This is the title of an essay, written by David Brooks for The Atlantic Magazine. Interestingly, there is nothing in the article that argues that the nuclear family was a mistake. Apparently he thought, “We’re Losing Our Grip On The Nuclear Family, So Let’s Promote Faux Families” was too long a title. It’s also a self-defeating title…and who would then read the nonsense he wrote?
I will admit to cherry-picking quotes from his article, but the quotes are so weighty, they seem to overwhelm Brooks’ limp-noodle recommendations.
“If the U.S. returned to the marriage rates of 1970, child poverty would be 20 percent lower. As Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University, once put it, ‘It is the privileged Americans who are marrying, and marrying helps them stay privileged.’”
“We all know stable and loving single-parent families. But on average, children of single parents or unmarried cohabiting parents tend to have worse health outcomes, worse mental-health outcomes, less academic success, more behavioral problems, and higher truancy rates than do children living with their two married biological parents. According to work by Richard V. Reeves, a co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institute, if you are born into poverty and raised by your married parents, you have an 80 percent chance of climbing out of it. If your are born into poverty and raised by an unmarried mother, you have a 50 percent chance of remaining stuck.”
“The sexual revolution has come and gone, and it’s left us with no governing norms of family life, no guiding values, no articulated ideals. On this most central issue, our shared culture often has nothing relevant to say—and so for decades things have been falling apart.”
“Today’s crisis of connection flows from the impoverishment of family life.”
“But the blunt fact is that the nuclear family has been crumbling in slow motion for decades, and many of our other problems—with education, mental health, addiction, the quality of the labor force—stem from that crumbling.”
Somehow, believing all of the above, Brooks has decided that the nuclear family needs to be replaced. It’s like a person who, realizing he has no money, decides that the monetary system is inherently non-functional. Then, turning to a life of crime, he recommends to all others that they should do the same. Perhaps he should consider getting a job instead. Perhaps Americans need to take a hard look at the value of marriage, as well as what it takes to stay married, as well as what marriage means. It is not that marriage is failing. The problem is that marriage in a world philosophically seduced by scientific materialism is like a house build on a flood plain.
Brooks advocates a variety of pseudo-families, promising that these relational gap-fillers (however people may stitch them together) have the power and relevance to replace the crusty old model. They don’t. History is awash with examples of communes and cloisters and separatists who have formed creative human bonds. These are often wonderful experiments that last a little while. Some last a few years. Very rarely do they last more than a generation.
Brooks seems unaware that the Church has always represented a version of what he is talking about, though never at the expense of the nuclear family.
Jesus said, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” The Church is described as being made up of brothers and sisters. The Church has always been required to provide mutual physical and spiritual support. Often this has proved crucial, especially for those in the Church whose families are dysfunctional, or whose families have abandoned them.
On the other hand, when Jesus was hanging on the cross, dying, he did not neglect his biological mother. “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”
David Brooks ought to be be embarrassed by the article he has written. He clearly has not bothered to pay attention to the data he has collected. The Atlantic should, equally, be embarrassed for publishing his article. I can only hope that those who read it will realize how illogical it is. But some will only see the bright yellow cover of The Atlantic and, reading only the title, take it to heart. It’s irresponsible to encourage the simple-minded to jump off of cliffs.
It’s a modern myth (like dragons and toad/princes) that humans are evolving. We are not. We are not evolving intellectually or physically. Yes, we have more technology but, as humans, we are not smarter or stronger. It’s time we take a hard look and consider that there is much to be learned from those who went before us, as well. We should never remain as stupid as the limits of our own experience. Maybe, instead of proselytizing for flaky ideas with obvious limitations, we should take a hard look and try to understand an idea that has worked well for thousands of years and for billions of families.
Recent Comments