or even the medical difficulty that Pam Tebow and her family went through.
The controversy, though seems to have brought out the irrational in some people. Before the ad aired, tens of thousands of emails were solicited objecting to it, by people who had not seen it. Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, went so far as to say that "I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it." Alterian SM2, a company that tracks social media content about Super Bowl ads, said that before the ad aired, negative comments far outweighed positive. After people had actually seen the ad, though, most people liked it.
I can't find a direct link to the ad, but if you go to the Focus on the Family site and click on "The Tebow Story," a link to "Watch the Tebow spots" will appear immediately.
The actual ad that they made is charming. It is very low key. It says nothing about abortion, or even the medical difficulty that Pam Tebow and her family went through.
The controversy, though seems to have brought out the irrational in some people. Before the ad aired, tens of thousands of emails were solicited objecting to it, by people who had not seen it. Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, went so far as to say that "I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it." Alterian SM2, a company that tracks social media content about Super Bowl ads, said that before the ad aired, negative comments far outweighed positive. After people had actually seen the ad, though, most people liked it.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Responsible Fathers in Super Bowl Ads
The ads in the Super Bowl had a strong discourse about masculinity for married fathers. Some, such as the Dodge Charger ad, saw marriage and fatherhood as an imposition - worthwhile, but making a man deserving of masculine compensation in the form of a muscle car.
Others, though, took a more positive view of marriage and fatherhood, more as a challenging adventure. The Google ad, "Parisian Love," did this cleverly, through a series of queries that implied the life course of a man from pre-courtship to wedding and child.
My favorite ad was for Dove. The galloping romp through a man's life from boyhood to responsible, happy marriage and fatherhood is charming. I was particularly interested to note that they suggest having three kids, rather than the customary two of earlier ads. And the conclusion is that married fatherhood is not an imposition, but a great life.
I personally am not interested in the product, but I like this development in the Zeitgeist.
Others, though, took a more positive view of marriage and fatherhood, more as a challenging adventure. The Google ad, "Parisian Love," did this cleverly, through a series of queries that implied the life course of a man from pre-courtship to wedding and child.
My favorite ad was for Dove. The galloping romp through a man's life from boyhood to responsible, happy marriage and fatherhood is charming. I was particularly interested to note that they suggest having three kids, rather than the customary two of earlier ads. And the conclusion is that married fatherhood is not an imposition, but a great life.
I personally am not interested in the product, but I like this development in the Zeitgeist.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Beyond Rebuilding 4
Reply to "Overcoming the Presbyterian Power Trap: Toward an Authentic Multicultural Witness in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)" by J. Herbert Nelson II.
This is the fourth in a series of responses to the five articles in Beyond Rebuilding, which were written in answer to my Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment.
Like Rev. Nelson I want the leadership of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to be made of men and women drawn from all the classes, ethnicities, and cultural groups of America. I have every confidence that if the church seeks leaders who are faithful, loyal, and thoughtful Presbyterians, such a mixture will naturally emerge. We may differ on whether that is happening fast enough, and on whether the season of affirmative action is still needed, or whether the need has passed.
On a larger question, though, I think Rev. Nelson and I may disagree. Neither of us wrote specifically enough in our short essays to settle the point, so I don't want to be too definitive here. I would welcome further dialogue on these points.
I agree with Rev. Nelson that the leadership of the church should have a multicultural background. I do not agree that what the church should be seeking is a multicultural future. The church, like any viable institution, has and constantly recreates its own culture. The culture of the Presbyterian Church should be Presbyterian. This has a definite meaning for our polity, as the name presbyterian suggests. It also has a strong foundation, and is supposed to have clear limits, in our confessional constitution. The Presbyterian Establishment should be able to bring in people from all backgrounds and shape them into Presbyterians.
The content of Presbyterian culture is not rigid or fixed, as the church's changed culture about women in leadership and racial exclusion shows. Leading the discussion about whether and how to change while still being true to the theological convictions of the church is what an establishment is for. But I contend that the aim of a Presbyterian establishment is not to produce a multicultural witness, but to be a group with a multicultural background that gives a Presbyterian witness.
This is the fourth in a series of responses to the five articles in Beyond Rebuilding, which were written in answer to my Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment.
Like Rev. Nelson I want the leadership of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to be made of men and women drawn from all the classes, ethnicities, and cultural groups of America. I have every confidence that if the church seeks leaders who are faithful, loyal, and thoughtful Presbyterians, such a mixture will naturally emerge. We may differ on whether that is happening fast enough, and on whether the season of affirmative action is still needed, or whether the need has passed.
On a larger question, though, I think Rev. Nelson and I may disagree. Neither of us wrote specifically enough in our short essays to settle the point, so I don't want to be too definitive here. I would welcome further dialogue on these points.
I agree with Rev. Nelson that the leadership of the church should have a multicultural background. I do not agree that what the church should be seeking is a multicultural future. The church, like any viable institution, has and constantly recreates its own culture. The culture of the Presbyterian Church should be Presbyterian. This has a definite meaning for our polity, as the name presbyterian suggests. It also has a strong foundation, and is supposed to have clear limits, in our confessional constitution. The Presbyterian Establishment should be able to bring in people from all backgrounds and shape them into Presbyterians.
The content of Presbyterian culture is not rigid or fixed, as the church's changed culture about women in leadership and racial exclusion shows. Leading the discussion about whether and how to change while still being true to the theological convictions of the church is what an establishment is for. But I contend that the aim of a Presbyterian establishment is not to produce a multicultural witness, but to be a group with a multicultural background that gives a Presbyterian witness.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Doppleganger
It was doppleganger week on Facebook recently. I remarked that I couldn't think of a famous person I looked like. This prompted some helpful suggestions.
Several suggested actor Victor French, best known as Mr. Edwards on "Little House on the Prairie."
Ulysses S. Grant got a vote, representing the greatest age of beards in U.S. history.
A sociologically informed friend suggested a young Max Weber (though I think I have a shaky claim on looking like the "young" anything).
One friend made the wonderful suggestion of "santa, pre-realization of true calling."
Finally, we come to Mrs. G.'s suggestion:
Several suggested actor Victor French, best known as Mr. Edwards on "Little House on the Prairie."
Ulysses S. Grant got a vote, representing the greatest age of beards in U.S. history.
A sociologically informed friend suggested a young Max Weber (though I think I have a shaky claim on looking like the "young" anything).
One friend made the wonderful suggestion of "santa, pre-realization of true calling."
Finally, we come to Mrs. G.'s suggestion:
Friday, February 05, 2010
What Do Republicans Believe About Sex Roles?
The Daily Kos commissioned a poll by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans.
On the whole, these are quite conservative people. Take, for example, these answers:
Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? No 77%
Do you consider abortion to be murder? Yes 76%
Should contraceptive use be outlawed? Yes 31%
Do you you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is through Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith? Christ 67%
So it was particularly interesting to me to see the answers to these questions about men's and women's roles. The questions were
Should women work outside the home?
Are marriages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households?
What do you think this group of Republicans will say?
Should women work outside the home? Yes 86%
Are marriages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households? Equal 76%
I believe these core objectives of seventies feminism have been achieved.
On the whole, these are quite conservative people. Take, for example, these answers:
Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? No 77%
Do you consider abortion to be murder? Yes 76%
Should contraceptive use be outlawed? Yes 31%
Do you you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is through Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith? Christ 67%
So it was particularly interesting to me to see the answers to these questions about men's and women's roles. The questions were
Should women work outside the home?
Are marriages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households?
What do you think this group of Republicans will say?
Should women work outside the home? Yes 86%
Are marriages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households? Equal 76%
I believe these core objectives of seventies feminism have been achieved.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
The Internet vs. the Second Shift
Virginia Heffernan makes a semi-serious claim in the New York Times Magazine that women have benefited more than men from telecommuting. She says that the WAHM - work-at-home mom - is the most valuable of all the motherhood and (or vs.) career options. She even offers telecommuting as a cure for the second shift. The internet is the real technological development that saved women from being tied to the home, because it lets them work from it.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
"Marriage Benefit Imbalance" - Beating a Horse that Refuses to Die
Elizabeth Gilbert wrote a successful book justifying her divorce, Eat, Pray, Love. Having written about how terrible marriage is for women, she had to write a new book, Committed, to justify her second marriage. Family scholars have been worked up about this book because Gilbert claims that sociologists take as a fact “the ‘Marriage Benefit Imbalance’—a tidy name for an almost freakishly doleful conclusion: that women generally lose in the exchange of marriage vows, while men win big.”
Not true. Family sociologists now show the many ways that marriage benefits women as well as men. Gilbert reaches back to some of the most discredited findings in family sociology to support her conclusion. She cites Jesse Bernard's claim that marriage makes women depressed in the book Bernard wrote to justify her divorce.
What is most striking to me about Gilbert's ambition in her new book is that she misses the main point of marriage as a social institution: to protect and raise children.
Not true. Family sociologists now show the many ways that marriage benefits women as well as men. Gilbert reaches back to some of the most discredited findings in family sociology to support her conclusion. She cites Jesse Bernard's claim that marriage makes women depressed in the book Bernard wrote to justify her divorce.
What is most striking to me about Gilbert's ambition in her new book is that she misses the main point of marriage as a social institution: to protect and raise children.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
90% Egg Loss By 30
A new British study found that, on average, women had lost about 90% of their egg-producing capacity by 30, and had lost about 97% by age 40.
This is in addition to earlier findings that the remaining eggs are more likely to be damaged the older they are.
This is in addition to earlier findings that the remaining eggs are more likely to be damaged the older they are.
Monday, February 01, 2010
A Decent Case for Orphanages
Richard McKenzie makes a pretty good case for orphanages in the Wall Street Journal. He does, though, mix together the dire need in Africa, where there are many actual orphans, with the case of American foster children, few of whom have actually lost both parents.
There are half a million children in foster care in the U.S. I think some tens of thousands of them could be better served by a permanent home in an orphanage than in a series of temporary foster placements.
There are half a million children in foster care in the U.S. I think some tens of thousands of them could be better served by a permanent home in an orphanage than in a series of temporary foster placements.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Beyond Rebuilding 3
Reply to "Rebuilding - Or Building Up? An Alternative View of the Church and Its Future" by Cynthia Holder Rich.
This is the third in a series of responses to the five articles in Beyond Rebuilding, which were written in answer to my Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment.
Prof. Rich approaches my argument through empirical research on assessment, which I appreciate. She considers E. Digby Baltzell's account of how an establishment assimilates talented outsiders as the just way to build up and renew the leadership of society, which is foundational to my analysis. (She puts a [sic] after "assimilation" for reasons not clear to me - if you read this Prof. Rich I would welcome a clarification). She cites the evangelization of Madagascar as an example of the bad things that can happen for a church that seeks to include only the powerful. I applaud and agree with all of these elements of Prof. Rich's argument.
I think she errs, though, in thinking that I am arguing that the leadership of the Presbyterian Church should include only the powerful. She writes "But being in power (or to use Weston's term, authority) ... raises issues when we try to follow Jesus." Power is not the same as authority.
The leadership of the Presbyterian Church has so little power to make anyone do anything that the idea is chucklesome. But we do recognize that some people have natural gifts for leadership because they understand what would build up the church and the world, they have the energy and dedication to turn that understanding into reality, and they teach with authority. That is why we follow them. That is why in a well-functioning organization, we draw them into positions with bigger responsibilities, broader scope, and larger numbers of people they are responsible for leading. In order to compensate for the demands of these bigger jobs, we pay them somewhat more, we give them what little power there is in a voluntary organization, and, most especially, we pay them with honor.
One of the ways that Presbyterian Church leaders do the work of building up the church is by drawing people to their congregations. That is a by-product of their authority. They have no power to make anyone come to church. A well-functioning denomination would honor and reward leaders capable of building up little congregations into big ones. And big congregations would be smart to call people who had shown a capacity to lead large, complex congregations. A well-functioning denomination would draw upon the skills of those who lead large congregations to be among the leaders of the even larger and more complex bodies of the church. The leaders of large congregations would not, of course, be the only leaders of the denomination, but they do form a natural body of the people most likely to have the relevant skills.
Prof. Rich cites studies of successful racial-ethnic congregations as producing leaders different from those found in the establishment of 50 years ago. My point, and Baltzell's, is that a smart denomination would include the leaders of the most successful of those congregations in the establishment of the entire denomination. It does the denomination no good, and it certainly does those successful leaders no good, to dismantle the establishment.
Prof. Rich rightly notes that authority is a snare to pride. She claims to "speak 'as one without authority.'" Yet she backs her claims with her experience as a seminary professor and her mastery of relevant research. That is a claim of authority. She has a vision for the church. Asking others to follow that vision is also a claim of authority. Authority is not an oppressive thing. Authority is a tool that any institution needs if it is going to do its job. And any large organization - a denomination of millions of people - needs an established body of authoritative leaders working together if it is going to do its job. A Presbyterian Establishment includes all the authoritative leaders who are good at doing the job of the Presbyterian Church.
This is the third in a series of responses to the five articles in Beyond Rebuilding, which were written in answer to my Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment.
Prof. Rich approaches my argument through empirical research on assessment, which I appreciate. She considers E. Digby Baltzell's account of how an establishment assimilates talented outsiders as the just way to build up and renew the leadership of society, which is foundational to my analysis. (She puts a [sic] after "assimilation" for reasons not clear to me - if you read this Prof. Rich I would welcome a clarification). She cites the evangelization of Madagascar as an example of the bad things that can happen for a church that seeks to include only the powerful. I applaud and agree with all of these elements of Prof. Rich's argument.
I think she errs, though, in thinking that I am arguing that the leadership of the Presbyterian Church should include only the powerful. She writes "But being in power (or to use Weston's term, authority) ... raises issues when we try to follow Jesus." Power is not the same as authority.
The leadership of the Presbyterian Church has so little power to make anyone do anything that the idea is chucklesome. But we do recognize that some people have natural gifts for leadership because they understand what would build up the church and the world, they have the energy and dedication to turn that understanding into reality, and they teach with authority. That is why we follow them. That is why in a well-functioning organization, we draw them into positions with bigger responsibilities, broader scope, and larger numbers of people they are responsible for leading. In order to compensate for the demands of these bigger jobs, we pay them somewhat more, we give them what little power there is in a voluntary organization, and, most especially, we pay them with honor.
One of the ways that Presbyterian Church leaders do the work of building up the church is by drawing people to their congregations. That is a by-product of their authority. They have no power to make anyone come to church. A well-functioning denomination would honor and reward leaders capable of building up little congregations into big ones. And big congregations would be smart to call people who had shown a capacity to lead large, complex congregations. A well-functioning denomination would draw upon the skills of those who lead large congregations to be among the leaders of the even larger and more complex bodies of the church. The leaders of large congregations would not, of course, be the only leaders of the denomination, but they do form a natural body of the people most likely to have the relevant skills.
Prof. Rich cites studies of successful racial-ethnic congregations as producing leaders different from those found in the establishment of 50 years ago. My point, and Baltzell's, is that a smart denomination would include the leaders of the most successful of those congregations in the establishment of the entire denomination. It does the denomination no good, and it certainly does those successful leaders no good, to dismantle the establishment.
Prof. Rich rightly notes that authority is a snare to pride. She claims to "speak 'as one without authority.'" Yet she backs her claims with her experience as a seminary professor and her mastery of relevant research. That is a claim of authority. She has a vision for the church. Asking others to follow that vision is also a claim of authority. Authority is not an oppressive thing. Authority is a tool that any institution needs if it is going to do its job. And any large organization - a denomination of millions of people - needs an established body of authoritative leaders working together if it is going to do its job. A Presbyterian Establishment includes all the authoritative leaders who are good at doing the job of the Presbyterian Church.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Puddle
Snowy Saturdays need a bit of wholesome charm. This comes from one of my favorite gruntled sites, It Made My Day:
All the Mom’s were forcing their kids around the big puddle in front of the playground. One mom led her son right into the middle and they both started jumping up and down and splashing each other. IMMD
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tories Are Right: Marriage is What Makes for Stability
The British Conservative Party has proposed pro-marriage tax breaks, like those used in other European countries. The Labour Party says it is not marriage that makes for family stability, so no such breaks are needed.
New research on British families, though, shows clearly that marriage itself is the key factor in family stability. One new headline number: of cohabiting couples with children, only 3% are still together when the child is 15.
New research on British families, though, shows clearly that marriage itself is the key factor in family stability. One new headline number: of cohabiting couples with children, only 3% are still together when the child is 15.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Educated and Uneducated Women Want the Same Number of Children, But Uneducated Have More Unintended Kids
Less educated women have more kids than more educated women do. A standard explanation is that less educated women want more kids, or that they would have a lower cost in lost opportunities to do other things if they did have kids.
Kelly Musick and colleagues report in the current Social Forces that both groups of women want the same number of children. However, educated women are better at sticking to their plans. The less education a woman has, the more likely she is to have unintended pregnancies.
The sociologists distinguish among intended, mistimed, and unwanted pregnancies. Mistimed means "I wanted to get pregnant in the future, but not when I did get pregnant"; unwanted means "I did not want to get pregnant at all, but I did." Both of the latter are "unintended."
The core finding is this:
Kelly Musick and colleagues report in the current Social Forces that both groups of women want the same number of children. However, educated women are better at sticking to their plans. The less education a woman has, the more likely she is to have unintended pregnancies.
The sociologists distinguish among intended, mistimed, and unwanted pregnancies. Mistimed means "I wanted to get pregnant in the future, but not when I did get pregnant"; unwanted means "I did not want to get pregnant at all, but I did." Both of the latter are "unintended."
The core finding is this:
What education mainly deters is unintended births. ... The least educated white women are predicted to have .86 times as many intended, 3.02 times as many mistimed, and 6.68 times as many unwanted births as their counterparts who have graduated from college. [The comparable numbers for black women are 1.36, 1.69, and 7.33]
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Dating By Contrasting DNA
A new dating service uses your DNA to find potential mates with contrasting immune systems. People with contrasting immune systems find themselves mysteriously attracted to one another.
The contrast is useful for your potential children.
The obvious next test: to see if contrasting immune system matches and eHarmony, etc., personality matches coincide.
The contrast is useful for your potential children.
The obvious next test: to see if contrasting immune system matches and eHarmony, etc., personality matches coincide.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Leaders Choose Themselves
I have written about how leaders for the Presbyterian Church can form an establishment, which can be a great resource for the whole denomination. This has led some critics to say that when nominating committees choose leaders, they should not choose powerful people, but a representative group. Which led me to clarify a thought: leaders are not chosen; leaders choose themselves.
Max Weber devotes much fruitful thought to how a charismatic leader draws a following. The followers see a special quality in the leader. Weber says science cannot tell whether the special quality is really in the person, or is in the followers. In either case, leaders are not chosen because they are already powerful, influential, or authoritative. Leaders acquire power, influence, and authority because others follow them.
The crucial issue, then, is what potential leaders actually do that makes them worthy of following - or not. Leaders lead. If others follow, then that is what makes them leaders. If no one follows, then in the great market of authority, they failed to find their market.
Which leads to a further thought. The idea that leaders are chosen because they have been good members of the group - that they are leaders because a nominating committee elevated them for past service to the group - strikes me as a feminine way of thinking about what leadership is. The leader is the servant who is lifted up for doing what the group already does. My idea of leadership, therefore, seems to me more masculine: the leader is the one who has a vision of what new thing the group needs to do.
When I think of it that way, every organization needs both kinds of leaders.
Max Weber devotes much fruitful thought to how a charismatic leader draws a following. The followers see a special quality in the leader. Weber says science cannot tell whether the special quality is really in the person, or is in the followers. In either case, leaders are not chosen because they are already powerful, influential, or authoritative. Leaders acquire power, influence, and authority because others follow them.
The crucial issue, then, is what potential leaders actually do that makes them worthy of following - or not. Leaders lead. If others follow, then that is what makes them leaders. If no one follows, then in the great market of authority, they failed to find their market.
Which leads to a further thought. The idea that leaders are chosen because they have been good members of the group - that they are leaders because a nominating committee elevated them for past service to the group - strikes me as a feminine way of thinking about what leadership is. The leader is the servant who is lifted up for doing what the group already does. My idea of leadership, therefore, seems to me more masculine: the leader is the one who has a vision of what new thing the group needs to do.
When I think of it that way, every organization needs both kinds of leaders.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Beyond Rebuilding 2
Reply to "What Can the Presbyterian Church Do to Turn Around Its Long Decline?" by Rev. Carol Howard Merritt
This is the second in a series of responses to the five articles in Beyond Rebuilding, which were written in answer to my Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment.
My primary focus is rebuilding a structure of authority within the church so that we can actually solve some of the denomination’s endemic conflicts. The main job of an establishment is to articulate a coherent vision for the whole organization and stick relentlessly to the practical steps needed to realize it. After more than a generation of drift and decline, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has forgotten that problems actually can be solved, and that healthy organizations grow.
Carol Merritt approaches the problem of decline in the PC (USA) as a pastor, which is appropriate; that is her job. She wants to evangelize young people and build new churches, with which I entirely agree. She wants to focus on choosing leaders in her congregation who are an ethnically diverse group of young men and women interested in spiritual traditions and social justice ministries. This is the niche of Western Presbyterian Church in Washington, DC, of which she is the pastor. I think her approach is a sensible strategy for her congregation.
I do not think it is a sensible strategy for the entire denomination.
Merritt takes it for granted that the niche of the entire Presbyterian Church is to draw people like her - “writing as a woman who grew up a conservative Baptist and converted to Presbyterianism.” Her strategy for contextual evangelism is “in this particular time we can especially minister to those who are leaving politically conservative evangelical megachurches.”
Yet when we look at the entire denomination, the politically conservative evangelical churches, mega- or wishing to be mega-, have been the main sources of growth in the whole denomination. We have been driving out evangelicals – that is, people who actually evangelize – faster than we have been growing them. In the past decade, we have been driving out entire congregations of evangelicals and conservative proponents of Reformed spiritual traditions.
The core of Generation X, who count as “young” in the PC (USA) though some are now in their 40s, are famously concerned with rebuilding basic institutions, most especially strong marriages and strong families. Churches that have approached social justice by promoting strong marriages and clear standards of childrearing have been the most successful at evangelizing the younger generations. This includes churches that encourage people to have more children, a strategy Merritt dismisses as unrealistic.
The way we find leaders for the whole denomination is not simply like finding committee members in a local church. The establishment is not a bureaucratic structure that a nominating committee chooses. An establishment is not made by choosing “those with the most authority, influence, and power in our society.” An establishment is not chosen at all. An establishment, if there is to be one, comes from the people of the denomination recognizing the influence, granting the power, and accepting the authority of those in the church who have made themselves its best leaders and most effective guides. The problem for the church is finding such leaders and not hampering them with counter-productive bureaucratic structures.
This is the second in a series of responses to the five articles in Beyond Rebuilding, which were written in answer to my Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment.
My primary focus is rebuilding a structure of authority within the church so that we can actually solve some of the denomination’s endemic conflicts. The main job of an establishment is to articulate a coherent vision for the whole organization and stick relentlessly to the practical steps needed to realize it. After more than a generation of drift and decline, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has forgotten that problems actually can be solved, and that healthy organizations grow.
Carol Merritt approaches the problem of decline in the PC (USA) as a pastor, which is appropriate; that is her job. She wants to evangelize young people and build new churches, with which I entirely agree. She wants to focus on choosing leaders in her congregation who are an ethnically diverse group of young men and women interested in spiritual traditions and social justice ministries. This is the niche of Western Presbyterian Church in Washington, DC, of which she is the pastor. I think her approach is a sensible strategy for her congregation.
I do not think it is a sensible strategy for the entire denomination.
Merritt takes it for granted that the niche of the entire Presbyterian Church is to draw people like her - “writing as a woman who grew up a conservative Baptist and converted to Presbyterianism.” Her strategy for contextual evangelism is “in this particular time we can especially minister to those who are leaving politically conservative evangelical megachurches.”
Yet when we look at the entire denomination, the politically conservative evangelical churches, mega- or wishing to be mega-, have been the main sources of growth in the whole denomination. We have been driving out evangelicals – that is, people who actually evangelize – faster than we have been growing them. In the past decade, we have been driving out entire congregations of evangelicals and conservative proponents of Reformed spiritual traditions.
The core of Generation X, who count as “young” in the PC (USA) though some are now in their 40s, are famously concerned with rebuilding basic institutions, most especially strong marriages and strong families. Churches that have approached social justice by promoting strong marriages and clear standards of childrearing have been the most successful at evangelizing the younger generations. This includes churches that encourage people to have more children, a strategy Merritt dismisses as unrealistic.
The way we find leaders for the whole denomination is not simply like finding committee members in a local church. The establishment is not a bureaucratic structure that a nominating committee chooses. An establishment is not made by choosing “those with the most authority, influence, and power in our society.” An establishment is not chosen at all. An establishment, if there is to be one, comes from the people of the denomination recognizing the influence, granting the power, and accepting the authority of those in the church who have made themselves its best leaders and most effective guides. The problem for the church is finding such leaders and not hampering them with counter-productive bureaucratic structures.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Beau Weston Wins Baby Name Poll
A really tiny baby name poll. But still, I found it gratifying, somehow.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Liberal Professors
Sociologists Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse are trying to figure out why professors in general, and sociologists in particular, as so liberal. Patricia Cohen has a pretty good story about it in the New York Times. They argue that the academy has become "politically typed" on the analogy of some jobs becoming "gender typed." It is not that conservatives get all the way through Ph.D. programs only to get turned away from professoring jobs by political discrimination. Rather, conservatives don't even start down the path of professor training. They are more likely to head to business and the professions in the first place.
I am wrestling with this argument. I think it is mostly true. I see a broad political mix of undergraduate students. Of those who head on to graduate school to be professors, quite a few are very liberal; almost none (actually, none that I can think of) are strong conservatives. The liberals expect the academy to be an easier and friendlier place for them to make their way than any other occupation would be. I attract and encourage centrists, some of whom go on to academic careers. Some of them are, indeed, pushed left by academia, though just as often they are pushed more to the center in reaction. This center movement is especially true for religious and family-oriented centrists.
In my own case, as I have moved more to the center, I have encountered some resistance from liberal academics who regard liberalism as a requirement of being a professor. Just recently I proposed a family sociology textbook that would be an empirical and centrist compilation of the basic facts of most people's family lives. A potential publisher said, reasonably, that such a book would be so controversial that it would be too risky to publish - not enough professors would assign it to make it financially viable.
I am wrestling with this argument. I think it is mostly true. I see a broad political mix of undergraduate students. Of those who head on to graduate school to be professors, quite a few are very liberal; almost none (actually, none that I can think of) are strong conservatives. The liberals expect the academy to be an easier and friendlier place for them to make their way than any other occupation would be. I attract and encourage centrists, some of whom go on to academic careers. Some of them are, indeed, pushed left by academia, though just as often they are pushed more to the center in reaction. This center movement is especially true for religious and family-oriented centrists.
In my own case, as I have moved more to the center, I have encountered some resistance from liberal academics who regard liberalism as a requirement of being a professor. Just recently I proposed a family sociology textbook that would be an empirical and centrist compilation of the basic facts of most people's family lives. A potential publisher said, reasonably, that such a book would be so controversial that it would be too risky to publish - not enough professors would assign it to make it financially viable.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Stealth Starbucks Follow-Up
The New York Times has a story about the Starbucks-owned coffeehouse in Seattle, Roy Street Coffee and Tea, that I wrote about earlier. I give Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, full credit for trying to turn his enormous company around. Trying local, and local-feeling, coffeehouses without using the Starbucks name is OK with me if it produces actual third places that serve good coffee.
I was surprised by one detail in the Times story that they do not comment on: Roy Street Coffee and Tea serves microbrew beer. I have never heard of a Starbucks serving alcohol before. Has anyone else run across this development elsewhere?
I was surprised by one detail in the Times story that they do not comment on: Roy Street Coffee and Tea serves microbrew beer. I have never heard of a Starbucks serving alcohol before. Has anyone else run across this development elsewhere?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
She Makes Most of the Financial Decisions, Even When He Makes More
The Pew Center report on marriage and work had an interesting chart on one of my favorite minor topics: who makes the financial decisions in the family?
The survey asked "When you and your spouse make decisions about managing the household finances, who has the final say?" Pew report combined husband and wife reports under three categories: "mainly wife," "mainly husband," and "share." The last combines two different options, "sometimes me/sometimes my spouse" and "we decide together."
Pew wanted to know if the answer to this question varied depending on whether husband or wife earned more. It does. What strikes me as most interesting, though, is that under either condition, she is more likely to make most of the financial decisions. Here are the two tables.
When the husband earns more
Still, the overall result is interesting: she is more likely to make most of the financial decisions, even when he makes more.
The survey asked "When you and your spouse make decisions about managing the household finances, who has the final say?" Pew report combined husband and wife reports under three categories: "mainly wife," "mainly husband," and "share." The last combines two different options, "sometimes me/sometimes my spouse" and "we decide together."
Pew wanted to know if the answer to this question varied depending on whether husband or wife earned more. It does. What strikes me as most interesting, though, is that under either condition, she is more likely to make most of the financial decisions. Here are the two tables.
When the husband earns more
- 36% mainly wife
- 35% mainly husband
- 28% share
- 46% mainly wife
- 21% mainly husband
- 33% share
Still, the overall result is interesting: she is more likely to make most of the financial decisions, even when he makes more.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
A Fifth of Wives Make More Than Their Husbands
The Pew Research Center reports that 22% of wives now make more than their husbands. This is up from just 4% in 1970.
Women have increased their education level dramatically in the past generation. This seems to be the main cause of their big jump in wages. More educated people are more likely to marry, so educated women are more likely to be wives. Less educated women, by contrast, are less likely to marry than they used to. Couples in which less-educated women make less than than their boyfriends, even cohabiting boyfriends, are now not in the married chart.
Still, I think it is safe to say that there has been a real rise in the proportion of couples in which she makes more than he does.
Women have increased their education level dramatically in the past generation. This seems to be the main cause of their big jump in wages. More educated people are more likely to marry, so educated women are more likely to be wives. Less educated women, by contrast, are less likely to marry than they used to. Couples in which less-educated women make less than than their boyfriends, even cohabiting boyfriends, are now not in the married chart.
Still, I think it is safe to say that there has been a real rise in the proportion of couples in which she makes more than he does.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Fascinating Developments in the House of Dobson
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, has resigned as chairman of the board of that ministry and has left the "Focus on the Family" radio show he founded. His wife also left the Focus board.
Dobson is now creating a rival radio program, co-hosted by his son Ryan. An anonymous source at Focus on the Family said Ryan Dobson, who is divorced and remarried, could not be the voice of the organization under their policy.
Evidently James Dobson's policies are a little more flexible when he focuses on his own family.
Meanwhile, Focus on the Family, under new boss Jim Daly, has become less partisan and more devoted to hands-on helping with troubled families. Daly said he wants to work with Democrats. He praised President Barack Obama as a role model for African-American fathers. Focus now has a program that finds families to adopt children who have been in foster care.
Dobson is now creating a rival radio program, co-hosted by his son Ryan. An anonymous source at Focus on the Family said Ryan Dobson, who is divorced and remarried, could not be the voice of the organization under their policy.
Evidently James Dobson's policies are a little more flexible when he focuses on his own family.
Meanwhile, Focus on the Family, under new boss Jim Daly, has become less partisan and more devoted to hands-on helping with troubled families. Daly said he wants to work with Democrats. He praised President Barack Obama as a role model for African-American fathers. Focus now has a program that finds families to adopt children who have been in foster care.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Beyond Rebuilding 1
My essay, Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment, was published by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as an occasional paper of the Re-Forming Ministry project, led by Barry Ensign-George. It generated some responses. Barry has gathered five of these responses into a new Re-Forming Ministry paper, Beyond Rebuilding? Shaping a Life Together. For the next six Sundays I will respond to these essays. (None of what I say is Barry's fault).
The first essay, "Another Possible Church for a New Day," is by José Luis Casal, General Missioner [Executive Presbyter], Tres Rios Presbytery. He does not take up my argument for a Presbyterian establishment directly. He makes a general case for a missional church, one that is responsive at the local level and not centralized power. In this we agree.
Casal says the basic question is simple: "are we to save a system (structure) or humankind?" I think this is a false distinction. The church, like any social structure, is a tool for getting a job done. I don't think saving humankind is the church's job (that is a little above our pay grade), but I agree with Casal, as he says elsewhere, that the church is meant to proclaim God's salvation of humankind. Christians can't do the job God set for us without the church. We have to "save the structure." The real question is how.
Casal supports the proposal that is now before the church for a simpler, more mission-oriented Book of Order. I support this, too. He believes this will mean "less book and more order." I do not think human organizations work that way. The church is not a spontaneous order like a flock of starlings, made by each individual following simple rules. It is an enormous project that derives much of its ability to serve the world from the fact that it is organized to do things decently and in order.
Casal believes that what has been crippling the PC(USA) is that too much power has accumulated in the center. I think the problem is that we have evacuated most of the authority that the center used to have. Instead we have tried to fill the vacuum with procedures of participation without any coherent vision of what we are trying to do. Articulating the vision and convincing the church that it is just and godly is what an establishment is for.
It has been my experience in these discussions that people who say that the church should get rid of its constraining centralized structures turn out in practice to mean "tear down all the structures, except mine." José Casal does want the church to keep its centralized ethnic advocacy groups. In fact, he wants to expand them, centralize their coordination, and create more paid staff to run them. And General Missioner Casal wants the church authorities to insist on the biblical mandate of tithing to solve the church staff's funding problems.
I do not think that Rev. Casal has described another possible church for a new day. I think he has described the church we have now, with more money and more advocacy structures. That is exactly the program of the vestigial establishment that we have now.
The first essay, "Another Possible Church for a New Day," is by José Luis Casal, General Missioner [Executive Presbyter], Tres Rios Presbytery. He does not take up my argument for a Presbyterian establishment directly. He makes a general case for a missional church, one that is responsive at the local level and not centralized power. In this we agree.
Casal says the basic question is simple: "are we to save a system (structure) or humankind?" I think this is a false distinction. The church, like any social structure, is a tool for getting a job done. I don't think saving humankind is the church's job (that is a little above our pay grade), but I agree with Casal, as he says elsewhere, that the church is meant to proclaim God's salvation of humankind. Christians can't do the job God set for us without the church. We have to "save the structure." The real question is how.
Casal supports the proposal that is now before the church for a simpler, more mission-oriented Book of Order. I support this, too. He believes this will mean "less book and more order." I do not think human organizations work that way. The church is not a spontaneous order like a flock of starlings, made by each individual following simple rules. It is an enormous project that derives much of its ability to serve the world from the fact that it is organized to do things decently and in order.
Casal believes that what has been crippling the PC(USA) is that too much power has accumulated in the center. I think the problem is that we have evacuated most of the authority that the center used to have. Instead we have tried to fill the vacuum with procedures of participation without any coherent vision of what we are trying to do. Articulating the vision and convincing the church that it is just and godly is what an establishment is for.
It has been my experience in these discussions that people who say that the church should get rid of its constraining centralized structures turn out in practice to mean "tear down all the structures, except mine." José Casal does want the church to keep its centralized ethnic advocacy groups. In fact, he wants to expand them, centralize their coordination, and create more paid staff to run them. And General Missioner Casal wants the church authorities to insist on the biblical mandate of tithing to solve the church staff's funding problems.
I do not think that Rev. Casal has described another possible church for a new day. I think he has described the church we have now, with more money and more advocacy structures. That is exactly the program of the vestigial establishment that we have now.
Coffee Coal in Your Stocking
Aldo's, a fine coffee house in Mt. Lebanon, PA, offered this excellent prank gift for Christmas.
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Original Coffeehouse Geeks
I am reading Brian Cowan's The Social Life of Coffee: The Emergence of the British Coffeehouse. He is interested in how the new and odd drink/drug, coffee, and the place for using it, the coffeehouse, became legitimate - indeed, became hugely popular - in Britain in the 1600s.
Cowan makes the very good point that the people who brought coffee to Britain in the first place were "virtuosi" who were curious about how all the world worked and fit together. They followed the plan of Francis Bacon, who thought God had providentially placed useful things all over the earth. It was our job, the virtuosi thought, to seek them out and understand them. The virtuosi were, in our terms, geeks. They wanted to systematically and empirically understand the world, and thus produced the scientific Royal Society. But they were also just curious about how people elsewhere lived. They tried the customs of others to see how they felt.
One of the most successful foreign customs that the virtuosi tried was roasting coffee beans and mixing them with boiling water. They found that drinking coffee led them to want to talk to other people about all manner of things while they all drank coffee together. The coffeehouse geeks had what Avrom Fleishman, writing about today's knowledge class, called "the taste for everything."
Cowan makes the very good point that the people who brought coffee to Britain in the first place were "virtuosi" who were curious about how all the world worked and fit together. They followed the plan of Francis Bacon, who thought God had providentially placed useful things all over the earth. It was our job, the virtuosi thought, to seek them out and understand them. The virtuosi were, in our terms, geeks. They wanted to systematically and empirically understand the world, and thus produced the scientific Royal Society. But they were also just curious about how people elsewhere lived. They tried the customs of others to see how they felt.
One of the most successful foreign customs that the virtuosi tried was roasting coffee beans and mixing them with boiling water. They found that drinking coffee led them to want to talk to other people about all manner of things while they all drank coffee together. The coffeehouse geeks had what Avrom Fleishman, writing about today's knowledge class, called "the taste for everything."
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Starbucks' Sad Slip
In Everything But the Coffee, Bryant Simon covers the arc of hipness for Starbucks. He dates this from 1992, when the company went public, to 2007, when they first lost money.
My course on coffee houses and public life spent yesterday observing various Starbucks locations. Small groups of students went to the busy downtown store, the inner suburb location with the best reputation as a community hangout, and two successful stores on the arterial roads of Lexington, Kentucky, our nearest city.
Surprisingly, the downtown location seemed to have the happiest interactions, mostly between the baristas and the customers. This is not the kind of place in which regulars would hang around, even if there are people who come in for coffee each day. I think the tone of the downtown store's interactions were better because they did not have a drive-through. The other locations, though, just did not generate much interaction among the patrons.
If you want a timetable of Starbucks' decline to ordinariness, these landmarks might do:
My course on coffee houses and public life spent yesterday observing various Starbucks locations. Small groups of students went to the busy downtown store, the inner suburb location with the best reputation as a community hangout, and two successful stores on the arterial roads of Lexington, Kentucky, our nearest city.
Surprisingly, the downtown location seemed to have the happiest interactions, mostly between the baristas and the customers. This is not the kind of place in which regulars would hang around, even if there are people who come in for coffee each day. I think the tone of the downtown store's interactions were better because they did not have a drive-through. The other locations, though, just did not generate much interaction among the patrons.
If you want a timetable of Starbucks' decline to ordinariness, these landmarks might do:
- 2007 loses money for the first time
- 2008 closes hundreds of poorly located stores [including one here in Danville, KY]
- 2009 introduces instant coffee
- 2010 creates "stealth Starbucks" stores that don't use the Starbucks name or logo.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Stealth Starbucks
I am teaching my course on coffee houses and public life this term. Today we will be fanning out to several Starbucks stores in Lexington to observe how well they do, in fact, function, as "third places." A third place is a place after home and work where we can socialize with others. In the ideal third place, strangers can become acquaintances and build up a body of friendly, though not consuming, social connections. Starbucks promotes itself as a third place.
Bryant Simon looked at how well Starbucks actually functions as a third place in Everything But the Coffee: Learning About America From Starbucks. He concludes that few Starbucks stores actually have that third place function. Simon has a blog, named after the book, that reports on new Starbucks phenomena. He notes that recently Starbucks itself has been pulling away from its own brand. Instead, they have been opening "stealth Starbucks," Starbucks owned and operated stores that mimic local independents. They name themselves after their location, and don't show the Starbucks logo.
Simon sees this move a part of a larger trend of resistance to chain stores, mass brands, and the general corporate homogenization of America.
I was reminded of Standard Oil's practice, in John D. Rockefeller's day, of buying out local oil companies but continuing to sell under the old, local brand. Most people did not know they were buying from the behemoth Standard, but thought they were still supporting the relatively local company. Standard was so successful in consuming all the competition that they became a monopoly in some places.
Starbucks is not likely to become a monopoly of third places. Indeed, I think the concept is an oxymoron. Part of the appeal of a third place is that it is local, it is the place where I am a regular. In theory, I suppose, Starbucks could become a monopoly supplier of coffee to local third places and independent coffee houses. So far, though, the independents take pride in resisting what my local coffee man calls "the Jolly Green Giant."
Bryant Simon looked at how well Starbucks actually functions as a third place in Everything But the Coffee: Learning About America From Starbucks. He concludes that few Starbucks stores actually have that third place function. Simon has a blog, named after the book, that reports on new Starbucks phenomena. He notes that recently Starbucks itself has been pulling away from its own brand. Instead, they have been opening "stealth Starbucks," Starbucks owned and operated stores that mimic local independents. They name themselves after their location, and don't show the Starbucks logo.
Simon sees this move a part of a larger trend of resistance to chain stores, mass brands, and the general corporate homogenization of America.
I was reminded of Standard Oil's practice, in John D. Rockefeller's day, of buying out local oil companies but continuing to sell under the old, local brand. Most people did not know they were buying from the behemoth Standard, but thought they were still supporting the relatively local company. Standard was so successful in consuming all the competition that they became a monopoly in some places.
Starbucks is not likely to become a monopoly of third places. Indeed, I think the concept is an oxymoron. Part of the appeal of a third place is that it is local, it is the place where I am a regular. In theory, I suppose, Starbucks could become a monopoly supplier of coffee to local third places and independent coffee houses. So far, though, the independents take pride in resisting what my local coffee man calls "the Jolly Green Giant."
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Buying a House Together Before Marriage Gets Your Priorities Backwards
Many couples live together before marriage. Some do so for a long time, even have children. A few of them put off getting married because they have an insanely expensive idea of what a wedding should be.
The current housing market is producing the next illogical step in that progression: couples who buy a house together before they get married. They seem to be thinking that marriage is a maybe, but a house is something real.
I think they have that completely backwards.
The current housing market is producing the next illogical step in that progression: couples who buy a house together before they get married. They seem to be thinking that marriage is a maybe, but a house is something real.
I think they have that completely backwards.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Centrism and Supporting the President
Last week I assessed the first year of the Obama administration in five areas. My assessment is largely positive. These posts drew a variety of criticisms. I answered most of the specific criticisms in the comment area of each post. Today I want to address some general criticisms.
Some readers thought that being centrist meant that I should not support any party. I wrote:
Gruntled said... pam said... Gruntled said... pam said...
Moreover, each president has to respond to the previous administration's actions. Sometimes they build on their predecessor's strengths, and sometimes they correct their predecessor's mistakes. Centrists, and everyone else, need to make a substantive judgment about whether the prior administration's actions were strengths or mistakes, and whether the current administration is building on the past for better or worse.
Centrists are not partisans. We do not drink anyone's Kool-Aid.
Some readers thought that being centrist meant that I should not support any party. I wrote:
Ideologically I am a centrist. I support and criticize based on position, not party. I usually find more to support on the Democratic side, and more to criticize on the Republican side. That is how I picked my party. I hope that is how anyone would pick his or her party.
carter said...
I agree. Most people find more to support on one side or the other then choose a party. Does that mean everyone is a centrist? Since you seem to agree 90 percnt or more of the time with the left why call youself a centrist? Name five other centrist sociologists. How do you define centist?
This give me a good opportunity to clarify the relationship between centrism and ideology, as well as centrism and party. I think the left and the right are small, while most people fall in the center. I do not think that anyone who is not a conservative is a liberal, nor vice-versa. However, there are essentially only two parties, which these three positions are obliged to choose among. Liberals who wish to be politically effective work with the Democratic Party; conservatives who wish to be politically effective work with the Republican Party. Centrists are obliged to choose. There are a large number of centrist Republicans, and an even larger number of centrist Democrats, including me.
One of the defining characteristics of centrists is that we believe there are many possible middle positions in every contested issue. Centrist political discussion consists of weighing the pros and cons of these middle options and choosing among them for good reasons - or at least reasons that can be explained to others. Since we must choose among positions for public reasons, centrists are less likely to simply follow a party line.
Which brings me to a second line of criticism I received.
pam said...
Mr. Gruntled it is painfully obvious you have drunk the Obama Kool-aid.
You are in danger of loosing your centrist credentials.
Gruntled said...Pam: could you be more specific in your criticism?
pam said...It is becoming kind of humorous.Virtually Obama's every shortcoming is blamed on Bush. It makes Obama look weak and you look a little whiney. Will it ever stop? I can only hope. It is distracting.
All four of you first year "centrist reports" Blame Bush in one way or another.
Gruntled said...Which shortcomings do you have in mind? I think I have been naming strengths and achievements of the Obama administration.
President Obama has, indeed, had to spend more time fixing mistakes of the previous administration so far than on developing his positive program. I don't call these mistakes simply because they were made by the previous administration, but because I think they were mistakes. Do you think torture by our government was a good thing, or a mistake?
pam said...There you go again...you make my point.
Moreover, each president has to respond to the previous administration's actions. Sometimes they build on their predecessor's strengths, and sometimes they correct their predecessor's mistakes. Centrists, and everyone else, need to make a substantive judgment about whether the prior administration's actions were strengths or mistakes, and whether the current administration is building on the past for better or worse.
Centrists are not partisans. We do not drink anyone's Kool-Aid.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Friday, January 08, 2010
The First Year of the Obama Administration: A New Era for America
The greatest achievement of the Obama administration came with his election.
I am among those who think the worst sin of our wonderful country has been anti-black racism. It produced many great evils for black and white Americans. Worse, it produced an irrationality at the heart of the American experiment in equal liberty right from the beginning. The civil rights movement turned the corner in changing the culture of America. Only after the civil rights revolution was it possible for America to begin to realize the meaning of her creed, as Martin Luther King said.
The election of Barack Obama sealed the victory in the long struggle against America's worst sin. This does not mean that racism is over - it probably never will be, certainly not in the foreseeable future. But the old era is dead. The new generations that come after now will find segregation as hard to imagine as slavery. Barack Obama is in the role of Joshua to the civil rights generation's Moses.
Barack Obama is an African American. But he is also a representative of the new generation that lives beyond the old black and white struggle. His parents were black and white. His children are African American in the usual sense of the word. He, though, also represents the new generation of Americans who came from all over the world, the post-1965 generation of global America. I believe that the Obamas are a potent symbol of the way forward, not only beyond our original sin, but also beyond the new ethnic conflicts of this generation.
Still, the first black president can't just be average. He has to be a great president. His family has to be exemplary. It was inevitable that the first black president would face extraordinary tests just because some groups would try to test him. That he also has to deal with a major recession and wind up an elective war and face global warming were not inevitable, but they add to my sense that this president has to be extraordinary.
Time will tell whether Barack Obama will be a great president, or even a decent one. I think his preparation, his family, his character, and his convictions all are well suited to greatness in the larger role that history has thrust upon him. I will be watching and hoping for his success with keen interest.
I am among those who think the worst sin of our wonderful country has been anti-black racism. It produced many great evils for black and white Americans. Worse, it produced an irrationality at the heart of the American experiment in equal liberty right from the beginning. The civil rights movement turned the corner in changing the culture of America. Only after the civil rights revolution was it possible for America to begin to realize the meaning of her creed, as Martin Luther King said.
The election of Barack Obama sealed the victory in the long struggle against America's worst sin. This does not mean that racism is over - it probably never will be, certainly not in the foreseeable future. But the old era is dead. The new generations that come after now will find segregation as hard to imagine as slavery. Barack Obama is in the role of Joshua to the civil rights generation's Moses.
Barack Obama is an African American. But he is also a representative of the new generation that lives beyond the old black and white struggle. His parents were black and white. His children are African American in the usual sense of the word. He, though, also represents the new generation of Americans who came from all over the world, the post-1965 generation of global America. I believe that the Obamas are a potent symbol of the way forward, not only beyond our original sin, but also beyond the new ethnic conflicts of this generation.
Still, the first black president can't just be average. He has to be a great president. His family has to be exemplary. It was inevitable that the first black president would face extraordinary tests just because some groups would try to test him. That he also has to deal with a major recession and wind up an elective war and face global warming were not inevitable, but they add to my sense that this president has to be extraordinary.
Time will tell whether Barack Obama will be a great president, or even a decent one. I think his preparation, his family, his character, and his convictions all are well suited to greatness in the larger role that history has thrust upon him. I will be watching and hoping for his success with keen interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
