The missus and I saw “The Chronicles of Narnia” last night. It was a very fine flick, and well done. This is really the first moment in film history when production technology can really do justice to fantasy stories. Which is why we have this wonderful bumper crop of fantasy and science fiction epics – Narnia, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and the big dog, Star Wars.
Which suggests a rich possibility, which I hope some rogue film editors are already busily at work on: a mashup of all of them.
As I watched, for example, the battle scene in Narnia, it was hard not to remember similar moments from a similar battle in Lord of the Rings. Indeed, a few years ago I read a joint biography of the Inklings, the group of religious writers that included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, which recounted the parallel course, and rivalry, of the writers and their series, played out in the Eagle and Child (or Bird and Baby) pub. A mashup of just these two films, intercut with the conversations of the writers around the pub table, would be fascinating.
Another excellent project for someone else to do. I would pay money to see it.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Friday, January 20, 2006
Should We Skip Kids in Order to Get Rich?
Both Jay Zagorsky and Amalia Miller, whose studies we have been considering this week, are writing about families and wealth, especially for women. Putting the two studies together, we would get:
Women are richer if they delay childbirth past 30.
Men and women are richer if they stay married.
Projecting these two facts in a straight line would lead to the conclusion that the best way to end up rich is to stay married and not have kids.
Indeed, Waite and Gallagher, in The Case for Marriage, show that the biggest single material effect of marriage on women is that it makes them wealthier than they otherwise would be.
I can think of three reasons not to make a straight-line projection here, though.
First, parents, most especially men, work so hard at wealth generation because they have kids. In The Millionaire Next Door, Thomas Stanley and William Danko paint a picture of wealth generation as the work of a couple, not an individual: he plays good offense, bringing in a substantial income, and she plays good defense, limiting their spending. I read that through the Case for Marriage lens to see wealth generation as a family affair: the parents make and keep the money, because the kids need it. Remove any one of these three elements from the equation, and the family is just less likely to make and keep wealth.
Second, a couple without kids are less likely to stay married. A couple who are unable, or unwilling, to have kids together are at significant risk to divorce for that reason alone. Moreover, childless couples have a lower threshold for divorce, because there are no kids to hurt by splitting.
Third, I think few people are moved simply by a desire to make more money. Beyond a certain level of financial security, it takes a reason to make the sacrifices that devoting yourself to money-making requires. Spouse, kids, grandkids, familial posterity are reasons to make those sacrifices. Simply moving toward the right-hand tail of the income distribution is not.
So should we skip kids in order to get rich? Naw – there isn’t enough point to it.
Women are richer if they delay childbirth past 30.
Men and women are richer if they stay married.
Projecting these two facts in a straight line would lead to the conclusion that the best way to end up rich is to stay married and not have kids.
Indeed, Waite and Gallagher, in The Case for Marriage, show that the biggest single material effect of marriage on women is that it makes them wealthier than they otherwise would be.
I can think of three reasons not to make a straight-line projection here, though.
First, parents, most especially men, work so hard at wealth generation because they have kids. In The Millionaire Next Door, Thomas Stanley and William Danko paint a picture of wealth generation as the work of a couple, not an individual: he plays good offense, bringing in a substantial income, and she plays good defense, limiting their spending. I read that through the Case for Marriage lens to see wealth generation as a family affair: the parents make and keep the money, because the kids need it. Remove any one of these three elements from the equation, and the family is just less likely to make and keep wealth.
Second, a couple without kids are less likely to stay married. A couple who are unable, or unwilling, to have kids together are at significant risk to divorce for that reason alone. Moreover, childless couples have a lower threshold for divorce, because there are no kids to hurt by splitting.
Third, I think few people are moved simply by a desire to make more money. Beyond a certain level of financial security, it takes a reason to make the sacrifices that devoting yourself to money-making requires. Spouse, kids, grandkids, familial posterity are reasons to make those sacrifices. Simply moving toward the right-hand tail of the income distribution is not.
So should we skip kids in order to get rich? Naw – there isn’t enough point to it.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Marriage Builds Wealth
The study of the month is Jay Zagorsky’s “Marriage and divorce’s impact on wealth” in the Australian publication the Journal of Sociology. Zagorsky, an Ohio State sociologist, followed young Baby Boomers from youth to their 40s through the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Zagorsky found that on average, a couple’s net wealth increases 16% for each year they stay married. By their mid-40s, marrieds will have 77% more wealth per person than singles will. The divorced are even worse off, losing 3/4ths of their net worth. And that is only the size of the gap at 50, the limit of the NLSY79 data. Since the great majority of those couples will stay married and keep working, the gap at retirement should be even greater.
Zagorsky focuses on simple economies of scale – one household is cheaper than two. But sociologist David Popenoe, director of the National Marriage Project, points to a more powerful factor: married people work more and work harder because they are working for something greater than themselves. Zagorsky found that divorced people started losing wealth four years before the divorce. He speculates that they were already separated and keeping two households. I think, though, that Popenoe is pointing to the greater factor: people who are committed to a marriage work harder and longer because they are building up something greater. It is reasonable to think that people who eventually divorce start hedging their bets about investing in the marriage years before the final breakup.
Zagorsky’s reported results do not take into account what I think will prove to be the greatest factor in why married couples need to produce more wealth and produce it faster: they have kids to support. That is the next study we need: married parents vs. unmarried parents, looking at how much they make, and how much net wealth they end up with.
Zagorsky focuses on simple economies of scale – one household is cheaper than two. But sociologist David Popenoe, director of the National Marriage Project, points to a more powerful factor: married people work more and work harder because they are working for something greater than themselves. Zagorsky found that divorced people started losing wealth four years before the divorce. He speculates that they were already separated and keeping two households. I think, though, that Popenoe is pointing to the greater factor: people who are committed to a marriage work harder and longer because they are building up something greater. It is reasonable to think that people who eventually divorce start hedging their bets about investing in the marriage years before the final breakup.
Zagorsky’s reported results do not take into account what I think will prove to be the greatest factor in why married couples need to produce more wealth and produce it faster: they have kids to support. That is the next study we need: married parents vs. unmarried parents, looking at how much they make, and how much net wealth they end up with.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Is Parenthood Planned?
Yesterday I wrote about economist Amalia Miller’s finding that women make 10% more over their career for each year they delay having a first child. That was the main point of her study. Today I want to write about an incidental point she made, when she compared women who got pregnant on purpose with those who had unplanned pregnancies.
Miller used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which followed the same group of people from youth to early adulthood, beginning in 1979. Miller reports this question and response from one of the follow-up surveys:
“Just before you became pregnant the first time, did you want to become pregnant when you did?”
11.6% of respondents said “Yes,”
4.2% said “Didn’t matter,”
63.8% said “No, not at that time,” and
20.5% said “No, not at all.”
As Miller reads this response, the vast majority of these pregnancies were unplanned.
I contrast this, though, with Promises I Can Keep, Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas’ study which I have written about several times. Edin and Kefalas were studying teen single mothers, so their group is not directly comparable to the much broader NLSY79 population that Miller is using. Still, one of the vital findings of Promises I Can Keep is that most of the children these teen moms had were “sort-of planned.” They knew they wanted to have children, and they were ok with having children with their current boyfriends. So they didn’t try not to have children, with the usual result.
If Edin and Kefalas’s moms had been asked the NLSY79 question about whether they wanted to get pregnant then, most of them would have answered “no, not at this time.” Yet that would have been a misleading result. It did not mean, in their case, that their pregnancies were unplanned in the sense that Miller is reading them. For women of the professional class, who plan their lives carefully, a “not at this time” pregnancy is a disaster. For poor teenage girls whose biggest life plan is to be a mother, it is not.
I estimate that for most women in the classes in between -- most especially the married women -- a “not at this time” pregnancy is not a disaster. It is an early delivery of an expected gift. For most women, their job plans are made to serve their family plans, not the other way around.
Miller used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which followed the same group of people from youth to early adulthood, beginning in 1979. Miller reports this question and response from one of the follow-up surveys:
“Just before you became pregnant the first time, did you want to become pregnant when you did?”
11.6% of respondents said “Yes,”
4.2% said “Didn’t matter,”
63.8% said “No, not at that time,” and
20.5% said “No, not at all.”
As Miller reads this response, the vast majority of these pregnancies were unplanned.
I contrast this, though, with Promises I Can Keep, Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas’ study which I have written about several times. Edin and Kefalas were studying teen single mothers, so their group is not directly comparable to the much broader NLSY79 population that Miller is using. Still, one of the vital findings of Promises I Can Keep is that most of the children these teen moms had were “sort-of planned.” They knew they wanted to have children, and they were ok with having children with their current boyfriends. So they didn’t try not to have children, with the usual result.
If Edin and Kefalas’s moms had been asked the NLSY79 question about whether they wanted to get pregnant then, most of them would have answered “no, not at this time.” Yet that would have been a misleading result. It did not mean, in their case, that their pregnancies were unplanned in the sense that Miller is reading them. For women of the professional class, who plan their lives carefully, a “not at this time” pregnancy is a disaster. For poor teenage girls whose biggest life plan is to be a mother, it is not.
I estimate that for most women in the classes in between -- most especially the married women -- a “not at this time” pregnancy is not a disaster. It is an early delivery of an expected gift. For most women, their job plans are made to serve their family plans, not the other way around.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
More Money for Later Moms?
University of Virginia economist Amalia Miller has made a small stir recently with her finding that women who delay having kids past their twenties make more money. The headline finding was that a year of delayed fertility leads to
• a 10% increase in career earnings,
• a 5% increase in career work experience, and
• a 3% increase in career average wage rate.
This finding has been troubling because it runs up against the fact that women’s fertility falls off significantly after their twenties.
SO, if a women wants to have kids, she should start having them before 30; if she wants to make money, she should have them after 30. Or not at all.
On the face of it, this is not an unreasonable conclusion. Kids cost money, both in direct costs and in the opportunities to make money that parents, especially moms, forego. You might see this as a tragic choice, or a choice between two different values.
I do see one problem with Miller’s account that I find troubling, though. She lumps together college graduates with graduate degree holders. Yet women pursuing graduate degrees would be more likely to be in school still in their mid-twenties, and would likely have higher earnings no matter what their fertility choices. Since the biggest returns come to managerial and professional women, this is the group in which the effect of delayed fertility for schooling and earnings affected by schooling should be greatest.
In other words, women with graduate and, especially, professional degrees are likely to make more in the long run anyway, regardless of whether they have kids or not. As a group, they are more likely to have kids later than other women. They skew the whole pool. It could be that they make more because they delayed starting motherhood. More likely, though, they make more because they trained for more lucrative professions. One side effect of their training was that they are less likely to have kids in their twenties.
Now women with graduate and professional degrees often do make a choice for career over children, sometimes by just waiting too long to start on kids. As I have lamented elsewhere, most women with Ph. D.s do not have any children. Some do it for the money, some for the career itself. I think that for most of the high-earning/low-momming women, though, they did not so much make a choice as make a “creeping non-choice,” and then live with the results. The evidence convinces me that most women do not pick their careers primarily to maximize lifetime earnings. People who do that are more likely to be men. Or economists.
• a 10% increase in career earnings,
• a 5% increase in career work experience, and
• a 3% increase in career average wage rate.
This finding has been troubling because it runs up against the fact that women’s fertility falls off significantly after their twenties.
SO, if a women wants to have kids, she should start having them before 30; if she wants to make money, she should have them after 30. Or not at all.
On the face of it, this is not an unreasonable conclusion. Kids cost money, both in direct costs and in the opportunities to make money that parents, especially moms, forego. You might see this as a tragic choice, or a choice between two different values.
I do see one problem with Miller’s account that I find troubling, though. She lumps together college graduates with graduate degree holders. Yet women pursuing graduate degrees would be more likely to be in school still in their mid-twenties, and would likely have higher earnings no matter what their fertility choices. Since the biggest returns come to managerial and professional women, this is the group in which the effect of delayed fertility for schooling and earnings affected by schooling should be greatest.
In other words, women with graduate and, especially, professional degrees are likely to make more in the long run anyway, regardless of whether they have kids or not. As a group, they are more likely to have kids later than other women. They skew the whole pool. It could be that they make more because they delayed starting motherhood. More likely, though, they make more because they trained for more lucrative professions. One side effect of their training was that they are less likely to have kids in their twenties.
Now women with graduate and professional degrees often do make a choice for career over children, sometimes by just waiting too long to start on kids. As I have lamented elsewhere, most women with Ph. D.s do not have any children. Some do it for the money, some for the career itself. I think that for most of the high-earning/low-momming women, though, they did not so much make a choice as make a “creeping non-choice,” and then live with the results. The evidence convinces me that most women do not pick their careers primarily to maximize lifetime earnings. People who do that are more likely to be men. Or economists.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Martin Luther King: Great Man. Cheater.
Today we celebrate the work of Martin Luther King. This is the 20th federal King holiday. Most of the population is too young to remember Dr. King in life, but there are few Americans who do not know his name and heroic stature in the civil right movement. Over the years, I think, the holiday has come to be more about the movement, and less about the man. Which is as it should be. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was the necessary man in the civil rights movement, keeping the heart of it non-violent and focused on the prize. But it was the movement that was sacred, not the man.
The civil rights movement is now part of America’s sacred history. For many secular liberals I know, it is the only sacred part of American history. I live in Kentucky, where the effects of the Civil War are all around us. In years of watching Kentucky kids in quick recall (quiz bowl) tournaments, however, I have been impressed that the leaders and moments of the Civil War are not part of their basic knowledge – only the bookish kids know Lee and Grant, Gettysburg and Antietam. The civil rights movement, on the other hand, is obligatory. Rosa-Parks-Montgomery-bus-boycott is all one word. And it is always “the reverend doctor Martin Luther King junior.” The civil rights movement has now been absorbed into all-American history.
Martin King the man, though, is subject to less and less reverent treatment. Taylor Branch’s magisterial history of King and civil rights movement has reached the third volume, which is necessarily thick with King’s frequent and long-running adulteries. Previous volumes, and many other works on King which have been written and will be written, documented his plagiarism of parts of the dissertation that puts the doctor in Dr. King. Coretta King has been, I think, heroic in keeping her husband’s memory alive. His family, though, is clearly dysfunctional, with his children living on the commercialization of his memory, and squabbling in public about how best to capitalize on his name.
I am a Calvinist. I know that everyone (yes, especially me) is a sinner. I am not surprised at how much selfishness, short-sightedness, and even evil there is in the world; instead, I am even more grateful for goodness and generosity. So for me, I am not disillusioned to know Martin Luther King’s flaws. They are wrong and sad, but they do not make him unusually bad, or even unusual. Nor do King’s flaws undermine his heroic and crucial achievements as a leader of the great movement for the redemption of America from its original sin.
So cherish King Day, this living holiday of America’s civil religion. Teach the whole man, and his whole works.
The civil rights movement is now part of America’s sacred history. For many secular liberals I know, it is the only sacred part of American history. I live in Kentucky, where the effects of the Civil War are all around us. In years of watching Kentucky kids in quick recall (quiz bowl) tournaments, however, I have been impressed that the leaders and moments of the Civil War are not part of their basic knowledge – only the bookish kids know Lee and Grant, Gettysburg and Antietam. The civil rights movement, on the other hand, is obligatory. Rosa-Parks-Montgomery-bus-boycott is all one word. And it is always “the reverend doctor Martin Luther King junior.” The civil rights movement has now been absorbed into all-American history.
Martin King the man, though, is subject to less and less reverent treatment. Taylor Branch’s magisterial history of King and civil rights movement has reached the third volume, which is necessarily thick with King’s frequent and long-running adulteries. Previous volumes, and many other works on King which have been written and will be written, documented his plagiarism of parts of the dissertation that puts the doctor in Dr. King. Coretta King has been, I think, heroic in keeping her husband’s memory alive. His family, though, is clearly dysfunctional, with his children living on the commercialization of his memory, and squabbling in public about how best to capitalize on his name.
I am a Calvinist. I know that everyone (yes, especially me) is a sinner. I am not surprised at how much selfishness, short-sightedness, and even evil there is in the world; instead, I am even more grateful for goodness and generosity. So for me, I am not disillusioned to know Martin Luther King’s flaws. They are wrong and sad, but they do not make him unusually bad, or even unusual. Nor do King’s flaws undermine his heroic and crucial achievements as a leader of the great movement for the redemption of America from its original sin.
So cherish King Day, this living holiday of America’s civil religion. Teach the whole man, and his whole works.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Should Christians Dump the Public Schools? Nope.
American parents have many choices about education. The easiest and cheapest is to send your kids to public school, as all the Gruntled kids do. It is part of the social compact that everyone, whether they have kids in school or not, will pay for public education for all. Harder and more expensive is to send your kids to private school, where roughly 10% of children go. The hardest alternative, if you do it right, is homeschooling. It is also the most expensive in opportunity costs, though the cash outlay may be the lowest. Homeschooling is a minority of the minority of kids not in public school, but it is clearly growing, especially among families who are religiously dissatisfied with the public schools.
In recent years, though, there has been the beginnings of a movement to get Christians to withdraw from public schools altogether. It is, to be sure, a very small movement now, but, like homeschooling itself, it is likely to grow. The movement is fueled by the widespread and official effort to make the public schools religiously neutral, and the annual crop of foolish “Johnny got detention for bringing his Bible to school” errors. There are plenty of reasons for families of all kinds, especially religious conservatives, to conclude that their local schools are not the right place for their own children. Members of my own extended family have made that choice.
It is a big leap from concluding that the public schools aren’t right for me, to the decision that the public schools aren’t right for any Christians, or indeed for any religious people.
In 2004 two Southern Baptist laymen, lawyer Bruce Shortt and retired General T.C. Pinckney, brought a resolution to the Southern Baptist Convention calling for all Southern Baptists to withdraw from the public schools. The convention’s Resolutions committee refused to report the proposal out, so Shortt and Pinckney made a similar proposal from the floor. It was defeated on a voice vote. Shortt, who is making a career of anti-public school activism, returned last year with a new partner to propose that the SBC investigate all public schools for a pro-homosexual agenda.
Every denomination has its hot-under-the-collar agitators of the left and the right. When a prominent seminary president weighs in on an issue, though, the stakes get higher. Al Mohler, of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, took the occasion of the 2005 Shortt proposal to proclaim, “I believe that now is the time for responsible Southern Baptists to develop an exit strategy from the public schools.”
I think it very unlikely that most Southern Baptists would leave the public schools, any more than they boycotted Disney when the SBC issued that call a few years ago. I do think, though, that there is unease among religious people that public schools are in danger of crossing a line from neutrality to hostility. The current “intelligent design” debate is making things worse, polarizing the science/religion distinction far more than the facts require.
Public schools are democratic institutions. The people who work in them are pretty ordinary members of their communities. Most schools accommodate the faith and practice of the people in them. The schools are governed by elected officials and paid for with taxes levied by elected officials. If the schools get too far out of line with community standards, the democratic remedy is available.
In recent years, though, there has been the beginnings of a movement to get Christians to withdraw from public schools altogether. It is, to be sure, a very small movement now, but, like homeschooling itself, it is likely to grow. The movement is fueled by the widespread and official effort to make the public schools religiously neutral, and the annual crop of foolish “Johnny got detention for bringing his Bible to school” errors. There are plenty of reasons for families of all kinds, especially religious conservatives, to conclude that their local schools are not the right place for their own children. Members of my own extended family have made that choice.
It is a big leap from concluding that the public schools aren’t right for me, to the decision that the public schools aren’t right for any Christians, or indeed for any religious people.
In 2004 two Southern Baptist laymen, lawyer Bruce Shortt and retired General T.C. Pinckney, brought a resolution to the Southern Baptist Convention calling for all Southern Baptists to withdraw from the public schools. The convention’s Resolutions committee refused to report the proposal out, so Shortt and Pinckney made a similar proposal from the floor. It was defeated on a voice vote. Shortt, who is making a career of anti-public school activism, returned last year with a new partner to propose that the SBC investigate all public schools for a pro-homosexual agenda.
Every denomination has its hot-under-the-collar agitators of the left and the right. When a prominent seminary president weighs in on an issue, though, the stakes get higher. Al Mohler, of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, took the occasion of the 2005 Shortt proposal to proclaim, “I believe that now is the time for responsible Southern Baptists to develop an exit strategy from the public schools.”
I think it very unlikely that most Southern Baptists would leave the public schools, any more than they boycotted Disney when the SBC issued that call a few years ago. I do think, though, that there is unease among religious people that public schools are in danger of crossing a line from neutrality to hostility. The current “intelligent design” debate is making things worse, polarizing the science/religion distinction far more than the facts require.
Public schools are democratic institutions. The people who work in them are pretty ordinary members of their communities. Most schools accommodate the faith and practice of the people in them. The schools are governed by elected officials and paid for with taxes levied by elected officials. If the schools get too far out of line with community standards, the democratic remedy is available.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Flight or Invisibility?
We were listening to old “This American Life” stories over Christmas, and were most intrigued by a parlor game that one author (I cannot remember who at the moment) has been playing.
The rules are these:
1) You can have one superpower, either the ability to fly or to be invisible.
2) No one else has superpowers.
3) You can fly 1000 miles per hour.
4) Your clothes become invisible, too.
5) You have all your normal physical properties besides the one superpower.
Which would you choose?
(The originator has found a gender skew to the answers, though the Gruntled family did not quite follow the norm. I will tell you what I would choose, and why, when a few of you have had a chance to respond. Enjoy.)
The rules are these:
1) You can have one superpower, either the ability to fly or to be invisible.
2) No one else has superpowers.
3) You can fly 1000 miles per hour.
4) Your clothes become invisible, too.
5) You have all your normal physical properties besides the one superpower.
Which would you choose?
(The originator has found a gender skew to the answers, though the Gruntled family did not quite follow the norm. I will tell you what I would choose, and why, when a few of you have had a chance to respond. Enjoy.)
Friday, January 13, 2006
The World’s Missing Girls
I have been writing in my two previous posts about the shortage of girls in India and China. Today I want to add the even greater sex ratio imbalances in many Muslim countries. Reliapundit, at The Astute Blogger, had a series on Muslim demography, which pointed out that of the 30 countries with significantly more males than females, 20 are predominantly Muslim. Reliapundit speculates that honor killings, and misogyny in general, are a significant factor in producing this imbalance.
Samuel Huntington, in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, argues that one of the reasons that “Islam has bloody borders” today is because the Muslim world’s population is so young. Nations with large numbers of young men are prone to violence internally and war externally. Civilization’s great cure for the violence of young men is marriage. If there are more young men than young women, the men are less likely to marry. This is why a male-skewed sex ratio is dangerous in general. In addition, polygamy would make the effects of a gender imbalance worse, by making it even less likely that low status men will be able to marry.
So here we have the largest countries in the world, China and India, with significant numbers of young men who are not likely to be able to marry. They border on countries, notably Pakistan, which also have significant numbers of young men who are not likely to be able to marry. This is a recipe for war.
Facing them are the industrialized nations with more balanced sex ratios. However, the industrialized populations are old. The upside of these two facts is that men are more likely to find mates and less likely to make war. The downside, though, is that if, God forbid, there were to be a large-scale war, the industrialized nations would be demographically overwhelmed by those places which are already demographically primed for conflict.
Samuel Huntington, in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, argues that one of the reasons that “Islam has bloody borders” today is because the Muslim world’s population is so young. Nations with large numbers of young men are prone to violence internally and war externally. Civilization’s great cure for the violence of young men is marriage. If there are more young men than young women, the men are less likely to marry. This is why a male-skewed sex ratio is dangerous in general. In addition, polygamy would make the effects of a gender imbalance worse, by making it even less likely that low status men will be able to marry.
So here we have the largest countries in the world, China and India, with significant numbers of young men who are not likely to be able to marry. They border on countries, notably Pakistan, which also have significant numbers of young men who are not likely to be able to marry. This is a recipe for war.
Facing them are the industrialized nations with more balanced sex ratios. However, the industrialized populations are old. The upside of these two facts is that men are more likely to find mates and less likely to make war. The downside, though, is that if, God forbid, there were to be a large-scale war, the industrialized nations would be demographically overwhelmed by those places which are already demographically primed for conflict.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
China’s Missing Girls
Yesterday I wrote about a report that there is so much sex-selection abortion in India that they are short half a million girls a year. Wasatch International Adoptions reports that in China there are half a million girls in orphanages who have been abandoned by their families. India’s demographic disaster is due to a combination of widespread prejudice against girls and spreading technology for identifying them. China also has a widespread prejudice against girls. China is getting richer all the time, and the same medical technology – amniocentesis and sonograms – spread further into the countryside each year.
In India the government has been cracking down on female feticide. In China, on the other hand, government policy has made the problem much worse. China has had a “one child per family” policy for a generation. This is the sort of draconian measure that the authoritarian communist regime was prone to try. Now they have an authoritarian capitalist regime, which so far show no signs of ending the brutal practice. The result has been tens of millions of forced abortions – and a widespread abandonment of girls. If the government only lets a couple have one child, and most couples would prefer that one child to be a boy, lots of first-born girls get dumped so the couple can try again.
The silver lining of this disaster has been that tens of thousands of Chinese girls have been adopted by American families. Those who rescue these girls are doing a great thing, and they get a wonderful addition to their own families in the bargain. Girls have become an export commodity for the Chinese regime, in the same way that the old East German communist regime sold their citizens to their separated family members in the West.
America is blessed with Chinese girls. They will grow up to be Americans.
The Chinese government will reap the whirlwind.
In India the government has been cracking down on female feticide. In China, on the other hand, government policy has made the problem much worse. China has had a “one child per family” policy for a generation. This is the sort of draconian measure that the authoritarian communist regime was prone to try. Now they have an authoritarian capitalist regime, which so far show no signs of ending the brutal practice. The result has been tens of millions of forced abortions – and a widespread abandonment of girls. If the government only lets a couple have one child, and most couples would prefer that one child to be a boy, lots of first-born girls get dumped so the couple can try again.
The silver lining of this disaster has been that tens of thousands of Chinese girls have been adopted by American families. Those who rescue these girls are doing a great thing, and they get a wonderful addition to their own families in the bargain. Girls have become an export commodity for the Chinese regime, in the same way that the old East German communist regime sold their citizens to their separated family members in the West.
America is blessed with Chinese girls. They will grow up to be Americans.
The Chinese government will reap the whirlwind.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Missing Indian Girls
For a generation, India had a bad combination of prejudice against girls, and widespread technology to tell the sex of babies before they are born. The result was massive use of sex-selection abortions. In parts of northern and western India, particularly in villages, sex ratios of 800 girls for every thousand boys were common. Activists against girl feticide report that there is a country saying that if you have two girls, you must have done something wrong in a past life. The practice has been going on so long that young men in these regions face a serious shortage of potential brides. They have taken to buying brides from regions hundreds of miles away.
The Indian government cracked down in 2001 on selection-abortions and doctors who misuse sex-identification technology. This has helped in reducing the practice of killing girl fetuses.
A new study, reported in the British medical journal The Lancet, now reports that the problem is not over. Researchers Prabhat Jha of St Michael's Hospital at the University of Toronto, Canada, and Rajesh Kumar of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Research in Chandigarh, report that not only is sex-selection abortion not over in India, couples who have had a girl are increasingly likely to select a boy when pregnant with their next child. Jha and Kumar estimate that India is short half a million girls a year because of sex-selection abortion.
As I sit here with my second daughter getting ready for school, I find this chilling. The good news for Americans is that, for all the difficulties that girls might have here, we cherish their lives.
The Indian government cracked down in 2001 on selection-abortions and doctors who misuse sex-identification technology. This has helped in reducing the practice of killing girl fetuses.
A new study, reported in the British medical journal The Lancet, now reports that the problem is not over. Researchers Prabhat Jha of St Michael's Hospital at the University of Toronto, Canada, and Rajesh Kumar of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Research in Chandigarh, report that not only is sex-selection abortion not over in India, couples who have had a girl are increasingly likely to select a boy when pregnant with their next child. Jha and Kumar estimate that India is short half a million girls a year because of sex-selection abortion.
As I sit here with my second daughter getting ready for school, I find this chilling. The good news for Americans is that, for all the difficulties that girls might have here, we cherish their lives.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The Family Car: Minivans Beat SUVs
There are all kinds of psychological reasons that people might buy SUVs (Sport Utility Vehicles, or possibly Suburbans Über Volkswagens). A conscious part of the marketing has been to sell dads on the idea that they are protecting their families with a monster car. Moms, too, make up a surprisingly large part of the SUV market, largely on the grounds that they are safer for kids. David Brooks, in On Paradise Road, reports the axiom that in the suburbs, the larger the car, the smaller the woman who gets out of it.
A new study from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, however, has found that SUVs are not safer for children. Now, a Ford Mars Expedition or a Chevy Subdivision will probably protect kids better than a Cooper Mini. But for their weight, SUVs are not actually safer for kids.
I recall a study, reported in the New York Times a few Christmases ago, comparing men who drove SUVs with men who drove minivans. The main finding: men who drive minivans are more secure in their masculinity than are SUV guys. And this was before Hummers …
The author drives a sticker-covered Sienna minivan with GRUNTL plates. Thanks for asking.
A new study from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, however, has found that SUVs are not safer for children. Now, a Ford Mars Expedition or a Chevy Subdivision will probably protect kids better than a Cooper Mini. But for their weight, SUVs are not actually safer for kids.
I recall a study, reported in the New York Times a few Christmases ago, comparing men who drove SUVs with men who drove minivans. The main finding: men who drive minivans are more secure in their masculinity than are SUV guys. And this was before Hummers …
The author drives a sticker-covered Sienna minivan with GRUNTL plates. Thanks for asking.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Great Families vs. Social Darwinism
On Lawn, at Opine Editorials, has a very gratifying appreciation of last week’s series on national greatness and the ecology of families. He or she called these comments “The Social Darwinism of Families.” This got me thinking about the ways in which my position is like social Darwinism – and in a crucial respect is the opposite of social Darwinism.
On Lawn writes, “Social Darwinism contends that the rules of evolution are alive in human sociality. Corporations, religions, families evolve.” I believe this is largely true. However, social Darwinism (or what should probably be called Herbert Spencerism) always has a fundamental ambiguity which makes it hard to apply in real societies. Darwin talked about two kinds of selection – natural selection, and the less-familiar sexual selection. Under natural selection, species compete with one another for survival within a natural ecology. Under sexual selection, individuals compete with one another for what later Darwinists would identify as genetic survival. The perennial question for social Darwinists is “What is the unit of analysis? What social bodies compete with one another in the social ecology?” Early attempts to treat races as the unit of social competition have not endured – the “races” are too amorphous, diverse, and changeable, and members of the different races constantly intermarry. Other units – the “corporations, religions, families” that On Lawn suggests – also have problems. They either do not embrace everyone in society, or are too intermixed to endure over time. The closest thing to an enduring and comprehensive social unit would be, I think, a lineage.
Lineages compete with one another over generations not only to survive, but to prosper. Put another way, my argument about the ecology of families is that strong families, sustained over generations, tend to lead to the social ascent of their lineages, and weak families tend to lead to their lineage’s social descent.
Which leads back to the question of evolution. As I argued in “What are Strong Families?” I think the basic form, functional system, and division of labor in the strongest families does not change much. However, there is a great deal of room for evolution of many aspects of family life within that general model. In our time, the major evolution has been toward much greater equality of husbands and wives within marriage.
The major difference that I see between what I think makes for great families and great nations, on the one hand, and social Darwinism as it is normally conceived, on the other, turns on who or what the family serves. Here I am going beyond what On Lawn said or should be held responsible for, and am dealing with the broader tradition of social Darwinism. In all forms of Darwinism, the standard of evolutionary excellence is mere survival. I believe that the main feature of human beings that distinguishes us from all the other creatures is that it is important to people to feel that their lives are meaningful. Mere survival is not enough. And ruthlessness in the interests of mere survival, which all other plants and animals do routinely, undermines human beings’ feeling that they are living right.
Human beings lead the most satisfying lives not when they are crushing the competition, but when they are serving the greater good. And, counter-intuitively, serving the greater good is actually the best way to serve your own interests. The strong family lineages that endure and advance in wealth, power, and esteem tend to be those that serve the greater good. This is congruent with an evolutionary theory, but goes beyond what is normally understood as social Darwinism.
On Lawn writes, “Social Darwinism contends that the rules of evolution are alive in human sociality. Corporations, religions, families evolve.” I believe this is largely true. However, social Darwinism (or what should probably be called Herbert Spencerism) always has a fundamental ambiguity which makes it hard to apply in real societies. Darwin talked about two kinds of selection – natural selection, and the less-familiar sexual selection. Under natural selection, species compete with one another for survival within a natural ecology. Under sexual selection, individuals compete with one another for what later Darwinists would identify as genetic survival. The perennial question for social Darwinists is “What is the unit of analysis? What social bodies compete with one another in the social ecology?” Early attempts to treat races as the unit of social competition have not endured – the “races” are too amorphous, diverse, and changeable, and members of the different races constantly intermarry. Other units – the “corporations, religions, families” that On Lawn suggests – also have problems. They either do not embrace everyone in society, or are too intermixed to endure over time. The closest thing to an enduring and comprehensive social unit would be, I think, a lineage.
Lineages compete with one another over generations not only to survive, but to prosper. Put another way, my argument about the ecology of families is that strong families, sustained over generations, tend to lead to the social ascent of their lineages, and weak families tend to lead to their lineage’s social descent.
Which leads back to the question of evolution. As I argued in “What are Strong Families?” I think the basic form, functional system, and division of labor in the strongest families does not change much. However, there is a great deal of room for evolution of many aspects of family life within that general model. In our time, the major evolution has been toward much greater equality of husbands and wives within marriage.
The major difference that I see between what I think makes for great families and great nations, on the one hand, and social Darwinism as it is normally conceived, on the other, turns on who or what the family serves. Here I am going beyond what On Lawn said or should be held responsible for, and am dealing with the broader tradition of social Darwinism. In all forms of Darwinism, the standard of evolutionary excellence is mere survival. I believe that the main feature of human beings that distinguishes us from all the other creatures is that it is important to people to feel that their lives are meaningful. Mere survival is not enough. And ruthlessness in the interests of mere survival, which all other plants and animals do routinely, undermines human beings’ feeling that they are living right.
Human beings lead the most satisfying lives not when they are crushing the competition, but when they are serving the greater good. And, counter-intuitively, serving the greater good is actually the best way to serve your own interests. The strong family lineages that endure and advance in wealth, power, and esteem tend to be those that serve the greater good. This is congruent with an evolutionary theory, but goes beyond what is normally understood as social Darwinism.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
The Civil Religion Calendar
The annual “Happy Holidays” controversy has made me think of what the civil religion calendar would like if wholly freed from religion. Here is my offering. Flags available.
(Your comments welcome).
New Year’s Fitness Resolution Day
Mysterious Monday Off (formerly, Feel Good About Race Relations Day)
Super Bowl Commercial Sunday
Rodent Shadow Day
Forced Romance Day
Mysterious Monday Off (formerly, Celebration of Famous Presidents You Should Have Studied In School)
Drunken Green Day
Chocolate Bunny Day
TAX DAY (or Day of Atonement)
First Day of Summer (formerly, Honor Dead Soldiers While Forgetting War Day)
Fireworks Day
Last Day of Summer (formerly, Don’t Labor Day)
Mysterious Monday Off (formerly, Catholic Parade Day)
Costume and Candy Day
Mysterious Monday Off (formerly, Honor Living Soldiers While Forgetting War Day)
Family Turkey Day
Happy Shopidays
(Your comments welcome).
New Year’s Fitness Resolution Day
Mysterious Monday Off (formerly, Feel Good About Race Relations Day)
Super Bowl Commercial Sunday
Rodent Shadow Day
Forced Romance Day
Mysterious Monday Off (formerly, Celebration of Famous Presidents You Should Have Studied In School)
Drunken Green Day
Chocolate Bunny Day
TAX DAY (or Day of Atonement)
First Day of Summer (formerly, Honor Dead Soldiers While Forgetting War Day)
Fireworks Day
Last Day of Summer (formerly, Don’t Labor Day)
Mysterious Monday Off (formerly, Catholic Parade Day)
Costume and Candy Day
Mysterious Monday Off (formerly, Honor Living Soldiers While Forgetting War Day)
Family Turkey Day
Happy Shopidays
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Scott Stapp engaged
I used to watch MTV’s “Behind the Music,” their biographical profile of bands and singers, fairly regularly. I had a rule, though: I would watch until the first divorce. The only show I ever made it to the end of, following that rule, was the profile of Creed lead singer and Christian pop star Scott Stapp. At the end of his profile he marries a spectacular blond. When the credits roll they are set to live happily ever after.
Today his engagement to a former Miss New York was announced.
Sigh.
Does anyone know of any prominent pop musicians who are enjoying a long, happy first marriage?
Today his engagement to a former Miss New York was announced.
Sigh.
Does anyone know of any prominent pop musicians who are enjoying a long, happy first marriage?
Friday, January 06, 2006
National Greatness and the Ecology of Families 5 - The Class of Great Families Rules a Great Nation
I had the privilege of studying with the late E. Digby Baltzell, the premier sociologist of the American ruling classes. Baltzell is best known for the idea of a WASP class, the class of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants from which the ruling groups in the United States were long drawn. Baltzell thought that every society will have a ruling class, which is necessary to lead the principal institutions of society and to hold the whole together. Simple egalitarian leveling is not an option, and those who attempt it merely end up paving the way for tyranny.
Baltzell said that there is a crucial distinction between an elite and a ruling class. An elite is made up of individuals; a ruling class, of families. Elite individuals rise to the top of the various institutions and pyramids of power in society. A mere elite, though, cannot really run society. The interests of the elite individuals and the institutions that they run conflict with one another too much. Countries with only elites break down into corruption and chaos. A ruling class of families moderates the conflict of elites by binding the individuals together with ties that go beyond their institutional concerns and personal power. A ruling class has an interest in looking out for the stability of society as a whole, because the class itself – unlike the individuals within it – endures through the generations.
A ruling class of families, when it is working well, absorbs individuals who have risen into the elite. The traditional way of doing that is through ties of marriage. The ruling class in many societies, even in one as large and diverse as the United States, forms a “cousinage” of people connected by kin ties, often real, sometimes, of necessity, fictive. The core of a functioning national ruling class, though, will be an interconnected set of families which is continually replenished by absorbing rising individual members of the elite.
The obvious danger of a ruling class of families is that they will become a closed caste, excluding whole categories of elite individuals, and becoming content to marry one another. The opposite of a caste, Baltzell argued, is an aristocracy – which literally means “rule by the best” – which continually replenishes itself by absorbing elite individuals. Baltzell’s own work was about how some parts of the American ruling class excluded Jews in the middle of the 20th century. In the dynamic, competitive ecology of American society, they reaped their reward: the families, and the sectors of the ruling class, which excluded Jews tended to fall out of the national ruling class. That struggle is largely over, and the inclusive aristocracy of America is thoroughly shot through with Jews and the descendents of Jews, some religiously observant and some not.
The great and shaming example of caste in American history was the exclusion of African-Americans. We fought a great war in the 19th century, and then waged a great ethical struggle in the 20th century, to break the back of this caste idea. Anti-black racism is by no means dead in America, but it is clearly declining in significance. The ruling class is absorbing elite black individuals through many channels, including marriage. Our country is now enjoying another great wave of immigration which is bringing the most diverse collection of elite individuals into various halls of power. As I see it, the American ruling class has been very effective in absorbing these new elites.
The ethnicity and religion of the American ruling class has changed and is changing all the time. But the basic family dynamic remains the same: strong families rise, weak families fall. This includes families made by “new men” and “new women” from groups not previously included in the ruling class.
Baltzell said that there is a crucial distinction between an elite and a ruling class. An elite is made up of individuals; a ruling class, of families. Elite individuals rise to the top of the various institutions and pyramids of power in society. A mere elite, though, cannot really run society. The interests of the elite individuals and the institutions that they run conflict with one another too much. Countries with only elites break down into corruption and chaos. A ruling class of families moderates the conflict of elites by binding the individuals together with ties that go beyond their institutional concerns and personal power. A ruling class has an interest in looking out for the stability of society as a whole, because the class itself – unlike the individuals within it – endures through the generations.
A ruling class of families, when it is working well, absorbs individuals who have risen into the elite. The traditional way of doing that is through ties of marriage. The ruling class in many societies, even in one as large and diverse as the United States, forms a “cousinage” of people connected by kin ties, often real, sometimes, of necessity, fictive. The core of a functioning national ruling class, though, will be an interconnected set of families which is continually replenished by absorbing rising individual members of the elite.
The obvious danger of a ruling class of families is that they will become a closed caste, excluding whole categories of elite individuals, and becoming content to marry one another. The opposite of a caste, Baltzell argued, is an aristocracy – which literally means “rule by the best” – which continually replenishes itself by absorbing elite individuals. Baltzell’s own work was about how some parts of the American ruling class excluded Jews in the middle of the 20th century. In the dynamic, competitive ecology of American society, they reaped their reward: the families, and the sectors of the ruling class, which excluded Jews tended to fall out of the national ruling class. That struggle is largely over, and the inclusive aristocracy of America is thoroughly shot through with Jews and the descendents of Jews, some religiously observant and some not.
The great and shaming example of caste in American history was the exclusion of African-Americans. We fought a great war in the 19th century, and then waged a great ethical struggle in the 20th century, to break the back of this caste idea. Anti-black racism is by no means dead in America, but it is clearly declining in significance. The ruling class is absorbing elite black individuals through many channels, including marriage. Our country is now enjoying another great wave of immigration which is bringing the most diverse collection of elite individuals into various halls of power. As I see it, the American ruling class has been very effective in absorbing these new elites.
The ethnicity and religion of the American ruling class has changed and is changing all the time. But the basic family dynamic remains the same: strong families rise, weak families fall. This includes families made by “new men” and “new women” from groups not previously included in the ruling class.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
National Greatness and the Ecology of Families 4 - What I Mean by National Greatness
My idea of national greatness has the strongest affinities with the vision of Theodore Roosevelt. I believe in busting trusts because it serves a free market, and requiring more of the rich because they owe more to a society that helped them get and keep their riches. I believe in using our national might to settle disputes abroad – TR won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in activating the International Court of Arbitration and in settling the Russo-Japanese War – and to build the global infrastructure, like the Panama Canal. Roosevelt himself made mistakes, as any leader does, and some of them were beauts. But, to my mind, Theodore Roosevelt best embodies the spirit of what I think of as National Greatness.
When I first registered to vote, I registered as a Republican, quite against my family’s tradition, because I was under the spell of that wonderful biography of the first president Roosevelt, Mornings On Horseback. I soon discovered, though, the same thing that many would-be followers of TR found: the Republican Party was no home for us. This is why Franklin Roosevelt, who took his famous relative as a model, became a Democrat. Since the 1970s, though, the Democratic Party has not been a home for those who believe in the national greatness of America.
Centrist movements within each party keep trying to make an institutional space for a Rooseveltian politics. David Brooks, who has done the most to promote the idea of a national greatness agenda, has said that he wishes there were a party led by John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Two blogs I read regularly, and are linked to this one, are New Donkey and the Bull Moose – that latter, obviously, an explicit attempt to promote a politics in the manner of Teddy Roosevelt.
You may be wondering why a blog about families is talking about national greatness – make that National Greatness. It is because I think that families, wonderful and important though they are, are not ends in themselves. In fact, I think that any life, and any institution, can only really be great if it serves an end greater than itself. This is the wisdom of the seemingly paradoxical idea of “servant leadership.” It is perfectly possible to have strong families which serve only themselves, undermining the other institutions of society, and ultimately undermining society itself. This is the conclusion of Edward Banfield’s classic The Moral Basis of a Backward Society.
The best kind of strong families serve to make the nation greater. And a great nation best serves the world.
When I first registered to vote, I registered as a Republican, quite against my family’s tradition, because I was under the spell of that wonderful biography of the first president Roosevelt, Mornings On Horseback. I soon discovered, though, the same thing that many would-be followers of TR found: the Republican Party was no home for us. This is why Franklin Roosevelt, who took his famous relative as a model, became a Democrat. Since the 1970s, though, the Democratic Party has not been a home for those who believe in the national greatness of America.
Centrist movements within each party keep trying to make an institutional space for a Rooseveltian politics. David Brooks, who has done the most to promote the idea of a national greatness agenda, has said that he wishes there were a party led by John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Two blogs I read regularly, and are linked to this one, are New Donkey and the Bull Moose – that latter, obviously, an explicit attempt to promote a politics in the manner of Teddy Roosevelt.
You may be wondering why a blog about families is talking about national greatness – make that National Greatness. It is because I think that families, wonderful and important though they are, are not ends in themselves. In fact, I think that any life, and any institution, can only really be great if it serves an end greater than itself. This is the wisdom of the seemingly paradoxical idea of “servant leadership.” It is perfectly possible to have strong families which serve only themselves, undermining the other institutions of society, and ultimately undermining society itself. This is the conclusion of Edward Banfield’s classic The Moral Basis of a Backward Society.
The best kind of strong families serve to make the nation greater. And a great nation best serves the world.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
National Greatness and the Ecology of Families 3 - What are Strong Families?
I have been arguing that the social ecology favors strong families. So what do I mean by strong families? This is what I think:
• The normal form of a strong family is a married man and woman raising their own children.
• The normal functional system of a strong family has clear boundaries around the marriage, around the parent-child bond, and around the whole family. The parents are demanding of their children, and also responsive to them. The family has clear rules, but can be flexible in applying them without undermining the system. The children honor their parents, while maturing into independence from them.
• The normal division of labor of a strong family changes over the life course. When the children are small, the most likely arrangement is that the father works to support the family, and the mother takes primary care of the kids and the home.
This ideal type can be approximated successfully in a variety of ways. I believe, though, that this strong family form is rooted in human nature and biology. It does not change.
Social demography, though, does change. The proportion of families that approximate this ideal ebbs and flows. Strong societies can also tolerate a variety of other family forms, many of which can be good enough.
As I argued yesterday, social classes which want strong families and have a large proportion of them will rise in the ecology of society. Classes based on other family forms can get by, more or less, but they will be at a disadvantage in the medium run, and seriously handicapped in the long run.
The proportion of strong families varies in each class. The proportion of strong families in society as a whole also ebbs and flows. Some people argue that the picture of the strong family that I have outlined, which is a very traditional kind of family, is now a minority form in the United States. I dispute this contention.
Most people want to marry for life and raise their kids.
Most people get to marry for life and raise their kids.
The married couple with their own kids at home are now a minority of households. However, many of the other kinds of households are just nuclear families at a different stage of the life cycle. When you add up all the families with a strong form, you get to a majority.
It is impossible to say what proportion of all families have a strong form and a strong functional system and an effective and flexible division of labor. That ideal is, indeed, likely to be enjoyed only by a minority. But that happy minority will, I argue, be disproportionately found in the rising classes.
• The normal form of a strong family is a married man and woman raising their own children.
• The normal functional system of a strong family has clear boundaries around the marriage, around the parent-child bond, and around the whole family. The parents are demanding of their children, and also responsive to them. The family has clear rules, but can be flexible in applying them without undermining the system. The children honor their parents, while maturing into independence from them.
• The normal division of labor of a strong family changes over the life course. When the children are small, the most likely arrangement is that the father works to support the family, and the mother takes primary care of the kids and the home.
This ideal type can be approximated successfully in a variety of ways. I believe, though, that this strong family form is rooted in human nature and biology. It does not change.
Social demography, though, does change. The proportion of families that approximate this ideal ebbs and flows. Strong societies can also tolerate a variety of other family forms, many of which can be good enough.
As I argued yesterday, social classes which want strong families and have a large proportion of them will rise in the ecology of society. Classes based on other family forms can get by, more or less, but they will be at a disadvantage in the medium run, and seriously handicapped in the long run.
The proportion of strong families varies in each class. The proportion of strong families in society as a whole also ebbs and flows. Some people argue that the picture of the strong family that I have outlined, which is a very traditional kind of family, is now a minority form in the United States. I dispute this contention.
Most people want to marry for life and raise their kids.
Most people get to marry for life and raise their kids.
The married couple with their own kids at home are now a minority of households. However, many of the other kinds of households are just nuclear families at a different stage of the life cycle. When you add up all the families with a strong form, you get to a majority.
It is impossible to say what proportion of all families have a strong form and a strong functional system and an effective and flexible division of labor. That ideal is, indeed, likely to be enjoyed only by a minority. But that happy minority will, I argue, be disproportionately found in the rising classes.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
National Greatness and the Ecology of Families 2 - The Ecology of Families
The nation’s families don’t all follow one model, but follow different patterns in different subcultures. The subcultures are made, in large part, by their family pattern.
Groups of families which live in similar ways form what Max Weber called status groups. He was distinguishing status groups from economic classes in the strict sense -- layers in society which have nothing in common except their income. The distinction between status group and class is an important one in sociology. In normal American talk, though, when we say “class” we mean both a way of living and an income level, and probably put more emphasis on the status or way of life element. So “social class” will do for me.
A social ecology has a number of social classes, which are themselves composed of a huge variety of families and individuals. Some look at an ecology and are impressed with the diversity, with the multiple cultures found there. They are likely to use a static image, such as “mosaic” or “tapestry” to describe the whole society. Others look at an ecology and are impressed with the relentless competition of the classes, as well as of the families and even of the individuals, with one another. They are more likely to use a dynamic image, such “market” or “war” to describe the whole society. A social ecology is both of those things. It does contain a rich variety. It is in constant competition.
Social competition favors classes with strong families.
Families are the best institution for making the next generation, for raising them to be productive individuals, and forming children who will form effective families of their own. Families that break up, or people who have children without ever really forming families, tend to get poorer. They waste and lose and break the assets that had been accumulated by previous generations, and don’t create a structure capable of keeping anything whole for long.
A generation with lots of divorces and unwed mothers tends to fall out of the rising classes and into the falling ones. Families which stay together and build up find they have less and less in common with their relatives and old friends who are going the other way.
When entire classes or subcultures can successfully make strong families over time, they tend to rise. They rise not just in wealth and status, but also in power. They tend to produce the predominant groups in society, and may even form a ruling class.
Whatever virtues, wealth, status, or power, an individual might have, it can’t simply be kept, because no one lives forever. And virtues, or even assets, can’t simply be given away, because virtues need to be developed slowly, and assets without commensurate character to preserve them quickly get dissipated. Over time, the strongest and best need to make and leave strong families, or they are without posterity.
Groups of families which live in similar ways form what Max Weber called status groups. He was distinguishing status groups from economic classes in the strict sense -- layers in society which have nothing in common except their income. The distinction between status group and class is an important one in sociology. In normal American talk, though, when we say “class” we mean both a way of living and an income level, and probably put more emphasis on the status or way of life element. So “social class” will do for me.
A social ecology has a number of social classes, which are themselves composed of a huge variety of families and individuals. Some look at an ecology and are impressed with the diversity, with the multiple cultures found there. They are likely to use a static image, such as “mosaic” or “tapestry” to describe the whole society. Others look at an ecology and are impressed with the relentless competition of the classes, as well as of the families and even of the individuals, with one another. They are more likely to use a dynamic image, such “market” or “war” to describe the whole society. A social ecology is both of those things. It does contain a rich variety. It is in constant competition.
Social competition favors classes with strong families.
Families are the best institution for making the next generation, for raising them to be productive individuals, and forming children who will form effective families of their own. Families that break up, or people who have children without ever really forming families, tend to get poorer. They waste and lose and break the assets that had been accumulated by previous generations, and don’t create a structure capable of keeping anything whole for long.
A generation with lots of divorces and unwed mothers tends to fall out of the rising classes and into the falling ones. Families which stay together and build up find they have less and less in common with their relatives and old friends who are going the other way.
When entire classes or subcultures can successfully make strong families over time, they tend to rise. They rise not just in wealth and status, but also in power. They tend to produce the predominant groups in society, and may even form a ruling class.
Whatever virtues, wealth, status, or power, an individual might have, it can’t simply be kept, because no one lives forever. And virtues, or even assets, can’t simply be given away, because virtues need to be developed slowly, and assets without commensurate character to preserve them quickly get dissipated. Over time, the strongest and best need to make and leave strong families, or they are without posterity.
Monday, January 02, 2006
National Greatness and the Ecology of Families 1
My thesis this week, this year, and likely in the years ahead, is this:
In the great ecology of subcultures, status groups, and classes in America, the class with the strongest families enjoys an advantage. It is good for America that classes with strong families tend to predominate, if not rule. Strong family life is not the only element of greatness in a class, but I believe it is the single most important element.
In the great ecology of civilizations, states, and nations in the world, the nation with the strongest culture enjoys an advantage. It is good for the world that nations with strong cultures tend to predominate, if not rule. Strong cultural life is not the only element of greatness in a nation, but I believe it is the single most important element.
When the predominant class in America has a strong family life, American culture as a whole is greater.
When the predominant nation in the world has a strong cultural life, world culture as a whole is greater.
Strong family life in the American ruling class makes for national greatness.
National greatness in America, the world’s ruling nation, makes for a better world.
In the great ecology of subcultures, status groups, and classes in America, the class with the strongest families enjoys an advantage. It is good for America that classes with strong families tend to predominate, if not rule. Strong family life is not the only element of greatness in a class, but I believe it is the single most important element.
In the great ecology of civilizations, states, and nations in the world, the nation with the strongest culture enjoys an advantage. It is good for the world that nations with strong cultures tend to predominate, if not rule. Strong cultural life is not the only element of greatness in a nation, but I believe it is the single most important element.
When the predominant class in America has a strong family life, American culture as a whole is greater.
When the predominant nation in the world has a strong cultural life, world culture as a whole is greater.
Strong family life in the American ruling class makes for national greatness.
National greatness in America, the world’s ruling nation, makes for a better world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
