The complex diversity of human ethnicity is a testament to human adaptability and resilience. Our libraries and schools are now filled with volumes written about unique and independent social systems that have coexisted for millennia throughout the planet. There are countless examples to choose from that run the gamut of human kin group possibilities—some egalitarian, some totalitarian. There is not one set standard, from an anthropological or sociological point of view that is constant with regard to marriage, or what constitutes a kin group. There are many complex individual psychological processes at work that cause people to bond and form into groups and the most commonly recognized and studied unit is the family. However, for many people at different times in human history, family has meant different things. What most anthropologists and sociologists do agree on is that in every society each individual has a role to play in the social construction of reality. However the situation that the public at large deals with on a daily basis is how to clearly identify individual roles and how to mediate conflicts arising from everyone’s individual pursuit of happiness; where these conflicts are most evident are in the arenas of gender, class, and ethnicity.
Marxists would argue that class is the basis of all inequality. Radical feminists would argue that gender is the basis of all inequality. While, bias theorists would argue that prejudice and discrimination are rooted in the dominant groups understanding of, or society’s misuse of, terminology when identifying and dealing with people of a different ethnicity or kin group. Truth be told, we could spend lifetimes sorting through the how and the why of social stratification. I think it is imperative that we have a clear understanding of the world in which we live—to take stock. But we also need to act with conviction once we have discerned the hidden meanings within the patterns we observe and the conclusions we have drawn. It can be so difficult to step outside of what is “going on” and truly have an objective point of view. We would literally have to be scientists from another planet in order to be able to fully understand different points of view without getting caught up in the struggle. So we rely on paradigms and theoretical frameworks on which to hinge our arguments and hopefully have some influence in the broader process of social engineering. For our goal is and should always be to continue to work towards the destratification of our planet. It is our moral obligation to steer the course of society as a whole toward an enlightened understanding of humanity and an acceptance of its diverse and resilient splendor.
After examining arguments from different points of view I have come to the conclusion that while gender may have been the biological basis for inequality, class became the mechanism for broader stratification once men had acquired a means of production that resulted in the ability to amass wealth—production that exceeds the needs of their local kin trade group. Patriarchy may well indeed have arisen out of such situations coupled with strong religious ideals that gave men a license to dominate the planet with impunity, and through Divine decree, given a master status—including dominion over women, children, and beasts. In other words, patriarchy became the ideological foundation of families as a social institution. Many theorists argue that this male domination continues today and is the very heart of the problems we face in society. This is one of the ideological foundations of Marxist and radical feminism, only Marxist feminists see gender inequality as “a symptom or consequence of a larger structure of oppression rooted in class society.” (Enarson) Let us elaborate on the situation.
Theories around stratification seem to have centered around two very central ideologies, one has an intended biological basis seeking to explain inequality through a biological paradigm, and the next has its basis in conflict seeking to explain inequality within a paradigm of oppression, while a third camp is emerging that tries to look at stratification as a intersecting whole that must be considered dynamically. In other words, no sooner do you identify and address one form of inequality another soon arises. Each time you identify and address another arises until suddenly you aren’t left without any way of stopping the torrential flood of inequalities. Stratification may have begun with something as simple as a man having power over a woman, but it has now grown into a giant beast. There are many forms of inequalities and often they can be stacked or layered as in someone who may be a woman and colored; or someone who is gay, Latino, and African American; or someone who is transgendered, transsexual, or androgynous. Now add being poor or disabled and combine it with any of the aforementioned combinations and pretty soon you get a good picture of what I am talking about. All inequalities are somehow tied together. Many millions of people are suffering as a result of this problem and their suffering is leading to violence on a global scale. All of the theories put forth have been done so in the interest of explaining the inequalities. However, the next generations of scientific observers are looking for real solutions that will lead to global peace and security.
The consequences of social stratification are being manifested in the lives of children—just pick a headline. However, as we have seen by taking a look, in this class, at Jay MacLeod’s book “Ain’t No Makin It,” we came to understand that in spite of oppressive stereotypes and leveled aspirations in children, some of the children being studied had a certain resilience that kept them hopeful and ready to change if given half a chance. Unfortunately for most, that chance never came. This is where structural theorists and cultural deficiency theorists would come into the conversation and argue that society is somewhat hopelessly deadlocked in stratification or blame the victims of stratification for not being strong enough to overcome their deficiency. Who among those Hallway Hangers and Brothers would not have prospered if presented with better “life chances?” It’s hard to say for sure, and only a longitudinal study could possibly begin to examine the differences in how affected youth would fair under improved life chances to really say for sure. But I would venture to guess that we would quickly discover that people can be quite resilient and that they already derive meaning from even the simplest symbols of resistance and non-conformity. Society may have labeled them as deviants, but their culture has labeled them as heroes.
What can we discern from all of this? I think it is hence, that the human spirit cannot be enslaved for very long before it must break the chains that bind it. The human spirit seeks to adapt and redefine itself in perspective to whatever given situation it finds itself in. If this were not true we would not see such tremendous diversity of social groups. What we need is a comprehensive approach that deals with all levels of stratification at the same time—something that will have a ripple effect and lead to an elevation of status and enrichment of the lives oj women, minorities, and children. This can only happen if the ideological foundation of families as an institution is radically altered and a broader more inclusive ideological foundation is offered to take its place.
One group has
already begun to define a standard for all humanity. It is called the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights[1]
and was produced by some of the top minds in the world. It lays an ideological
foundation for nations to adopt and ratify into their institutions. The ideologies
contained within this document embody the most egalitarian ideals that critical
minds could come up with. Many nations have adopted or ratified the document
but others have failed to incorporate key components of the various articles.
The
Often times the most “cost effective” way to deal with the problems that society is confronted with by these marginalized members is to incarcerate them or allow them to slip through the cracks in our nation’s extremely weak social security to die either violently or slowly and painfully. In a film I watched the other day called “Defending our Lives”[2] we learned a little known statistic that I think is very telling about the current situation in our country that many women and children are facing these days. Apparently we currently have approximately 4200 “cruelty to animal shelters”, but we only have approximately 1400 “battered women’s shelters.” What does this say about our nation’s values with regard to families? It says that we care more about protecting animals than we do about protecting women and children from violence that often results in death or scars that last a lifetime, and affect society as a whole. I could give a dozen more examples of family inequality that are affecting people today but I am trying to keep this paper down to a manageable size. Many classes are dedicated to the existing stratification of society, and those that are most affected by this stratification are the families—the children.
Let’s take this a step further, shall we? Obviously these children grow up to be adults. And as we have seen in MacLeod’s book, these children grow up to have serious problems regardless of how high their aspirations were or the difference in their approach to learning how to live and prosper in society. We see in MacLeod’s book how stereotypes and subcultures imprison people in a sociological sense because it robs them of the ability to break free of their unequal status and it systematically destroys their hope and faith in the society they are supposed to support and contribute to. In the film on domestic violence, we clearly see that the women being interviewed have lost faith in the system that was supposed to protect them. They were forced by the system to take matters into their own hands and use lethal violence to protect themselves, and yet these women are now being punished for allegedly murdering their attackers. It was truly appalling to watch this film. However let me warn you, this is just the tip of the iceberg as we shall soon see. There is an even greater problem that we face that is rooted in so called “traditional family values” that is not only leading to violence on a global scale—children in our own country are turning into mass murderers.
All around me I see the effects of what living in a capitalist economy means to real people who have no clue about how to deal effectively with the dynamic forces confronting them. In this class we have come to understand that family life is what is most affected by the social policies we establish. It is vital that we have a clear understanding of what effect our current system of capitalism is having on families in order to properly go about the task of social engineering. We need to recognize that society has and always will be a dynamic system that is constantly in flux. However, there are those “traditionalists” who believe in maintaining certain “ideals;” and because of their prominence within the power structure of society have the ability to reinforce those ideals through institutions that influence society as a whole. Examples of these institutions are religion, money, education, law, and media, to name a few. These “traditionalists” are really descendants of the “founding” families who have risen to power in this country through the financial mechanisms they created through the laws their constituents in the various houses of government enacted, originally intended to benefit those “founding families”—the corporation. This colossal piece of government legislation set the stage for family stratification to thrive in this country. Perhaps this change in status for “certain families” within the social structure of America at the time of the Industrial Revolution contributed to the idea of “public” and “private” entities through the act of constituting the corporate entity (government is seen as public, corporate seen as private)—and eventually as discussed in our class—this contributed to the ideology of separate spheres being experienced as an ideological foundation of the target society’s world view.
Corporations were an ingenious way for those “certain families” to consolidate their wealth and power while shielding them personally and individually from many of the broader “social responsibilities” normally associated with any individual human being. In other words, the corporation can masquerade as a human being when it comes to the dispensation of rights, but it is only “artificial” when it comes to the responsibilities associated with those rights—the “obligations” as anthropologists would say. Does this seem fair at all? I realize that the current economic system, as presented in the media mythology of the American Dream, assure us that many families can benefit by incorporating and creating family trusts, investing their money in the stock market and getting rich enough to retire in style, but the harsh reality is that many “laborers” have to produce the products, or provide the services that generate those trillions in global profit and those “laborers” have paid the greatest price of all in order for this American Dream to become a reality—they have paid with their families lives.
Truth be told, those “laborers” today are the most productive they have ever been (I learned this from some recent data that I noted in a lecture a few weeks ago in a different class; I do not recall the source of the data). Our gross national product is rising and yet there hasn’t been any substantial restoration in the millions of jobs that were lost since the last election. Economically, since the 1970’s, family earning power has substantially declined, adjusting for inflation, and what was once considered the dream for some has become a nightmare for a sizeable majority. In order for families to survive these days there needs to be two wage earners in order to meet basic needs that have skyrocketed in price along with the loss of jobs. As data presented in class clearly demonstrates, these problems are amplified exponentially when the family experiences a loss of a parent whether through addiction, divorce, or domestic violence. There are tremendous costs associated with intervention, treatment, and mediation in dealing with the fallout of family conflicts that result from economic depression.
Today people are
struggling to find livable wage jobs. Many businesses have switched to hiring
more part-time people so that the overall cost of labor decreases presumably
because they don’t have to cover those employees with health insurance—or their
jobs are being outsourced to other countries; and adding insult to injury the
outgoing employees are being asked to train their foreign replacements before
being handed their pink slips. With wages so depressed many parents are forced
to work two jobs. Most families today are just two paychecks away from being
evicted from their homes or have run out of social welfare benefits that have
been given an expiration date. Capitalism/Business has succeeded in
destabilizing family life in
We should all stop to realize that most of the benefits, that most working families now take for granted, (i.e. 8 hour work day, five day work week, industrial safety, etc,) from corporations enjoyed by these “laborers” of today were hard earned through the collective efforts of people such as the “Wobblies” or “Industrial Workers of the World,” who were characterized by the media and members of our own government, of their time, as communist traitors. They were demoralized, incarcerated, or shot and killed. The “Wobblies”, who were mostly comprised of ordinary working class people, greatest crime was their desire to abolish the “wage system” and they did want to abolish capitalism, which they as yet have been unable to accomplish, however certain former members of the “Wobblies” evolved through time to reconstitute as the American Civil Liberties Union and today continue to fight to rectify all inequalities.[3]
While American society was shifting from social democracy to corporate oligarchy via the Industrial Revolution and the shift of social life went from rural agricultural communities to industrialized cities, corporations were pushing for more productivity from workers—which resulted in the exploitation of workers and super-exploitation of virtually unpaid workers—including women, minorities and children; this increased demand for productivity has resulted in an overall “speed up of family life.” Those “laborers” are the real people I am talking about whose lives are in dire need of transformation. They are the individuals, parents, spouses, and families that are most affected by America, Inc. The real problem this country is facing today is that America Inc. has demonstrated consistently throughout its brief history that the welfare of laborer families is not their primary concern. In fact, fundamentally they believe that they have no social responsibility whatsoever.
In another paper I discussed the need to legislate social responsibility and tied that together with a quote from Milton Freidman, a Nobel Peace Prize winning economist who is considered one of the eminent minds in relation to corporate ideology. He asserted that corporations have no social responsibility “even in a vague sense, their only responsibility is to their shareholders.” (Freidman)[4] In the interest of economy I am simply including the most fundamental argument here. In that paper I was critical of his statements and even chided him for lacking what seemed to me to be common sense—because society (comprised mostly of families of one sort or another) is what is most affected by the activities of corporations, corporations are by default responsible to the entire collective—employees and their families, consumers, management, and shareholders alike. Essentially, I argued that in order for any industrialized nation to be stable and prosper it must fund the cost of true social security and that that funding must come from profit-making corporations. Social security must be considered part of the cost of doing business in America, Inc. Taking this approach is the best way to remedy the inequality that currently exists between corporations and families.
Our world hangs
in the balance as a battle rages over human rights. Conflicts arise in all
arenas of human engagement (gender, class, race, age, sexuality, etc) we find
continuing conflicts arising out of oppression that at one time or another was
perpetrated by one group over another. For example, there are countless examples
in history of the oppression of people of color by the White ethnocentric
colonialists in the Americas, indeed throughout the world, as there are many
examples of oppression even among people of color that have developed into
various ethnic groups. In our modern century we have become acquainted with
terms like genocide and ethnic cleansing when reminded about events such as the
Jewish Holocaust or the ongoing ethnic cleansing occurring in countries in
However, in
American democracy we have in our constitution, in writing, declared that “all
men are created equal.” This statement is the principle ideology that gives
rise to all the other constitutional declarations. And yet, even though we did
have this in writing in our constitution over 200 years ago, as a nation, we
did not abolish slavery until a little over a hundred years ago. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights was just recently created and many
nations, including the
Our country continues to be stratified into various groups—some deemed more deserving than others. Women’s rights and civil rights are just recent social movements that have focused on the rights of individuals and groups to have a political voice and a piece of the economic pie. Today, however, we are in desperate need of a new social movement in this country. We need to deal with the biggest remaining inequality that is plaguing our nation today—the inequality of families. It is unconscionable that in this country today there are three times as many “cruelty to animal shelters” than there are “battered women’s shelters.”
Our government needs to take the proverbial “bull” by the horns and start recognizing that families come in all different types of configurations. The reality of families today is nothing near the ideological family that is portrayed in the media or by the “traditionalist” institutions. People are being challenged by unrealistic portrayals of what a “traditional family” really means. In the media people are bombarded with mixed messages about marriage. On one hand marriage is portrayed as something sacred (passionate and romantic), eternal (the rock and foundation of society), like in diamond commercials, while on the other hand, marriage has become a great joke—they have turned it into a sideshow circus where the point is to laugh at the emotional pain of contestants competing to marry a millionaire, or become a millionaire in the process. The acquisition of money, at all costs, is emphasized as the means to buy happiness—as though possessing an object gives a person their identity.
As just previously discussed, these are tremendous influences from powerful institutions, which frankly, have been controlled by men whose greatest accomplishment has been to create a vast capitalist empire were the justification for “freedom” and “an individual’s inalienable rights” is distorted to really mean “the destruction of a culture and its people.” Radical feminists may argue that these men can no longer be trusted to be the keepers of what is considered normal or “traditional.” In our modern industrialized society today many people’s real-life experiences are being marginalized by these “traditional” values. It is time that we recognize that humanity is evolving and changing to adapt in spite of the pressure from these powerful institutions to preserve the status quo.
I can’t think of
anyone who would argue that family life is not a vital part of our
national interests. As a nation lately we have had so much emphasis in the
media placed on national security. Well what about social security—and I don’t
mean social security as in the Social Security Administration? True social
security is accomplished through family edification. In another class I learned
that many social scientists are critical of capitalism and argue that the
ideology of separate spheres that exists today is emphasized in order to
maintain the status quo and insure the success of capitalism. The ideological
shift in the nation, as previously discussed, resulted in the feminization of
the family and a gendered division of labor in which the male became the
breadwinner and the female became the homemaker. Socially, this division of
labor forced people to begin to define their roles through characteristics that
were closely related to their sex—masculine and feminine. These roles are now
often referred to as gender roles. This emphasis on strictly polarized gender
roles is part of the ideology and has lead to many harmful stereotypes that
reinforce violence against women, minorities, and children. In other words,
there exists an ideology of compulsory heterosexuality that has become
an institutional ideological foundation for families as a social institution in
the
We need a major rhetorical shift in the symbols and language we are communicating with. We need to take affirmative action to remedy the existing inequalities being faced by families. We as a nation need to recognize that from now on, when we are talking about family values, we need to include all people regardless of their ethnicity, color, religion, gender, and sexual orientation—or any other divisive category of stratification identified by theorists. So that when we are talking about families, we are including indigenous people and people of color; we are including unwed mothers and their children; we are including gays, lesbian, bisexuals, and transgender families and their children as well; we are including extended families, and families who choose not to have children. In recognizing these previously marginalized families we elevate the status of and begin to remedy the pain and suffering of these people by validating their experience and reaching out to them with arms of acceptance and compassion.
A sociology
course is the first place where I ever heard of the term “compulsory
heterosexuality” and yet, the term reads like an indictment of the nightmare I
endured during my formative years through the 1960’s and 70’s. I have searched
this term on the internet and there are literally thousands of references to
this term in available literature and links. In many of the articles I see that
“compulsory heterosexuality” is of concern to feminists, lesbians, and many
scholars. Compulsory heterosexuality is blamed as the cause of violent
homophobia as was discussed in Harpers Magazine article entitled Mathew
Sheppard and Compulsory Heterosexuality published
I was born in
1961 in
My father was an
immigrant from
My father is a
natural story teller. He loves to embellish his stories with vivid visual
descriptions and colorful metaphors. So, as children, we learned all the
stories about our family; how my parents met, how my father’s family came to
From the
lectures in a sociology class on marriage, family, and intimate relations, I
learned that compulsory heterosexuality is “an institutional and ideological
foundation for the family in the
Soon after my
parents married and moved into a home together, my grandparents arrived; from
both sides of the family. My grandmother Opal on my mother’s side came with my
grandfather Isaac. They had a total of ten kids between them and on my mother’s
side of the family I have more than a hundred cousins and second cousins. The
sad think is that socialization with extended family took precedence on my
father’s side more than my mother’s side and I feel that I was deprived of some
of the experience I could have had if I had gotten to form closer ties with
that side of the family. My grandmother Luzmila had
also arrived from
My father tells
me that I was a very happy child full of joy and laughter and that I loved
everybody. He says that in all his years he has never seen someone more
generous, more caring, and more compassionate than who I was as a young child.
In the early years, while my parents worked at their jobs at the bakery, they
went to night school and got technical degrees so they could get jobs. My
mother went into civil service while my father went to a beauty college and got
his license in cosmetology. Just as he was graduating from his classes and
received his license he was helped by two of his customers from the beauty
school to buy a shop in
Just to give you
a little insight into where I am headed with this story I want to reveal a
shocking discovery I recently learned from father’s own lips. Apparently before
he had met my mother he was a virgin. She is the only woman he has ever slept
with. Before he came to this country he had been engaged to marry a woman in
While my father
had come from a Catholic background, and through my grandmother I had a
tremendous amount of Catholic indoctrination, on the other end of the family
continuum, I had my mother who came from a protestant and evangelical
fundamental ethic; she was Southern Baptist. All through my formative years I
had so many mixed messages and role models. I had the influence and gender
modeling of my father who was a closeted and celibate homosexual choosing to
live as a heterosexual man. I also have a mother who becomes a civil servant
and later becomes an accountant. Her gender role models were mixed in that she
served both functions, that of mother and also that of career woman which in
many circles would be considered a masculine thing to do. My father’s early
friends and associates were mostly wealthy people who happened to be gay,
lesbian or they were Latino and were experiencing their own success in
Both my parents
quickly moved from the poverty level to becoming middle class. By the time I
was thirteen years old my parents owned three houses on the same block. My
father owned a successful business and my mother had a successful career in
accounting. We were being educated in private Catholic college preparatory
schools and my father was attempting to insert us into the upper middle class
and into
I learned very young to relate to adults much easier and more quickly than I could with children my own age. I learned very young that kids my own age were boring, older people than me were more happening. These peers of mine were also bullies to me and called me names life fatso and fag boy. It was as if they had radar or something because they seemed to be aware of how different I really was compared to them. Unbeknownst to them I was sexualized at a very young age. I am sure that I was influenced by what I saw and what I heard. By the time I reached the age of fourteen I had had numerous sexual experiences with people of both sexes and ranging in age from nine to early twenties.
The first sexual
experience I remember was an older female cousin who was nine at the time using
me to masturbate her when I was almost five years old, and then later I
remember male cousins that came from
While I was going through all of this, my mother was rebelling against my father’s dictatorial rule. She began to put on weight and to assert herself more at home. They started having huge fights because I think that my mother suspected that my father had a hidden side to his sexuality. She was upset about his gay friends and feared that association with these people could lead to the destruction of the morality of her children. They had begun to experiment with marijuana and my mother had become a legal addict to methamphetamines that she received to control her weight. She didn’t want to take the shots anymore. She began to question his masculinity, his manhood and laugh at his impotence with her. He came unglued. One night when this was all playing out and growing in loudness and intensity, my sisters and I were eating dinner at the dinner table when suddenly I heard my mother scream from the other room. I ran into the room to find my father on top of my mother and trying to strangle her and slapping her in the face. I jumped on top of his back and tried to pull him away. Then I started pounding on his back with my fists to make him stop hurting her. He kicked me and told me that I was not his son. Then he stopped what he was doing packed a bag and left our home. In the days that followed my mother worked on us to make us afraid of my father and to hate him. But she wasn’t entirely successful at this endeavor. My sisters and I were much attached to my father because we had fun with him in spite of his anger and his dictatorial rule of our home.
We had a very non-traditional family and our family would probably be an interesting one to study from a sociological perspective because of the incredible diversity of experience and the fact that our family represents the fallout from a clash of cultures and the acculturation process that immigrants go through as they try to live up to the expectations of the host culture. I am reminded of the text from the class in chapter two where it talks about family scholars, “Family scholars differ from broader social scientists in that family scholars challenge the idea that there is one reality that can be objectively perceived by researchers.” (Seccombe and Warner Chapter 2) So often growing up I remember trying to reconcile my experiences with what was taught to me by school, society and the media as to what normal families were like, and what the actual reality of my family experience was. So all the traditional social theories I had become familiar with through the social institutions I participated in up until taking these sociology courses at Lane now that I am in my forties never explained or validated my experience and consequently I felt alienated and isolated as though I were somewhat of an anomaly. This class and others like it dealing with gendered communication and social stratification have given me a new language with which to speak and care about my experience and a new paradigm in which to make sense of my life.
I believe that much needs to be done in order to address the effects of compulsory heterosexuality especially because if the social standards that are used to judge people’s families and relationships were different, then the patterns of interaction and the social policy will match more closely the diverse reality of human experience instead of the narrowly focused standards that compel heterosexuality and all its characteristics as the norm for every soul. Compulsory heterosexuality may well be what is currently deadlocked our world in stratification and could eventually lead to the annihilation of all life in this planet due to the cycle of violence it generates against women, minorities and children.
Earlier in this paper I said that once we have been able to discern the hidden meanings within the patterns we observe and the conclusions that we have drawn that the time comes for one to act on their convictions. The next generations of scientific observers are looking for real solutions that will lead to global peace and security. I happen to be one of those emerging scientific observers and I feel compelled take action towards social change. In fact, what I am proposing is nothing short of a social revolution. In the interest of honoring the goal of destratification of our planet I have previously discussed I would like to offer the following five proposals to change social policy in the United States that I believe, though radical for some, could have tremendous power to transform millions of people’s lives—and reinvigorate America’s role as a leader among nations in addressing and remedying inequalities and violations of human rights.
What I propose is that through presidential decree, in the spirit of President John F. Kennedy, who signed executive order 10925 in 1961 creating the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (CEEO) to oversee compliance with his instructions to federal contractors to take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin,” the president would issue an executive order creating the Committee for Family Equality and Edification (CFEE). Members of this committee could be selected from various government, financial, social, and religious institutions. All government agencies that deal with social services would be unified under one umbrella organization similar to the creation of the Department of Homeland Defense. The mission of this new committee would be twofold. First, they would oversee compliance that all government institutions and agencies, from now on, begin recognizing all families, including polygamous, polyandrous, communal, corporate, tribal, etc—essentially an all inclusive approach. Second, they would see that affirmative action is taken to ensure that families are treated equally when the benefits of a modern industrialized society are being distributed. They would be charged with the broader task and social mandate to study and develop new ways of strengthening and stabilizing families with targeted educational programs tailored to meet the needs of individual communities. These benefits would include financial, social, political, legal, medical, etc. In this way, as President Kennedy once did, one fundamental policy shift would set a national agenda for change that would benefit millions of people, just as affirmative action in employment did for people of color back in the 1960’s, and begin to alleviate the tremendous burden American families are facing today with poverty, domestic violence and substance abuse—which I would argue are the symptoms experienced as fallout from living in an industrialized and capitalized system that has no social conscience—no social responsibility. This shift in policy would have a ripple effect into all other areas of stratification in society and elevate the status of women, minorities, and children.
Now continuing with our social “revolution”, borrowing from the pop-culture term “dysfunctional family,” I would move on to target the obstacles that have been impeding families from “functioning.” Let’s face it, the empirical data points to low socio-economic status as a leading factor in most of the social problems we are facing today—just pick a headline. All across America Inc. families are in desperate need of decent housing, food, medial attention, and qualified legal representation. Trouble in one of these four areas alone could devastate a family. These “desperate needs” are becoming extremely expensive in order to preserve the lugubrious “bottom lines” of America Inc.
Now, couple that with a media created popular culture that is increasingly focusing on violence and sex to stimulate consumption and you have a pressure cooker that is waiting to explode. The fallout from this global profit making machine is not just trickling down to every man, woman, and child, it has become a torrential flood of suffering and grief. Some people explode with lethal consequences in reaction to the pressure cooker, and as we have seen recently, even children now are turning into violent mass murderers.
Judicial relief
needs to come in the form of a national leveling of wealth. America Inc.
needs to “step up to the plate” and “cough up the cash” to fund true “social
security.” CFEE would work with experts from all fields (i.e. government
and its agencies, schools, workplaces and businesses, the media, the legal
system, and charitable organizations) to devise a stable funding mechanism for
the multitude of tasks involved in family edification. Funding of true
social security must be considered a cost of doing business in America, Inc.
This cost must be absorbed by corporate
In order to begin to alleviate some of this suffering, as many developed nations such as Canada, Denmark, and Switzerland, to name a few, already have strong social and family oriented programs including healthcare for all their citizens, and paid leave for parents. The first order of business for CFEE would be to make healthcare “universal” and unlinked from employment so that families are covered regardless of whether they switch from one job to another or are employed or not. Universal healthcare would include mental health as well as medical and dental coverage. Creation of this plan may very well mean doing away or phasing out current medical systems such as Medicare and Medicaid.
I would actually do away with EITC (money that is often spent on impulse buys, or to pay off Christmas purchases rather than provide for ongoing family needs) and create a separate national insurance program that would provide paid “work leave” and or provide childcare/eldercare funds for those families who are choosing to have children or choose to care for aging parents or other family members. This program would be a “cost share” (business and employee) plan and could cover one or more spouses, regardless of who chooses to be the “breadwinner” and who chooses to “stay home with the kids.” Besides paying a wage supplement to the parent, the company could also be reimbursed for their cost in administering the benefit as well. Incentives, by way of tax credits, could be identified that would encourage more companies to offer flexible working schedules for working parents. This way parents and companies become partners in creating successful families, if their employees choose to create one, by splitting the cost of the insurance policy much in the same way that Medicare and Social Security are split today. This option would create the greatest flexibility. Benefits of the plan could be used by the family to substitute for wages of a non-working parent, or the money could be used to pay for childcare or eldercare.
Universal healthcare coupled with paid family leave and childcare/eldercare wage supplementation would also allow for more diversity in communal/”kin based” care options than would otherwise be available to families. Children or elders could be cared for by people who love them and have an emotional investment in them. The creation of a universal healthcare system, along with the creation of CFEE to insure its success would not only address issues of concern around human rights as a whole, they would also address concerns around family economic security, child abuse and neglect, and children’s experience of divorce. Their suffering would be alleviated because families would no longer need to struggle to pay for badly needed services, they would all be provided regardless of the job a person is doing in society.
In the second phase of relieving suffering, CFEE would insure that generous programs are in place for families to obtain decent, affordable housing and that adequate food programs are in place to insure that no one goes to bed hungry. These programs would take a community based approach partnering with business and social institutions. These programs can be a combination of subsidies and inducements designed to engage the families as active participants in the acquisition, establishment and maintenance of their home and food. For some this could come in the form of tax breaks or low interest loans. For others this could include assignment of a parcel of land to the family, the provision of homebuilding supplies, and training in a variety of areas including building, gardening, taking care of animals, and the production of household goods. No matter what shape this program takes, the net result is that families should have at least one home that can never be taken away because of economic depression. The program could also include training on creating and maintaining community based gardens and marketplaces in which to produce and barter goods. This program would address the concerns pertaining to the “speed up of family life” by granting individual families more autonomy and self determination in their lives. Those who wanted to return to a more simple life could move to a more rural setting while those who wanted the faster pace of modern technology could turn to a more industrialized city. This in turn would lead to greater self esteem and a greater sense of accomplishment for all family members and a sense of belonging and investment in the community’s future—which could lead to a substantial increase in marital satisfaction, which in turn would lead to a reduction in the divorce rate, which in turn would lead to a reduction of child abuse and neglect and a mediation of the effects resulting from children’s experience of divorce.
CFEE would insure that programs are in place to deal with the increasing fallout from the commodification of care giving. We need to take the profit out of family law so that the services that are being provided are not influenced by America Inc. We must recognize that there are huge changes that families face when spouses split up, and those changes inevitably affect the children. CFEE would insure that children’s needs are taken into consideration first and foremost when decisions are made by judges or social workers, however their need for historical continuity should also be recognized. I believe that one of those fundamental needs is to have continuity of history with their biological families of origin, regardless of who becomes custodial parent after a mediated mandate or a judicial decree. CFEE would also insure that families weren’t burdened by huge legal costs by providing a system of family mediation that includes psychological counseling, especially for the children. In families where there have been allegations of domestic violence, CFEE would insure that the allegations are properly investigated and facts brought into evidence so that judges and social workers are in the position to make well informed decisions and recommendations that are not based on hearsay, grudge reporting, or manipulation and fraud. We should also continue to offer and expand anger management programs and conflict resolution programs that emphasize education on the patriarchal roots and effects of gendered media and gendered violence. These programs should be taught to all students in primary education. Universal healthcare should cover the cost of psychological counseling, anger/conflict management programs, substance abuse recovery programs, and any other programs such as these so as not to further burden struggling, recovering parents with additional financial burdens.
Many of the current programs inadequately address this issue. Current programs place unnecessary burdens on participants, mostly male, by requiring large payments of cash in order to attend the weekly domestic violence classes. More families will be helped by these classes if more men can attend. Perhaps there is some antiquated rationale for charging these participants large fees that are based in the argument that “you’ll never appreciate what you don’t earn,” but I think that men will always rise to the challenge if given a decent chance for success at the hands of a wise and merciful facilitator. Rather than punish parents for experiencing problems with substance abuse by severing parental rights and permanently separating them from their children as a “cost effective” disposition of the case, I propose that we allow continued supervised child visitation as a continuing inducement to recovery for the substance abusing parent, provided that the parent is able to act in a responsible manner toward the child during the visit and the child wants to continue to have visits with the substance abusing parent. Too many families are being needlessly destroyed and familial continuity disrupted not only because of problems with domestic violence and substance abuse among the parents however we must not fail to recognize that it is also because we can’t properly fund the programs we already have in place.
First of all I
would like to recognize the efforts of the sociological department of
Friedman,
MacLeod, Jay. Ain’t
No Making It—Aspirations & Attainment in a Low Income Neighborhood.
Seccombe
and Warner. Marriages and Families—Relationships in Social Context.
Wypijewski,
JoAnn. Matthew Sheppard and Compulsory
Heterosexuality. Harpers Magazine,
[1] This declaration can be found at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
[2] “Defending Our Lives is a recent Oscar® winning documentary about the magnitude and severity of domestic violence in this country. This educational video features four women imprisoned for killing their batterers and their terrifying personal testimonies.” http://www.cambridgedocumentaryfilms.org/defending.html
[3] The
documentary “The Wobblies” can be rented at Flicks
and Picks in
[4] A very nice and easy copy to read can be found at the following link. http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html
[5] A summary and discussion of this article can be found at: http://www.glaad.org/action/al_archive_detail.php?id=1502