5/7/2012
In The Way We Never Were, Stephanie Coontz lays bare with nearly
overpowering evidence a number of myths permeating American society that an
open mind will have pondered. Chapters three, six, and nine provide symmetry in
creating one of many clear arguments put forth in this concentrated classic. Chapter
three revolves around the myth of gender roles as relating to the individuals
within “traditional” families and their relation to the state; six strips away
methodically at the myth of state intervention being the ruin of this family;
nine is a thorough dismantling of the idea that parents alone are responsible
for their children and the unavoidable risks inherent in life.
Finding one coherent argument in
the book was much like dipping my hands into a box of treasures; I may have
missed some rubies, but I made out better than I started. The primary truth she
shares with us is that the nuclear family, which is held up on all sides as the
foundation upon which all individual character traits rely and on which all of
societal calm and prosperity rests - indeed,
where all morals and virtues come from - in fact is not in danger of
collapsing, but instead naturally diversifying. This, given America’s history
of exclusion, is a source of fear to those who profit from the lack of honest
discussion. This diversification could be a source of strength for the
individual in our state system if we re-discovered the strength of non-kin
networks. Finding the proper role for government will mean more actual discussion, but until, through
voter engagement, we can force corporations to participate more equally in
taxation as a way to keep inequity from rising, any progress towards
inclusivity will be moot.
In chapter three, Professor
Coontz lays waste to the myth of “a traditional family.” This traditional
family is supposed to be made up of mothers--excuse me, women--who are expected
to be the domestic based givers of all affection and emotional validation,
goddesses of altruistic nurturing, essential in the character formation of each
and every individual and so all of society. Woe be to those who fail this ideal
or are raised by those who fail, and further woe to the society that does not
protect this role for moth—excuse me, women. Femininity in this role is
required to “counteract capitalism” (56). Fathers are to always and only be
competitive and arrange for provision/shelter, absent any sentimentality and
incapable of intimacy outside the binding marriage. One major point she raises
is that non-white, non-males and even those white males of lower classes have
historically been seen as less fully human to the upper and elite classes (I
believe this is class imposition)
(48).
Coontz
points repeatedly at the history of humanity as not having required or even
accepted these gender roles. Requiring such discordant roles from individuals
and families puts the natural need for state intervention (redress, etc.) into
an unnecessarily shameful light. This, as she puts it, is “foreign” (44). The
origin of the word ‘family’ comes from the word ‘slaves.’ The concept evolved in
pre-capitalist societies so as to recognize authority, not paternal or maternal
structure. But the state here in America is presumed under the myth to exist for
the purpose of protecting the idyllic, 1950s-era nuclear family structure. Such
expectation, absent a comprehensive allowance for reality ( i.e., the
fragmentation of our individual rights as regulated by the state), demands
failure from the many for the benefit of very few. This occurs while we allow
more power to private firms and corporations that are most-often owned by very
old money. A long-term trend towards polarization in our politics and policy has
long prevented reasonable solutions for forced inequity from being discussed,
proposed or accepted.
To
continue living within these “traditions” without questioning them , one
must ignore and avoid consequence of willful ignorance, be
willing to hold inconsistent and even contradictory positions, and remain outright
acceptant of the consequences (infanticide, abandonment, illegitimacy, etc.) we
face as a whole for not dealing with these inequities. Coontz shows that the
history of labor division in other cultures, and in our pre-Civil War society,
relied not on gender based divisions but always helped create and reinforce
culturally approved ways for each gender to receive and give intimacy inside
and outside of marriage. These intimacies prove nonfamily reliance led as much
as to American prosperity as any family structure (65). One consequence of
“falling for” these myths that are so beyond
complex is that dependence on the state and subjugation to any “higher”
power emerge as the only roles an individual can fill. This cannot be healthy,
or continue much longer without another violent realignment.
The chapter six myth is pretty
straightforward: since family is the basis for all morality and individual
traits should come from the family alone, any need for state intervention comes
from weakness, be it criminality or immorality. The need for outside
intervention, says this myth, is due to an unhealthy reliance bred from
families with poor morals or individuals with poor families. This weakness is
effectively criminal, for it drains the state of resources with which to
enforce morality, and breeds dependency on the government instead of the
family. This has lead to the further collapse
of the family…the myth that dies is that the nanny state (excessive government
intervention) is the reason for the collapsing family, and the collapsing
family (supported by the paternalistic nanny state) is the reason we cycle through
booms and recessions…
One of the many problems/causes
of inconsistencies we see is that all sides decry the “growing” nanny state.
Each, however, are inconsistent in their position. She lays out the basic
failings of each philosophy and their history of providing lone and incomplete
solutions (124). Coontz is careful to point out liberal complicity in the
selfishness of our system. Enlightenment thought and the rise of self-interest
drove the rise of capitalism, and the desire of those who benefited most from early
capitalism to protect their “privacy”
led to the rise of the state. “Privacy rights” were never meant to be
inclusive. Eugenics, for example, arose from “child savers” asserting Christian
values, terrified that “unworthy families” would receive the benefits of
government (132). As it stands, most families would prefer to be invaded by a
doctor (145). To need this “invasion”
puts you in opposition to the interests of the state, especially once the state
took a position on which family structure to protect (140).
Coontz wins the day when she
quotes education professor Joseph Featherstone: “An anti-statist position, pure
and simple, is a tacit endorsement of rule by the giant corporations.” A clear
example of this control is the 1978 Right to Privacy Act, which “severely
restricted” federal access to “bank account records and credit reports, but
exempted private employers, state agencies, creditors, and even solicitation
firms.” Truly, “business policies regulate family life far more extensively”
than the so-called nanny state (146). Down goes the myth!
Chapter nine highlighted my own
upbringing as being irredeemable to society and left me feeling repugnant. My
experience was as a child saved by state intervention - literally, by being adopted away as an infant
from an abusive mother - but I’m not allowed as a parent to lean on what was
for me a righteously “paternalistic” state
without exposing some “immorality” or proving my bastard status. This is both
frustrating and alienating. Parents, goes
the myth (especially in light of the two mentioned) are the sole entity
responsible for raising children amidst the collapsing society filled with
at-risk families—this is a trap for failure and cannot change absent an honest
dialogue. There is no normal, largely because any attempt to study and find a
normal would/has left out some important considerations (211). There is no way
to measure normal, but we do know
that most abuse comes from inside the home, not some stranger danger (227).
Normalcy in human familial structure historically comes from “co-parenting
relationships” and “shared responsibilities;” the consequence of failing in
those relationships depends largely on your class status (227). We survived for
centuries recognizing “tacit communities,” a structure that in our state system
is seen as less valid than the nuclear family, and so has been legislated to
have less access to redress and equality of intervention. Our system is
“hopelessly-biased toward one kind of family setting.” This bias leads to the
failings or feelings of failure in parents, as the individual and family roles
they have to live up to cannot in fact all be lived up to. No worries for the
children of the extremely wealthy, though; they have “special advantages” in
maintaining their success (227).
For high and low income individuals,
the “omnipotence” we are supposed to display as parents is more relevantly on
display from corporate employers towards us (225). This creates in turn an
inward and collapsing pressure on parents that trends towards divorce (though
no evidence, again can show functionality suffering more under one familial
structure than another). Coontz draws a
master stroke in pointing out that the discussion in America about parenting
centers around impossible roles, incredible risk, blame to go around and always
individual behavior is compared to the most tragic situation being dragged
through the media at the time (228). The truly dysfunctional gets the attention
and seems the norm…who to blame? Why, the collapsing family and the values we
are not passing on to our children! Unfortunately, because we lack an honest
discussion about these myths, those who suffer from severe risk and true
dysfunctionality are in less danger of being “invaded” by a helpful societal
force in part because they lack access to “social capital” (231). She closes
her argument with the idea that all children can be loved by all of the adults
in a society, and a transition to this ideal would be more healthy than our
current inverted and imploding morass.
Instead, we see a continuing
decline in open, honest and fair dialogue concerning very real risks to our
Union. This reduction in discussion benefits an increasingly miniscule few who
have no fear of failing or of being required to do the actual work that would
be involved in failing to live up to the ideal (47, 227). By establishing the nuclear family as a
“state” unto itself separate from the “nanny” government, democracy (as I took
the major lesson to be) is decaying from within our deep center as a result of
this continual opposition. Each individual not a member of the “oppositional
state” finds themselves stuck in a paradoxical role, forced to act in the best
interests of capitalism, not the expansion of democracy. We see a paradox here
that can only be rectified by a renewed allegiance to the idea of government as
having a legitimate role in the life of the family and the individual.
I was not just convinced by the
validity of her arguments; I have carried this book with me everywhere marking
it up since the beginning of semester. I am spending my summer reading her
follow-up (The Way We Really Are)
because I am determined to be ready to debate when, inevitably, my failings as
an individual, a man, a husband, and a parent (especially in relation to the
state structure) are called on the carpet. We have become consumers, not
producers, and the major firms lead the effort to defund, privatize and
decentralize the federal and eventually the state governments in the interest
of our masters. We are, whether we
recognize this or not, a society of slaves to our masters. These undying
corporate persons see individuals and families as a “species of property” and
“not fully human” when not literally related, historically (126, 48). The words
and some expectations may have changed, but privacy rights have never been
truly inclusive; making rights equal and access to redress accessible is not in
the best interests of capitalism, and so it (capitalism) is at odds with
democracy. Unregulated capitalism decays democracy (123, 126, 129, 132, 135,
137 - 138). Non-familial networks, in
this light, are a human right.
“The increase in poverty…is
entirely attributable to changes in taxes and government benefits rather than
demographics” (260). While the “nanny” state may have grown larger (there is no
doubt America has more government now than at its founding, and that this
government is more inclusive than originally planned), our government today is
literally controlled by families not exactly looking out for the best interests
of anyone except that of their undying corporate sons.
By engaging in democratic
participation and continuing education, each of us raise the chance of the
other to be successful in overcoming these extremely unhealthy myths and their
multiple effects on us as individuals, families, and as a whole society.
Continuing to accept rising inequity as a consequence of trying to meet
impossible expectations is unbearable, and I believe for democracy,
unsustainable. Stock and trust bred by nativism, not mom and dad, rule America
(111, 272). Let’s change that by establishing our own non-kin networks: that’s
right…go make a friend!
firstread.msnbc.msn.comFREMONT, CA -- When Mitt Romney arrived at the gates of the bankrupt solar ene...See More2 minutes ago · ·
Byron York Byron York @ByronYork
On these pro-Romney protesters at Axelrod/Dem event in Boston: Team Romney will reap what it sows someday, probably soon.
...See More