{"id":20953,"date":"2015-03-13T05:45:50","date_gmt":"2015-03-13T09:45:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/geneveith\/?p=20953"},"modified":"2015-03-12T21:33:59","modified_gmt":"2015-03-13T01:33:59","slug":"class-children-the-social-costs-of-nonjudgmentalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/geneveith\/2015\/03\/class-children-the-social-costs-of-nonjudgmentalism\/","title":{"rendered":"Class, children, & the social costs of nonjudgmentalism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

There is a growing chasm in our society.\u00a0 It isn\u2019t so much between the wealthy and the middle class, though it does have to do with social classes, a major demarcation seeming to be between the college educated and those who just finished high school.\u00a0 But it isn\u2019t an economic gap so much as a cultural gap, or, more specifically, a child-raising gap.\u00a0 It\u2019s between children who have been raised by both parents, who have been cared for, given lots of attention, and taken care of.\u00a0 And children raised pretty much on their own, often with a single mother and serial boyfriends, with very little supervision, and with very little protection from abuse, sex, and their own impulses.\u00a0 This is the thesis of Robert Putnam\u2019s new book Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis<\/a>\"\".\u00a0 Putnam, the author of Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community<\/a>\"\", is a very important social scientist, a Harvard professor whose insights have been very influential across the spectrum.\u00a0 That he is pointing to this crisis in childraising\u2013which, in turn, leads to young adults poorly equipped for a successful life\u2013will get attention.<\/p>\n

\n

Thanks to Larry Hughes for pointing me to a New York Times column by David Brooks, who reflects on Putnam\u2019s findings, which he summarizes this way:<\/p>\n

Roughly 10 percent of the children born to college grads grow up in single-parent households. Nearly 70 percent of children born to high school grads do. There are a bunch of charts that look like open scissors. In the 1960s or 1970s, college-educated and noncollege-educated families behaved roughly the same. But since then, behavior patterns have ever more sharply diverged. High-school-educated parents dine with their children less than college-educated parents, read to them less, talk to them less, take them to church less, encourage them less and spend less time engaging in developmental activity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Brooks goes on to describe some of the heart-breaking profiles of children growing up that Putnam gives, from descriptions of abuse and neglect to this statement of a young man who said he would like to grow up to be a preacher:\u00a0 \u201cI just love beating up somebody and making they nose bleed and just hurting them and just beating them on the ground.\u201d\u00a0 Then Brooks considers what the problem is and what is needed to address it.<\/p>\n

From David Brooks, The Cost of Relativism \u2013 NYTimes.com<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The first response to these stats and to these profiles should be intense sympathy. We now have multiple generations of people caught in recurring feedback loops of economic stress and family breakdown, often leading to something approaching an anarchy of the intimate life.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s increasingly clear that sympathy is not enough. It\u2019s not only money and better policy that are missing in these circles; it\u2019s norms. The health of society is primarily determined by the habits and virtues of its citizens. In many parts of America there are no minimally agreed upon standards for what it means to be a father. There are no basic codes and rules woven into daily life, which people can absorb unconsciously and follow automatically.<\/p>\n

Reintroducing norms will require, first, a moral vocabulary. These norms weren\u2019t destroyed because of people with bad values. They were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another. People got out of the habit of setting standards or understanding how they were set.<\/p>\n

Next it will require holding people responsible. People born into the most chaotic situations can still be asked the same questions: Are you living for short-term pleasure or long-term good? Are you living for yourself or for your children? Do you have the freedom of self-control or are you in bondage to your desires?<\/p>\n

Next it will require holding everybody responsible. America is obviously not a country in which the less educated are behaving irresponsibly and the more educated are beacons of virtue. America is a country in which privileged people suffer from their own characteristic forms of self-indulgence: the tendency to self-segregate, the comprehensive failures of leadership in government and industry. Social norms need repair up and down the scale, universally, together and all at once.<\/p>\n

People sometimes wonder why I\u2019ve taken this column in a spiritual and moral direction of late. It\u2019s in part because we won\u2019t have social repair unless we are more morally articulate, unless we have clearer definitions of how we should be behaving at all levels.<\/p>\n

History is full of examples of moral revival, when social chaos was reversed, when behavior was tightened and norms reasserted. It happened in England in the 1830s and in the U.S. amid economic stress in the 1930s. It happens through organic communal effort, with voices from everywhere saying gently: This we praise. This we don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

Every parent loves his or her children. Everybody struggles. But we need ideals and standards to guide the way.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n