"Family Values" (cont.): Responding to my view (below) of Robert Reich's use of the term "family values," a reader sent in some examples showing that "there are still plenty of people on the right who use the term approvingly." Good point. I should have qualified my claim more carefully. But I still believe that the term is used less and less by those who would use it approvingly, and is kept in circulation today primarily by those who use it to disparage others.  Posted by David Blankenhorn, 6/10/02 | Link.

The headline about a study published in the May issue of the Journal of Marriage and the Family reports, "Children's Psychological Well-Being Improves After Divorce, But Test Scores Do Not." The researchers  looked at adolescents at four time points: three years and one year before the parents' divorce, and one year and three years afterwards. The adolescents were on average of 16 years old at the time of their parents' divorce.

The researchers make the case that psychological well-being  improves because those whose parents divorced already showed psychological distress three years before the divorce, and by three years after the divorce their measured distress was smaller, thereby indicating a "recovery" in their psychological well-being.

This is a complex argument, far oversimplified in the headline. First, the psychological well-being of  10,000 study participants was determined by testing their self-esteem and how much control they felt they had over their lives. These are important areas  to examine, but surely not wholly determinative of a person's psychological  well-being. More critically, as I wrote recently in a Washington Post Outlook op-ed, and as others of my colleagues have argued, large scale studies that rely on questionnaires, videotaped interviews, and other  "objective" assessments can only tell part of the story. Some young people  may score favorably on such assessments, yet when a caring person talks to them about their lives, they often tell complex and painful stories of how  their parents' divorce has shaped their lives. Are these young people lying? Or can objective assessments only tell part of the story?

Another  reality of divorce is that children don't experience it at one point of their  lives, but instead as a process that continues to unfold throughout their  life cycles. The researchers measured how adolescents fared around the time of their parents' divorce.  But they did not measure how they fare when they leave home, when they face another crisis in the family, when they start  their own families, when one or both of their parents die, etc. I and others  have seen that, at each life stage, the losses of divorce recur as children and young people confront new losses or joys with a fractured family system.

Finally, though we might acknowledge that this study tells us  something -- perhaps part of a story -- about how adolescents roughly 16 years old fare around the time of their parents' divorce, it tells us nothing about young children. Would a five-year old and a nine-year old and a sixteen-year old all react to their parents' divorces in the same way? Of course not. In  all cases divorce is a major loss, but it occurs at fundamentally  different stages of their development. To say, based on this study, that  "children's psychological well-being improves after divorce" is grossly  inaccurate. Posted by Elizabeth Marquardt, 6/06/02 | Link.

Our recent report, Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Hoping for Mr. Right: College  Women on Dating and Mating Today,  examines the "hook up culture" on college  campuses, in which fleeting, alcohol-fueled physical encounters, with no expectation that anything will follow from it, are considered normative for  romantic relationships between college women and men. In the study, we also find that 83 percent of college women say that marriage is a very important  goal, and that 63 percent would like to meet their future husband at college. But how, we ask in the report, can young women today possibly meet marriageable guys when the hook up culture reigns on campus?

Since our  report came out, people have asked me if the hook up culture continues after  college.  Judging by The Hamptons, the first half of which was broadcast  Sunday night on ABC, the answer is a clear, if unscientific, yes.  This  documentary of social life in one of the east's elite resort areas features  twenty- and thirty-something women and men shacking up -- twenty-five people to  a house, drinking themselves silly, flirting in hot tubs, and generally reliving their college days with a vengeance, right down to the way they conduct relationships. One young woman, an attorney in her late twenties, is  featured at the beginning of the film saying that she's determined to find a husband this summer.  For the rest of the film we get to watch her throwing  herself all over a number of mildly interested, but rather drunk, men. Yet, when the guys are off alone, gathered around the keg, what are they saying? "I'm not looking for anything serious," one says. "I've got years for that. I'm just looking for someone to hook up with. I'm looking for something that  lasts a minute and a half."

Women have made many gains in the last several decades, but an irony has arisen. Most women still want marriage, and they'd like it to happen before they are too old to have babies. Yet  they look for marriage in a culture that supports hook ups but not commitment -- a culture that conforms rather nicely to the adolescent desires of many young men.  In the old days, the elders would have told these young men to straighten up, treat women with respect, and prepare for a career in which good salaries help to support families, not the acquisitions of expensive  toys.  But in The Hamptons, the older folk stand around lavishing praise on these giggly, playboy young men, while the young women who talk of marriage are presented as rather quaint, if not pathetic. Posted by Elizabeth Marquardt, 06/06/02 | Link.

For an entire chapter in his new book, I'll Be Short, Robert Reich lambastes those in the U.S. who march under the banner of "family values." These "family values" advocates are hypocrites, he charges.  Hypocrites and much worse. They are haters, accusers, dividers, "prophets of doom." Their real agenda is to punish single parents, gay people, working women, poor people, and anyone else who doesn't fit their "Ozzie and Harriet model." These "family values" spokespeople are sexist, they favor the rich, they turn a blind eye to corporate abuses, and so on. Pretty scary stuff.
 
Yet Reich fails to offer a single concrete example of this allegedly widespread "family values" phenomenon.  Not the name of even one person who espouses any of these positions in the name of "family values," not a single hateful-sounding quote in favor of "family values," not a single book or article or speech or event or action that defines the "family values" orientation that Reich is so effusively denouncing.
 
Perhaps Reich was too busy, or too confident of his basic thesis, even to try to track down an illustration. But were he to try, I think he would have a difficult time, in part because his accusations are expressed with such hyperbole, but also in part because no one uses the term "family values" anymore, except in the way that Reich is using it -- that is, as a term of abuse to hurl at unspecified political opponents. Perhaps I've missed a few specific occurrences, but basically, as far as I can tell, people who publicly worry about the weakening of marriage and family life in the U.S. stopped using the term "family values," if they ever did, about a decade ago, about the time that then-President Bush trotted it out for a brief moment during his failed re-election drive, and when, in response, candidate Bill Clinton ridiculed the phrase quite effectively on the stump.  (Remember? -- "Family values means a government that values families!") 
 
All of this was a long time ago. Since then, concern for strengthening the family has become, in political terms, almost completely bipartisan. Occasionally, the term "family values" still pops up in commercial advertising slogans aiming for a bit of humor and irony, as in "These hot dogs are real family values!" But today's flesh-and-blood marriage and family advocates say it about as often as people shopping for cars say "Edsel." The only people regularly using those words today are people like Robert Reich, who are looking for a bludgeon. Okay, you want an illustration? Read the ever-thoughtful Judith Stacey's article in The Nation, "Family Values Forever." 
 
Personal confession: I've always intensely disliked the term, since it reeks of politics, and I've always believed that it's misguided to construe the family issue as an issue of partisan politics.  Posted by David Blankenhorn, 6/03/02 | Link.
 
An article in the New York Times reports that a number of recent celebrity weddings featured in the magazines InStyle and InStyle Weddings ended divorce after the issues in which the stories appeared had gone to press, but before they reached newsstands and subscribers. What an embarrassment...for the magazines. Posted by David Blankenhorn, 6/03/02 | Link.

Normalizing divorce: My daughter was watching a cartoon show on Nickelodeon about a girl named Ginger. I noticed that Ginger's mom was a character in the show, but I didn't see the father. "Where is Ginger's daddy?" I asked. "He moved out," answered my six-year-old, in a completely matter-of-fact way.
 
Later, I looked up the episode guide on the show's web page. The first we learn of Ginger's father -- the web page says that "he's been a bit unreliable in the past, but he's a pretty good guy!"-- is in an episode called "Hello Stranger," which is also the name of the poem about her dad that Ginger wants to read at a school show. Posted by David Blankenhorn, 6/03/02 | Link.

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: The city of Washington, D.C. has announced a $1 million initiative to combat father absence. Yet the initiative's overseer, Keith Cross, says that the program will not encourage couples to get or stay married: "We're going to focus on co-parenting...The elimination of father-absence is what we're focused on."

Good luck eliminating father absence without mentioning marriage.  How can people pretend that marriage is only tangential to father absence?  Research shows that married fathers are much more likely to be involved with their children than unmarried dads.  So does common sense.  It's like a anti-poverty program that doesn't deal with employment, as in: The Mayor's office emphasized that the initiative will not encourage individuals to get or keep jobs.  "We're going to focus on income issues. The elimination of poverty is what we're focused on." Posted by Tom Sylvester, 5/29/02 | Link.

An article in today's New York Times reports on a typical day at family court -- overtaxed judges and attorneys, overcrowded hearing rooms and waiting areas, and animosity spilling out of every corner: "The system was devised before the days of crack and the divorce epidemic. Add to that a more litigious society, a greater willingness to report abuse and no compunction about airing arguments in the post-Jerry-Springer world, and you have the modern Family Court."

Family courts were devised decades ago to represent and advocate for minors who were vulnerable at the hands of their families -- children who had been abused, abandoned, or otherwise victimized by the very people who were supposed to protect them. Then came the divorce revolution, and family courts were handed a whole new mission: to clean up the messes left by family dissolution and divorce. Adults who decide they can no longer live together, and cannot agree on how to share money and time for their children, now bring their problems before the state and ask judges and attorneys -- strangers -- to make these decisions for them.

When families no longer take responsibility for their private matters, those private matters become public business. The divorce revolution may have brought more freedom for adults, but mostly freedom of an illusory kind. What kind of freedom is it when you must stand before a judge and share the details of your love life, your financial statements, and more? When you risk losing the most important thing in your life, your child, unless you prove to a judge's satisfaction that you love the child? Posted by Elizabeth Marquardt, 5/28/02 | Link. .

A number of family researchers have suggested that child well being in stepfamilies is typically no better than, and, according to some measurements, worse than, child well being in mother-headed households. But a new study (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) of African American families with adolescent daughters in three high-poverty neighborhoods in Chicago finds that daughters in married-couple (not cohabiting) stepfamilies are less likely to have had sexual intercourse, and are less likely to become pregnant, than daughters in mother-headed homes. Some scholars who have reported little or no benefit to children in what they call "stepfamilies" have in fact lumped together, for purposes of analysis, mothers who marry and those who are cohabiting with boyfriends. The significance of this study is that is that it focuses specifically on the consequences of marriage, and finds that "the introduction of a marital union to a single-mother household might increase family economic and social stability, support, and household maintenance."  Thanks to Bill Doherty of the University of Minnesota for bringing this information and analysis to the attention of those who subscribe to the Smart Marriage e-letter. Posted by David Blankenhorn, 5/23/02 | Link.

Scott Coltrane of the University of California, in his recent presidential address (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) to the Pacifica Sociological Association, criticizes the fatherhood and marriage movements which in recent years "have gained widespread support." In Coltrane's view, the scholars connected to these movements are basically in the service of something called the "Christian Right," which in turn is busily imposing "narrow religious agendas" and "nostalgic exclusionary family policies." Coltrane also argues that he and his colleagues at the Council on Contemporary Families are true scientists who appreciate "complexity," whereas scholars associated with the the fatherhood and marriage movements know only "simplistic interpretations" stemming from "pseudoscience."

Oh, dear. I welcome serious criticism, but I found very little complexity, and nothing substantively challenging, in Coltrane's essay. Orlando Patterson's moving tribute to David Riesman (who was a teacher of mine) in the May 19 New York Times was titled "The Last Sociologist." Coltrane's method of arguing, in which academic content loses out almost completely to windy political pontification and name-calling, makes me fear that Patterson is right. The decline of this once-great discipline continues. Posted by David Blankenhorn, 5/21/02| Link.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation will release the 2002 KIDS COUNT Data Book on May 23. This new state-by-state study profiles the well-being of America's children. It ranks states on 10 key measures and also provides data on the economic conditions of families, child health, and education. To request a free copy of the Data Book, call the Foundation's publications line at 410.223.2890 or visit their website at www.aecf.org/publications. Posted by Josephine Abbatiello, 5/21/02 | Link.

Despite the usual, irritating name-calling -- `mullahs of marriage', `right-wing' everything -- The Nation has an interesting assessment of the marriage movement: ``Over the past ten years, a `marriage movement' has evolved; no longer the subject of widespread liberal disdain, marriage advocates dominated the 1996 welfare reform debate and are now key players in the debate over welfare reauthorization...New policy initiatives developed into legislation; the media changed its tune. The `marriage movement' had completed its circle of influence. President Bush's current marriage initiative is not an aberration; it is the natural extension of this work." From an article in TheNation.com, May 17, 2002. Posted by David Blankenhorn, 05/17/02 | Link.

``While politicians squabble over whether welfare recipients should be encouraged to marry, marriage itself is enjoying something of a cultural comeback. No one is calling for the return to 1950s style marriage, but there is a growing sense that marriage might be worth saving after all." From David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's op-ed  in the Boston Globe, May 12, 2002. Posted by Josephine Abbatiello, 5/13/02 | Link.

A rejoinder to David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's article (above) from two members of the Council on Contemporary Families: ``One of the objectives of  federal welfare legislation passed in 1996 was ''to end dependence by promoting marriage.'' Now, with this legislation coming up for  reauthorization, President Bush has called for spending up to $300 million a year to promote marriage among poor people. Should  the government promote marriage? And, if so, how can our tax dollars be spent effectively?" From Philip Cowan and Carolyn Pape Cowan's op-ed in the Boston Globe, May 12, 2002. Posted by Josephine Abbatiello, 5/13/02 | Link.
 

Three newspapers on ``the marriage movement"

``The [marriage] movement is a loose, grassroots coalition that seeks to reduce the divorce rate and promote marriage as the best arrangement for the raising of children. It is on a roll, gaining clout across the country." From Karen Peterson's article in USA Today, March 25, 2002.

``In the United States, unlike here, the idea of marriage renewal has grown into a full-scale movement." From Mark Abley's article in The (Montreal) Gazette, March 24, 2002.

``Even those who don't agree on the cause agree on the results: children who grow up with only one parent are more likely to be poor, drop out of school, have emotional problems and commit crimes. These trends have precipitated a movement -- a marriage movement -- that has gained adherents in the state house and the White House" From Patricia Cohen's book review in The New York Times, March 24, 2002.

Posted by Josephine Abbatiello, 5/13/02| Link.

This site is best viewed using Netscape 4.0 or greater or Internet Explorer 4.0 or greater.

Institute for American Values
1841 Broadway, Suite 211
New York, NY 10023
Telephone: (212) 246-3942
Fax: (212) 541-6665
[email protected]