Chapter IV. The crisis of the family in the West
The consequences and causes of the decay of family
The main consequence of all these phenomena pointed out above is the drop of the birth rate to a level below simple reproduction of the population. For the 15 countries of the European Union as a whole, the average number of children per woman dropped from 2.7 in 1965 to 1.5 in 1995, while the minimum necessary for reproduction is 2.1.[1] Naturally, this trend is reflected in the birth rate,[2] which plummeted from 18.3% in 1960 to 11.8% in 1995. This drop would have been even more dramatic if not for the influx of Asian and African immigrants who hold traditional family values. Their share in the population is constantly growing; in the United Kingdom it has reached about 5% by now, in Germany – almost 9%, in Sweden – 10%, in the USA – 12%, in Australia – 23% .[3] The indigenous population, on the other hand, is contracting.
Another aspect of negative consequences, having to do in this case with the new model of family, i.e. the “co-habiting couple,”[4] is evident in the social-economic sphere. In the United Kingdom, for example, such couples – accounting for almost 21% of all “families” in the land – have very low incomes. (Among traditional families, 7.8% subsist on such low incomes; among single mothers - 76,4%.[5]) This results in a phenomenon that is very embarrassing to the wealthy West: child poverty, which affects over 20% of all children in the USA; stands at the level of 15% in Italy, New Zealand, Ireland, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan; ranges between 10% and 14% in Spain, Austria, Germany, Netherlands; stands at about 8% in France.[6]
Divorces and in general the decay of the family affect extremely negatively the psychological condition of former spouses. The culturologist Danah Zohar and the psychiatrist Ian Marshall (both of Oxford University) write with justification that former members of a collapsed family are prone to depression and illness, and die sooner on average than they would have if they preserved their family.[7] The psychologist Judith Wallerstein believes even that “Each divorce is the death of a small civilization.” (Ibid., 251) That is, a whole system of interrelations is destroyed, and this subsequently tells very negatively on the divorced couple and on their children. The divorce itself here is the end result of the crisis that took place earlier. Pursuing Wallerstein’s thought, Zohar and Marshall write with justification that “this spiritual crisis is more fundamental and more threatening to family life (and to the individuals who might benefit from family life) than any of the more concrete changes that have come about in economic and social circumstances.” (254)
So what is the cause of the decay of family?
Americans, based on their surveys, point out the following causes: weak spiritual bonds between husband and wife; financial difficulties; absence of obligations prior to marriage; a dramatic shift in priorities; unfaithfulness. Additional factors include also: unfounded hopes and unexpected needs; destructive habits (this means narcotics, evidently) and constant insults: physical, sexual and emotional; absence of skills in conflict resolution.
In actual fact, all these listed “causes” are consequences of matrimonial-familial problems. The true causes lie deeper, and, as always, they are rooted in the social-economic factors.
Let us start with economics. Wright writes: “Perhaps the largest modern obstacle to lasting monogamy is economic inequality.”[8] Indeed, the economic inequality between man and woman, for example the difference in salaries and in incomes in general, is still there, as any amount of statistical data can testify. However, this difference did decrease substantially over the last few decades (in the United Kingdom, for example, it went down from 30% to 18%[9]), thus making women in the “middle-class” category more and more independent. Moreover, the state in its attempts to protect the single mother financially increased its subsidies to some categories of such mothers to such a level that often the average income per member of a normal family exceeds the income per member of a “truncated family” (of the single-mother type) by a mere pound per week.[10]
In other words: while in past times “being married” amounted for most women to resolution of the issue of their survival in society, today this aspect, although not yet altogether eliminated, is dramatically reduced in importance: no one is allowed to starve to death.
The economic factor works toward the weakening of the monogamous family from yet another direction, an unusual one that involves the upper strata of society. Wright writes: “Today’s serial marriages, so common among the well off, can be seen as polygyny in another form.” (Ibid. 32) He means the frequent changing of young wives or husbands by rich people in the spheres of business, sports and cinema. Well-known in the West is the name of the Texan oil baron J. Howard Marshall II, why by the age of 89 had been married four times to girls who were his juniors by 20 to 50 years. Or take J. Paul Getty (married five times), who proclaimed once: “A lasting relationship with a woman is only possible if you are a business failure.” (Ibid., 34) He thus admitted that his wives treated him not as a personality, but rather as a moneybag. The same thing is done by rich women who have in fact resurrected the institution of polyandry (multiple husbands). Newspapers are full of articles about conniving ladies who take with the help of the courts huge fortunes from their millionaire husbands, frequently sending those men to the hereafter before their time. In this context the words “faithful-unfaithful” have no meaning. It is better to be rich with an unfaithful husband than to be poor with a faithful one – such is the motto of the VIP-class “wives.” This funny thing called love is not even mentioned in their milieu. Love has meaning only in application to the one serious thing: money.
Even though it has nothing to do with the real family, this fuss about money, firstly, corrupts the marriage rate statistics; secondly, and most importantly, it creates a social atmosphere in which marriage is regarded by an ever increasing proportion of people as business, not as affirmation of family. That same author, Wright, concludes in this connection: “In particular, evolutionary psychology shows how inhospitable the current social environment is to monogamy.” (Ibid., 30)
In this kind of “environment” it is no surprise that homosexuality flourishes, and in general the attention to sex is heightened. It is more than just attention – it is literally a sex obsession that has all strata of society in its grip. Back in his time the American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin wrote, with the USA in mind, that in the 20th century “homo sapiens” was being replaced by “homo sexual”. In actual fact the society’s sexopathy is an intentionally fuelled process of mass consciousness manipulation, a powerful tool for distracting people from the real problems of bourgeois society.
Besides, it is an extremely profitable business. Suffice it to say that should the homosexuals’ right to get married become established, the state stands to profit; the US government, for example, stands to take in approximately $17 billion per year. Against the background of the progressing madness surrounding homo-sex and sex simply, traditional marriage and family are losing their social value among the “middle class” masses. The problem is, this multi-billion business is objectively undermining the state itself, and the more reasonable part of government is trying to do something to halt the destructive processes. The most amazing thing is, the theoretical base for these efforts is formed by two opposing ideologies that merged into one; I mean the union of religious conservatism with the communitarian ideas known under the name of post-liberalism.
[1] Eurostat yearbook 2004, 48.
[2] The birth rate is the average annual number of live births per 1,000 of the general population.
[3] The Economist, April 9, 2005 (A special briefing, 22).
[4] The Russian term for this is “civil marriage”, which is an oxymoron since marriage is the instituonalization of a family by act of state. Perhaps this expression hints at the other meaning of the Russian word “brak”: flaw, defect.
[5] See: The Sunday Times, April 18, 2005.
[6] The Economist, March 5th, 2005, 42.
[7] Zohar and Marshal. The Quantum Society, 250.
[8] Wright, The Cheating Hearts, 33.
[9] See: The Economist, March 5th, 2005, 34.
[10] The Sunday Times, January 23, 2005.
On Love, Family, and the State
(Philosophical-sociological Essay)