The Second Shift by Arlie Hochschild

Marriage is in trouble. At the very least, it is changing. Some say this is a good thing, while others do not. As a result, I have been doing research on the subject. More specifically, I have begun reading a broad range of books about intimate relationships. My objective has been to gain an overview of what experts have thought about the matter as a prelude to digging in a bit further.
One of the first works I examined was Arlie Hochschild’s classic The Second Shift. First published in 1989 and then revised in 2003, it is a feminist’s perspective on the sharing of household tasks in dual career families. Professor Hochschild, who teaches sociology as the University of California in Berkeley, made her initial reputation in a study of emotional labor among airline flight attendants. Here she has produced an equal splash by documenting the way husbands and wives divide the work they do at home after their official jobs are done.
Ostensibly a balanced ethnographic report on a series of in depth interviews, the last thing this book is is disinterested sociology. From its very first page it has an ideological argument it wishes to promote. Dr. Hochschild is a veritable cheerleader for androgynous marriage. She clearly wants men and women to be completely equal—including at home. Well, actually the equality she seeks is not of the moral variety, but seems to tilt in the direction of women. It is obvious that it is them for whom she has sympathy and their interests she seeks to defend.
Dr. Hochschild begins by stacking the deck in favor of her heroines. Thus, she describes a putative historical evolution of marriages from traditional, through transitional, and eventually to egalitarian. As with Karl Marx, this evolution is assumed to be inevitable. Traditional marriages are therefore described as doomed to be succeeded by those of the egalitarian variety, with the transitional sort representing a temporary resting spot.
Although this sequence may sound comfortably democratic, it is not democratic in the sense with which most Americans are familiar. For Hochschild, an egalitarian marriage is one in which the differences between the genders have been virtually eliminated. As do many feminists, she seems to assume that any disparities in the ways that men and women operate are the artificial consequence of historic masculine advantages. Once women take their rightful place both at home and work these will fade away.
For instance, Hochschild gets upset when men interact with children differently than their wives. She wants fathers to be as nurturing as their spouses. Right from infancy, she expects her male subjects to be as tender-hearted as her female ones. If they play rough with their children, or prefer to interact with the older ones, this is dismissed as unacceptable. They too must be feminized in their contribution to childrearing.
Hochschild seems to imagine that underlying gender abilities and inclinations are identical. She also seems secure in the belief that any difference between what men and women contribute to the family must of necessity be inequitable. That what husbands and wives add to the mix might be complementary never occurs to her. That their separate inputs might add up to a whole that is greater than its individual parts is beyond her ken.
In fact, a large body of research indicates that men and women differ in a whole range of abilities and attitudes. Men, for example, are much more inclined to roughhouse with their children than women. They are also more likely to enforce stricter behavioral standards. This, however, is not to say that the emotional support most mothers furnish is less important. To the contrary, it is crucial that children receive both.
Hochschild, however, is fond of citing the “stalled” revolution. She knows full well that most men have resisted participating in the sorts of relationships she favors. She also knows that many women conspire to keep traditional customs in place. Nevertheless she is convinced this is a temporary condition. Women may be moving more quickly toward her ideal, but she is convinced that both sexes will eventually get there.
Evidently Hochschild believes that a cultural lag is responsible for the slowness with which her aspirations have been adopted. Men have simply experienced difficulty in surmounting the lifestyles they find comfortable. That their resistance might have biological components is ruled out of bounds from the start. Similarly, that her objectives might owe more to her own moral attitudes than evolving social institutions is likewise ignored on nonscientific grounds.
The Second Shift is a must read for those interested in gender relationships, but not because it adumbrates an inevitable future. The real reason for its importance is that it documents a critical moment in the redefinition of gender roles. Dr. Hochschild has been a central player in this negotiation. What she says about social transitions may have more to do with her hopes than reality, nonetheless it helps us understand what people have thought while embroiled in what is undoubtedly a major transformation in the nature of marriage.
Finally, if we are to understand where modern marriages are headed, we must see the larger picture. As W.I. Thomas wrote, that which people consider real is real in its consequences. The same applies to the arguments people use when involved in changing social customs. These too may be mistaken, but they are not without very real influence.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Hooking Up: Changes in Courtship Strategies

Almost everyone acknowledges that marriage has changed. The disagreements—and there are plenty—concern whether these are positive and/or what, if anything, to do about them. Some see traditional marriages as in crisis, whereas others perceive recent developments as socially liberating.
I, for one, in teaching sociology to a combination of traditional and non-traditional students, have encountered a great deal of angst. Many men and women, both young and old, are disturbed by the current instability of intimate relationships. They personally yearn for everlasting love, but worry that it may not be available to them—or if it seems to be, may prove ephemeral.
On college campuses nationwide this has been expressed in drastic changes in the manner couples get together. Where once dating was the normal process for pairing, today there is more emphasis on “hooking up” and “hanging out.” The old-fashioned practice of couples meeting at an appointed time and then proceeding to dinner and/or a movie is nowadays regarded as quaint.
What has happened is chronicled in Kathleen Bogle’s Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. In this beautifully written and sensibly analyzed investigation into modern courtship customs, Dr. Bogle lifts the curtain of confusion that has prevented most of us—which is to say those of us past our twenties—from appreciating what is really happening to contemporary heterosexual relationships.
Many of us have not wished to recognize the degree to which pre-marital sex has become institutionalized. We have heard the term “hooking up” and feared that it referred to an indiscriminate sexual meat market that inevitably produced marital volatility. As such, we were appalled.
In this regard, Dr Bogle’s study offers mixed messages. On the comforting side, although “hooking up” does include casual sexual liaisons that are not expected to lead to much else, the amount of sex involved is less than salacious reports have implied. Indeed, her estimate is that only about a quarter of hooking up episodes become fully sexual. Many more are assumed to do so because the participants (especially the men) are content to have outsiders believe what they will.
Also comforting—at least to me—is the fact that college women continue to worry about their reputations. To be thought too easily available for sex is still to be regarded as a “slut” by most members of both sexes. This means that a majority of women are reasonably careful about bestowing their favors. They rightfully fear that if they are not, they will be considered a casual night’s fun, and little else.
On the other hand, virginity is not as valued as it once was. And how could it be considering the situation of those involved. Today the average age at which women marry is twenty-five, whereas that of men is twenty-seven. This means that both sexes must endure over a decade during which they are sexually mature but not engaged is a socially sanctioned relationship. Under the circumstances the pressure to do something must be enormous.
Given this state of affairs the hooking up scene is a modest solution. It allows for limited sexual experimentation, but does so without providing unrestricted promiscuity. In fact, much of the sex that does occur is of the “oral” variety. (No doubt President Clinton would be proud.)
The problem—and I believe it serious—is that practice in developing sound relationships is also restricted. Instead of using the dating ritual to learn about oneself and others, genuine courtship is put on hold. Merely “hanging out” with members of the opposite sex is not a particularly effective way of investigating the difficulties (and joys) of interpersonal intimacy. It is more about postponing adult life than figuring out how to enter it on the of best terms.
This said, what most intrigued me about Bogle’s book is how much we do not know. Courtship rituals have clearly changed, and keep doing so, but we do not have good information about how they look from the inside. Nor do we fully understand their consequences or whether there are superior alternatives.
Considering how important these issues are, it is remarkable the degree to which we have averted our eyes from reality. It is likewise remarkable how many of us are content to allow ideology to determine our attitudes toward sex, marriage, and personal relationships. In this regard, Bogle’s book is a welcome wake-up call. If nothing else, it is extremely thought provoking.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Most Dangerous Man in the World: Karl Rove

Karl Rove is hated. Reading his autobiographical book Courage and Consequence (My Life as a Conservative in the Fight) is a reminder of just how much he is despised. Time and again, he recalls examples of opponents who not only sought to defeat him, but who also wanted him dead or in jail.
This is especially curious in that his work makes him sound preeminently likable. But then again, likeability has nothing to do with the disdain in which his enemies have held him. Ironically, it appears to be his virtues that were the chief source of their contempt.
We may begin to understand this paradox by noting what happens when the shoe is on the other foot, which is to say, when liberals hold power. Shortly after Democrats passed ObamaCare, they became aware that opposition to this measure was as strong as ever. Members of the tea party movement, in particular, had been roused to high dudgeon.
To this liberals responded with moral indignation. They began by accusing their critics of racist and fascist inclinations. Somehow these opponents habitually shouted vulgar epithets that only sensitive left-wingers heard. Clearly something had to be done. These anti-democratic diatribes had to be silenced.
The point of this observation is that liberals believe in free speech—but only for themselves. If others are as vociferous as they in making their points, they interpret this enthusiasm as a threat to civilization. They—which is to say the liberals—consider themselves the epitome of enlightened civilization, hence anyone who opposes them must be a menace to progress and decency.
Which brings us back to Rove. When at his most influential, he was much more than a dissenting voice. He represented an enemy who had seized power from its rightful possessors. He was the face of that most dreaded of liberal bugaboos; the one who achieves victories.
So far as most Democrats were concerned George W. Bush was an illegitimate president. He was too stupid and shallow to be chief executive; and far too inarticulate to be leader of the free world. Worse still, he had stolen two elections from Democratic candidates who were far better qualified for the office than he.
And who was responsible for this injustice? It couldn’t be Bush. The man did not have the intellectual resources to make it happen. No, it had to be a power behind the throne. It had to be a Mephistophelean figure that pulled the strings. That man, of course, was none other than Karl Rove. He was the “architect,” the one who molded Bush as one might a piece of pliant clay.
It did not matter that several recounts of the Florida vote, often by liberal sources, confirmed that Bush came out ahead. Nor did it matter that Democrats were the ones who sought to change the rules after election day such that they could cherry pick votes only from the counties in which they were presumably strongest. It didn’t even matter that the Supreme Court came down decisively against them. Liberals were right and therefore deserved to win.
The only plausible explanation for these reverses was that the opposition had stolen the victory. They must have done something illegitimate, otherwise virtue and integrity would have prevailed. And who was the moving force behind this deviousness. Why it must have been that evil genius Karl Rove. Only he had the intelligence and malice to achieve it.
Did it matter that there was no evidence to support this thesis? It did not! Or did it is count that what was attributed to Rove was often physically impossible. No, it certainly didn’t. All that mattered was that someone did something reprehensible and he was the most likely contender.
When four years latter Bush defeated Kerry, this theory was confirmed. Rove might claim he had nothing to do with the Swift Boat Veterans criticisms of their nominee, but that could not be true. It had to be him. Only he had the evil brilliance to make it work. Only he could have thought it up or orchestrated its implementation.
Reading Rove, however, provides a very different interpretation. Allowing for the fact that his book must, to some extent, be assumed to be self-serving, his explanations nevertheless ring true. Whatever else Rove may be, he comes across as a modest and competent professional. Unlike his hysterical critics, he does not appear to be carried away by implausible conspiracy theories.
And this seems to be one of his greatest strengths. Precisely because he is not given to vengeful passions, he is better able to assess what works than his detractors. Moreover, this level-headedness most pointedly includes his mistakes. Rove seems able to admit when he is wrong and therefore to fix his missteps. He does not excuse them by blaming them on the fictional machinations of his opponents.
By the way, Rove makes it clear that Bush is neither stupid nor weak. The ex-president may have his limitations, but he also has strengths—strengths Rove was able to exploit for political purposes.
In any event, Rove’s book is a treasure trove of multi-faceted insights; insights concerning both his private and professional life. As a result, anyone with political aspirations ought to read it as Baedeker to campaign management.
But more than this, his is an account of how a shrewd, sensible, and amiable human being can make his way through the hazardous shoals of American politics with this sanity intact. Despite all the malignant abuse heaped on him, he has managed to retain his perspective and to avoid returning hatred in kind. In the end, I was rooting for him to come out on top—and he did.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University