Many observers have been mystified by some of President Barack Obama’s policy decisions. Why, for instance, does he resist calling people who attempt to kill innocent Americans “terrorists”? And why does he refrain from identifying them as Muslim extremists?
By the same token, why does Obama play paddy-fingers with our enemies, while simultaneously disrespecting our friends? Thus, what is the point of a foreign policy that refuses to side with Britain when Argentina casts a covetous gaze at the Falkland Islands, even as it castigates Israel for building houses in a part of Jerusalem where it has a perfect right to build them?
The answer to these puzzles can be found in a central doctrine of Liberalism. Many liberals, especially those of the extreme variety such as our president, believe in defending the underdog. They see themselves as the defenders of the weak. In their eyes, their natural constituency is “the little guy,” that is, the one who cannot defend him or herself without their aid.
Muslims qualify for this special treatment because they are poor (save for the oil rich), backward, and politically impotent. Trapped as many are in a medieval-style religion, they are unfortunately unable to help themselves. As a result, they cannot be blamed for their transgressions, however profound. They must instead be “understood” and tolerated.
Meanwhile, the British are relatively powerful. They may have a better title to the Falklands than the Argentineans, but having successfully defended these in the past, they do not need our help in the present. In other words, they must be left to guard their own territories.
As for the Israelis, once upon a time they were underdogs, but those days are long gone. When there were only a few million of them bravely defending a tiny strip of land against fifty times as many better-equipped Arabs, they were plucky good guys. But then they made the unforgivable mistake of winning and suddenly they were transformed into racist oppressors.
There are, however, a couple of small problems with the Obama Doctrine. The first is that if an underdog should gain in power, he or she ceases to be an underdog. Now among the more powerful, their former champions must, in good conscience, abandon them. Indeed, they must now be cut down to size lest they abuse their status.
In other words, to stay in the good graces of devout liberals, one must remain a loser. Only the weak have their sympathy, hence despite heart-felt offers of assistance, their help is not intended to raise the frail into positions of independent power. To the contrary, their clients are expected to remain dependent and therefore grateful to their benefactors.
The second major problem with liberal egalitarianism is that it usually operates by seeking to bring the powerful back to earth. Since it is usually easier to undercut the strong than to elevate the weak, they typically concentrate on the former. This is why they tax the rich rather than enable the poor to become correspondingly wealthy.
When applied to foreign policy—including the war on terror—this means that powerful nations must give up their strategic advantage. First, they must renounce any superiority they may hold in nuclear, or even conventional, weapons. Second, they must refrain from throwing their weight around.
The upshot of the Obama Doctrine is that promotes one of two possibilities. Either mediocrity must become the norm, or some of the formerly weak must be permitted to become tomorrow’s oppressors. On the face of it, neither of these options is especially inviting, but they are where the logic of an underdog mentality leads.
In fact, the only way this policy makes sense is to assume that the United States is inherently evil. If its market-oriented democracy is a threat to the world at large, then mediocrity might be an improvement. Similarly, a nuclear-armed Iran, even one dedicated to destroying Israel, might not be a catastrophe. It might even rescue us from a notorious overdog.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Naiveté is Not a Shield Against Evil
Somehow liberals have developed the notion that there is “strength through weakness.” Many of them seem to believe that if you are nice enough, and non-threatening enough, others will reciprocate by being equally nice. In their view, peace is the result of people behaving peacefully; hence they intend to initiate a peace offensive.
One of the more egregious consequences of this mentality has been on display in the recent travails of the Israeli Defense Forces. As flotillas of peaceniks approached the Gaza coastline, the Israeli government decided to intercept them. But in enforcing this blockade, nine of the “demonstrators” were killed when they resisted.
Immediately there arose an international hue and cry against this barbarity. After all, the offending vessels were only bringing humanitarian relief to the sorely beset Palestinians. What right had the Israelis to visit violence on non-violent proponents of peace and justice?
Shortly thereafter Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, defended his country’s actions by observing that his military was instantly judged guilty even before being found guilty. According to his nation’s critics, there was no excuse for shedding blood no matter what the circumstances.
But as almost everyone is aware, the circumstance here is Hamas’ expressed intension to destroy the state of Israel. Given access to the armaments that might perhaps be floated in from the sea, there is little doubt that these would eventually be employed to make good on that threat.
This, however, did not matter to the friends of the demonstrators. As “good” people who favored peace, the long-term implications of blockade running were irrelevant. That perhaps millions of innocents might later be killed paled in comparison with their desire to be peaceful humanitarians.
Yet isn’t this naiveté on stilts? Isn’t it childish to suppose that thwarting the big, bad Israelis will convince them to cease self-defense and ultimately allow their enemies to throw them into the sea? And isn’t it just as artless to suppose that Hamas will suddenly grow nonviolent because Israel has been cowed into submission?
Nevertheless, this seems to be the mentality of the Obama administration and its most vociferous supporters. Remember, when he was a candidate, one of our president’s most effective ploys was to promise his base that he would bring peace to the mid-east simply by ending our participation in the hostilities. Remember also that he vowed to improve our relations with Iran merely by sitting down and talking with its leaders.
This, however, was remarkably simplistic. Indeed, it goes against common sense. As I learned years ago when working as a counselor at a methadone maintenance program, bullies are unimpressed by efforts to be reasonable. They take these as signs of weakness and hasten to take advantage of them. Similarly, although the peace activists may be sincere, the Iranians, North Koreans, and Hamas do not care.
In the same vein, prior to World War II Hitler was encouraged to test his adversaries because he knew they were reluctant to go to war. He could march into the Rhineland or seize the Sudetenland because democracies such as England and France thought they could buy him off with promises of peace.
Tragically, the peace movement, in places like Britain, made it impossible for politicians to rearm the nation when faced with German belligerency. This meant that Hitler could begin hostilities secure in the knowledge that he had more tanks and planes than the allies.
Which brings us back to today. The Obama administration has not condemned Israel, but neither has it been energetic in its defense. To their credit, unlike Western European liberals, American officials have not fallen all over themselves to denounce the warmongers in Jerusalem. Rather, they have sought to be “even-handed.”
But being even-handed in the face of deliberate provocations is an invitation to trouble. A failure to denounce disingenuous efforts to portray Israel as unacceptably aggressive encourages further provocations. In fact, naively moralistic efforts to force one side of a conflict to disarm are not a prelude to peace, but to war.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
One of the more egregious consequences of this mentality has been on display in the recent travails of the Israeli Defense Forces. As flotillas of peaceniks approached the Gaza coastline, the Israeli government decided to intercept them. But in enforcing this blockade, nine of the “demonstrators” were killed when they resisted.
Immediately there arose an international hue and cry against this barbarity. After all, the offending vessels were only bringing humanitarian relief to the sorely beset Palestinians. What right had the Israelis to visit violence on non-violent proponents of peace and justice?
Shortly thereafter Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, defended his country’s actions by observing that his military was instantly judged guilty even before being found guilty. According to his nation’s critics, there was no excuse for shedding blood no matter what the circumstances.
But as almost everyone is aware, the circumstance here is Hamas’ expressed intension to destroy the state of Israel. Given access to the armaments that might perhaps be floated in from the sea, there is little doubt that these would eventually be employed to make good on that threat.
This, however, did not matter to the friends of the demonstrators. As “good” people who favored peace, the long-term implications of blockade running were irrelevant. That perhaps millions of innocents might later be killed paled in comparison with their desire to be peaceful humanitarians.
Yet isn’t this naiveté on stilts? Isn’t it childish to suppose that thwarting the big, bad Israelis will convince them to cease self-defense and ultimately allow their enemies to throw them into the sea? And isn’t it just as artless to suppose that Hamas will suddenly grow nonviolent because Israel has been cowed into submission?
Nevertheless, this seems to be the mentality of the Obama administration and its most vociferous supporters. Remember, when he was a candidate, one of our president’s most effective ploys was to promise his base that he would bring peace to the mid-east simply by ending our participation in the hostilities. Remember also that he vowed to improve our relations with Iran merely by sitting down and talking with its leaders.
This, however, was remarkably simplistic. Indeed, it goes against common sense. As I learned years ago when working as a counselor at a methadone maintenance program, bullies are unimpressed by efforts to be reasonable. They take these as signs of weakness and hasten to take advantage of them. Similarly, although the peace activists may be sincere, the Iranians, North Koreans, and Hamas do not care.
In the same vein, prior to World War II Hitler was encouraged to test his adversaries because he knew they were reluctant to go to war. He could march into the Rhineland or seize the Sudetenland because democracies such as England and France thought they could buy him off with promises of peace.
Tragically, the peace movement, in places like Britain, made it impossible for politicians to rearm the nation when faced with German belligerency. This meant that Hitler could begin hostilities secure in the knowledge that he had more tanks and planes than the allies.
Which brings us back to today. The Obama administration has not condemned Israel, but neither has it been energetic in its defense. To their credit, unlike Western European liberals, American officials have not fallen all over themselves to denounce the warmongers in Jerusalem. Rather, they have sought to be “even-handed.”
But being even-handed in the face of deliberate provocations is an invitation to trouble. A failure to denounce disingenuous efforts to portray Israel as unacceptably aggressive encourages further provocations. In fact, naively moralistic efforts to force one side of a conflict to disarm are not a prelude to peace, but to war.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Monday, June 14, 2010
Feminist Sociologists Are Out of Touch with Reality
Sociology is supposed to be a social science. Its ostensible objective is to increase our knowledge of the social world. To this end, it is theoretically empirical in orientation. The assertions it makes presumably derive from an accurate evaluation of observable data.
And yet this is not what one perceives when one reads feminist research into the nature of contemporary marriages. These assure us that we are in the midst of an unfinished revolution. Much like their Marxist forebears, these ideologues are convinced that they understand the predestined endpoint of history. As a consequence, they believe it is their job to facilitate the inevitable.
One reason they are convinced of the manifest destiny of their cause is that they believe it is inherently moral. Much as progressives are confident that they are champions of “social justice,” so sociological feminists conceive of themselves as defenders of justice for women. As they see it, they—and only they—possess the correct formula for meeting the proper needs of the vast majority of women.
According to most of these feminists, the relationships between men and women must be based on complete equality. Not only must the genders be morally equal, they must be operationally equal. To be more precise, there must be no distinction between what men and women do, either at work or at home. Thus, when someone like Judith Lorber claims that everything should be 50/50, that is exactly what she means.
With respect to marriage this translates into half of all the housework and half of all childrearing being done by both men and women. This, however, does not mean equal time spent on these tasks. No, it demands equal time on the same set of tasks. Both men and women are supposed to contribute equally to cooking and to tending infants. Moreover, they should engage in these activities in essentially the same way.
Arlie Hochschild, among others, has argued that we are in the midst of a domestic revolution. In her view, marriages are evolving from the traditional, through the transitional, toward the egalitarian. For her, it is the egalitarian marriage that is both necessary and inevitable. Only it meets the essential needs of both genders. Only it is worthy of proselytizing.
One of those who currently subscribes to this agenda is Kathleen Gerson. Her book The Unfinished Revolution: How a New Generation is Reshaping Family, Work, and Gender in America is an effort to forward the feminist program. Although presented as a report of disinterested research, it is anything but. Not only is its actual goal advocacy, but it engages in this effort with egregious partisanship.
Based on interviews with almost two hundred twenty-something’s, Gerson uses their words to bolster the feminist thesis. What she claims to find is that there is little to decide between different sorts of families. According to her, children can succeed or fail in either traditional or single parent families. As she insists, neither divorce, nor being raised by a single father, are impediments to ultimate happiness.
Although she would probably disagree with this assessment, Gerson leaves the impression that most men are cads. They are described as treating their wives and children so abusively that there is little choice but to exclude them from the household sphere. About the only men she finds admirable are those who raise their own children when their mothers have abandoned them.
Actually, this is not quite right. Gerson customarily attributes these opinions to her interviewees. They are presented as the experts on what went right (or wrong) in their parent’s marriages. It is their interpretation of these and their projections of their own preferred relationships that are presented as incontestable evidence of where marriage is headed.
This, however, is unreasonable on several counts. First, how likely is it that twenty-something’s understand the internal dynamics of their parent’s lives? Indeed, how well does anyone understand the realities of other relationships? Mightn’t the perceptions of the inexperienced progeny of these relationships be shaped by their own roles in these events?
Second, how much do twenty-something’s who are not yet in permanent relationships know about what makes these arrangements work? They may have fantasies based on the unfinished business derived from their families of origin, but can they be sure these will unfold as they imagine? To present their daydreams as the best evidence of what will eventually occur is no more than wishful thinking.
Third, and this is the most damning criticism of her allegations, Gerson’s interviews do not ring true. Despite what allege to be extensive quotes from her informants, these do not sound as if they were uttered by actual human beings. In fact, they sound as if Gerson elicited exactly what she intended to find. In other words, she may have cherry picked to get the results she desired.
This is a strong accusation, but it is based on the fact that much of what these informants say contradicts what other—more plausible—research has uncovered. For example, David Buss’s investigations into mating practices provide convincing evidence that men and women approach these matters differently. His evolutionary perspective suggests that they seek dissimilar qualities in their mates and then utilize distinctive techniques to maintain their consequent unions.
Such documentation makes it extremely unlikely that men and women will one day be interchangeable. Nor is this material consistent with the feminist argument that their objectives are being stymied by male obstinacy. Maybe these men are on to something. Maybe complete equality between the sexes is rendered moot because the sexes differ genetically.
But if the genders do differ—and the empirical evidence of this is substantial—then manipulated projections of a future in which they don’t lose their power to persuade. These verbal gymnastics are revealed to be out of touch with reality. Instead of illuminating fundamental truths about heterosexual alliances, they provide little more than misleading propaganda.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
And yet this is not what one perceives when one reads feminist research into the nature of contemporary marriages. These assure us that we are in the midst of an unfinished revolution. Much like their Marxist forebears, these ideologues are convinced that they understand the predestined endpoint of history. As a consequence, they believe it is their job to facilitate the inevitable.
One reason they are convinced of the manifest destiny of their cause is that they believe it is inherently moral. Much as progressives are confident that they are champions of “social justice,” so sociological feminists conceive of themselves as defenders of justice for women. As they see it, they—and only they—possess the correct formula for meeting the proper needs of the vast majority of women.
According to most of these feminists, the relationships between men and women must be based on complete equality. Not only must the genders be morally equal, they must be operationally equal. To be more precise, there must be no distinction between what men and women do, either at work or at home. Thus, when someone like Judith Lorber claims that everything should be 50/50, that is exactly what she means.
With respect to marriage this translates into half of all the housework and half of all childrearing being done by both men and women. This, however, does not mean equal time spent on these tasks. No, it demands equal time on the same set of tasks. Both men and women are supposed to contribute equally to cooking and to tending infants. Moreover, they should engage in these activities in essentially the same way.
Arlie Hochschild, among others, has argued that we are in the midst of a domestic revolution. In her view, marriages are evolving from the traditional, through the transitional, toward the egalitarian. For her, it is the egalitarian marriage that is both necessary and inevitable. Only it meets the essential needs of both genders. Only it is worthy of proselytizing.
One of those who currently subscribes to this agenda is Kathleen Gerson. Her book The Unfinished Revolution: How a New Generation is Reshaping Family, Work, and Gender in America is an effort to forward the feminist program. Although presented as a report of disinterested research, it is anything but. Not only is its actual goal advocacy, but it engages in this effort with egregious partisanship.
Based on interviews with almost two hundred twenty-something’s, Gerson uses their words to bolster the feminist thesis. What she claims to find is that there is little to decide between different sorts of families. According to her, children can succeed or fail in either traditional or single parent families. As she insists, neither divorce, nor being raised by a single father, are impediments to ultimate happiness.
Although she would probably disagree with this assessment, Gerson leaves the impression that most men are cads. They are described as treating their wives and children so abusively that there is little choice but to exclude them from the household sphere. About the only men she finds admirable are those who raise their own children when their mothers have abandoned them.
Actually, this is not quite right. Gerson customarily attributes these opinions to her interviewees. They are presented as the experts on what went right (or wrong) in their parent’s marriages. It is their interpretation of these and their projections of their own preferred relationships that are presented as incontestable evidence of where marriage is headed.
This, however, is unreasonable on several counts. First, how likely is it that twenty-something’s understand the internal dynamics of their parent’s lives? Indeed, how well does anyone understand the realities of other relationships? Mightn’t the perceptions of the inexperienced progeny of these relationships be shaped by their own roles in these events?
Second, how much do twenty-something’s who are not yet in permanent relationships know about what makes these arrangements work? They may have fantasies based on the unfinished business derived from their families of origin, but can they be sure these will unfold as they imagine? To present their daydreams as the best evidence of what will eventually occur is no more than wishful thinking.
Third, and this is the most damning criticism of her allegations, Gerson’s interviews do not ring true. Despite what allege to be extensive quotes from her informants, these do not sound as if they were uttered by actual human beings. In fact, they sound as if Gerson elicited exactly what she intended to find. In other words, she may have cherry picked to get the results she desired.
This is a strong accusation, but it is based on the fact that much of what these informants say contradicts what other—more plausible—research has uncovered. For example, David Buss’s investigations into mating practices provide convincing evidence that men and women approach these matters differently. His evolutionary perspective suggests that they seek dissimilar qualities in their mates and then utilize distinctive techniques to maintain their consequent unions.
Such documentation makes it extremely unlikely that men and women will one day be interchangeable. Nor is this material consistent with the feminist argument that their objectives are being stymied by male obstinacy. Maybe these men are on to something. Maybe complete equality between the sexes is rendered moot because the sexes differ genetically.
But if the genders do differ—and the empirical evidence of this is substantial—then manipulated projections of a future in which they don’t lose their power to persuade. These verbal gymnastics are revealed to be out of touch with reality. Instead of illuminating fundamental truths about heterosexual alliances, they provide little more than misleading propaganda.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Monday, June 7, 2010
The Divorce Crisis: The Second Wave
Two decades ago, when I began teaching introductory sociology at Kennesaw State University, I knew I had to include a module on the family. I also knew I had to include information about divorce. These were standard materials in every introductory sociology course nationwide.
But I was not optimistic. Since most of the students in my classes were fairly young I reasoned that few of them had ever been married—never mind divorced. This was a subject to which they had to be exposed, yet one they would probably find boring.
Almost immediately, however, I realized I was profoundly wrong. A majority of my students—especially the younger ones—found divorce a fascinating subject. They sat up and paid attention. They even asked more penetrating questions than usual.
At first I was confused. But then it hit me. I decided to ask how many were the children of divorce. Much to my astonishment, time after time, more than half raised their hands. This was clearly why they were so interested. It was a problem with which they had personally grappled.
In fact, the number of divorces occurring in the United States, having peaked in the early 1990’s, has rolled back somewhat. Despite the early enthusiasm many people felt for an opportunity to escape bad relationships, large numbers soon discovered that this was easier in theory than practice.
Now it is their children who are discovering another legacy of divorce. What we in sociology have learned is that the children of divorce are less likely to marry than those brought up in intact families. Worse still, should they marry, they are twice as likely to divorce as their peers.
Nor should this be surprising. Having experienced, up-close and personal, how fragile intimate relations can be, they worry that they may not be able to make them work for themselves. After all, if Mom and Dad, both of whom were adults, could not keep their vows, how could they, as their children, expect to do better?
By the same token, how could they be expected to trust members of the opposite sex? Having witnessed the undependability of one parent or another, the lesson that men or women are inherently undependable was easy to incorporate. Clearly, although people may say they love one another, this does not mean they keep their word.
Add to this the anger of having been betrayed by their parents and their own adult relationships are apt to be fraught with insecurity. Ironically, as desperately as they desire reliable love, to this same degree they suspect love is never reliable. And because they are apprehensive, they contribute to its fragility.
So where does this leave us as a society? The lesson is this: precisely because modern marriage has become voluntary, it remains vulnerable to our human limitations. Likewise, because divorce has become so common, there are many more people whose personal experiences predispose them to undermining their own desires.
What then are we to do? The answer seems simple. Surely we must be personally responsible for our own marriages. No government program is going to come to our rescue here. In fact, strong marriages result from partners who are individually committed to making them work. Strong marriages also depend on two people who know what they are doing; which is to say, how to live intimately with another imperfect human being.
And so, despite what I have just said, the answer is not really simple. Hillary Clinton told us that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, it takes something beyond a village to save a marriage. Rather, it takes two people who are dedicated to making it work. And that is never easy.
The bottom line is that the government cannot guarantee our happiness in all areas. Only we can. Only we can assure interpersonal success; but only if we are individually, and collectively, dedicated to being accountable. Once more personal responsibility makes all the difference.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
But I was not optimistic. Since most of the students in my classes were fairly young I reasoned that few of them had ever been married—never mind divorced. This was a subject to which they had to be exposed, yet one they would probably find boring.
Almost immediately, however, I realized I was profoundly wrong. A majority of my students—especially the younger ones—found divorce a fascinating subject. They sat up and paid attention. They even asked more penetrating questions than usual.
At first I was confused. But then it hit me. I decided to ask how many were the children of divorce. Much to my astonishment, time after time, more than half raised their hands. This was clearly why they were so interested. It was a problem with which they had personally grappled.
In fact, the number of divorces occurring in the United States, having peaked in the early 1990’s, has rolled back somewhat. Despite the early enthusiasm many people felt for an opportunity to escape bad relationships, large numbers soon discovered that this was easier in theory than practice.
Now it is their children who are discovering another legacy of divorce. What we in sociology have learned is that the children of divorce are less likely to marry than those brought up in intact families. Worse still, should they marry, they are twice as likely to divorce as their peers.
Nor should this be surprising. Having experienced, up-close and personal, how fragile intimate relations can be, they worry that they may not be able to make them work for themselves. After all, if Mom and Dad, both of whom were adults, could not keep their vows, how could they, as their children, expect to do better?
By the same token, how could they be expected to trust members of the opposite sex? Having witnessed the undependability of one parent or another, the lesson that men or women are inherently undependable was easy to incorporate. Clearly, although people may say they love one another, this does not mean they keep their word.
Add to this the anger of having been betrayed by their parents and their own adult relationships are apt to be fraught with insecurity. Ironically, as desperately as they desire reliable love, to this same degree they suspect love is never reliable. And because they are apprehensive, they contribute to its fragility.
So where does this leave us as a society? The lesson is this: precisely because modern marriage has become voluntary, it remains vulnerable to our human limitations. Likewise, because divorce has become so common, there are many more people whose personal experiences predispose them to undermining their own desires.
What then are we to do? The answer seems simple. Surely we must be personally responsible for our own marriages. No government program is going to come to our rescue here. In fact, strong marriages result from partners who are individually committed to making them work. Strong marriages also depend on two people who know what they are doing; which is to say, how to live intimately with another imperfect human being.
And so, despite what I have just said, the answer is not really simple. Hillary Clinton told us that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, it takes something beyond a village to save a marriage. Rather, it takes two people who are dedicated to making it work. And that is never easy.
The bottom line is that the government cannot guarantee our happiness in all areas. Only we can. Only we can assure interpersonal success; but only if we are individually, and collectively, dedicated to being accountable. Once more personal responsibility makes all the difference.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
