Family and Civilization by eminent
sociologist Carle Zimmerman is said to be a classic. After reading it, I
can see why. I don’t make it a habit to read 70-year old books, but this is a tour de force on family structure. And
its largely-accurate prophecies make its age even more valuable.
It’s not
clear whether Zimmerman's succinct first sentence is motivated by his
profession or his interest as a concerned citizen: "No problem is more
interesting and vital to us than that of the family." (p. 1; page numbers
are a reference to Zimmerman unless marked otherwise) Family is at the heart of
sociology, near the heart of economics and psychology, and a key to any social
science. And the health of the family is clearly vital to the functioning of
society.
But this
simple opening is only a terse introduction to a complex topic. It will take an
entire book for Zimmerman to describe three types of families, trace the
history of family structure from the ancient Greeks to the modern West, argue
for cause/effect in the evolution of family structure, briefly detail the
debate in Sociology on these matters, and lay out his predictions for the
future of the family in the West.
Debate Among Sociologists
Zimmerman
finishes his intro with an overview of the contemporary debate between the two
basic schools of thought within the field of sociology on family (8-19). Both chart
the history and future of the family in evolutionary terms. The "Chicago
School" saw the world through Progressive and Marxist lenses. Improved
versions of marriage and family will naturally arise and thrive over time, in
line with the proponents’ conception of Progress. And a Marxist focus on
materialism implies that such changes are largely driven by the natural
environment—most notably, economic factors (e.g., industrialization, higher
wages).
Zimmerman
and others (most notably, his friend and colleague Pitirim Sorokin) had an evolutionary
perspective that is:
a.) more contingent (progress is not
always Progress);
b.) more dependent on external factors (beyond
a handful of economic factors—truer to the spirit of the complex social systems
usually described by Sociology);
c.) more cyclical (as people respond to
the deficiencies they see in the dominant family model of their time)[1];
and
d.) more scientific (less reliant on
ideology; more in line with historical data and causal theory).
On this
last point, Zimmerman had harsh words for those with the dominant view:
"There is a greater disparity between the actual, documented, historical
truth and the theories taught in the family sociology courses than exists in any
other scientific field." (ix) He also criticized those who have strong
views on family without understanding it. "Most of family sociology
constructed in Western society, whether valid or not, is the work of amateurs.
To them, familism is something they see, but whose inner meaning they seldom
comprehend." (185)[2]
Some are
limited because they don't have children: it "can come only through
experience on an adult level...nonfamilistic persons cannot understand family
behavior in any deep sense...The family gives more and takes more of the
individual than do other social organizations." (186) Many of Europe's
prominent leaders have few or no children; one wonders about the extent to
which this is indicative or relevant to something larger.
In his
epilogue, Bryce Christensen surveys the last 50 years of this debate, starting
with Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 cry in the wilderness.[3]
The Moynihan Report expressed deep concerns about out-of-wedlock birth rates
for African-Americans that were 25%. (Today, it’s 40% for all children and 70%
for African-Americans.) In opposition, Chicago School thinkers (and their
descendants) have exaggerated the efficacy of single-parent households[4];
ignored or rationalized a range of social pathologies attached to trouble with
family structure and stability; and looked (desperately) for scapegoats
elsewhere (288-295).[5]
But this
is an ancient topic. Palermo (1995) notes that “the family pre-existed both
church and state” and it is “the first model of political societies.” (51-52) And
the debate goes back almost as far. Zimmerman: "This disagreement over the
family is not new...[it is] one of the oldest arguments in history." (2) At
least for Christians and Jews, it stems from the beginning of human history.
One important framework for reading Genesis is what it says about marriage and
family—most notably, what God wanted to accomplish through Abraham, his
descendants, and eventually, the nation of Israel (76, 192).
In his
amazing commentary on Genesis, The
Beginning of Wisdom, Leon Kass pursues this theme to great effect. Marriage
ranges from its origins with Adam and Eve through polygamy and inter-marriage.
Child-raising is a key part of the story too, with a special focus on sibling
rivalry—beginning with Cain/Abel and finally resolved by Judah/Joseph. As for
family and society, it’s clearly “a man’s world” entering the Flood narrative.
And with Noah’s first act of post-Flood disobedience—before he even gets off
the ark (Gen 8:16,18)—we learn that he still thinks it is. God “starts over”
with Abraham, but he’s very much a work in progress—especially with respect to
marriage and parenting. All of this is to set up the nation of Israel—and
clearly, there’s a lot of work to do. From God’s perspective, apparently, if
you can’t get family correct, you’re not going to have much of a nation.
Likewise,
if you don’t have effective fathers, families are going to struggle. As Wilcox (2017)
notes, “Christianity turns men’s hearts and minds toward the family. They are
more emotionally engaged with their wives and children. They are more likely to
read to their kids, to hug and praise their children. Feminists tend to be
concerned about the traditionalistic character of religion but miss the
familistic side that encourages men to put their families, marriages, and kids
first.”
Zimmerman’s Three Family Types: Trustee,
Domestic, and Atomistic (Chapter 2)
For "trustee,” think about clans
(e.g., the Hatfields and McCoys), tribes, the Mafia, and inner city gangs as
prominent examples. For the clan, "family" is extremely important and
its leaders have an immense amount of control. They are “trustees” for the
well-being of their group.
In a way,
"family" becomes an idol—taking on an exaggerated sense of importance.
But to empathize with the choice, this form dominates when social and legal
institutions are weaker.[6]
Trustee leaders can be seen as exploiting an opportunity, but Zimmerman describes
them as filling a necessary vacuum. When religion and government cannot provide
order, a single family is not likely to thrive or even survive. Such
responsibilities then naturally devolve to the extended family or clan.
The Mafia
and inner city gangs are also caused by weak government. The irony is that the State
is trying to be strong in these
contexts—by attempting to enforce prohibitions of various sorts. But they can't
administer their laws effectively, leading to profitable extra-legal and
illegal activity, the formation of illicit groups, and ironically, greater
lawlessness (directly and indirectly). Perhaps this connects to current events
too—an apparent increase in nationalism (as opposed to patriotism), given a government
that is unwieldy and “strong,” but ultimately weak and largely secondary in
terms of day-to-day life.
The Old
Testament presents many examples of the trustee family structure—most notably,
the inter-family marriages throughout Genesis (what we now define as “incest”
in the developed world); the episode with Dinah, her brothers, and the
Shechemites (Genesis 34); the clan aspects of “levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy
25:5-6; see: Genesis 38); “eye for an eye” retribution (e.g., Deuteronomy
19:21); and “cities of refuge” to deal with “revenge killings” (see: Joshua 20).
Zimmerman
doesn’t address this, but his categories helped me understand aspects of the
Old Testament.[7]
It’s not that God is universally endorsing the trustee family as optimal. But in
those days, that’s what you did. For the social and legal context, this was the
best you could do—and often, it worked reasonably well.
For “domestic,” think about the modern/New
Testament biblical ideal.[8]
The norm is marriage, fidelity, raising children with two parents, etc.
Zimmerman sees the domestic family as optimal, given the three functions of
family "as articulated by historical Christianity: fides, proles, and
sacramentum—fidelity, child-bearing and indissoluable unity." (x)[9]
The
implications of this are important in both micro terms (the couple and their
children), in semi-macro terms (for better community, more financial and
non-financial resources for the next generation), and in macro/social terms
(fewer social pathologies, greater economic growth).[10]
Morse
(2001): "The family performs a crucial and irreplaceable social
function...helpless babies are transformed from self-centered bundles of
impulses, desires, and emotions to fully socialized adults. The family teaches
trust, cooperation, and self-restraint. The family is uniquely situated to
teach these skills because people instill these qualities in their children as
a side effect of loving them." (5) As such, the family is important to
children, adults, and society.
For “atomistic,” think about either marriage
or lack of marriage, but where the primary focus is the individual—rather than
the couple and the children. If married, divorce becomes more likely. Kids are
less frequent and more disposable (in terms of both abortion and the mode of child-raising)—more
of a side issue than the couple, or really, each parent separately.
Atomism
can emerge from social influences (moral/ethical norms for individuals, couples,
and children), legal incentives (getting into, staying in, or getting out of
marriage), policy incentives (e.g., welfare policies that discourage marriage;
child tax credits that promote bearing children), or economic growth and empowerment
(making marriage less important for financial security).
A History of Marriage and Family
In his
intro, Zimmerman provides a brief survey of world history (4-7): Greek and
Roman conceptions of family, the Fall of Rome, the Middle Ages, and modern
times. In chapters 3-10, Zimmerman expands on each of these eras.
Chapter 3—Early and Mid-Roman: Christianity joined the intellectual and cultural
battles over family—an interaction of various secular and Christian concepts of
family (4-5). Zimmerman documents the changes throughout Roman history (39-44)—from
a mishmash of domestic and atomistic to the eventual dominance of the atomistic
family in Roman culture.
Chapter 4—Late-Roman: Given the decline of Rome, its government, and its culture, Zimmerman
describes the tension in this era between Rome’s atomistic families and the
invading barbarians with their trustee families. "The provincial
magistrate...wanted order and security" and the trustee arrangement was
more conducive to those goals.
But the
Church was in an odd position. It "had to decide between two family codes,
although it was not completely sympathetic with either...From the standpoint of
family life (practical indissolubility of marriage, fecundity, relative absence
of divorce, dignified treatment of women), the church sympathized more with the
barbarians than with the dissolute mores of the Romans." Given the trustee
approach and "ruthless barbarian behavior in interfamily feuds, it favored
the refined and peaceful delicacy" of the Romans and their atomistic
approach (50-52). The result was a blend of all three family types.
Chapter 5—Middle Ages: The Church became more powerful and prominent.
Transportation and communication improved, making it easier to administer. Its
“economic muscle” increased, allowing it more resources. And governments became
weaker, creating both a need for self-defense and an opportunity for the Church.[11]
Zimmerman
emphasizes a desire to promote a Christian view of marriage. Economists have also
emphasized economic (and cynical) self-interests: The Church “varied its
interpretation of what constituted a ‘valid’ marriage in accord with certain
economic objectives.” [12] The
Church initiated a number of reforms for marriage and family (60-64), including
the elimination of dowries and key restrictions on "incest" (that we
now take for granted). This necessarily diminished the power of the clan and
led to the increasing dominance of the domestic model (65-69).
Whatever
the motives, the Church began to crowd out the trustee model and attract more people
to the domestic model. "Side by side in what was known as civilization
were two of the most extreme developments of the family. From this state of
affairs, the church began to formulate a conception of public power to regulate
the family...The Christian church was to be over and above [family and State]
and give the essential moral directives to both family and secular
authorities." (70, 69)
Marriage is
seen as a sacrament rather than a contract, a covenant not a convenience.
Marriage is the union of husband and wife (Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:31)—a
couple instead of a cog in the clan or tribe. "The importance of the
beginning of this conception of the domestic family cannot be
overestimated."[13]
(65) Through the Church’s efforts, Zimmerman observes that civilization had
completed a full cycle over a number of centuries, from domestic as the dominant
model—to atomistic, to trustee, and then back to domestic.
Chapter 6—Early "Modern": Christianity “controlled” the West
and much of the East. Zimmerman observes that the trustee family lasted longer
in the East than in the West—in part due to the influence of Islam, the Mongol
Invasion, and greater ruralism (77). Scandinavia, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales
were late adapters of domestic as well (78). In any case, the domestic family
was increasingly dominant. Now what?
Zimmerman
sees a variety of attacks on and defenses of marriage within the Church
(79-84). Erasmus did not see marriage as sacramental or even sacred (79-81). More
broadly, Protestant Reformers did not see marriage as a sacrament (81), but
instead as a "divine institution." (83) It was to be regulated by the
State. Luther compared marriage to food, clothing, and shelter (82). Still, he
held it in high regard: "God's way of life...Strong marriages make strong
society...Marriage is a social institution and not merely individual
pleasure." (82)
Today, we
see the same thing: Protestants want to revere marriage, but they’ve diminished
it from a sacrament to an “institution” and seem surprised when they (and
others) struggle to uphold it. For them, it is not a sacramental covenant between husband and wife, but rather a
contract (implicitly, a merely social or civic institution)—or hopefully, a
sacred institution and a covenant.[14]
Likewise, we’ve seen contemporary Christian and “conservative” angst about
“same-sex marriage,” but relatively little sense of crisis over the far larger
problems with rampant divorce and illegitimacy over the past 50 years.
Chapter 7-10 —From the Reformation into the 19th Century: Zimmerman
lays considerable blame on French philosophers—and then the French and Russian
Revolutions—for their promotion of easy divorce (95, 270). Then he turns to
Protestants again, with a focus on the Puritans. Milton followed Luther's relatively
secular and liberal view on marriage and divorce (100). Other Puritans had a
"fully secular conception of marriage" and invoked the State in
requiring civil marriage (103). Locke's analysis was "secular in
nature" (102) and explicitly promoted atomism after the children were out
of the house (105). Voltaire relied on secular, practical arguments to promote
marriage (106-107). Of the writers cited, only Thomas Paine provides a defense
of marriage as sacred! (111)
Zimmerman
summarizes historical Protestant thought on marriage as "indecisive."
(109) He concludes "Most writers praise or blame the Protestant leaders
for the philosophical steps that led to the modern atomism of the family.
Neither praise nor blame is deserved." (269)
Whatever
the cause, James Kurth's epilogue provides a great summary statement of the
relevant trends in the last century: "What was once a common
extended-family structure has shrunk first to a nuclear-family structure and
then, during the past quarter-century, to a non-family phenomenon." (305)
Cause and Effect
In
Chapters 11-12, Zimmerman sets the table for his three chapters on the causal
factors of the various family structures. He argues that family structure is
inherently stable, but can be undermined by external factors such as changes in
government policy, economic context, and beliefs about morality.
In
Chapter 13, Zimmerman turns to the trustee family, with a focus on Appalachia
(205-211). These families did not have this structure until they moved from the
colonies into the frontier—a context with little government. With the presence
of Indians and bandits, "the formation of the trustee family was a quick
reversion in family organization, achieved early and long preserved because of a
series of conditioning environmental factors...identical to those which caused
it development in Western society” during the early Middle Ages (207-208). As
Zimmerman described earlier, trustee families are likely to arise as a response
to the lack of order that comes with a weak State.
One might
expect these domestic families to have been undergirded by religious belief and
the Church. But the rural setting made all types of community more challenging.
Soon, the "camp meeting revival" changed their form of religion—in
part, substituting annual meetings of emotion for weekly meetings of a
congregational community (207). I was surprised to learn that these migrants
were relatively well-educated Presbyterians, related to the folks who started
Princeton (206)!
Decades
later, the trustee family system was entrenched. As the State began to
strengthen with economic development and greater population density, these families
captured the political process, controlling it through voting and implicitly
maintaining the status quo. "That was why many Kentucky feuds allegedly
started over 'politics'." (211)
This
seems like a cousin of today's politics—with various forms of “identity
politics” and partisans of the two major political parties fighting for power.
Current events certainly resemble a tribal approach—with an increasingly “strong”
(yet weak) government in a society with an increasingly-atomized approach to
family. Or consider non-urban Africa with the dominance of tribes. In the
coming years, one would expect Africans to evolve toward some combination of domestic
and atomistic—given technological advance, stronger economies, greater
mobility, more effective governments, and varying levels of Christian influence.
In
Chapter 14, Zimmerman discusses the causation of the domestic family: the
presence of a strong religious influence; a reasonably strong government; and
responses to the excesses of trustee families. It is the primary family “type
of all developed civilization” (221)—most prevalent in the middle stages and
less so, in the early and later stages (227). Domestic is also an attractive
family structure, since it allows for the strongest approach to economic
development (232).[15]
Zimmerman
argues that the causes of the move away from the domestic family must be
(largely) external as well. “We cannot think of the domestic family as being
the agent of its own decay...There is no general cause within this family type
which is antithetical to it." (235, 240) Are there potential excesses of
the domestic model? Sure. It's not difficult to recall or imagine anecdotes
here. But Zimmerman's point seems to hold that the causes of its fade or demise
are more likely external than internal—changes in economics, religion, morals,
or government policy (235-236).
In chapter
15, Zimmerman gets to the fascinating causes of the atomistic family and its
chicken/egg contributions to the decline of civilization (277-278).[16]
For explicit forms of Statism, atomism is attractive—with family power reduced
(compared to trustee or domestic). But seeing family as a useful cell for the
all-important organism of the State (143, 146). In democracies, he points to the
rise of legal “divorce without cause” and birth rates dropping below
replacement rates as the cultural norm becomes having fewer children (147-162).
Population can be supplemented short-term by immigration, but this brings challenges
too. For example, European nations have used immigration to offset declines in
birth rates.[17]
In some
ways, the atomistic approach has some advantages: fewer kids are easier for
parents to handle; fewer problems with sibling rivalry—as kids or adults (252).
Even so, Zimmerman compares the situation to carbs vs. healthy foods in a diet.
The former has "superficial, discernible values" which are appealing;
the latter is better although potentially more difficult to discern (253).
Ironically,
this family type is often imagined as the height of social progress. Further
irony: those who see this as progress often view some of its primary causes (modest
government and economic growth) as deeply troubling. Horwitz (2015): “Where
conservatives will have to reconcile their supposed love of capitalism to the
reality of the dynamic cultural change it produces that they dislike,
progressives may have to recognize that the diversity of family forms they
rightly celebrate is significantly due to capitalism and the wealth it has
created.” (7)
Debate
here is not surprising. "It is customary for people with very decided
opinions to take opposite points of view about the atomistic family....the high
point of civilization, the peak of human development...the decadence of the
times." (241) Of course, this is true of all family structures: people
inside the trustee family often praise it; those outside it see it as between
bizarre and repugnant. Domestic has the most support, but even so, it still has
detractors, especially when its struggles are imagined as part of its nature
rather than compared to its ideal (242).
If
Zimmerman is correct, then the atomized family will necessarily lead to
profound social troubles. Those who see the atomized family as an advance—out of flawed analysis and/or
deficient ideology—will ignore or downplay these problems (e.g., various pathologies
more likely in single-parent households).[18]
But often, the problems are not particularly debatable (e.g., gang violence,
declining education standards, greater violence and drug use, etc.).[19]
For example, Wallerstein et. al. (2000) discuss the claim that divorce is “a
minor upheaval” and the myth that “if the parents are happier, [then] the
children will be happier too.” The authors critique the “unwarranted
assumptions that adults have made about children simply because such
assumptions are congenial to adult needs and wishes.”[20]
In such
cases, the defenders of the atomistic family must find rationales or
scapegoats. In the late-Roman era, Christians blamed family structure and
general moral decay while Romans blamed the Christians for the society’s decline
(251). The two possible approaches today are to deal with the cause (which
requires introspection, the requisite worldview, and tremendous courage in
today’s world) or to address the symptoms ("to build up institutions to
'remedy' the misery" [245]—likely a losing battle).
The 1950s and Zimmerman’s Short/Long
Run Predictions
One under-rated
question is the debatable extent to which the 1950s were a glorious time in
U.S. history. In some circles, it’s common to celebrate the era; in other
circles, it’s common to pooh-pooh the times. But it’s more complicated than either
view—for society in general, or for marriage and family in particular.[21]
For one thing, the parents of the 1950s gave us the children of the 1960s.[22]
Christianity
was dominant, but how much of it was biblical Christianity or some bastardized
form of Christianity as a key part of American Civil Religion?[23]
The predominance of “Christianity” in 1950s America is better seen as an
aberration, rather than the end of a long era of Christian dominance. The same
holds for the American family, which has experienced cycles, rather than a long
period of stability and then a famous falling-apart after the 1950s.
For
example, Carlson (2016) describes concerns about the family in the late-19th
and early-20th centuries—both the statistics and a troubling set of
potential causes: feminism and contraception, the Industrial Revolution and
greater incomes, greater mobility and urbanization, state schooling and the
Great Depression. These “should have led to the demise of familism in
America…yet, just the opposite occurred. The next several decades actually
witnesses an extraordinary blossoming of a culture of marriage…” (117)[24]
Kurth argues
that the post-World War II time period was not a Golden Age for marriage or
much of anything else (308).[25]
Scholars were concerned about the increased incidence of divorce going back
into the 19th century[26],
laws that made divorce easy[27],
and an easy-to-see trend toward less respect for marriage. For example, Zimmerman
shares an anecdote from 1945 where two couples from New Jersey go to Nevada to
get divorced and switch spouses, with the kids being “awarded” to the mothers
(244).
Zimmerman
had predicted imminent trouble and ultimately, crisis. He said we would “reach
the final phases of a great family crisis” by the end of the 20th century
(274). Instead, we experienced a short-run domestic family renaissance—or at
least, a delay in long-term trends—during the post-war recovery from the Great
Depression and World War II (320).
Looking
back now, Zimmerman probably would have seen the Baby Boom’s population bump
and a renewed focus on family as an unforeseen blip within a general decline. Carlson
(2016) reports that by 1960, “Zimmerman became almost euphoric about the family
miracle occurring in the American suburbs.” (134) But in Zimmerman (1972), he seems
far less optimistic. He worries about the family—and in particular, about the
impact of higher education, which had gone through a rough decade. He pointed explicitly
to “the cyclical factor in family behavior” and he seemed to anticipate a
future closer to his earlier predictions.
Certainly,
the last three decades of the 20th century were not good for the
American family. Family renewal “vanished with remarkable speed”; marriage
rates fell by 35%; early marriage disappeared; cohabitation increased
dramatically; and fertility dropped significantly.[28]
In the short-run, Zimmerman’s predictions were wrong; in the long-run, his
analysis seems accurate and his predictions have been coming to pass. But is
this different parts of a cycle—or a slippery slope to the end of viable
marriage? Without reform, what’s next?
Zimmerman:
"The basic, moral, and ideological population sources of the strength of
the culture dry up...resentment against this overextended atomism...creates,
purely negatively, conditions that lead to a new synthesis and reaction."
(254) It would seem that we're probably in that phase now—with the social
experiments in sexuality, our legal experiments in marriage, and at least in
some circles, concerns about current trends in marriage and family. What are
the likely outcomes and what will the social response be?
-Without
the domestic family, one cannot have civilization for long (262). High atomism
is not good for society and thus, is ultimately not good for the individual
(261).
-The
cause of atomism and trustee families is connected to a loss of faith in God or
useful gods (259). "Familism has never succeeded without a system of
infinite faith." (260)
-The
cause of the decline is likely to be confused with its symptoms (256). Government
agencies will try to stem the tide of symptoms but this "will only make
the situation more confused and difficult." (277)
-"Speculation
about the family and the future course of civilization arises only when the
atomistic type of family is coming into full control of society." (278) There
will be "very little public knowledge of the nearness, the inescapability,
or the seriousness of the impending crisis. The intellectuals almost completely
avoid discussion of it." (275) One of the costs of modern political
correctness and “tolerance” is a greatly-reduced ability to speak candidly
about obvious social problems in terms of both cause and effect.
-There
will be a "somewhat bivalent" attitude toward family: "We want
to retain the family, but it must not interfere with our love affairs, either
hetero- or homosexual." (273) This observation seems remarkably prescient
in light of current events. Even those who favor expanded “rights” and social
approval for homosexual relationships cannot be excited about the implications
for family, the birth dearth, etc.
Where Do We Go from Here?
Zimmerman
observes that the family is always in flux. And he is optimistic that downward
swings are not inevitable (279). Are
we starting to understand the importance of the issue and the severity of the
problem? "Must there be another cataclysm" along the lines of Greece
and Rome? (281) "The struggle over the modern family and its present rapid
trend toward a climactic breakup will be one of the most interesting and
decisive ones in history. So much is at stake." (281)
Is a long-run
cycle somewhat natural or does it require purposeful actions? Is there a
natural "regression to the mean"? "In sociology we sometimes
speak of a theory of limits. When a movement goes so far in one direction, it
seems to stir up antagonistic forces that bring about a return toward an old
idea or a revision of an old idea." (285)
In Family Cycles, Allan Carlson (2016) identifies
four cycles of marriage in American history, each of which lasted about 50
years. It’s interesting that this resembles the Old Testament’s cyclical
patterns between generational obedience and disobedience. If the cycle repeats,
we would bottom out in 2020. Despite his own study of this pattern, Carlson
still finds it difficult to be optimistic—just as others would find it
challenging at the end of their contemporary cycles!
Why? Modern
tendencies (legal, economic, social) all seem to favor increased atomism. Carlson:
“Might this happen? The odds are against it. Most notably, the current legal
climate is overwhelmingly hostile…And yet…the circumstances of the 1930s and
1940s were also overwhelmingly hostile to family renewal. Nonetheless, it
occurred.”[29]
(161)
Can we
discern possible causes for the effect of a reversal and the continuation of
the cycle? Eberhardt (2013) argues that a renaissance of Christianity or the
family would lead to gains in the other. Brooks (2000) sees a resurgence in
“communitarianism”, civil society, and “mediating institutions” which would
presumably favor a resurgence in family and Christianity (238, 242).
Christianity
and the Church are a possible corrective, but at present, they seem to have insufficient
prevalence and influence to change the World’s penchant for increased atomism.
A stronger Church, focused on discipleship with Jesus, would foster stronger
marriages—as believers follow the humility and self-sacrificial approach of
Philippians 2:3-4, serving as winsome examples with respect to marriage and
family.
What about
the possibility of those outside the Church seeing cause/effect and making a
push for domestic family? This could come through public opinion and
observations about what works well and not-so-well. For example, we see high
rates of marriage and relatively low rates of divorce in the military. As Brad
Wilcox notes, there’s something for both ideologies to get excited about.
Progressives will point to “stable work, decent-paying jobs, access to free or
inexpensive housing, and free healthcare.” Conservatives will note “a culture
that honors marriage and the traditional family life, and policies that say you
don’t get housing on base or other benefits if you are co-habiting.”[30]
Zimmerman
looks to the "educated literati" for hope (285). Christensen's
epilogue is appreciative of Zimmerman’s work. But he finds Zimmerman's faith in
"the learned classes" (xiii) to be a "very dubious culmination
to an analysis that has put the reader on guard against the 'hybrid' alliance
of the growing state and the skeptical modern intellectual." (298)
Still,
Zimmerman’s hope does line up (at least in terms of lifestyle) with Murray's
observations in Coming Apart.[31] For
those in the middle and upper classes, marriage is still popular in
absolute terms and quite popular in relative terms. Why? It could be a reflex
dependent on accumulated social capital. Marriage "works"—for
individuals and for society—vs. the alternatives. People are often driven by
the eternal whether they recognize it or not (Ecclesiastes 3:11)—for their
kids, their legacy, etc. The atomistic family is not subsidized by the
government in the middle and upper income classes (as is necessarily the case
with welfare policies). And perhaps those in the middle and upper income
classes are not as strongly influenced by cultural norms (at least relatively
speaking).[32]
To some
extent, all of this is “by construction”: those who are married and stay
married are much more likely to have worldly success and avoid worldly
problems. The concept of “class” is always complicated—often reduced to income
(for statistical ease), but obviously including wealth. More broadly, it
includes education, lifestyle, non-financial resources—and here, marital
status. Steven Nock notes that: “The ‘haves’ are generally those in stable
marriages. The ‘have nots’ are generally those who live outside marriage,
especially with children. So vast is the difference, one is tempted to replace
the traditional notion of social class with the more descriptive term marriage
class. Marriage now divides the population in the same way social class once
did. Indeed, it may do so more profoundly.”[33]
What is a
reasonable level of hope to have about these matters—and in what can that hope be
reasonably placed?[34]
Christiansen, Kurth, and Sorokin share a faith in the ability of Christianity
to bring revival to society—and in particular, to society through marriage and
family (319). But Christensen notes that Zimmerman departs from and even avoids
Sorokin in two key and ironic ways: the pessimism of Sorokin’s predictions and
the extent of his hope for a reversal. Sorokin anticipated profound
"tragedy and suffering" from the drift into atomism, even comparing
it to crucifixion. But "he envisioned a future in which a chastened and
humbled people would recover strong marriages and strong family lives as they
listened to new St. Pauls, St. Augustines, and great religious and ethical
leaders." (302)
Where
Sorokin affirms the potential power of religious faith, Zimmerman has his
doubts. It seems odd for Zimmerman to put more faith in secular, intellectual
authorities than religion (303). But this may stem from Zimmerman's sense of
Christianity's mixed-bag history with defending marriage properly (e.g., in
chapters 6-7).[35] And
for some contemporary observers, at a time when the American church at least seems to be in decline (although perhaps
in terms of nominal Christianity and American Civil Religion), it can be
difficult to be optimistic.
Still,
Christianity probably offers the only substantive hope for revival of society
in general and marriage and family in particular. Certainly, in a time of
increased atomism, the World has little to offer. So, the choice would seem to
be between a revitalization of Christianity, a view of marriage as sacramental,
New Testament conceptions of marriage and family, and believers faithfully living
out these principles. At the end of the day: The keys are the same as emphasized
by historic Christianity: a fruitful birth rate (the Creation Mandate in
Genesis 1); renewed fidelity to New Testament marriage norms; and a return to a
more-sanctified view of marriage.
Bibliography
Becker, Gary. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. 1981.
Berger, Peter. The Noise of Solemn Assemblies. New
York: Doubleday. 1961.
Brooks, David. Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and
How They Got There. New York: Simon and Schuster. 2000.
Carlson, Allan. “The
Family in America: Retrospective and Prospective,” The Family in America, Fall 2009: 1-13.
Carlson, Allan.
“The Fifties Illusion: The Cultural Dry Rot that Doomed the Postwar Era,” The Family in America, Summer 2012:
127-137.
Carlson, Allan. Family Cycles:
Strength, Decline, and Renewal in American Domestic Life, 1630-2000. : Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. 2016.
Christiansen,
Bryce. “Two and a Half Cheers for the 1950s Rediscovering Virtues of a Maligned
Decade,” The Family in America,
Summer 2012, 111-126.
Coontz, Stephanie.
Marriage, a History. New York: Viking
Press. 2005.
Eberstadt, Mary. How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory
of Secularization. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press. 2013.
Ekelund, Robert et. al., Sacred Trust: The Medieval Church as an
Economic Firm. New York: Oxford
University Press. 1996.
Farr, Thomas and
Hilary Towers. “Time to Challenge No-Fault Divorce,” First Things, December 8, 2014.
Fillingim, David. “U.S.
Family Policy in Search of Values, 1965-95.”
Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies,
VII, # 1/2, 1995: 71-82.
Herberg, Will. Protestant, Catholic, Jew. New York: Doubleday. 1955.
Horwitz, Steven. Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical
Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions. Palgrave-McMillan: New
York. 2015.
Horwitz, Steven
and Sarah Skwire. “Getting the State out of Marriage,” Reason, November 2017: 57-61.
Kass, Leon. The Beginning of Wisdom. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. 2006.
Kostenberger,
Andreas. God, Marriage, and Family:
Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. Wheaton: Crossway Books. 2004.
Lasch, Christopher.
Haven in a Heartless World: The Family
Besieged. New York: Basic Books. 1977.
Marty, William.
“Government, Morality and the Family,” Journal
of Interdisciplinary Studies, VII, # 1/2, 1995: 1-24.
Morse, Jennifer. Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire
Family Doesn’t Work, Spence Publishing: Dallas. 2001.
Murray, Charles. Coming Apart: The State of White America,
1960-2010. New York: Crown Forum. 2013.
Nash, Dennison and
Peter Berger. “The Child, the Family, and the ‘Religious Revival’ in Suburbia.”
Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, Vol. 2 #1, Autumn 1962: 85-93.
Palermo, George.
“Restoring the Family as the Primary Human Community,” Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, VII, # 1/2, 1995: 51-70.
Ponder, Ben.
“Idolatry of the Family,” MediaRostra.com, September 11, 2012.
Scafidi, Benjamin.
“The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for
the Nation and All Fifty States.” Lehi, UT: Institute for Marriage and Public
Policy. 2008.
Schansberg, D.
Eric. “The Other America Is Coming Apart,” Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol. 16, #1, 2013, p. 239-248.
Schansberg, D.
Eric. “Review Essay on Will Herberg’s Protestant,
Catholic, Jew.” Indiana Policy Review
Journal or other??, forthcoming.
Smith, Wesley.
“The Case that Destroyed Marriage,” First
Things, September 6, 2013.
Wallerstein,
Judith, Julia Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee. The
Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study.” Ney York:
Hyperion. 2000.
Wilcox, W.
Bradford. “Marriage Makes our children richer—here’s why.” The Atlantic, October 29, 2013.
Wilcox, W.
Bradford (interviewed by Marvin Olasky). “The state of matrimony,” World, August 5, 2017.
Wilcox, W.
Bradford, Robert Lerman, and Joseph Price. “Strong families, prosperous states:
Do healthy families affect the wealth of states?” Washington, DC: American
Enterprise Institute. 2015.
Zimmerman, Carle. Family and Civilization. Wilmington, DE:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute. 2008.
Zimmerman, Carle.
“The Future of the Family in America,” Journal
of Marriage and Family, Vol. 34, #2, May 1972: 323-333.
[1] Carlson (2016)
sees three related ways in which historians have tried to understand the
history of the American family—all of which are “progressive” and more strictly
“evolutionary” in their own ways. First, the “Liberal or Whiggish” view of
Henry Sumner Maine is largely economic: as economies grow and as political
economy becomes more complex, there is a natural evolution from “status” in
one’s family to individual contractual arrangements—and thus, from the family
to the individual as the chief unit of governance. Second, Carlson describes a
Marxist view as enunciated by Arthur Calhoun—again, an economic story, but with
a more purposeful government creating “a new set of family values.” Third,
Carlson points to a social narrative based on “the Love Revolution,” as
proferred by Nancy Cott and Stephanie Coontz, which sees family devolving and
reconstituting along (far) more individualistic lines. Carlson argues for a
fourth interpretation that is cyclical. In this, he joins Zimmerman in imagining
a less-determinative march through history (p. ix-xi).
[2] Lasch (1977)
critiques the Chicago School (32-36) in a similar manner: “The Chicago school
succeeded not so much in banishing history from sociological study as in
banishing it as an object of explicit analysis…[they] forgot self-interest and
concentrated their entire attention on the [family]…It was as if the family
alone, of all the institutions of modern society, had managed to escape the
drift toward individualism…” (35-36) In chapter 3, Lasch lauds the contribution
of Zimmerman and Willard Waller as important “challenges to sociological
orthodoxy.”
[3] Moynihan was
later joined by Christopher Jencks, Robert Bellah, Noval Glenn, David Popenoe,
and others. Fillingim (1995) is helpful in describing Moynihan as “the prophet
of hope in the 1960s [who] became a messenger of despair in the 1980s.” (73)
[4] Lasch (1977) said
his opponents’ strategies were to deny “the importance of the family
altogether” and to defend “the matrifocal household as a ‘healthy adaptation’
to ghetto conditions.” (160-164)
[5] Carlson (2009)
notes that contemporary reports “faulted the rigid American family model” and
saw family breakup as the consequence of poverty and other economic and social
problems. He reminisces that “I was puzzled by these reports, unable to see the
connection between effect and cause.” Given the “advances” of the 1950s and
1960s, “under the causal analysis and policy recommendations advanced by recent
family-policy advocates, the 1960s should have evidenced a blossoming of family
life. But exactly the opposite happened. Why?” (2)
[6] Becker (1981)
describes the role of information problems and being subject to high-risk
food-gathering options. In such cases, clans and larger families can serve as low-cost
insurance. In this light, marriage within the clan becomes more attractive and
maintaining (perceptions of) family quality becomes vital for marriage
prospects outside the clan (238-240).
[7] Kostenberger
(2004) observes that “because of their descent from a common descendant, the
Israelites perceived themselves as a large extended kinship group.” (93) As
most ancient Near-Eastern cultures, Israelite family structure was “patricentric”—“like
the spokes on a wheel, family life radiated out from the father as its center.”
This patricentrism included “patrilineal” (official descent through the
father’s line), “patrilocal” (wives became part of their husband’s father’s
household), and “patriarchal” (the father was in charge of the family). (94)
[8] For a thorough
study of the relevant Old Testament and New Testament passages on marriage,
see: Kostenberger (2004), chapters 2-3; for the Biblical passages on family,
see: chapters 5-6.
[9] Carlson (2016)
draws a distinction between European and American versions of the domestic
family—with the latter involving early and nearly universal marriage and high
fertility in particular (xi).
[10] Wilcox et. al. (2015)
find that higher rates of marriage is a top predictor for higher GDP, greater
income mobility for children, lower child poverty rates, lower crime rates, and
higher median family income within states. See also: Wilcox (2013).
[11] Ekelund (1996), p.
18-19.
[12] Ekelund (1996),
p. 85. See also: chapter 5. Marriage ceremonies were increasingly public and
performed in the church. The authors emphasize the prohibition against divorce
(increasing the incentive to seek a suitable spouse ex ante); severe restrictions on endogamy and incest—which impacted
arranged marriages and the disposition of inheritances (making it more likely
that the Church would receive the inheritance—or at least, more of it). More
damning, enforcement was selective—often, as it seemed to benefit the Church.
One might think that this interpretation is cynical, but it certainly lines up
with standard incentives and the church’s rules had no precedent in the Old or
New Testament. See also: Coontz (2005) and Horwitz (2015; p. 69-72).
[13] At the same time,
the Church still allowed "outs" to marriage, including annulments.
The Church provided "good" reasons for "nullifying" a
fundamentally flawed union (72). In a nutshell, the view was “don't divorce,
but if you do, let it go.”
[14] Kostenberger
(2004) is helpful in discussing the Biblical and historical support for
marriage as sacrament (81-83), as contract (83-85), and covenant (85-90).
[15] Moreover,
capitalism has some advantages in terms of a holistic view of families and the
human person. Horwitz (98) comments on the move away from rural family
production toward industrialization: “Without a need to treat family members
instrumentally as parts of a production process, and with the means to treat
them more frequently as ends in themselves now possible as a result of the
higher incomes capitalism produced, the family became the focal point of the
altruism of intimate associations…capitalism made it possible for Love (and
perhaps Faith and Hope as well) to come in and take its full and rightful place
at the family table…capitalism is in our own time often accused of reducing
interpersonal relationships and other higher ideals to naked, financial
self-interest or narrow calculative rationality, when in fact it was capitalism
that humanized the most deeply interpersonal of all human institutions—the
family.”
[16] This chicken/egg
relationship between family and religion is the thesis of Eberstadt (2013). She
argues for the importance of a “family factor”—that the relationship between
religion and family is two-way not merely one-way, not merely an effect but
also a cause (20-22, 93-103).
[17] In his epilogue,
Kurth focuses on the implications of Zimmerman's analysis for immigration and
culture—for Islam in Europe, and of far less concern, Hispanics in America (306,
316-317).
[18] Horwitz (2015):
“I will argue that the family is a necessary institution in any society…The
advantages that parents have in socializing children, for example, cannot be
replicated sufficiently by schools, ‘the village’, or the state.” (7) Horwitz
develops this theme at great length in chapter 8. He argues from an Austrian
Economics perspective and values liberty, but sees a preeminent role for
family. Eberstadt (2013) discusses the problem of declining families for
“welfare states that already stretched beyond their fiscal limits.” And “the
expanded welfare state competes with the family as the dominant protector of
the individual.” The result? “Family change has been an engine fueling
statism—and statism in turn has been an engine fueling family decline.” (16)
[19] Scafidi (2008) notes
that trouble with family stability and structure will reduce the generation of
social and human capital, increase the need for costly social programs, and
reduced taxes from those who have been harmed. As a conservative measure, only
focusing on these variables and their contribution to the government’s measure
of poverty, he found a cost of $112 billion per year in 2008.
[20] Wallerstein et.
al. (2000), p. xxi-xxiii. The authors summarize their findings (xxiii, xxix,
xxx, 144), describe the details of their impressive research study (xxvi) and
their interview samples (xxvii).
[21] Whatever the
merits of the 1950s, how do we see marriage in that era within historical
trends? Some scholars see the 1950s as a “unique” Golden Age. This seems too
narrow, given the strength of domestic marriage throughout history. Perhaps
this is an attempt to reduce marriage (at least in its domestic variants), by
associating it with a time that they generally consider to be a liability.
Coontz (2006) is a popular and influential book in this regard. See: p. 225-244
for her coverage of the post-WWII decades.
[22] Carlson (2012)
about the 1950s: “Beneath this façade, however, lurked the theological, moral
and social dry rot that would usher in ‘The Sixties’.” (127) He cites Sorokin
on the moral anarchy and “sex obsession” of the 1950s (135). Carlson concludes
that “the postwar era was not the family-centered utopia often celebrated later
by pro-family advocates. Nor were the Fifties a pleasant one-generation wonder
tucked nicely between two eras of long-term family decay. Rather, the very
nature of the notable decade rested on ideas, values, and behaviors, all of
which conspired to damage family life and which would find their more complete
expression in the Sixties.” (137) In any case, Carlson (2009): “the family of
‘the 1950s,’ should not be used a complete normative baseline for future
policy…[it was] a one-generation wonder, rooted in unique circumstances and
unable to survive the challenges raised against it in the 1960s.” (8-9)
[23] Herberg (1955)
and Berger (1961) argued that the popularity of American religion was
identification with “the American way of life” or an “American civil religion.”
Nash and Berger (1962) note increased church attendance—probably because of the
baby boom, a desire for parents to have their children in church, and the
cultural momentum from this trend. They also observe a near-absence of
theological reflection, “conversion experiences,” or life crises that were
catalysts for newfound faith. See: Schansberg (2018) for an overview of this
work.
[24] For statistics on
this renaissance in marriage, see: Carlson (2016), p. 133-134.
[25] Even today, a
little bit of religion may be a bad thing for marriage. Religious affiliation
is not correlated with divorce, but religious attendance is.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/08/a-bit-of-religion-can-be-bad-for-marriage/
[26] Lasch (1977)
reports that the number of divorces increased 15-fold from 1870 to 1920—and by
1924, one of every seven marriages ended in divorce. (8) “There was no reason
to think that the trend toward more and more frequent divorce would reverse
itself.”
[27] For a more recent
look at “no-fault divorce,” see: Farr and Towers (2014). Smith (2013) argues
that Marvin v. Marvin was “the
proverbial tipping point,” by raising cohabitation to a similar level to
marriage.
[28] Carlson (2016; p. 139). Eberstadt (2013) describes
a “demographic winter” (171): “The drop in the Western birthrate is one
demographic fact that has radically remade the families of today and tomorrow.”
(12)
[29] Given the Great
Depression and the trends going into it:
“No one anticipated or predicted that these dips were merely a prelude to a
‘marriage boom’ and a ‘baby boom’ that would soon dominate and even define
American life during the middle decades of the 20th century.” (Carlson,
2016; 112)
[30] Carlson (2009, p.
7, 11-12) applauds the expansion of the personal exemption in 1986 and the
increased child tax credit in 1996 and 2001. Marty (1995) argues against a
marriage penalty in the tax code, welfare programs that are means-tested to
income not family structure, elevating marriage legally over other household
structures, more control for parents with the education of their children, and
public-subsidized child-care options. For a nuanced Libertarian perspective,
see: Horwitz and Skwire (2017).
[31] See: Schansberg (2013).
See also: Eberhardt (2013; p. 72-74) on the relative decline of religion for
the working class.
[32] Murray (2013) and
Becker (1981; chapter 4) talk about the increased role of “assortative
mating”—marriage matches more often being derived within income classes, most
notably, as college attendance has increased with income and as elite
universities have become increasingly able to reach elite students from across
the country.
[33] Quoted in Christiansen
(2012), p. 118.
[34] Eberhardt (2013)
devotes a chapter each to pessimistic and optimistic views and arguments on
this question.
[35] Another angle is
to note some ambivalence toward family in the Scriptures: Marriage is the
second institution in Genesis—after work and vocation; marriage in Genesis and
throughout the Old Testament is a mixed bag; Mom and his brothers thought he
was crazy; his disciple John is supposed to take care of Mary, not his brothers;
Jesus didn’t get married; and Jesus elevated belief and kinship over blood in
His Kingdom (Ponder, 2012). “While Jesus affirmed marriage and blessed
children, he conceived of the community of believers in familial terms
transcending those of people’s natural relations…Those who resist Jesus’ call
to discipleship frequently are unwilling to forsake their natural ties in favor
of total allegiance to Jesus.” (Kostenberger, 2004; 110)