Posted on 02/25/2008 1:13:10 PM PST by 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.
As an example, we have very good records that the entire Vandal nation had a population of about 80,000. Yet they conquered Roman North Africa, which had a great many individual cities with a population greater than the entire Vandal nation.
It seems clear that many if not most of the population of the Roman Empire viewed the barbarian invasions as not something to fight against, or even as potentially liberating from the taxation and bonds the government had imposed on almost everyone. They no doubt often realized later that the barbarians were even worse than the Roman government, but by then it was too late.
“’sorry, but I am not bringing a child into this here world. Difficult times lie ahead, and I don’t believe it would be fair to the child.’
“We made that decision in the early 60s.”
Having been born in 1960, I’m glad my parents were less “considerate” of me. I’m sure that my children are equally grateful for my parents’ (and their parents’) lack of "consideration."
sitetest
I don’t disagree.
It is still a historical fact that a great many people have always believed this about the period they were living in.
Any period you care to name.
Possible to sneak some chopped spinach under the first layer of noodles? Strictly on the sly?
Mid 30s thru the 50s were 10 times better than this country today.
No, he was guarding it. I used Moral Authority and put the eggplant in. He’s only 2” taller than I am right now. By fall, I’m going to need Moral Authority elevator shoes :-).
I told Ben and Vanya I can no longer dominate them by height, so I’ll have to do it by weight... :o)
“No, he was guarding it. I used Moral Authority and put the eggplant in. He’s only 2” taller than I am right now. By fall, I’m going to need Moral Authority elevator shoes :-).”
Our older son, age 13 is a fraction of an inch taller than me and a few inches taller than my wife. I find that a vaguely, but deeply menacing look can have the desired effect.
sitetest
I’m not scorning people for hoping for surviving kindred. I’m scorning those that say creating surviving kindred is their primary reason for having kids. There’s a big difference between “I hope my kids will be there for me towards the end” and “I’m having kids to take care of me towards the end”.
There's nothing wrong with hoping your kids will be there at the end of your life. Nor is there anything wrong with taking pleasure in knowing that someone will love you and remember you when you pass on.
But I agree with discostu that choosing to have kids in the first place, based on those reasons, is very shallow and sad. If someone is on the fence about having kids, the deciding factor shouldn't be "Well, I need to have someone to take care of me when I'm old." And it's a terrible approach for trying to inspire others to have children.
It's kind of like the difference between marrying for love and marrying for money. There's nothing wrong with a wife who enjoys a better lifestyle as a result of her husband's superior wealth. But if she decides to marry him because of the money, even if only in part, then I don't think any of us would hesitate to call her the appropriate name for that kind of woman.
Sorry for repeating your message...I type slow.
Nobody ever has to apologize for agreeing with me. It happens rarely enough I still like the repetition.
My idiot co-worker said she wants to have kids so that it’s not just her and her husband at holidays.
Did I mention she’s an idiot?
I threaten to get Bill’s hair cut. It’s rather long and elegantly curly.
As my older son must consume vast quantities of food to keep up with his growth (at 5’10”, he’s skinny enough that we lose sight of him if he turns sideways), and as he really, really likes regular meals, a mere hint in that direction will reliably bring compliance on any front.
;-)
sitetest
“I’m scorning those that say creating surviving kindred is their primary reason for having kids.”
Alot of people have kids for a variety of reasons.
Some people for the simple reason they drank too much fruity wine at a reception and their husband was looking damned good (ok..we already HAD kids at that point and were not opposed to having more :) )
I always thought the more important ingredient was the (usual) bond that takes place afterwards.
Are the children loved? Are the parents properly caring for them?
Because - even if the initial reason was not all that noble - that doesn’t stop the situation from developing into something good.
I find that peoples’ worldview change so much after they actually experience it, that they sometimes laugh at the person they were before.
I know I do.
Wow! Bill is almost 14 and is just short of 5’6”. He runs, though.
maybe she is an idiot - you know her better than I do.
I would suspect though, that since Christmas is such a child-centered holiday, that if someone had smoldering maternal desires - that might be the most likely time they would bubble to the surface.
You know, Hitler and the Nazis mocked "Kinder, Küche, Kirche". They said it was women's work. That is, until the Red Army's hordes wiped the smirks off of their faces at Stalingrad.
Yeah, he’s a little tall for his age. ;-)
But I’m not sure he’s quite 130 lbs. Thus, he’s rather dedicated to never missing a meal.
Fortunately, he’s not a fussy eater. He likes just about everything, and will eat even the few things he dislikes. He’ll make someone a good husband.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.