Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 9/29/2007
TERRE HAUTE — With approval of the President and Congress at nearly historic lows, no doubt some wonder about our democracy. Indeed, desultory conclusions that democracy stinks but is better than any other system is hardly something likely to sustain our democratic way of life. And when you have political parties actually launching strategies to suppress votes, there is no doubt that ordinary, everyday people need to take steps to safeguard our precious democracy. In an age of big money politics, what can individuals do to strengthen our political institutions? Here are 10 simple steps they can do.
10 simple things you can do to improve politics
This is third in a series of five essays about simple things individuals can do to improve our social institutions. A social institution is a framework for solving societal problems. All societies must solve the same problems, but they do it differently. They must tie adult responsibility to children (marriage and family), socialize children into productive roles (education), solve the problem of order and leadership (politics), justify societal practices as “good” (religion), and produce and distribute needed goods and services (economy). My suggestions are not about changing our institutions as much as making the current ones, as currently defined, work a little better. Today’ s focus is on politics.
1. Get to know your neighbors. (Politics is coarse enough; at least knowing your neighbors makes the most local stuff more civil.) Public opinion polls show that Americans are fed up with the bickering and seeming inability to get anything done in Washington and our state capitals. Part of that phenomenon is due to the many, many wedge issues that have been used by our leaders to get elected. By getting to know people, you find that they don’t fit into neat categories. Yeah, your next door neighbor may be a Republican, but she might also be pro-choice, pro-environment, as well as pro-gun. Most people are NOT the activists of the parties who themselves line up so perfectly with their parties.
2. Get involved in the civic life of your community; school, church and local service groups are easy entry points. While these groups are not overtly political, they help in getting to know cross-sections of your community and make discussion easier and less nasty. Moreover, civic groups solve many community problems WITHOUT having to resort to the government. Making the government the solution to all community and social problems is little different than those states, totalitarian regimes come to mind, that in fact do solve, or claim sole responsibility to solve, all problems. Besides, having other institutional frameworks reduces the gathering power of our central, federal government.
3. Pick (at least) one local, state and national issue to follow and understand. Even if not involved, follow it in the newspapers, on the broadcast news, on the Internet. Only by being informed about issues can you really judge the positions and actions of our politicians. Also, if we don’t follow something, then we are left to judge, at the end of the political cycle, by who has the best ads, not necessarily who has or would be one to reflect our points of view on the issues we think important. To do that, you need to follow your issue and be informed about it.
4. Know who the following are: the mayor of your town (if you have one), city manager (if you have one), your city or county representative (councilman), your state representatives (with bicameral legislatures, you have a rep and a senator), your congressman, both of your senators, your governor, the president and vice president of the U.S., the speaker of the House, and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Know who they are; they are among the most powerful people in our society and in your local world. There is no way to spin findings that Americans are more likely to know who celebrities are than the people who wield power over them on a daily basis. It is a measure of disengagement that threatens democracy as much, if not more, than all the money washing over politics today.
5. Vote in every election no matter what. Think about it. More people get upset at suggested changes to a schoolhouse indoctrination ritual, the Pledge of Allegiance, than get upset that eligible Americans don’t vote. There are reasonable explanations. Those who don’t vote tend not to have much at stake, meaning they are not property owners, maybe not parents, don’t have high-paying jobs. But that doesn’t explain everyone. Others give feeble explanations like “the system is corrupt, I don’t participate” or “the politicians are all the same, so what difference does it make?” Well, if you begin to follow just that one issue, then you’ll have the basis to make a difference. These excuses are more the excuses of people who don’t care to participate because they are disengaged. The more people who vote, the more the politicians have to actually pay attention to us.
6. Don’t be an ignorant voter. Pick one race that matters and make an informed choice about that one race if you do nothing else. For some of us, following politics is second nature. For many others, it is not. Don’ t base your choice on the media advertising that your candidate provides, but based on your own digging and decision making. Know why you are voting for who you vote for.
7. In the next year, attend one of the following: 1) a city council meeting; 2) a school board meeting; 3) a public forum with your state rep; 4) a public forum with your congressional representative. Few of us ever get to actually see our elected officials at work. Go watch them in their public roles. That will do more than any campaign ad, by either side, to give you a sense of both your candidates. but also what goes on in the process of democracy. Whether it inspires or sickens you, at least you know.
8. Articulate your interests, that is, on anything you take a stand on or support (issues-wise), be able to state why you hold to that position in terms of your own interests. If you oppose an increase in the minimum wage, be able to explain why doing so is contrary to your interests. In other words, how will it threaten you? Same if you are for something, how will it benefit you? In many cases, you won’t be able to find a reason, and you should begin then to separate out the issues that directly affect you and those where your interest lies in affecting others, but not necessarily yourself.
9. Be able to articulate the interests of the other side in a way the other side would not object to. Coupled with item 8, these two make for more civil politics. Being able to articulate the other side’s viewpoints doesn’t mean you have to accept them, but it shows taking the other side’s views seriously.
10. Know your values. Many issues are highly emotional, like abortion, stem cell research and capital punishment, to name a few. The highly emotional portion of our response to these types of issues has to do with a feeling of threat to values we hold dear. Responding to the values and not the fear should make for greater understanding as well as finding additional grounds to address these issues.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Could U.S. policies be promoting world poverty
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 6/15/2007
What do you get when you combine the following: a government funded study on the effectiveness of U.S. abstinence programs in stopping teenagers from having sex, a World Bank report on the importance of sex education in combating worldwide poverty, a Rand Corp. report dispelling common myths and criticisms about international family planning programs, and current U.S. policies regarding international family planning?
My conclusion is that U.S. policy promotes world poverty.
Fact 1: In April, a federal government-funded study on the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education was released. This was a longitudinal study of 2,000 teenagers over a five-year period. A longitudinal design is the only design that is going to deliver the data to adequately assess cause and effect of a program like this.
The findings? Abstinence-only programs are no better or worse than ones that provide information about contraception and “safe-sex” practices in terms of stopping teens from having sex. Condom use was the same in those who received abstinence-only education as those who received information about contraception. What this tells me is that kids do lots of talking and our media saturate the airwaves with information about condoms. That, however, cannot be said for the developing world.
Fact 2: A 2005 World Bank Report titled “Education and Development” focuses on the importance of educating women as an effective anti-poverty measure. And controlling fertility is a cornerstone to achieving that. According to the report: “Women with formal education are much more likely to use reliable family planning methods, delay marriage and childbearing, and have fewer and healthier babies than women with no formal education. It is estimated that one year of female schooling reduces fertility by 10 percent. The effect is particularly pronounced for secondary schooling.” Part of that education includes family planning education.
Fact 3: According to a Rand Corp. Policy Brief, reducing fertility contributes to economic development. As the proportion of dependent children in the population shrinks, the proportion of working age adults increases, which boosts productivity and investment savings. There is even a name for the phenomenon, the “demographic boost.” You don’t have to believe Rand. Despite the ethical and moral concerns, China and India have taken drastic means to reduce fertility in their countries. It has worked and they are rapidly developing (in case you haven’t noticed).
Fact 4. It costs very little to fund effective family planning programs. Domestically, the federal government spends less than $200 million on its abstinence-only programs. Family planning programs are a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of battling AIDS, for example. Nevertheless, U.S. policy since 1973 forbids U.S. money to be used for abortions. Republican administrations since Reagan have imposed a global gag rule on non-government organizations that provide family planning. They cannot even mention abortion to their clients, much less provide one.
In 1998, Congress prohibited use of U.S. monies for any organization that uses coercive methods, incentives, targets or quotas in their family planning practices. If the U.S. were a foreign country, would we qualify since we have incentives for kids called tax deductions and tax credits? Since 2002, one-third of all monies aimed at HIV/AIDS prevention must emphasize abstinence-until-marriage programs. This is contrary to the health professionals who advocate the “abstain,” be faithful, use a condom approach.
As we can see by our approach to our teens, the abstain-until-marriage programs are no more effective than conventional approaches, so what are we really doing?
Fact 5. Condoms are effective in reducing fertility and lowering the risk of contracting HIV. Currently, the U.S. has so many restrictions on the use of international monies that there is a shortage of contraceptives for distribution in developing countries. In 2006, a bill was introduced in Congress, the “Ensuring Access to Contraceptives Act.” It was reintroduced this year and awaits committee action.
Therefore, if family planning and contraception are effective in reducing fertility (married people need it, too, abstaining even after marriage isn’t realistic, even in our goofy political climate), and the U.S. is restricting funding for these programs which in turn are cornerstones in reducing world poverty, then U.S. policy promotes world poverty.
I’m not suggesting an intentional policy here to promote world poverty. This is an unanticipated outcome of our domestic political squabbling. Abstinence-only family planning and a refusal to fund abortions are rooted in specific moral and ethical universes. What moral/ethical universe finds even the unintentional promotion of poverty acceptable?
What do you get when you combine the following: a government funded study on the effectiveness of U.S. abstinence programs in stopping teenagers from having sex, a World Bank report on the importance of sex education in combating worldwide poverty, a Rand Corp. report dispelling common myths and criticisms about international family planning programs, and current U.S. policies regarding international family planning?
My conclusion is that U.S. policy promotes world poverty.
Fact 1: In April, a federal government-funded study on the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education was released. This was a longitudinal study of 2,000 teenagers over a five-year period. A longitudinal design is the only design that is going to deliver the data to adequately assess cause and effect of a program like this.
The findings? Abstinence-only programs are no better or worse than ones that provide information about contraception and “safe-sex” practices in terms of stopping teens from having sex. Condom use was the same in those who received abstinence-only education as those who received information about contraception. What this tells me is that kids do lots of talking and our media saturate the airwaves with information about condoms. That, however, cannot be said for the developing world.
Fact 2: A 2005 World Bank Report titled “Education and Development” focuses on the importance of educating women as an effective anti-poverty measure. And controlling fertility is a cornerstone to achieving that. According to the report: “Women with formal education are much more likely to use reliable family planning methods, delay marriage and childbearing, and have fewer and healthier babies than women with no formal education. It is estimated that one year of female schooling reduces fertility by 10 percent. The effect is particularly pronounced for secondary schooling.” Part of that education includes family planning education.
Fact 3: According to a Rand Corp. Policy Brief, reducing fertility contributes to economic development. As the proportion of dependent children in the population shrinks, the proportion of working age adults increases, which boosts productivity and investment savings. There is even a name for the phenomenon, the “demographic boost.” You don’t have to believe Rand. Despite the ethical and moral concerns, China and India have taken drastic means to reduce fertility in their countries. It has worked and they are rapidly developing (in case you haven’t noticed).
Fact 4. It costs very little to fund effective family planning programs. Domestically, the federal government spends less than $200 million on its abstinence-only programs. Family planning programs are a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of battling AIDS, for example. Nevertheless, U.S. policy since 1973 forbids U.S. money to be used for abortions. Republican administrations since Reagan have imposed a global gag rule on non-government organizations that provide family planning. They cannot even mention abortion to their clients, much less provide one.
In 1998, Congress prohibited use of U.S. monies for any organization that uses coercive methods, incentives, targets or quotas in their family planning practices. If the U.S. were a foreign country, would we qualify since we have incentives for kids called tax deductions and tax credits? Since 2002, one-third of all monies aimed at HIV/AIDS prevention must emphasize abstinence-until-marriage programs. This is contrary to the health professionals who advocate the “abstain,” be faithful, use a condom approach.
As we can see by our approach to our teens, the abstain-until-marriage programs are no more effective than conventional approaches, so what are we really doing?
Fact 5. Condoms are effective in reducing fertility and lowering the risk of contracting HIV. Currently, the U.S. has so many restrictions on the use of international monies that there is a shortage of contraceptives for distribution in developing countries. In 2006, a bill was introduced in Congress, the “Ensuring Access to Contraceptives Act.” It was reintroduced this year and awaits committee action.
Therefore, if family planning and contraception are effective in reducing fertility (married people need it, too, abstaining even after marriage isn’t realistic, even in our goofy political climate), and the U.S. is restricting funding for these programs which in turn are cornerstones in reducing world poverty, then U.S. policy promotes world poverty.
I’m not suggesting an intentional policy here to promote world poverty. This is an unanticipated outcome of our domestic political squabbling. Abstinence-only family planning and a refusal to fund abortions are rooted in specific moral and ethical universes. What moral/ethical universe finds even the unintentional promotion of poverty acceptable?
MVC needs to change format of women’s tournament
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 3/16/2006
Open Letter to Doug Elgin, Commissioner Missouri Valley Conference:
Congratulations on having four teams selected to the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship. Several years ago you set out to make the conference more competitive by encouraging Valley teams to play harder non-conference schedules and that strategy has paid off with four teams selected for this year’s “Big Dance.” A fifth team, Missouri State, many argue should have been invited as well. Never mind the naysayers like CBS curmudgeon Billy Packer who was downright insulting of the Valley. His bosses are the ones who decided to telecast the Valley Championship game, suggesting that Billy’s time maybe has passed.
Now that you have accomplished putting the Missouri Valley back on the men’s basketball map, it is time to turn your attention to the women’s basketball situation. Last year, arguably the best team in the Valley was overlooked for the NCAA because they lost in the conference tournament, eventually won by 8th seed Illinois State, who entered the NCAA tournament a dismal, let’s see if I recall, 15th seed. Doesn’t say much for the conference when that is the only representative.
Missouri State went on to win the WNIT. That win, the second in a row by a Valley team, is an excellent testament to their quality and a good argument that Missouri State should have been given an at-large bid last year. But, an upstart Illinois State team, playing on its home court, won four straight to win the tournament. That was a great story for Illinois State but a bad one for the conference as a whole.
The same thing happened again this year. Indiana State, by far the class of the league, had to face Missouri State on their home court, with their incredible fans. Missouri State has lost at home only 12 times in nearly 400 games. What a surprise, Missouri State won. Hurray for them. Boo for the league because the lone Valley representative is awarded a lowly 13th seed, and Indiana State is overlooked.
When a conference tournament is rigged so heavily in favor of the “host” team, no one outside the conference is going to much respect the quality of the Valley teams. I didn’t do the research, but I bet you know: How many tournament hosts have won the title? Eight times, more than twice as often as any other team, Missouri State has been the host (Indiana State has never hosted the tournament) and has won seven titles. A cynic might quip, “The key to winning the Valley is to host the tournament.”
Yeah, I’m sour grapes because my Lady Sycamores aren’t the tournament champions. A number 1 seed, which they earned, is supposed to be an advantage. But I’d say a number 1 seed doesn’t outweigh the advantage of sleeping in one’s own bed, having friendly fans, hometown press, and being familiar with the lay of the land.
Indeed, Missouri State looked fresher in their fourth game than Indiana State did in its third. Being assured that your fans sit behind the visitors’ bench is a hell of an advantage and it had nothing to do with the outcomes of the games during the regular season … thus undoing what seeding is supposed to mean. The tournaments are supposed to wear you out; but they are also supposed to be played on neutral sites.
Missouri State played two other tournament teams, both at home, losing to Oklahoma and beating Tulsa. Indiana State played four NCAA tournament teams, beating two of them (one of them Missouri State at home), the other over Pepperdine played on a neutral court. Which is more impressive? Winning on one’s own court or on a neutral court?
It is time for you to spend some energy improving the Valley’s reputation in Women’s NCAA Division I Basketball. The SEC sent six teams to the women’s NCAA tournament. They moved their conference tournament to a neutral site 20 years ago. Your first step in raising the stature of Women’s Valley Basketball is by unrigging the tournament in favor of the host team; find a neutral site to play the semis and final game.
Otherwise, forget getting two bids when our tournament lacks legitimacy as it does now.
Open Letter to Doug Elgin, Commissioner Missouri Valley Conference:
Congratulations on having four teams selected to the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship. Several years ago you set out to make the conference more competitive by encouraging Valley teams to play harder non-conference schedules and that strategy has paid off with four teams selected for this year’s “Big Dance.” A fifth team, Missouri State, many argue should have been invited as well. Never mind the naysayers like CBS curmudgeon Billy Packer who was downright insulting of the Valley. His bosses are the ones who decided to telecast the Valley Championship game, suggesting that Billy’s time maybe has passed.
Now that you have accomplished putting the Missouri Valley back on the men’s basketball map, it is time to turn your attention to the women’s basketball situation. Last year, arguably the best team in the Valley was overlooked for the NCAA because they lost in the conference tournament, eventually won by 8th seed Illinois State, who entered the NCAA tournament a dismal, let’s see if I recall, 15th seed. Doesn’t say much for the conference when that is the only representative.
Missouri State went on to win the WNIT. That win, the second in a row by a Valley team, is an excellent testament to their quality and a good argument that Missouri State should have been given an at-large bid last year. But, an upstart Illinois State team, playing on its home court, won four straight to win the tournament. That was a great story for Illinois State but a bad one for the conference as a whole.
The same thing happened again this year. Indiana State, by far the class of the league, had to face Missouri State on their home court, with their incredible fans. Missouri State has lost at home only 12 times in nearly 400 games. What a surprise, Missouri State won. Hurray for them. Boo for the league because the lone Valley representative is awarded a lowly 13th seed, and Indiana State is overlooked.
When a conference tournament is rigged so heavily in favor of the “host” team, no one outside the conference is going to much respect the quality of the Valley teams. I didn’t do the research, but I bet you know: How many tournament hosts have won the title? Eight times, more than twice as often as any other team, Missouri State has been the host (Indiana State has never hosted the tournament) and has won seven titles. A cynic might quip, “The key to winning the Valley is to host the tournament.”
Yeah, I’m sour grapes because my Lady Sycamores aren’t the tournament champions. A number 1 seed, which they earned, is supposed to be an advantage. But I’d say a number 1 seed doesn’t outweigh the advantage of sleeping in one’s own bed, having friendly fans, hometown press, and being familiar with the lay of the land.
Indeed, Missouri State looked fresher in their fourth game than Indiana State did in its third. Being assured that your fans sit behind the visitors’ bench is a hell of an advantage and it had nothing to do with the outcomes of the games during the regular season … thus undoing what seeding is supposed to mean. The tournaments are supposed to wear you out; but they are also supposed to be played on neutral sites.
Missouri State played two other tournament teams, both at home, losing to Oklahoma and beating Tulsa. Indiana State played four NCAA tournament teams, beating two of them (one of them Missouri State at home), the other over Pepperdine played on a neutral court. Which is more impressive? Winning on one’s own court or on a neutral court?
It is time for you to spend some energy improving the Valley’s reputation in Women’s NCAA Division I Basketball. The SEC sent six teams to the women’s NCAA tournament. They moved their conference tournament to a neutral site 20 years ago. Your first step in raising the stature of Women’s Valley Basketball is by unrigging the tournament in favor of the host team; find a neutral site to play the semis and final game.
Otherwise, forget getting two bids when our tournament lacks legitimacy as it does now.
Don’t lose sight of purpose TV programming really serves
Previously published in Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 1/16/2006
Few things raise more of a ruckus than a disruption in television. Recently the Valley has struggled because one local cable company couldn’t negotiate the rights to carry an ABC affiliate resulting in missed football playoff games. A local station manager decided to exercise his discretion to not show a bad television series, “The Book of Daniel,” prompting a protest of e-mails, postings, and letters to the editor.
Television is a ubiquitous part of our daily culture. Common sense holds there to be strong media effects on the wider culture. Usually those effects are “bad.” We blame the media, especially television, for all kinds of things: increases in premarital sex, abortion, violence, obesity, “liberalism,” ADHD, the list could go on.
Rarer is to suggest positive things in our culture aided or caused by television. I don’t know if it still true, but the “Keep America Beautiful” ads, especially the one with the American Indian crying at the end of the commercial, was the most successful ad campaign of all, and unquestionably changed American’s views on and habits related to littering.
Despite conventional wisdom that television affects our behavior, the careful, precise measurement of those hypothesized effects are harder to establish. It is important to keep in mind when “thinking” about television that television exists for no other reason than to sell us things. The informational and entertainment values of television pale in comparison to its raison d’être, to sell stuff, which means to influence our behavior.
Some of us think we are pretty savvy. When the commercials come on, we switch over to another program. I like to head to C-SPAN and then back to “my story” in a few minutes. Ha! I have evaded the slickly produced message aimed at emptying my wallet. Of course, the show I am watching is nothing but an advertisement for clothing, cars, gadgets, décor, hair styles and more. I recall reading some years ago about how the sale of grandfather clocks went up when the TV Huxtables had one in their living room.
We can deceive ourselves into believing that we can flip the switch when the commercials come on, but the entire production is an advertisement. With everything on DVDs now, the shows themselves are advertisements for their own “treasuries.”
When we tune in to television, we are making the television industry money. The more who watch, the more ad rates rise. According to Nielsen, the average American watches more than 4.5 hours of TV daily, an all-time high. And the amount of time watching TV has continued to rise, never once in 56 years sliding back.
Crime dramas are quite common right now. Studies show people who watch more television and crime dramas in particular are more likely to overestimate the amount of crime in society. What is the result of a healthy fear of crime? Walling oneself up in their home; instead of attending a play downtown (too dangerous), people stay home and watch TV! I wonder how many dramatized murders there are on TV in a 24-hour period?
Despite the many watchdog groups, more and more of our time is taken up with watching sex and violence on TV. And the amount of televised violence and sex is up, up, up. Yet, violent crime, teen pregnancies, and abortions are down, down, down (in real life). The television industry and the watchdogs share, it seems, a symbiotic relationship.
Bad shows protested by the watchdogs generate “buzz” that leads to larger audiences and thus higher payoffs for the industry. At the same time, those shows provide fund-raising opportunities for the watchdogs. The activist groups, especially the ones stressing decency and morality, continue their campaigns despite little evidence that they have any lasting effect. Nevertheless, I’ll bet their coffers continue to swell.
Friends of mine about 10 years ago had their TV stolen in a burglary. Unlike most of us who would have run right out and bought another one, they didn’t. They felt withdrawal symptoms, but after a couple of days, discovered something. First, they actually talked to each other through the evening. They discovered that they had plenty of time for homework and doing chores around the house. They found ample time to do things they actually enjoyed more than watching the “junk” on TV.
Pick your favorite five TV shows, outside of news/weather. Watch ONLY those shows for the next two weeks. Turn off the noisy appliance in between. Send letters to the editor about your experience.
Few things raise more of a ruckus than a disruption in television. Recently the Valley has struggled because one local cable company couldn’t negotiate the rights to carry an ABC affiliate resulting in missed football playoff games. A local station manager decided to exercise his discretion to not show a bad television series, “The Book of Daniel,” prompting a protest of e-mails, postings, and letters to the editor.
Television is a ubiquitous part of our daily culture. Common sense holds there to be strong media effects on the wider culture. Usually those effects are “bad.” We blame the media, especially television, for all kinds of things: increases in premarital sex, abortion, violence, obesity, “liberalism,” ADHD, the list could go on.
Rarer is to suggest positive things in our culture aided or caused by television. I don’t know if it still true, but the “Keep America Beautiful” ads, especially the one with the American Indian crying at the end of the commercial, was the most successful ad campaign of all, and unquestionably changed American’s views on and habits related to littering.
Despite conventional wisdom that television affects our behavior, the careful, precise measurement of those hypothesized effects are harder to establish. It is important to keep in mind when “thinking” about television that television exists for no other reason than to sell us things. The informational and entertainment values of television pale in comparison to its raison d’être, to sell stuff, which means to influence our behavior.
Some of us think we are pretty savvy. When the commercials come on, we switch over to another program. I like to head to C-SPAN and then back to “my story” in a few minutes. Ha! I have evaded the slickly produced message aimed at emptying my wallet. Of course, the show I am watching is nothing but an advertisement for clothing, cars, gadgets, décor, hair styles and more. I recall reading some years ago about how the sale of grandfather clocks went up when the TV Huxtables had one in their living room.
We can deceive ourselves into believing that we can flip the switch when the commercials come on, but the entire production is an advertisement. With everything on DVDs now, the shows themselves are advertisements for their own “treasuries.”
When we tune in to television, we are making the television industry money. The more who watch, the more ad rates rise. According to Nielsen, the average American watches more than 4.5 hours of TV daily, an all-time high. And the amount of time watching TV has continued to rise, never once in 56 years sliding back.
Crime dramas are quite common right now. Studies show people who watch more television and crime dramas in particular are more likely to overestimate the amount of crime in society. What is the result of a healthy fear of crime? Walling oneself up in their home; instead of attending a play downtown (too dangerous), people stay home and watch TV! I wonder how many dramatized murders there are on TV in a 24-hour period?
Despite the many watchdog groups, more and more of our time is taken up with watching sex and violence on TV. And the amount of televised violence and sex is up, up, up. Yet, violent crime, teen pregnancies, and abortions are down, down, down (in real life). The television industry and the watchdogs share, it seems, a symbiotic relationship.
Bad shows protested by the watchdogs generate “buzz” that leads to larger audiences and thus higher payoffs for the industry. At the same time, those shows provide fund-raising opportunities for the watchdogs. The activist groups, especially the ones stressing decency and morality, continue their campaigns despite little evidence that they have any lasting effect. Nevertheless, I’ll bet their coffers continue to swell.
Friends of mine about 10 years ago had their TV stolen in a burglary. Unlike most of us who would have run right out and bought another one, they didn’t. They felt withdrawal symptoms, but after a couple of days, discovered something. First, they actually talked to each other through the evening. They discovered that they had plenty of time for homework and doing chores around the house. They found ample time to do things they actually enjoyed more than watching the “junk” on TV.
Pick your favorite five TV shows, outside of news/weather. Watch ONLY those shows for the next two weeks. Turn off the noisy appliance in between. Send letters to the editor about your experience.
Covering the field — from consensus to conflict
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 4/22/2007
Ever wonder about the nature of society? Sociologists do, which means I do. In 750 words I’ll try to summarize better than 100 years of scholarship and provide an example to boot!
Defending the north end zone is the “consensus” model. Society forms around consensus on norms (expected behaviors) and values (standards to judge good and bad). Defending the south end zone is the “conflict” model. Society is forged out of the struggle of groups pursuing their interests; social power and authority are important aspects to understanding society.
I’m exaggerating the differences here, but in reality, they are much closer than I’m making them out to be. In short, the consensus model emphasizes “common” values and the conflict model emphasizes “whose” values. The consensus model emphasizes universal interests and the conflict model emphasizes specific interests.
The growing controversy over use of several million dollars of refinanced debt owed by the Vigo County School Corp. to purchase synthetic turf for Vigo County’s three high school football fields seems almost a scripted event to highlight these two models of society. Turf proponents emphasize the broadest possible values (consensus model) in arguing for the turf. Who could be against community pride, education, competitiveness, economic development, safety, and efficiency?
Turf opponents emphasize interests (conflict model). They look at the situation not in terms of whether something fits broad, common values, but in terms of who benefits and at whose expense. They frame the controversy in terms of one group benefiting at the expense of other groups, such as taxpayers versus taxspenders, athletes versus academics, and football versus other sports.
The consensus model adds its own “value” of order, that society should be orderly and harmonious and that dissension and conflict are “bad.” Furthermore, that which leads to disorder and disharmony is harmful. Similarly, the conflict model adds its own “value” of fairness. Despite accepting a view of society as basically “unfair” much of the conflict model’s subsequent analysis is about “fairness,” equity, or equality between competing interest groups.
Proponents of turf (consensus model) organize shows of support for the expenditure, enlisting as many people as possible to show broad support for the values they claim the expenditure reflects. Opponents of turf (conflict model), in a less orchestrated manner, point out the unfairness of the expenditure or demand further explanation/justification for the favoring of one interest group over others.
In turn the proponents criticize the opponents for being insulting, disrespectful, and for pitting groups against one another. To which the opponents respond with more examples of the narrow interests being served by the proponents and more examples of how the proponents would benefit at significant costs to the other groups. Eventually both sides are talking past one another.
Competing scientific models are judged in terms of how well they explain the data and their ability to predict future events. So, the proponents of turf will broaden the meaning of the expenditure. It will become an argument less about football but youth, athletics, education and community. They might argue that without organized sports, that the community would be worse off, that kids would be less supervised, and more likely to get into trouble. After all, a common response to idle youth is sports programs, whether summer tennis lessons or midnight basketball.
Opponents won’t deny these assertions. Instead they will provide more examples of the groups who are passed over. They will not debate the larger, grander notions of whether sports are good or bad; instead they will keep the focus on the expenditure for turf (maybe sports in general) and what that means to other groups. They might point out groups who cannot, other than indirectly, if at all, benefit from the turf.
For example, those unable for physical reasons to play football are not benefited; this would include those medically unable to play and girls. They may argue that if the taxpayers are going to provide such lavish support for the one group, that they must, for fairness sake, provide similar benefits to the excluded. As this drama unfolds, we’ll see which model predicts future events the best.
My students, at this point, often ask me, “… which one is correct, the consensus or conflict model of society?” The conflict model developed, in part, from criticism of the consensus model. Today, most sociologists agree, the conflict model can explain what the consensus model does and more. That, however, still doesn’t make one “right” and the other “wrong.”
Ever wonder about the nature of society? Sociologists do, which means I do. In 750 words I’ll try to summarize better than 100 years of scholarship and provide an example to boot!
Defending the north end zone is the “consensus” model. Society forms around consensus on norms (expected behaviors) and values (standards to judge good and bad). Defending the south end zone is the “conflict” model. Society is forged out of the struggle of groups pursuing their interests; social power and authority are important aspects to understanding society.
I’m exaggerating the differences here, but in reality, they are much closer than I’m making them out to be. In short, the consensus model emphasizes “common” values and the conflict model emphasizes “whose” values. The consensus model emphasizes universal interests and the conflict model emphasizes specific interests.
The growing controversy over use of several million dollars of refinanced debt owed by the Vigo County School Corp. to purchase synthetic turf for Vigo County’s three high school football fields seems almost a scripted event to highlight these two models of society. Turf proponents emphasize the broadest possible values (consensus model) in arguing for the turf. Who could be against community pride, education, competitiveness, economic development, safety, and efficiency?
Turf opponents emphasize interests (conflict model). They look at the situation not in terms of whether something fits broad, common values, but in terms of who benefits and at whose expense. They frame the controversy in terms of one group benefiting at the expense of other groups, such as taxpayers versus taxspenders, athletes versus academics, and football versus other sports.
The consensus model adds its own “value” of order, that society should be orderly and harmonious and that dissension and conflict are “bad.” Furthermore, that which leads to disorder and disharmony is harmful. Similarly, the conflict model adds its own “value” of fairness. Despite accepting a view of society as basically “unfair” much of the conflict model’s subsequent analysis is about “fairness,” equity, or equality between competing interest groups.
Proponents of turf (consensus model) organize shows of support for the expenditure, enlisting as many people as possible to show broad support for the values they claim the expenditure reflects. Opponents of turf (conflict model), in a less orchestrated manner, point out the unfairness of the expenditure or demand further explanation/justification for the favoring of one interest group over others.
In turn the proponents criticize the opponents for being insulting, disrespectful, and for pitting groups against one another. To which the opponents respond with more examples of the narrow interests being served by the proponents and more examples of how the proponents would benefit at significant costs to the other groups. Eventually both sides are talking past one another.
Competing scientific models are judged in terms of how well they explain the data and their ability to predict future events. So, the proponents of turf will broaden the meaning of the expenditure. It will become an argument less about football but youth, athletics, education and community. They might argue that without organized sports, that the community would be worse off, that kids would be less supervised, and more likely to get into trouble. After all, a common response to idle youth is sports programs, whether summer tennis lessons or midnight basketball.
Opponents won’t deny these assertions. Instead they will provide more examples of the groups who are passed over. They will not debate the larger, grander notions of whether sports are good or bad; instead they will keep the focus on the expenditure for turf (maybe sports in general) and what that means to other groups. They might point out groups who cannot, other than indirectly, if at all, benefit from the turf.
For example, those unable for physical reasons to play football are not benefited; this would include those medically unable to play and girls. They may argue that if the taxpayers are going to provide such lavish support for the one group, that they must, for fairness sake, provide similar benefits to the excluded. As this drama unfolds, we’ll see which model predicts future events the best.
My students, at this point, often ask me, “… which one is correct, the consensus or conflict model of society?” The conflict model developed, in part, from criticism of the consensus model. Today, most sociologists agree, the conflict model can explain what the consensus model does and more. That, however, still doesn’t make one “right” and the other “wrong.”
Parents can make a major impact on children’s education
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 9/15/2007
This is second in a series of five essays about simple things individuals can do to improve our social institutions. A social institution is a framework for solving societal problems. All societies must solve the same problems, but they do it differently. They must tie adult responsibility to children (marriage and family), socialize children into productive roles (education), solve the problem of order and leadership (politics), justify societal practices as “good” (religion), and produce and distribute needed goods and services (economy). My suggestions are not about changing our institutions as much as making the current ones, as currently defined, work a little better. Today’s focus is on education.
Pick up any newspaper, check any news Web site, listen to any presidential candidate today and the subject of education comes up. Indeed, since the publication of “A Nation at Risk” by the Reagan Administration, there has been much attention, and some reforms, to education. But far less attention is given the role, and arguably, the more important role, that parents and adults who engage with kids outside the formal classroom and formal activities like scouting, sports, church, and others, play in educating our children. The ongoing debate today is about education policy. What can parents and individuals do to improve education in America? Here are 10 simple steps individuals, especially parents, can do.
1. Expand active learning beyond the classroom; make the world everything about learning. Young kids are pretty much natural learners. They are curious and eager to learn and experience their environments. Formal schooling and our hectic lives today manage to drum that natural curiosity and natural active learning out and we replace it with passive learning, which is boring and not easy to reverse. So, when you’re with your kids, whether your own, or others, turn activities into learning experiences. Let kids explore stores (with you in tow), stop and let them be fascinated by what has become common to you. Just this morning, I was driving out on a country road that was being repaved. The young Amish kids who were lined up on the side of the road were fascinated by the machinery. How many of your 10-year-olds would be captivated by such a sight? Why not?
2. Read to your kids; have them read to you. Reading is the primary academic skill. Without it, there is virtually no chance for academic success. Begin reading to your kids immediately. Not only will reading to them demonstrate that you value the skill, but later, they can read to you. Often this activity diminishes greatly once formal schooling begins, but there is no reason more complex books can’t be read, too. On long car trips, have kids read a long novel out loud for everyone’s enjoyment.
3. Make at least half of your purchases for birthdays, Christmas, all the ritual gift giving times, “educational” toys. This is easier for younger kids and will set a tone for the future. Educational toys are not boring. For young kids, flexible toys that let them use their imagination like clay, paints, and building blocks, are terrific. Later on, Legos, books, and puzzles develop problem solving skills which are the main thing that needs to be taught. Our schools are great at teaching facts, but not as good at teaching problem-solving skills. In junior high, buy your kid a computer program to learn a foreign language.
4. Talk to your kids; not at them, but with them. I’ve observed some parents talk more with their dogs and cats than they do with their young kids. Engage them in conversation, the earlier the better. Language skills are the most crucial skill we need in the U.S. Who would you rather your kids learn to communicate from? Skilled communicators like yourself or from their peers, with poor grammar and limited vocabularies?
5. Turn car trips into field trips, don’t plug in a tape for the kids to watch. A zooming car is super stimulation, but the kids need to be taught to observe. The old games of car bingo or car scavenger hunts are more brain-active than brain-passive activities such as listening to music or watching DVDs. The DVDs are often more for the convenience of the adults along, turning over their roles as teachers to entertainment technology. Point things out as you drive along. Most of us now live in suburbs and kids don’t ride bikes as much, so keeping them active in the car observing is a good way for them to learn their surroundings. And while I have no evidence for it, I’ll bet it makes better drivers of them, too.
6. Make kids do it themselves. Whether it be ordering from a menu, asking for something at a store, even if it is faster and easier to do it yourself, make your kids do it themselves. This begins teaching them independence as well as communicating to them that they have a voice and worth. Having others, whether they be waitstaff, teachers, clerks, whomever, listen to kids, communicates to kids that they are a person of worth. And the kids will feel a real sense of accomplishment when they do it themselves, which is what self-esteem should be based upon.
7. Be a partner, not an adversary, with kids’ teachers, coaches, etc. This means at the outset trusting that the teacher, coach, adult leader, knows what they are doing, and work from there. Whatever you think of the institution of education, the individuals in those institutions are not perfect replicas of it. Ask what you can do at home to help support what is going on in the classroom. You’ll find that it is a two way street; you can get support in the classroom for things you are trying to accomplish at home, too.
8. Telling kids is one thing; modeling the behavior is another (and more impressing). If you don’t want your kid to yell, don’t yell yourself. Young kids don’t have sophisticated moral reasoning, so the line “do what I say, not what I do” makes little sense to children. They are pretty black-and-white about things. That means, if you really value education, then you need to show it with your behavior. Be active in your kids’ formal education, go to open houses, show up for stuff at school. It also means if you want your kid to read, you need to read yourself. It doesn’t have to be heavy intellectual stuff, it can be trash novels or tabloids. What is important is the act of reading. Once they value reading, they’ll find the material they enjoy, which is virtually limitless and cheap to obtain. At the same time, if you want honest kids, don’t lie, especially in situations like when your kids answer the phone and the caller asks for you and you tell them to tell the person you are not home. What message is that sending?
9. Eat (at least) one meal a day together. During this meal, ask kids about their days and make them speak about it, but the same goes for you, too. Kids will emulate you. If in response to “How was your day, dear?” your answer is “Same old same old,” your kids will learn to do same. One the other hand, if you tell about your day, no matter how routine, something about it, they will do the same. Ask what they learned at school during dinner and don’t accept “nothing” as an acceptable answer
10. Let kids suffer the consequences of their actions. This is probably the hardest one for parents because we have developed the idea that good parents are ones whose kids are happy. But sometimes learning is about “suffering the consequences” of one’s actions. If your kid fails to do their homework, don’t defend her to their teachers. If he gets in trouble for behavior at school, by reflexively defending him, taking an attitude that “no one treats my kid that way,” kids learn they are above all rules, all laws. Sometimes the best lessons are about survival, adaptation, persistence and perseverance.
This is second in a series of five essays about simple things individuals can do to improve our social institutions. A social institution is a framework for solving societal problems. All societies must solve the same problems, but they do it differently. They must tie adult responsibility to children (marriage and family), socialize children into productive roles (education), solve the problem of order and leadership (politics), justify societal practices as “good” (religion), and produce and distribute needed goods and services (economy). My suggestions are not about changing our institutions as much as making the current ones, as currently defined, work a little better. Today’s focus is on education.
Pick up any newspaper, check any news Web site, listen to any presidential candidate today and the subject of education comes up. Indeed, since the publication of “A Nation at Risk” by the Reagan Administration, there has been much attention, and some reforms, to education. But far less attention is given the role, and arguably, the more important role, that parents and adults who engage with kids outside the formal classroom and formal activities like scouting, sports, church, and others, play in educating our children. The ongoing debate today is about education policy. What can parents and individuals do to improve education in America? Here are 10 simple steps individuals, especially parents, can do.
1. Expand active learning beyond the classroom; make the world everything about learning. Young kids are pretty much natural learners. They are curious and eager to learn and experience their environments. Formal schooling and our hectic lives today manage to drum that natural curiosity and natural active learning out and we replace it with passive learning, which is boring and not easy to reverse. So, when you’re with your kids, whether your own, or others, turn activities into learning experiences. Let kids explore stores (with you in tow), stop and let them be fascinated by what has become common to you. Just this morning, I was driving out on a country road that was being repaved. The young Amish kids who were lined up on the side of the road were fascinated by the machinery. How many of your 10-year-olds would be captivated by such a sight? Why not?
2. Read to your kids; have them read to you. Reading is the primary academic skill. Without it, there is virtually no chance for academic success. Begin reading to your kids immediately. Not only will reading to them demonstrate that you value the skill, but later, they can read to you. Often this activity diminishes greatly once formal schooling begins, but there is no reason more complex books can’t be read, too. On long car trips, have kids read a long novel out loud for everyone’s enjoyment.
3. Make at least half of your purchases for birthdays, Christmas, all the ritual gift giving times, “educational” toys. This is easier for younger kids and will set a tone for the future. Educational toys are not boring. For young kids, flexible toys that let them use their imagination like clay, paints, and building blocks, are terrific. Later on, Legos, books, and puzzles develop problem solving skills which are the main thing that needs to be taught. Our schools are great at teaching facts, but not as good at teaching problem-solving skills. In junior high, buy your kid a computer program to learn a foreign language.
4. Talk to your kids; not at them, but with them. I’ve observed some parents talk more with their dogs and cats than they do with their young kids. Engage them in conversation, the earlier the better. Language skills are the most crucial skill we need in the U.S. Who would you rather your kids learn to communicate from? Skilled communicators like yourself or from their peers, with poor grammar and limited vocabularies?
5. Turn car trips into field trips, don’t plug in a tape for the kids to watch. A zooming car is super stimulation, but the kids need to be taught to observe. The old games of car bingo or car scavenger hunts are more brain-active than brain-passive activities such as listening to music or watching DVDs. The DVDs are often more for the convenience of the adults along, turning over their roles as teachers to entertainment technology. Point things out as you drive along. Most of us now live in suburbs and kids don’t ride bikes as much, so keeping them active in the car observing is a good way for them to learn their surroundings. And while I have no evidence for it, I’ll bet it makes better drivers of them, too.
6. Make kids do it themselves. Whether it be ordering from a menu, asking for something at a store, even if it is faster and easier to do it yourself, make your kids do it themselves. This begins teaching them independence as well as communicating to them that they have a voice and worth. Having others, whether they be waitstaff, teachers, clerks, whomever, listen to kids, communicates to kids that they are a person of worth. And the kids will feel a real sense of accomplishment when they do it themselves, which is what self-esteem should be based upon.
7. Be a partner, not an adversary, with kids’ teachers, coaches, etc. This means at the outset trusting that the teacher, coach, adult leader, knows what they are doing, and work from there. Whatever you think of the institution of education, the individuals in those institutions are not perfect replicas of it. Ask what you can do at home to help support what is going on in the classroom. You’ll find that it is a two way street; you can get support in the classroom for things you are trying to accomplish at home, too.
8. Telling kids is one thing; modeling the behavior is another (and more impressing). If you don’t want your kid to yell, don’t yell yourself. Young kids don’t have sophisticated moral reasoning, so the line “do what I say, not what I do” makes little sense to children. They are pretty black-and-white about things. That means, if you really value education, then you need to show it with your behavior. Be active in your kids’ formal education, go to open houses, show up for stuff at school. It also means if you want your kid to read, you need to read yourself. It doesn’t have to be heavy intellectual stuff, it can be trash novels or tabloids. What is important is the act of reading. Once they value reading, they’ll find the material they enjoy, which is virtually limitless and cheap to obtain. At the same time, if you want honest kids, don’t lie, especially in situations like when your kids answer the phone and the caller asks for you and you tell them to tell the person you are not home. What message is that sending?
9. Eat (at least) one meal a day together. During this meal, ask kids about their days and make them speak about it, but the same goes for you, too. Kids will emulate you. If in response to “How was your day, dear?” your answer is “Same old same old,” your kids will learn to do same. One the other hand, if you tell about your day, no matter how routine, something about it, they will do the same. Ask what they learned at school during dinner and don’t accept “nothing” as an acceptable answer
10. Let kids suffer the consequences of their actions. This is probably the hardest one for parents because we have developed the idea that good parents are ones whose kids are happy. But sometimes learning is about “suffering the consequences” of one’s actions. If your kid fails to do their homework, don’t defend her to their teachers. If he gets in trouble for behavior at school, by reflexively defending him, taking an attitude that “no one treats my kid that way,” kids learn they are above all rules, all laws. Sometimes the best lessons are about survival, adaptation, persistence and perseverance.
For years Americans have been concerned about the breaking down of social institutions
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 9/1/2007
To combat that degradation, try some common sense methods as a path to improvement.
By Thomas L. Steiger
TERRE HAUTE — To be an American is to worry that our social institutions are breaking down. Read newspapers from 100 years ago and you’ll find worry about the family, concern about the economy, and politics is always in a shambles. As a sociologist, I am frequently asked, what are the solutions to our broken social institutions? What policies should we follow? Institutions are not just about legislated behavior. Far more important is the behavior that occurs, over and over and over, just because it is “common sense.” In that vein, I offer this series of essays on improving our social institutions. These are not policy recommendations and these behaviors cannot be legislated. But by doing them, just as the drip, drip, drip of enough water drops on rock wears away the rock, it is similar with individual behaviors, they shape the institution.
Every other week for the next 10 weeks, I’ll focus on one institution and offer 10 simple things individuals can do to improve it. A social institution is a framework for solving societal problems. All societies must solve the same problems, but they do it differently. They must tie adult responsibility to children (marriage and family), socialize children into productive roles (education), solve the problem of order and leadership (politics), justify societal practices as “good” (religion), and produce and distribute needed goods and services (economy). My suggestions are not about changing our institutions as much as making the current ones, as currently defined, work a little better. Today I begin with marriage and the family.
10 simple things you can do to improve marriage and family
Americans today worry about marriage and the family. Many worry that the institution is breaking down, and with it, our society as well. While politicians and social critics discuss policies to strengthen and preserve the family, what can individuals do to strengthen the institution of marriage and the family? Here are 10 simple steps individuals can do.
1. Get married (but not too young). It should be obvious that if people want a strong institution of marriage that people must get married. If divorce is a threat to the institution of marriage, then wait to get married. People who get married in their teens are more likely to end up in a divorce than people who wait. There is not a magic age, but research shows that the probability of divorce of a first marriage after age 25 is half that of those who marry for the first time under 18. Romantic notions that love will overcome all obstacles are just that, romantic notions. Also, those who grow up in an intact family are less likely to get a divorce themselves after they marry. Statistics indicate that the divorce rate in 2006 is the lowest since 1970 in large part because people are delaying getting married until they are older.
2. Have children. The family’s major function in contemporary society is to tie adult responsibility to children, not population resupply. If you don’t have children, then your family can’t be responsible for any. Make them yourselves, outsource the birth, or adopt one, however you do it, become responsible for children. If it is just impossible to be a parent through birth or adoption, then become an “other” parent, a stand-in, co-parent with the children of friends or relatives.
3. Eat together. Eating is more than just nourishment for the body. It is a social ritual of great importance that our fast food culture has corroded. Eating together as a family is among the most common rituals individual families engage in. And rituals are important to the making of meaning, the creation of lasting bonds. Ideally, eating together should be at home, where the length of the ritual can be extended into the preparation and cleanup, thus creating more opportunities for establishing meaningful bonds among family members through repeated rituals.
4. Develop family traditions. While eating together is an important family ritual, traditions also make social life meaningful. Traditions help us find meaning; they provide comfort, participating in them creates a sense of belonging and acceptance in the social groups in which they occur. Family traditions help to distinguish family life from other social settings. Begin with traditions around major holidays and birthdays and maybe make up one or two specific to your family. Start early and don’t waiver from them; insist on them.
5. Take pictures. Family pictures help to prompt memories of family life. Home movies used to be a popular thing to do. I don’t know if they are as much today, but one tradition, especially when kids are young, should be to show these pictures and videos. With older kids, encourage them to take pictures and make picture histories of family outings. Scrapbooking is popular today; building in this activity with picture taking and family traditions can create emotionally charged artifacts that will create priceless family treasures. Should a family member die, for instance, a grandparent, having many pictures in different settings can help instill “memories” in later generations, which helps to charge just the idea of family with strong emotions.
6. Have family reunions. Families today are generally horizontally smaller (meaning fewer siblings) but due to longer life spans, vertically bigger (multi-generations). Americans are highly mobile and families become geographically separated. Organize family reunions every five years or so. Don’t wait for funerals and weddings to get reacquainted. Families are an important source of social capital, but need tending.
7. Instill the idea of obligation to family by requiring everyone to contribute to household chores. If it can be accomplished, everyone in the family should work together so everyone can see each other’s contribution. Having clean clothes isn’t enough; family members tend to take that for granted, but seeing Dad doing laundry, while Mom vacuums, and older brother cleans a toilet, while sister dusts, can make for a more appreciative family. Cross-training is a good idea too, otherwise everyone else’s job looks easier than one’s own.
8. Extend your family. Family members don’t have to be blood related or legally related. They can be chosen. Embrace close friends as family. Children can even refer to these chosen family members as aunt and uncle, cousins, etc. If possible, extend your family to those who either don’t have or are geographically separated from their families. This is a great way to know your neighbors. The results are more adults who feel some responsibility for more children, which is the major function of family.
9. No violence in the family. This includes spanking as well. In practice, spanking usually results from a frustrated parent, not one in full control of themselves at the time. If family is to be a safe haven, then it must be violence-free. The presence of violence in the family also leads to marital and family disruption.
10. Be parents, not friends, to your kids. Parents must guide children through a difficult maze today. In many ways, parenting “back in the day” was easier than today. Today’s culture emphasizes some things that are bad for children: instant gratification, short attention spans, superficiality over depth, extreme stimulation over calmness and serenity. Parents must recognize that emphasizing the short-term happiness of children can lead to impaired adults. To have functional, mature adults means sometimes having to put up with bouts of unhappy children in order to raise children who grow up to be very productive adults who in turn support their parents on Social Security.
To combat that degradation, try some common sense methods as a path to improvement.
By Thomas L. Steiger
TERRE HAUTE — To be an American is to worry that our social institutions are breaking down. Read newspapers from 100 years ago and you’ll find worry about the family, concern about the economy, and politics is always in a shambles. As a sociologist, I am frequently asked, what are the solutions to our broken social institutions? What policies should we follow? Institutions are not just about legislated behavior. Far more important is the behavior that occurs, over and over and over, just because it is “common sense.” In that vein, I offer this series of essays on improving our social institutions. These are not policy recommendations and these behaviors cannot be legislated. But by doing them, just as the drip, drip, drip of enough water drops on rock wears away the rock, it is similar with individual behaviors, they shape the institution.
Every other week for the next 10 weeks, I’ll focus on one institution and offer 10 simple things individuals can do to improve it. A social institution is a framework for solving societal problems. All societies must solve the same problems, but they do it differently. They must tie adult responsibility to children (marriage and family), socialize children into productive roles (education), solve the problem of order and leadership (politics), justify societal practices as “good” (religion), and produce and distribute needed goods and services (economy). My suggestions are not about changing our institutions as much as making the current ones, as currently defined, work a little better. Today I begin with marriage and the family.
10 simple things you can do to improve marriage and family
Americans today worry about marriage and the family. Many worry that the institution is breaking down, and with it, our society as well. While politicians and social critics discuss policies to strengthen and preserve the family, what can individuals do to strengthen the institution of marriage and the family? Here are 10 simple steps individuals can do.
1. Get married (but not too young). It should be obvious that if people want a strong institution of marriage that people must get married. If divorce is a threat to the institution of marriage, then wait to get married. People who get married in their teens are more likely to end up in a divorce than people who wait. There is not a magic age, but research shows that the probability of divorce of a first marriage after age 25 is half that of those who marry for the first time under 18. Romantic notions that love will overcome all obstacles are just that, romantic notions. Also, those who grow up in an intact family are less likely to get a divorce themselves after they marry. Statistics indicate that the divorce rate in 2006 is the lowest since 1970 in large part because people are delaying getting married until they are older.
2. Have children. The family’s major function in contemporary society is to tie adult responsibility to children, not population resupply. If you don’t have children, then your family can’t be responsible for any. Make them yourselves, outsource the birth, or adopt one, however you do it, become responsible for children. If it is just impossible to be a parent through birth or adoption, then become an “other” parent, a stand-in, co-parent with the children of friends or relatives.
3. Eat together. Eating is more than just nourishment for the body. It is a social ritual of great importance that our fast food culture has corroded. Eating together as a family is among the most common rituals individual families engage in. And rituals are important to the making of meaning, the creation of lasting bonds. Ideally, eating together should be at home, where the length of the ritual can be extended into the preparation and cleanup, thus creating more opportunities for establishing meaningful bonds among family members through repeated rituals.
4. Develop family traditions. While eating together is an important family ritual, traditions also make social life meaningful. Traditions help us find meaning; they provide comfort, participating in them creates a sense of belonging and acceptance in the social groups in which they occur. Family traditions help to distinguish family life from other social settings. Begin with traditions around major holidays and birthdays and maybe make up one or two specific to your family. Start early and don’t waiver from them; insist on them.
5. Take pictures. Family pictures help to prompt memories of family life. Home movies used to be a popular thing to do. I don’t know if they are as much today, but one tradition, especially when kids are young, should be to show these pictures and videos. With older kids, encourage them to take pictures and make picture histories of family outings. Scrapbooking is popular today; building in this activity with picture taking and family traditions can create emotionally charged artifacts that will create priceless family treasures. Should a family member die, for instance, a grandparent, having many pictures in different settings can help instill “memories” in later generations, which helps to charge just the idea of family with strong emotions.
6. Have family reunions. Families today are generally horizontally smaller (meaning fewer siblings) but due to longer life spans, vertically bigger (multi-generations). Americans are highly mobile and families become geographically separated. Organize family reunions every five years or so. Don’t wait for funerals and weddings to get reacquainted. Families are an important source of social capital, but need tending.
7. Instill the idea of obligation to family by requiring everyone to contribute to household chores. If it can be accomplished, everyone in the family should work together so everyone can see each other’s contribution. Having clean clothes isn’t enough; family members tend to take that for granted, but seeing Dad doing laundry, while Mom vacuums, and older brother cleans a toilet, while sister dusts, can make for a more appreciative family. Cross-training is a good idea too, otherwise everyone else’s job looks easier than one’s own.
8. Extend your family. Family members don’t have to be blood related or legally related. They can be chosen. Embrace close friends as family. Children can even refer to these chosen family members as aunt and uncle, cousins, etc. If possible, extend your family to those who either don’t have or are geographically separated from their families. This is a great way to know your neighbors. The results are more adults who feel some responsibility for more children, which is the major function of family.
9. No violence in the family. This includes spanking as well. In practice, spanking usually results from a frustrated parent, not one in full control of themselves at the time. If family is to be a safe haven, then it must be violence-free. The presence of violence in the family also leads to marital and family disruption.
10. Be parents, not friends, to your kids. Parents must guide children through a difficult maze today. In many ways, parenting “back in the day” was easier than today. Today’s culture emphasizes some things that are bad for children: instant gratification, short attention spans, superficiality over depth, extreme stimulation over calmness and serenity. Parents must recognize that emphasizing the short-term happiness of children can lead to impaired adults. To have functional, mature adults means sometimes having to put up with bouts of unhappy children in order to raise children who grow up to be very productive adults who in turn support their parents on Social Security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
