Rick Santorum has made an interesting choice. He has decided to focus his presidential campaign on social issues. In this way he hopes to distinguish himself from the other Republican candidates. For the moment, he seems to have decided to woo conservative voters by championing the traditional family.
This is a brave, useful, but puzzling decision. Our economic and budgetary difficulties are so severe that they demand immediate attention. In some ways, he is like a man teetering at the edge of a cliff and worrying that the temperature is dropping. Yes, if he doesn’t get a coat he may freeze to death, but before that occurs he may plunge to his demise if he doesn’t step back from the brink.
Nevertheless, I sympathize with Santorum. The condition of marriage in the United States is indeed perilous. Family life has become so unstable that we are liable to pay a dreadful penalty down the road—including economically. Spouses, their children, and the general public are all likely live more impoverished lives unless something is done.
Nevertheless, a vital piece of information is overlooked in discussions about what to do. Santorum recommends a return to the long-established family as buttressed by religion. No doubt this will work for some people, but probably not the ones most in need of greater constancy.
As almost everyone knows, approximately half of all marriages today end in divorce. Most also know that cohabitation and unwed pregnancies are on the rise. What is less well known is that there are dramatic social class differences hidden in the official statistics.
It turns out that upper middle class unions are still relatively durable. Their divorce rate is in the low twentieth percentiles. This means that for the under-classes the rate of break up is three or four times as great. In other words, the folks least able to defend themselves against divorce are its most probable victims.
But there is another irony here. Members of the upper middle class, because they tend to be well educated, are apt to champion marital “diversity.” This is an odd locution, but it essentially signifies that all sorts of personal alliances are on a par. Marriage is fine, but so are cohabitation, unwed pregnancy, gay marriage, and maybe even swinging. Whatever feels right is best for whomever feels it.
This sort of non-judgmentalism sounds tolerant, but is actually quite biased. It effectively condemns the poor and their young to misery. When those who are better off stand back and tell those lower in the pecking order that it is okay to do whatever they desire, they are not showing compassion, but the reverse.
Members of the upper middle class don’t instruct their own children to do whatever feels right. To the contrary, they encourage them to stay in school and then get a good job before they settle down. Moreover, their children listen. Nowadays their daughters are marring at 26 and their sons at 28.
This means that the children of the middle class become adults before they tie the knot. As a result, they make better choices when picking a spouse. They are also better equipped to resolve the inevitable differences that arise in intimate relationships. In the end, this makes it more likely that they will remain married. This is good for them, and also their children.
The poor, in contrast, follow their hearts, not their heads. If young women want to be mothers, they allow themselves to get pregnant whether or not the father is a good candidate for a committed husband. Or is they are in a relationship, they do not know how to keep their arguments from growing violent.
Where once society disapproved of this sort of conduct, negative judgments are today frowned on as adding an unnecessary burden to those already overburdened. Better just to allow people to do as they please.
So let me offer a recommendation. The poor should do as the upper middle classes do, not as they say. We as a society must make it plain that personal responsibility and maturity pay off in happier and more fulfilled lives. Consequently, the poor should emulate those who are more successful. But this means imitating their behavior, rather than heeding their words.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment