Terrance D. Olson, Ph.D.

Abstract

Government involvement in family issues should be designed to align the best interests of three groups: the individual, the family and the community.  The functioning family constitutes the largest proportion of families in any vibrant culture, and is the most basic welfare institution.   Consequently, when governments seek to solve the problems associated with family disintegration: crime, violence, drug-use, illegitimacy, sexually transmitted diseases, child abuse; the first task of legislation is to preserve or nourish the large block of families whose quality of life is helping to prevent and reduce those very problems.  Public policies which undermine marital commitment, parental authority, societal citizenship–should be called into question.

Foundations

The social problems of drug use, alcoholism, family violence, illegitimacy and sexually transmitted diseases are symptoms of lifestyles which are typically self-centered and destructive of the individual’s best interests.  Ironically those who have helped destroy their own and others’ quality of life, and who create social victims among the innocent (such as children), often do so in the name of personal freedom. Personal freedom hardly seems to be a principle which can be given up if a society is to continue to thrive and to be cohesive and to encourage creativity and strong citizenship.  Yet, when freedom is not linked with accountability, or when people use freedom to destroy their own and others’ best interests, the very fabric of society is at risk.  The freedom so essential to the creation of a just society, becomes a means of disintegrating it.  If freedom is to be the benefit to individuals and communities it should be, it must be linked with a moral call to responsible living, to treating each other humanely, to ethical commitment, to honoring our beliefs about how to treat each other. 

Cohesion and stability in a culture are most fostered by cohesive, stable families. Families, at their best, act in the best interests of family members.  A network of family relationships is the first, foremost and best social welfare institution.  Compassionate, cohesive families do more to prevent social problems than all other supportive agencies combined, no matter how valuable and effective government, religious and community preventive organizations might be.  It is true that not all families act in each other’s best interests.  When families go awry in their moral commitment to the well-being of one another, the result is not a vacuum in relationships.  Rather, family relationships become destructive of each other’s best interests.  As the quality of family life goes, so goes the quality of life in a culture (see Bennett, 1994, for an assessment of this phenomenon).  When families abandon the moral call to respond to each other’s needs, patterns in society of alienation and interpersonal chaos expand.

Government, prevention and remediation

What is a democratic government to do?  How problems are addressed must include both prevention and remediation.  Yet the proposed legislative interventions must, at the least, not subvert the kinds of family relationships which are already the major starting point of prevention of, and recovery from, human social destructiveness.  Legislative policy must not undermine, and must nurture, quality family living as the foundation of attempts to preserve civil behavior, demonstrate compassionate attitudes, foster citizen involvement in public life, promote a sense of community and culture and strengthen society itself.

The psycho-pathologies of “modern”culture can be ameliorated more by the family than by any other unit of prevention or intervention.  Police, clinical professionals, churches, community organizations, courts, athletic clubs, function best in matters of prevention and recovery when their attempts first include the mobilization of the family resources of a person at risk or already engaged in destructive behavior.  “The dysfunctional family” is not always unchangeable.  Public policy should include legislation and boundaries which constantly offer those who lack skills, knowledge, or willing commitment to the well-being of other family members, the chance to learn, and to give up self-destructive attitudes and behaviors. Legislative policies should simultaneously work toward three goals: 1) allow families of moral commitment and stability to flourish; 2) avoid rewarding lifestyles which threaten the generational family, and 3) draw those in destructive contexts toward more humane possibilities.  Those policies which encourage anyone and everyone to contribute to the best interests of the individual, the family and the community are to be preferred.  Any policy which can align the best interests of these three entities is going to lay a foundation for the quality of human capital necessary to create and maintain a vibrant society.

It is not an accident that families are the center of the “best interests” groups governments are obligated to serve.  It is proposed that the best interests of the individual and of the community depend on the best interests of the family being realized.  Families are the building block of society because families are the authors of cohesion, commitment, justice, compassion, sacrifice, self-control, respect, reverence and citizenship.  Without the best interests of the family being preserved the ability to maintain a culture where the best interests of the individual and community are served will disappear.

Guiding principles for family policy

1. Public policy should foster marital stability, seeking to act in behalf of children.  In a decade long series of interviews and classroom interaction in secondary schools in five states in the western US, a hypothetical question was asked.  Students either responded in a discussion format in class, or on a homework assignment (Olson & Wallace, The AANCHOR Interviews, unpublished manuscript, 1989).  The question asked of adolescents between 15-18, was, “If you were to be born tomorrow, what would you want your circumstances to be?”  About 85% of the written answers or the focus of oral discussion were answers like this: “I want parents who care about me, love me, are loyal to me; who support me, are there for me, who I can count on.”  Such expectations, hopes or dreams deserve to be sustained by public policies which first, make parental availability the preferred legal and societal status, and which second, do not undermine marital and family commitments by making divorce too easy or based on just individualistic whims. These data sustain the idea expressed by Cicero so many centuries ago: “The first bond of society is marriage.” If we are to sustain society, we must sustain marriage. The report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the House of representatives of the Parliament of Australia is a step in the right direction, for it affirms the legal foundations of marriage, supports practices which nourish parental commitments, and offers preventive programs in both pre-marriage education and in reconciliation attempts before couples are allowed to pursue divorce.  (Canberra, 1998).

A substantial benefit of marital stability is the economic quality of life for parents and children.  For example, of US families with children, in the lowest quintile of earnings, 73% are headed by single parents, while 95% of those families in the top quintile are married couples.  Also, cohabitation doubles the rate of divorce.  Cohabitation with someone other than one’s future spouse quadruples the rate of divorce (Fagan, P. F., 1999).  Interestingly, context and meaning are also important in the measured impact on children of being in a single parent home.  All single parent homes are not alike, of course, and in a review by McLanahan and Sandefur (1994), children being raised by widows or widowers were less affected by the loss of a parent than were children of divorce.  The Australian Centre for Independent Studies has also carefully documented a correlation between the increasing incidence of divorce and the incidence of violent crime (1999).  The full explanation of such a correlation is not definitive, but family breakdown is a correlate of family violence in other, less demographic, but more specific studies (Whalen, 1993). 

2. Public policy should preserve & nurture the generational family.  From the idea of tax relief which fosters parental child-rearing instead of paid child-care providers, to disincentives for non-legal live-in relationships, government can at least not reward those styles of living which   weaken parent-child influence, and not subsidize non-stable, non-committed, relationships.  Children from intact families fare best on a host of social outcome measures, and children in live-in relationships are in the least advantaged position.   For example, a woman who places herself in a live-in relationship is subjecting herself and any of her children to dramatically increased odds of being physically abused.  When a woman with children is cohabiting, her chances of physical abuse or that to her children, are up to thirty-three times greater than if she were in a legal marriage or living alone with her children  (Popenoe & Whitehead, 1999).  

In addition to policies which at least, to paraphrase the surgeon’s motto, “do no damage” to family cohesion and influence, some policies might even reward parents who take their involvement with and responsibility toward their children seriously.  For example, if a government wants to give a “day care tax credit,” why not transform it to a “parental child care tax credit.”  That way, instead of rewarding parents economically for going to work and putting their children in day care, a parent who elects to be the primary nurturer of his or her own child receives the same tax break.  Of course the stay-at-home parent is trading involvement with children for additional income, but at least staying home with young children is not penalized (see, for example, Mack, 1997, chapters 6 & 10).

3. Public policy, when seeking to benefit those affected negatively by exceptional family circumstances, should not create policies which undermine the well being of the majority of generational families.  Yes, some parents abuse children.  Spouse abuse is reprehensible.  Those relationships which systematically threaten the dignity, physical safety and resilient hope of family members should come to the attention of government. Moreover, such legal intervention should be in behalf of those most at risk.  When family breakups occur, policies should allow or promote an environment where the least advantaged have an avenue to return to self-reliance.  This is especially important for those who gave up educational or economic opportunity in order to marry and give their time and talent to their children.

Contemporary discussions about family disintegration often generalize the interpersonal bankruptcy or inhumanity of some parents to all parents, instead of seeing humane families as the norm, with exceptions which are destructive.  To demonize most parents is to give up on society’s best resource.  Overall, families are the solution and problem families are the exception.  But strong families should not be penalized by legislation designed to assist those families who need to be drawn away from destructiveness and violence.  Legislation must invite ways to intervene in those families or with parents who directly contribute to the problem.  

As expressed in a document submitted to the Queensland Director-General of the Office of the Cabinet in 1994, regarding families in need of government help or intervention:

“. . . government must be careful not to undermine the family itself. . . . Understandably, those who work with failed or dysfunctional families see this institution at its worst and they sometimes fail to see the great success which the family has in . . .socializing future members of society.”

4. Prevention of problems is as important a moral obligation in marriage and family policy as is fostering recovery from destructive lifestyles.  Marriage education and vocational/skill training can help the overall competence of young or struggling couples and families.  But not all social or relationship problems are grounded in ignorance or incompetence.  Programs which just try to educate or build skills often do not succeed.  When programs aimed at combating problems of teen drug abuse or sexual involvement involve only presenting “the facts,” the actual practice comes across as education in a moral vacuum.  What good is more knowledge or skill if one’s beliefs still allow one to be at risk?  Sex education programs in the US, which generally assumed that adolescent sexual involvement was inevitable, seem to have contributed to the problem they were trying to solve.  Comprehensive sex education was introduced generally in the US in the early 1970s. But for at least a decade prior to that, premarital pregnancy rates had been falling.  By the end of the ‘70s, teen pregnancy rates had climbed again, from 88 to 111 per thousand women, and the percentage of high school age women who had participated in intercourse jumped from 28% to 42% (see Mack, p. 157, and the National Association of Abstinence Education, 1991, pp.2-5).  Programs which have been grounded in a philosophy of abstinence or in methods of avoiding physical consequences, which address students’ beliefs more explicitly, and which present a specific philosophy of sexual involvement upon which students have the chance to reflect, lay a better foundation for responsible action than those programs which place children at risk by showing how to engage in “safe sex.”  (Whitehead, 1994). Supporters of approaches which assume the inevitability of adolescent sexuality often ridicule abstinence based programs on the basis of them being unrealistic.  Both kinds of programs are unrealistic if they think instruction in facts or skills are sufficient conditions to reduce sexual involvement, adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.  The greatest predictor of adolescent behavior is still adolescent beliefs.  Exceptions can be noted, but the norm is a consistency between beliefs and behavior. (Miller, McCoy & Olson, 1986); Miller & Olson, 1988).   Results of abstinence programs are, in fact, mixed, and not all are successful.  At least they seem not to do damage.  An invitation to live as a good citizen, as one who does not place others at risk emotionally, socially–familially, and physically, must be fundamental to the curriculum.  It may be that any curriculum which provides knowledge and skill without an evaluation of philosophy and beliefs, limits its own effectiveness, since skills will be used according to one’s motives and beliefs and not in some moral vacuum (see Miller & Olson, 1984; Olson, Wallace 1982).  In a comprehensive review of the impact of federal sex education programs (fostered by the US Department of Health and Human Services), Weed and Olsen (1989) note that even when controlling for urbanization, race, poverty, geographic mobility and similar factors, those teens participating in family planning programs had much higher pregnancy rates.  Those programs which stressed abstinence got mixed reviews.  But those which encouraged parental involvement and discussions with parents of values and beliefs showed promise (see Olson, Wallace & Miller, 1984).

All this suggests that government efforts to enhance knowledge or skills do not have a definitive impact on the problems they are addressing.  But at the least, two underused options may be worth a second look.  First, the moral domain of human sexuality is an inescapable feature of the activity.  A major way to define ethical action, typically, is to consider the consequences of the act.  School programs do that in a very limited way.  They point out the self-defeating physical consequences of sexual involvement, such as disease, pregnancy, AIDS, etc. But public school curricula generally seem to ignore all the other contexts of consequences of teen sexual involvement and pregnancy.  The wholeness of the ethical must be considered.  Sexual involvement has consequences individually, socially, emotionally, familially, morally, relationally, educationally. Add to this reality that teenagers in many societies are legal minors--unable or not mature enough to understand or bear the full responsibility for their actions--and it becomes clear that a moral philosophy must attend any discussions of sexuality in the public schools.  Otherwise, by giving knowledge and skills alone, as if legal minors had the wherewithal to act with knowledgeable autonomy and accountability, is to “abandon them to their rights” as Bruce C. Hafen has noted. 

Although adolescent pregnancy has been the target example here, it is suggested that similar issues of drug abuse, alcoholism, child/spouse abuse, suicide--must be addressed in a way which teaches principles in some philosophy of preservation. The earlier idea that it is possible for governments to act in the best interests of the individual, the family and the community, comes to mind.  What this means for government prevention efforts is that they must be of a different substance than simply presenting facts and skills in a supposed morally neutral context.  A morally neutral context when discussing moral issues is nonsense and logically impossible.  The morally neutral context is really a context of moral relativism, and thus a moral stance is presented after all (see Olson & Wallace, 1984).

The second aspect of prevention to be nurtured by government is that of using the family as the first line of defense, of prevention, and even of solution to the social problems being addressed.  Family members who confront consequences can be educated about the matter, but must be willing to act in behalf of the next generation if their new education on the problem is to bear fruit.  Discipline practices, communication atmosphere, selflessness, willingness--these qualities can be demonstrated and defended.  In so doing, government has taken a moral stand they believe is in the best interests of everyone, and the idea of freedom being linked to responsibility is upheld.

Conclusion

Paying attention to the empirical consequences of disintegrating families should nudge governments toward shoring up the strengths of the generational family.  Ideally, government policies, be they for the purpose of preventing or solving problems of individuals, should make strong families the centerpiece of legislative philosophy and practice.  Government may be able to make the vast number of good families better by allowing them to flourish.  Policies may encourage weak, marginal or fragile families to become stronger.  And destructive families can be intervened in with an eye to preserving the weakest and most at risk members.

Marital stability, the well-being of the next generation, destructive family patterns and prevention of familial disintegration are all valid concerns of any government who seeks to maintain a societies of high quality.  The less family-friendly public policy is, the more likely that policy is to be ultimately destructive of an individual’s best interests.  Families, at their best, voluntarily, morally and relentlessly, act in behalf of those individuals most in need of attention and nurturance: children and adolescents.  Government practices will never be fundamental in solving family problems, but they can be supportive of families’ efforts to prevent and solve problems.  Most of all, legislative policies could measure the value of tax, education, marriage and family policies by whether they align the best interests of those who a society is supposed to benefit: the individual, the family, the community.

References:

AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR INDEPENDENT STUDIES (1999)

BENNETT, W. J. (1994) An index of leading cultural indicators, New York: Simon & Schuster.

FAGAN, P. F. (1999) How broken families rob children of their chances for future prosperity, Washington, DC, The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1283, June.

FAGAN, P. F. & HANKS, D. B. (1997) The child abuse crisis: The disintegration of marriage, family and the American community Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.

MACK, D. (1997) The assault on parenthood (New York: Simon & Schuster).

MCLANAHAN S. & SANDEFUR, G. (1994) Growing up with a single parent, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

MILLER, B. C.  (1984) Research Report to the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs: The AANCHOR project, submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

MILLER, B. C., MCCOY, J. K. & OLSON, T. D. (1986) Dating age and stage as correlates of adolescent sexual attitudes and behavior, Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, pp. 361-371.

MILLER, B. C. & OLSON, T. D. (1988) Sexual attitudes and behavior of high school students in relation to background and contextual factors, The Journal of Sex Research, 24, pp. 194-200. [for the point under discussion, see the bibliography in this article]

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION (1991) Abstinence based sex education in historical perspective, Washington, DC.

OLSON, T. D. & WALLACE, C. M. (1982) AANCHOR: An alternative national curriculum on responsibility, Family Studies Center, BYU, Provo, UT and in Title XX approved curricula, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

OLSON, T. D., WALLACE, C. M. and MILLER, B. C. (1984) Primary prevention of adolescent pregnancy: Promoting family involvement through a school curriculum, Journal of Primary Prevention 5, pp. 75-91.

OLSON, T. D. & WALLACE, C. M. (1989).  The AANCHOR interviews, unpublished manuscript, Provo, UT.

POPENOE, D. & WHITEHEAD, B. D. (1999) Should we live together? What young adults need to know about cohabitation before marriage: A comprehensive review of recent research.  The National Marriage Project, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 25 Bishop Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1181.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (1998) To have and to hold: Strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, June.

WEED, S. E. & OLSEN, J. A. (1989) Policy and program consideration for teenage pregnancy prevention: A summary for policymakers, Family Perspective, 22, no. 3, pp. 235-52.

WHELAN, R. (1993) Broken homes and battered children: A study of the relationship between child abuse and family type, London, Family Education Trust.

WHITEHEAD, B. D. (1994) The failure of sex education, The Atlantic Monthly, October, pp. 55-80.