Too much pleasure, too few children

St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | 02/22/2008 | ROD DREHER

[Caleb1411]

Civilization depends on the health of the traditional family.

That sentiment has become a truism among social conservatives, who typically can't explain what they mean by it. Which is why it sounds like right-wing boilerplate to many contemporary ears.

The late Harvard sociologist Carle C. Zimmerman believed it was true, but he also knew why. In 1947, he wrote a massive book to explain why latter-day Western civilization was now living through the same family crisis that presaged the fall of classical Greece and Rome. His classic "Family and Civilization," which has just been republished in an edited version by ISI Press, is a chillingly prophetic volume that deserves a wide new audience.

In all civilizations, Zimmerman theorized, there are three basic family types. The "trustee" family is tribal and clannish, and predominates in agrarian societies. The "domestic" family model is a middle type centering on the nuclear family ensconced in fairly strong extended-family bonds; it's found in civilizations undergoing rapid development. The final model is the "atomistic" family, which features weak bonds between and within nuclear families; it's the type that emerges as normative in advanced civilizations.

When the Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, the strong trustee families of the barbarian tribes replaced the weak, atomistic Roman families as the foundation of society.

Churchmen believed a social structure that broke up the ever-feuding clans and gave the individual more freedom would be better for society's stability and spent centuries reforming the European family toward domesticity. The natalist worldview advocated by churchmen knit tightly religious faith, family loyalty and child bearing. From the 10th century on, the domestic family model ruled Europe through its greatest cultural efflorescence. But then came the Reformation and the Enlightenment, shifting culture away from tradition and toward the individual. Thus, since the 18th century, the atomistic family has been the Western cultural norm.

Here's the problem: Societies ruled by the atomistic family model, with its loosening of constraints on its individual members, quit having enough children to carry on. They become focused on the pleasures of the present. Eventually, these societies expire from lack of manpower, which itself is a manifestation of a lack of the will to live.

It happened to ancient Greece. It happened to ancient Rome. And it's happening to the modern West. The sociological parallels are startling.

Why should expanding individual freedoms lead to demographic disaster? Because cultures that don't organize their collective lives around the family create policies and structures that privilege autonomous individuals at the family's expense.

In years to come, the state will attempt economic incentives, or something more draconian, to spur childbirth. Europe, which is falling off a demographic cliff, is already offering economic incentives, with scant success. Materialist measures only seem to help at the margins.

Why? Zimmerman was not religious, but he contended the core problem was a loss of faith. Religions that lack a strong pro-fertility component don't survive over time, he observed; nor do cultures that don't have a powerfully natalist religion.

Why should we read Zimmerman today? For one thing, the future isn't fated. We might learn from history and make choices that avert the calamities that overtook Greece and Rome.

Given current trends, that appears unlikely. Therefore, the wise will recognize that the subcultures that survive the demographic collapse will be those that sacrificially embrace natalist values over materialist ones — which is to say, those whose religious convictions inspire them to have relatively large families, despite the social and financial cost.

That doesn't mean most American Christians, who have accepted modernity's anti-natalism. No, that means traditionalist Catholics, "full-quiver" Protestants, ultra-Orthodox Jews, pious Muslims and other believers who reject modernity's premises.

Like it or not, the future belongs to the fecund faithful.

[napscoordinator]

I think in America we are having a boom. We just had three people out of 50 in my command have children this week. My wife is due end of May with child number 4. I truly believe at least in my experience that 3 kids is the new 2 kids. lol.

[Enosh]

Groovy. Now I speak Spanish to wild bunnies before eating them. It seems to calm them down.

‘Twas a crazy few months, one could say...

How about our beloved D.J.? I forgot her FR ID.

(Yours is unforgettable.)

[Psycho_Bunny]

I did not come here to breed.

[sitetest]

“agreeance”??

;-)

[Screaming_Gerbil]

... I think the real problem is that in non-agrarian societies where parents are expect to pay their childrens’ way through college, kids are an economic liability rather than an asset. In fact, the family-orientedness of East Asian societies makes this worse - for as long as they remain single, the children continue to leech off their parents after they grow to adulthood instead of moving out and living on their own.

That's restating what my comment is, better than I could.

You need to have a mechanism in place to strongly encourage responsible behavior by the children, or to at the extreme expel them from the group (like saying "they'll be no bums in this family" before kicking them out the door and writing them out of your will, etc.). Or else the children who chose to lay around and not work but still take up food and housing and medical and other expenses will suck the group (family) assets dry at the cost of the parents / other siblings...

[Mrs. Don-o]

I understand limitations and losses (very personally) and everybody lives within their own. Sounds like avoiding procreation is a wise choice on your part. Best wishes to you and your husband.

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

Glad to hear you are doing well.

DJ? You mean trussell?

Unforgettable....ha ha ha, thanks.

[Screaming_Gerbil]

...I know quite a few people who have 4 or more children. These families are indeed a pretty sight. They are, virtually without exception, composed of loving, intelligent, active people. They also tend to be well-educated. They are also all committed Christians of one sort or another. They have struggles and challenges in their lives just like everyone else. But they tend overwhelmingly to strive to support and nurture one another even in the face of severe challenges. These tend to be quiet people. To me they are inspiring. They give me real hope for the future in the face of so much of the lunacy that is so rampant today.

Thanks for the encouraging news.

How have they overcome the following two main problems (as I see it) to getting married and having families:

1. Easy divorce where the husband is automatically assumed to be at fault and is severely economically punished by the legal system at the whim of the woman.

and

2. Kids who turn out to be bums (too lazy to work around the house or get a job, too irresponsible to hold a job, drink alcohol, smoke dope, get pregnant out of wedlock to guys who can't support them, etc. etc.).

[cowtowney]

“This is one of the sillier articles I’ve read recently”

Are you kidding? The author said that our society needs to have more children and strong families or it will go out of business. You disagree with that?

Do you happen to know anything about demographic modeling? Do you know that we have to produce 2.1 children to just replace ourselves?

[Enosh]

Trussell, bingo!

Time to go frighten some more bunnies and fish. Later y’all.

[cowtowney]

“I am not bringing a child into this here world. Plus I am selfish and lazy and like kids only marginally.”

Thanks goodness YOU are not reproducing.

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

Thank you.

[William Terrell]

And that's right and proper. But a lack of civilization makes the protection infinitely harder. Then there's the millions of other ladies that don't have a big, tattooed, long haired, biker.

[Shyla]

Hey......Just thinking about you.

[kalee]

ISI ping

[steve-b]

Also, it should be noted that the main reason Egypt and Syria were lost to the Arabs was a religious schism — the Monophysite population of those provinces were so bitterly opposed to Imperial attempts to enforce orthodoxy that they actually welcomed the Arabs as liberators (which they were, in a way — they let people practice Monophysite Christianity if they paid the dhimmi tax; the Imperials wouldn’t relent in attempting to stamp it out under any conditions).

[Tax-chick]

Right. You and I, for example, are often in agreeance :-). (I’ll try using this in Scrabble, if an opportunity arises!)

[Tax-chick]

some children turn out to be bums

That's true. It's my observation that most large families have one child who turns out to be a total goof. I have suspicions about which one of mine is the most likely, but I'm keeping them to myself :-).

[kalee]

My best friend from Jr high through college was from a family of 15, 2 girls and 13 boys. They lived in a big old brick 4 square house with 4 bedrooms on the second floor and a huge arttic with dormer windows. The older boys shared one huge room in the attic. The younger boys all wanted to be up there with the big guys!
The birth order was 2 boys, 2 girls then all the rest boys. No multi births, all singles.
People used to ask them are you Catholic? The parents always replied no, we just like children.

[sitetest]

Dear Tax-chick,

It’s a good thing you won’t be trying this in Scrabble playing me. I don’t think any of my dictionaries have an entry for “agreeance.”

LOL.

sitetest