Whenever I assert that the central purpose of marriage is to protect children, someone usually objects that not all marriages are blessed with children. How, they ask, can an institution be about something that is not always present?
This is a fair question, to which there is a good answer. Consider the rules of the road. American drivers know that when they get into their automobiles they are required to drive on the right side of the street. They also understand that without this rule, the gridlock would be so bad that no one could ever get anywhere.
Nonetheless, there are times we have the roads exclusively to ourselves. At four o’clock in the morning we might be the only vehicle for miles around. Even so, we are required to keep to the proper lane. And we do.
But why do we do? Why don’t we simply throw caution to the wind and aim our machines anywhere we desire? If it sounds silly that we do not, there is actually a very good reason that we don’t—and it does not involve the fear that we may get a ticket.
The reason is habit. The need to keep to the appropriate side of the road is so compelling that doing so must be reflexive. It needs to be something we do not think about, but take for granted. Only in this way can we ensure that people—and not just us—do what is necessary most of the time.
This same social strategy applies to marriage. Some social institutions are so deeply ingrained in our hearts and minds that they seem natural. They have to be because there are times when we might be tempted to violate them that are so egregious we must prevent this from occurring.
Mind you, social rules are broken with tedious regularity. Every society has an injunction against murder, nonetheless murders occur everywhere. Yet there would be far more murders if we did not take these proscriptions seriously. If we ignored them, then whenever we felt insulted there might be blood on the floor.
It is the same with marriage. Marriages are supposed to be lifelong commitments. When people agree to wed, they publically vow to remain together until death does them part. Not all do, but the fact that they take these promises seriously enhances the prospects that they will.
This is of particular importance to children because the benefit of having two parents is so great. A mother and father dedicated to remaining a couple are likely to be dedicated to protecting their offspring. There are exceptions, but emotional loyalties improve the odds.
These attitudes are embedded in people when they are very young. They derive in part from the importance that society attaches to marriage. The reason that nuptial ceremonies are public affairs is so that the community can add external pressures to personal desires.
If this is so, then tampering with time-honored marital traditions may be more dangerous than many people suppose. If traditional marriages strengthen the bonds between individuals, then scoffing at this custom may loosen attachments upon which we all rely—especially children.
Which brings me to the subject of gay marriage. Gay marriages may be a good idea—but then again they may not. If in imposing this recent innovation people become convinced that marriage is arbitrary, the sense of sanctity with which it has been surrounded may be reduced.
Then where will we be? Will we feel free to drive on whichever side of the road we please? Will we decide that multiple spouses are okay? Or that cohabitation is just as good as the old-fashioned kind of marriage?
But if we do: what about the children? Will we also decide that a commitment to them is also arbitrary? I hope not, because if this transpires the amount of personal unhappiness will be staggering.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Human Hierarchies
I am a sociologist. I love being a sociologist. It gives me the opportunity to study how people live and why they do the things they do. Furthermore, because I regard myself as a social scientist, my goal has been to utilize the tools of science to expand our knowledge of the social world.
In this quest, I have had many allies. Talented sociologists, past and present, have contributed to building a wealth of unexpected insights. Nevertheless, a large proportion of contemporary sociologists function more as moralists than social scientists.
These latter folks are more concerned with promoting pre-established moral agendas than unearthing new facts. An example of this tendency has been provided by a shift in how they conceive of their subject matter. Thus, where once they talked about social stratification (i.e., social class differences), today they study inequalities.
“Inequality” is, of course, a loaded term. It is tendentious, that is, it incorporates an unstated moral judgment. We in the United States, given our Jeffersonian heritage, cannot but assume that inequality is bad. Having been told, from our tenderest years, that equality is an unalienable right, we believe it is.
Now whether it is, or isn’t, is not my current concern. The issue I wish to address is whether pursuing an unexpressed moral agenda is inimical to good science. When one’s moral goals take precedence over the search for truth, is it possible to discover the truth?
One of my professional idols, Max Weber, insisted that sociology should be value-neutral. He contended that whatever our personal commitments, we must leave them at the door when we put on our scientific hats. Yes, we can have moral convictions, but these should not blind us to unwelcome realities.
For me, this is the bedrock of genuine science; hence I try to utilize it as a beacon while navigating the shoals of unexplored knowledge. As a result, instead of studying “inequalities,” I have investigated the ins and outs of human hierarchies.
In particular, I have studied how social hierarchies are created and maintained. Rather than assume that equality is the normal human condition—as many sociologists do—I have explored what people do when they engage in ranking themselves relative to others.
As a consequence, I have come to the conclusion that we are hierarchical animals. All of us, the elites and the underclasses, seek to improve our status in comparison with others. We want to be winners and not losers. Indeed, so important do we find this, that we sometimes put our lives on the line in its pursuit.
My conclusions have recently been published in a book entitled Human Hierarchies: A General Theory (Transaction Publishing). Much to my amazement, this title seems not to have previously been utilized. Apparently the idea that we are an inherently hierarchical species has had limited appeal.
Yet, if I am correct, it is impossible to understand why we behave the ways we do without placing our conduct in a hierarchical perspective. Thus, we today find ourselves in the midst of class warfare. This could not happen if we did not divide ourselves according to differences in social power.
Are the wealthy bad people? Are the poor sainted victims? Why do some people come to these conclusions? And are the lessons they draw valid? Without disinterestedly examining what is taking place, it is doubtful that the truth can be reached.
For my own part, I have concluded that ranking systems are inevitable and that everyone, from the top to the bottom, participates in perpetuating them. What is open to change is how they are constructed—not whether they will exist.
This is not to say that hierarchy is always fair. Clearly, it frequently is not. But neither is it to suggest that we can totally eliminate unfairness. We cannot. Moral improvements can be effectively pursued, but only if we recognize the limits of what is possible.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
In this quest, I have had many allies. Talented sociologists, past and present, have contributed to building a wealth of unexpected insights. Nevertheless, a large proportion of contemporary sociologists function more as moralists than social scientists.
These latter folks are more concerned with promoting pre-established moral agendas than unearthing new facts. An example of this tendency has been provided by a shift in how they conceive of their subject matter. Thus, where once they talked about social stratification (i.e., social class differences), today they study inequalities.
“Inequality” is, of course, a loaded term. It is tendentious, that is, it incorporates an unstated moral judgment. We in the United States, given our Jeffersonian heritage, cannot but assume that inequality is bad. Having been told, from our tenderest years, that equality is an unalienable right, we believe it is.
Now whether it is, or isn’t, is not my current concern. The issue I wish to address is whether pursuing an unexpressed moral agenda is inimical to good science. When one’s moral goals take precedence over the search for truth, is it possible to discover the truth?
One of my professional idols, Max Weber, insisted that sociology should be value-neutral. He contended that whatever our personal commitments, we must leave them at the door when we put on our scientific hats. Yes, we can have moral convictions, but these should not blind us to unwelcome realities.
For me, this is the bedrock of genuine science; hence I try to utilize it as a beacon while navigating the shoals of unexplored knowledge. As a result, instead of studying “inequalities,” I have investigated the ins and outs of human hierarchies.
In particular, I have studied how social hierarchies are created and maintained. Rather than assume that equality is the normal human condition—as many sociologists do—I have explored what people do when they engage in ranking themselves relative to others.
As a consequence, I have come to the conclusion that we are hierarchical animals. All of us, the elites and the underclasses, seek to improve our status in comparison with others. We want to be winners and not losers. Indeed, so important do we find this, that we sometimes put our lives on the line in its pursuit.
My conclusions have recently been published in a book entitled Human Hierarchies: A General Theory (Transaction Publishing). Much to my amazement, this title seems not to have previously been utilized. Apparently the idea that we are an inherently hierarchical species has had limited appeal.
Yet, if I am correct, it is impossible to understand why we behave the ways we do without placing our conduct in a hierarchical perspective. Thus, we today find ourselves in the midst of class warfare. This could not happen if we did not divide ourselves according to differences in social power.
Are the wealthy bad people? Are the poor sainted victims? Why do some people come to these conclusions? And are the lessons they draw valid? Without disinterestedly examining what is taking place, it is doubtful that the truth can be reached.
For my own part, I have concluded that ranking systems are inevitable and that everyone, from the top to the bottom, participates in perpetuating them. What is open to change is how they are constructed—not whether they will exist.
This is not to say that hierarchy is always fair. Clearly, it frequently is not. But neither is it to suggest that we can totally eliminate unfairness. We cannot. Moral improvements can be effectively pursued, but only if we recognize the limits of what is possible.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Why Marriage?
What is the purpose of marriage? Why do we have the institution? Now that the pressure to legalize gay marriages has reached the boiling point, what is so important about allowing homosexuals to partake in the same tradition as straights?
The sociologist Andrew Cherlin has argued that contemporary marriages are individualistic. People embark upon them because they want to be happy. Couples assume, correctly so in the case of good marriages, that tying the knot will lead to greater personal fulfillment.
From this perspective, if making a matrimonial commitment does not enhance one’s personal well being, a divorce is in order. More than this, if a person is uncomfortable with promising to be faithful forever, then engaging in cohabitation is a viable alternative.
Given this background, why are gays so insistent on participating in what many people have described as a dying convention?
I submit that it is because homosexuals also want to be happy. As human beings, they too seek love that they can depend upon. Since they too assume that marriage is a bond they can trust, they crave access to its benefits.
But is this what marriage is about? Why, since at least hunter-gatherer times, have all societies established some form of permanent heterosexual union? Why have they all insisted that couples pledge to remain together—no matter what?
The evidence is compelling. It is because marriage is not about personal happiness, but about providing security for the children a man and woman may produce. Were it just about obtaining a compliant sexual partner, shacking up would serve quite as well.
Way back when our ancestors roamed the countryside pursing game and picking berries, it was impossible for a mother to raise her offspring without assistance. She could scarcely have tracked prey animals with toddlers trailing close behind. No, she needed a husband to do the hunting and to bring home the fruits of his labors.
Times have obviously changed. For most people, meat is no longer obtained by stalking buffalo, but comes pre-packaged in the supermarket. There is no reason for a woman, or her children, to be protein deficient, that is, as long as she has money in her purse.
Moreover, now that most women are out in the marketplace earning their own dollars, they do not need a man to do this for them. Even if they are unemployed, they can rely on the government to provide a welfare check and food stamps.
So why the need for marriage? As it happens, the research shows that children do much better when raised by two parents. Unwed parents sometimes succeed, but the results are far from uniformly positive.
Alright then, so why not sponsor gay marriages on the grounds that they too are superior compared with single parenthood? The answer here is not clear. First of all, far fewer gay alliances produce children than do heterosexual ones. This is especially true with respect to gay men whose unions are notoriously insecure.
As to lesbian couples, these are rearing fewer offspring than media accounts might leave one to surmise. Nonetheless, if they do as good a job of parenting as do a traditional husband and wife, does this matter?
According to the studies that have been produced, being raised by a gay couple is no worse than being raised by a straight one. The trouble is that this research is largely anecdotal and, because it is recent, is not long-term.
The bottom line is that we do not know if homosexual marriages are as good at raising children as the conventional sort. They may be. But then again, perhaps they are not.
With all of the contemporary agitation in favor of gay marriage, we probably need more time to figure out what works before committing to an entirely new form of interpersonal commitment. While gays deserve as much happiness as straights, the real concern here is what happens to their children.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
The sociologist Andrew Cherlin has argued that contemporary marriages are individualistic. People embark upon them because they want to be happy. Couples assume, correctly so in the case of good marriages, that tying the knot will lead to greater personal fulfillment.
From this perspective, if making a matrimonial commitment does not enhance one’s personal well being, a divorce is in order. More than this, if a person is uncomfortable with promising to be faithful forever, then engaging in cohabitation is a viable alternative.
Given this background, why are gays so insistent on participating in what many people have described as a dying convention?
I submit that it is because homosexuals also want to be happy. As human beings, they too seek love that they can depend upon. Since they too assume that marriage is a bond they can trust, they crave access to its benefits.
But is this what marriage is about? Why, since at least hunter-gatherer times, have all societies established some form of permanent heterosexual union? Why have they all insisted that couples pledge to remain together—no matter what?
The evidence is compelling. It is because marriage is not about personal happiness, but about providing security for the children a man and woman may produce. Were it just about obtaining a compliant sexual partner, shacking up would serve quite as well.
Way back when our ancestors roamed the countryside pursing game and picking berries, it was impossible for a mother to raise her offspring without assistance. She could scarcely have tracked prey animals with toddlers trailing close behind. No, she needed a husband to do the hunting and to bring home the fruits of his labors.
Times have obviously changed. For most people, meat is no longer obtained by stalking buffalo, but comes pre-packaged in the supermarket. There is no reason for a woman, or her children, to be protein deficient, that is, as long as she has money in her purse.
Moreover, now that most women are out in the marketplace earning their own dollars, they do not need a man to do this for them. Even if they are unemployed, they can rely on the government to provide a welfare check and food stamps.
So why the need for marriage? As it happens, the research shows that children do much better when raised by two parents. Unwed parents sometimes succeed, but the results are far from uniformly positive.
Alright then, so why not sponsor gay marriages on the grounds that they too are superior compared with single parenthood? The answer here is not clear. First of all, far fewer gay alliances produce children than do heterosexual ones. This is especially true with respect to gay men whose unions are notoriously insecure.
As to lesbian couples, these are rearing fewer offspring than media accounts might leave one to surmise. Nonetheless, if they do as good a job of parenting as do a traditional husband and wife, does this matter?
According to the studies that have been produced, being raised by a gay couple is no worse than being raised by a straight one. The trouble is that this research is largely anecdotal and, because it is recent, is not long-term.
The bottom line is that we do not know if homosexual marriages are as good at raising children as the conventional sort. They may be. But then again, perhaps they are not.
With all of the contemporary agitation in favor of gay marriage, we probably need more time to figure out what works before committing to an entirely new form of interpersonal commitment. While gays deserve as much happiness as straights, the real concern here is what happens to their children.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Creating a Civil Right
Three decades ago most people would have scoffed at the idea. A century ago, the vast majority would have been perplexed that the proposition was even raised. Almost no one, until fairly recently, accepted the notion that gay marriage was a human right.
How, it would have been asked, could something, which had not even existed until almost the day before yesterday, be considered a right? That would be like calling the ownership of a cell phone a right.
But come to think of it, some folks are indeed calling cell phone ownership a right. Moreover, nowadays, according to some polls, nearly half of all Americans have decided that homosexual marriages are on a par with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
What has happened here? How can our moral judgments have changed so rapidly? Have people, in fact, discovered a new civil right? Or is it merely that they have been sensitized in ways their ancestors were not?
One of my specialties is the sociology of morality; hence I find it fascinating to observe a moral right being created right before my eyes. Many people think of morality as eternal and never changing, but the evidence that much of it is socially constructed is difficult to deny. The gay rights crusade is a case in point.
Consider how this new moral entitlement has risen from nowhere to dominate many political discussions. The steps in this evolution are classic. They provide a vivid example of moral entrepreneurship at its creative best.
The first step to establishing a moral right is to affirm it. People who want a novel entitlement to be socially accepted must begin by asserting it. They must proclaim loudly, and energetically, that it is an eternal verity. It does not matter whether anyone has previously entertained the idea as long as they insist it is a universal truth.
Next, they must demonize the opposition. Those who disagree with them must be portrayed as the essence of evil. Only their vile, mean-spirited natures could prompt them to deny so valid a claim. If need be, they must be punished to provide an example of what happens to villains.
As part of this process, the pain and suffering endured by the purported victims must be highlighted and driven home. In the case of gay marriage, individual couples whose love has been crushed by the bigotry of the mob need to be offered up as object lessons as to why we need this new right.
In moral negotiations—for that is what these are—the objective is to elicit sympathy for one’s own side, while simultaneously arousing loathing for the other. The goal is to convert as many as people as possible to one’s own viewpoint.
If all goes well, a bandwagon effect will have been fashioned. The fact that one’s allies are increasing in number will then influence the uncommitted to join what seems to be the winning side. As s result, one’s own position will become dominant and the new right will have been established.
President Barack Obama’s coming out of the closet to support gay marriage was part of this momentum building process. He, and those who agree with him, hope that it will nail down a majority so sizeable that henceforth no one will consider supporting their competitors.
Because rights exist, when, and only when, overwhelming numbers of people subscribe to them, in having swung popular opinion in their favor, the gay marriage advocates will have achieved their objective. What had not been a right will, by virtue of their political efforts, have become one.
That said, the game is still in progress. It is in the interest of the pro-gay marriage faction to portray their victory as inevitable, but it is not. The perception that it is, is itself part of the process of trying to recruit as many people as possible to their side.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
How, it would have been asked, could something, which had not even existed until almost the day before yesterday, be considered a right? That would be like calling the ownership of a cell phone a right.
But come to think of it, some folks are indeed calling cell phone ownership a right. Moreover, nowadays, according to some polls, nearly half of all Americans have decided that homosexual marriages are on a par with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
What has happened here? How can our moral judgments have changed so rapidly? Have people, in fact, discovered a new civil right? Or is it merely that they have been sensitized in ways their ancestors were not?
One of my specialties is the sociology of morality; hence I find it fascinating to observe a moral right being created right before my eyes. Many people think of morality as eternal and never changing, but the evidence that much of it is socially constructed is difficult to deny. The gay rights crusade is a case in point.
Consider how this new moral entitlement has risen from nowhere to dominate many political discussions. The steps in this evolution are classic. They provide a vivid example of moral entrepreneurship at its creative best.
The first step to establishing a moral right is to affirm it. People who want a novel entitlement to be socially accepted must begin by asserting it. They must proclaim loudly, and energetically, that it is an eternal verity. It does not matter whether anyone has previously entertained the idea as long as they insist it is a universal truth.
Next, they must demonize the opposition. Those who disagree with them must be portrayed as the essence of evil. Only their vile, mean-spirited natures could prompt them to deny so valid a claim. If need be, they must be punished to provide an example of what happens to villains.
As part of this process, the pain and suffering endured by the purported victims must be highlighted and driven home. In the case of gay marriage, individual couples whose love has been crushed by the bigotry of the mob need to be offered up as object lessons as to why we need this new right.
In moral negotiations—for that is what these are—the objective is to elicit sympathy for one’s own side, while simultaneously arousing loathing for the other. The goal is to convert as many as people as possible to one’s own viewpoint.
If all goes well, a bandwagon effect will have been fashioned. The fact that one’s allies are increasing in number will then influence the uncommitted to join what seems to be the winning side. As s result, one’s own position will become dominant and the new right will have been established.
President Barack Obama’s coming out of the closet to support gay marriage was part of this momentum building process. He, and those who agree with him, hope that it will nail down a majority so sizeable that henceforth no one will consider supporting their competitors.
Because rights exist, when, and only when, overwhelming numbers of people subscribe to them, in having swung popular opinion in their favor, the gay marriage advocates will have achieved their objective. What had not been a right will, by virtue of their political efforts, have become one.
That said, the game is still in progress. It is in the interest of the pro-gay marriage faction to portray their victory as inevitable, but it is not. The perception that it is, is itself part of the process of trying to recruit as many people as possible to their side.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, May 19, 2012
The Biltmore Effect
Biltmore is splendid. Nonetheless, the largest private residence in the United States, it is, unfortunately, no longer a home. Too expensive to maintain as a family dwelling, it has devolved into a tourist attraction.
Constructed by George Washington Vanderbilt, it is a monument to his ego and a warning of what happens when wealth goes to a person’s head. The grandson of Cornelius Vanderbilt (the architect of his family’s fortune), George was a man of leisure and limited vision.
Sadly, we Americans may need to learn a lesson from his spendthrift ways. No doubt George believed that his inherited wealth would remain intact for the indefinite future. Yet even though his grandfather had amassed more riches than any of his contemporaries, these were insufficient to sustain a determined effort to live in utmost luxury.
We too, as a people, seem hidebound to squander our patrimony. Having been born into the richest large nation in world history, we too seem to believe that we can afford whatever we desire. For many of us, our inherited advantages are treated as a God-given birthright.
Consider the deficit crisis. The numbers don’t add up, but for millions of on-lookers there is no impending emergency. They seem to assume we can keep borrowing ad infinitum. The young, in particular, often regard the wealth their predecessors created as theirs to do with, as they will.
For the radical young—you know the ones who spark street riots—work is something other people do. Their job, because they are better and brighter than the rest of us, is to instruct their elders on the evils of capitalism so it can be dismantled.
Meanwhile, their parents and student loans support the protestors. That these funds had to come from somewhere does not intrude into their reveries of a perfect society. Fancying themselves as intellectuals, they cannot imagine dirtying their hands in the grubby details of earning a living.
Recently some of these rabble-rousers have been demanding not only free student loans, but free housing, food, and clothing. Naturally, they are not looking for modest accommodations. To the contrary, they expect handouts commensurate with what many received when they were children.
Still, the Biltmore Effect appears also to corrupted many of those who should know better. Too many full adults—people who are actually engaged in earning a living—are prepared to take seriously the blandishments of demagogic politicians, such as Barack Obama.
Too many potential voters appear not to have projected ahead the consequences of unrestrained spending policies. Somehow the money available to the federal government is deemed unlimited. Much like the scions of wealthy families, they cannot conceive of the faucet running dry.
It would be well, however, for us to remember that Britain, Spain, and France are no longer the superpowers they once were. Having grown complacent after years of dominance, they too squandered a glorious patrimony.
We are no different. Our self-satisfaction can be as damaging as was theirs. When Obama accuses Paul Ryan of proposing draconian spending cuts because Ryan is not increasing the budget as quickly as the Democrats desire, on-lookers had best get out their calculators.
Those who imagine that there is always enough cash to append just one more room to the house will eventually find they can no longer afford to live in it. No one’s pocketbook is bottomless. Not even the beneficiaries of an incredibly wealthy, and generous, federal uncle.
Political consultants tell the candidates they must lie to the American people. They say that even though voters claim to want a balanced budget, they are not prepared to endure genuine limitations in expenditures. Like George Washington Vanderbilt, they want what they want when they want it.
Too bad! If we too cannot deal with fiscal realities, then one day we too may need a new place to call home.
Melvyn L, Fein
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Constructed by George Washington Vanderbilt, it is a monument to his ego and a warning of what happens when wealth goes to a person’s head. The grandson of Cornelius Vanderbilt (the architect of his family’s fortune), George was a man of leisure and limited vision.
Sadly, we Americans may need to learn a lesson from his spendthrift ways. No doubt George believed that his inherited wealth would remain intact for the indefinite future. Yet even though his grandfather had amassed more riches than any of his contemporaries, these were insufficient to sustain a determined effort to live in utmost luxury.
We too, as a people, seem hidebound to squander our patrimony. Having been born into the richest large nation in world history, we too seem to believe that we can afford whatever we desire. For many of us, our inherited advantages are treated as a God-given birthright.
Consider the deficit crisis. The numbers don’t add up, but for millions of on-lookers there is no impending emergency. They seem to assume we can keep borrowing ad infinitum. The young, in particular, often regard the wealth their predecessors created as theirs to do with, as they will.
For the radical young—you know the ones who spark street riots—work is something other people do. Their job, because they are better and brighter than the rest of us, is to instruct their elders on the evils of capitalism so it can be dismantled.
Meanwhile, their parents and student loans support the protestors. That these funds had to come from somewhere does not intrude into their reveries of a perfect society. Fancying themselves as intellectuals, they cannot imagine dirtying their hands in the grubby details of earning a living.
Recently some of these rabble-rousers have been demanding not only free student loans, but free housing, food, and clothing. Naturally, they are not looking for modest accommodations. To the contrary, they expect handouts commensurate with what many received when they were children.
Still, the Biltmore Effect appears also to corrupted many of those who should know better. Too many full adults—people who are actually engaged in earning a living—are prepared to take seriously the blandishments of demagogic politicians, such as Barack Obama.
Too many potential voters appear not to have projected ahead the consequences of unrestrained spending policies. Somehow the money available to the federal government is deemed unlimited. Much like the scions of wealthy families, they cannot conceive of the faucet running dry.
It would be well, however, for us to remember that Britain, Spain, and France are no longer the superpowers they once were. Having grown complacent after years of dominance, they too squandered a glorious patrimony.
We are no different. Our self-satisfaction can be as damaging as was theirs. When Obama accuses Paul Ryan of proposing draconian spending cuts because Ryan is not increasing the budget as quickly as the Democrats desire, on-lookers had best get out their calculators.
Those who imagine that there is always enough cash to append just one more room to the house will eventually find they can no longer afford to live in it. No one’s pocketbook is bottomless. Not even the beneficiaries of an incredibly wealthy, and generous, federal uncle.
Political consultants tell the candidates they must lie to the American people. They say that even though voters claim to want a balanced budget, they are not prepared to endure genuine limitations in expenditures. Like George Washington Vanderbilt, they want what they want when they want it.
Too bad! If we too cannot deal with fiscal realities, then one day we too may need a new place to call home.
Melvyn L, Fein
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Are We Stupid?
According to Mitt Romney, Americans are not stupid. He tells us that we, his fellow citizens, realize the economy remains in trouble—whatever the Obama administration propaganda.
This, of course, implies that Obama believes we are stupid. But are we? Let’s look at some of the evidence.
The president states that we are running out of oil left to drill in the United States. He gives speeches during which he asserts that we have only 2% of the world’s proven reserves, whereas geologists claim that we may have as much as 26% of the potentially recoverable oil.
Then Barack declares that it does not matter how much oil we have because drilling now will not bring down the price at the pump. Meanwhile, he asks the Brazilians to drill off their coast—with aid from our treasury. And at the same time, his minions urge Saudi Arabia to increase petroleum exports.
Now why would the president want other countries to raise their production, but not want to raise ours? It can’t be because he desires us to be more dependent on imports. It can only be because he thinks this will eventually reduce domestic prices.
Of course, Obama also keeps insisting there is no magic bullet to lower the cost of gasoline. This might be true with respect to current prices, but what about those five years down the road when new wells might come on-line? Wouldn’t these future savings count?
To add to the confusion, Democratic spokespersons routinely declare that oil production has surged dramatically on the president’s watch. When Republican’s counter that this is because of policies instituted by the Bush administration, the president’s defenders remain silent.
Nor is there a response when it is pointed out that the increases occurred on private land. Supplies coming from public lands decreased in large part because the Obama administration approved significantly fewer drilling permits.
Do these blatant contradictions add up to Democratic stupidity? Can it be that these partisans do not realize they are inconsistent? On the other hand, perhaps, they do think the public is too dim-witted to catch them in their verbal gymnastics?
To judge from their words, liberals assume they are smarter than ordinary folks. Having proclaimed themselves to be “the best and brightest,” they boast of a superior ability to make choices others are too thick to make for themselves.
Does this mean that the president and his supporters genuinely believe voters are dumb? Or are they merely convinced they can pull the wool over their eyes? At minimum, Barack believes he can persuade most people of almost anything.
At this point, I am not completely sure what the Democrats believe. But the signs are not good. They are obviously determined to run a campaign that diverts attention from the president’s lack of accomplishments. But are they relying on the voter’s lack of intelligence to achieve this?
Actually, I suspect that what the administration is depending upon our species’ normal non-rationality. Although most people are capable of calculating what is true, all too often they do not. While most of us possess the mental equipment to identify contradictions, there are deep-seated reasons we refrain from doing so.
One of these is our reliance on authority. Rather than figure things out for ourselves, we have a tendency to take what our leaders say on faith. It they are confident in the way they present ideas (as Obama is), we go along without being too critical.
If this is so, then the fact that Obama is president provides him with special credence. As a result of his status, some people will believe him no matter what he says.
This inclination is useful when our leaders know what they are doing. It can, however, be dangerous if they are demagogic. When those in power arrogantly assume they know best, reflexively following their lead can have dire consequences.
Melvyn. L. Fein
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
This, of course, implies that Obama believes we are stupid. But are we? Let’s look at some of the evidence.
The president states that we are running out of oil left to drill in the United States. He gives speeches during which he asserts that we have only 2% of the world’s proven reserves, whereas geologists claim that we may have as much as 26% of the potentially recoverable oil.
Then Barack declares that it does not matter how much oil we have because drilling now will not bring down the price at the pump. Meanwhile, he asks the Brazilians to drill off their coast—with aid from our treasury. And at the same time, his minions urge Saudi Arabia to increase petroleum exports.
Now why would the president want other countries to raise their production, but not want to raise ours? It can’t be because he desires us to be more dependent on imports. It can only be because he thinks this will eventually reduce domestic prices.
Of course, Obama also keeps insisting there is no magic bullet to lower the cost of gasoline. This might be true with respect to current prices, but what about those five years down the road when new wells might come on-line? Wouldn’t these future savings count?
To add to the confusion, Democratic spokespersons routinely declare that oil production has surged dramatically on the president’s watch. When Republican’s counter that this is because of policies instituted by the Bush administration, the president’s defenders remain silent.
Nor is there a response when it is pointed out that the increases occurred on private land. Supplies coming from public lands decreased in large part because the Obama administration approved significantly fewer drilling permits.
Do these blatant contradictions add up to Democratic stupidity? Can it be that these partisans do not realize they are inconsistent? On the other hand, perhaps, they do think the public is too dim-witted to catch them in their verbal gymnastics?
To judge from their words, liberals assume they are smarter than ordinary folks. Having proclaimed themselves to be “the best and brightest,” they boast of a superior ability to make choices others are too thick to make for themselves.
Does this mean that the president and his supporters genuinely believe voters are dumb? Or are they merely convinced they can pull the wool over their eyes? At minimum, Barack believes he can persuade most people of almost anything.
At this point, I am not completely sure what the Democrats believe. But the signs are not good. They are obviously determined to run a campaign that diverts attention from the president’s lack of accomplishments. But are they relying on the voter’s lack of intelligence to achieve this?
Actually, I suspect that what the administration is depending upon our species’ normal non-rationality. Although most people are capable of calculating what is true, all too often they do not. While most of us possess the mental equipment to identify contradictions, there are deep-seated reasons we refrain from doing so.
One of these is our reliance on authority. Rather than figure things out for ourselves, we have a tendency to take what our leaders say on faith. It they are confident in the way they present ideas (as Obama is), we go along without being too critical.
If this is so, then the fact that Obama is president provides him with special credence. As a result of his status, some people will believe him no matter what he says.
This inclination is useful when our leaders know what they are doing. It can, however, be dangerous if they are demagogic. When those in power arrogantly assume they know best, reflexively following their lead can have dire consequences.
Melvyn. L. Fein
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Educational Indulgences
Almost five hundred years ago, the Catholic Church was in all its glory. Easily the foremost denomination in Europe, it was rich and powerful, and growing richer. In the midst of a building boom, it had recently started construction on the new St. Peter’s Basilica, which was to be the largest cathedral in all of Christendom.
The problem was that the church’s ambitions exceeded the assets at its disposal. More money was needed; hence a fund raising drive was in order. This entailed dispatching papal emissaries to distant outposts so that they could sell indulgences to the faithful.
Indulgences were writs that presumably allowed sinners to speed their journey from purgatory to heaven. In return for cash, the church promised that the souls of the departed would literally have to spend less time cooling their heels as they waited for eternal salvation.
Martin Luther, until then an obscure German monk, went ballistic. How could the Pope’s legate, Johann Terzel, make such a claim? It made no sense to believe that one of the Lord’s servants could commit the Creator to so significant a decision—and do so for something as crass as money.
As a result, Luther issued his Ninety-Five Theses. In these, he challenged the corrupt practices of the Church, thereby launching the Protestant Reformation.
Today another powerful institution has gone into the indulgence business. Not monolithic or spiritual like the medieval church, but nonetheless arrogant and over-ambitious, contemporary universities have entered the salvation business. And they too have done so for cash on the barrelhead.
What is being sold today is not entry to heaven, but the credentials to move ahead in the commercial marketplace. The instrument for doing so, however, is not a signed document from the Pope, but official credits that allow the bearer to graduate with a college degree.
The means whereby this fraud is perpetrated is the on-line college course. It is supposed to be the equivalent of a traditional college course, yet rarely is. Inferior in the materials taught and the information acquired, it often bears little resemblance to what it theoretically replaces.
Why, you ask, is this done? The answer is money. Colleges charge a premium for on-line courses. The schools get more per credit hour and their instructors are remunerated with additional dollars per head they teach. So conventional has this practice become that no individual school can afford to repudiate it lest its competitors leave it behind.
Nowadays one hears computer based learning lauded as the wave of the future. It is said to be innovative and efficient. No doubt it is convenient. But is it effective? Its partisans say yes, but most students concerned with learning say no—at least in the humanities and social sciences.
Almost everyone agrees that there is more cheating on-line, but the apologists for web-learning assure us they will soon have this weakness under control. By the same token, most acknowledge that the communication between the teacher and student is truncated, yet they counter that this is more than compensated for by the individual attention made possible.
In fact, quality suffers. Some insist that the for-profit schools, which specialize in on-line courses, will eventually be the model for higher education. Nonetheless, these folks must also admit that the diploma mills cater to vulnerable students, many of whom cannot hack it at a traditional college.
The truth is that easy answers did not work five hundred years ago and they will not work now. Back then shortcuts to heaven were an invitation to buy one’s way out of trouble. Today they allow the lazy and unmotivated to obtain the simulation of a college education without having to invest the intellectual energy required by the real thing.
What we lack—that early modern Europe found—is someone to sound the alarm in a way that is heard. Without this, we too may wallow in corruption.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
