[Buddha-l] Re: S. Pinker

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> I do not believe anyone ever set out to "attack" the family. I think the
> American family fell apart all by itself. Probably the biggest factor is
> the mobility of Americans. My father grew up in a big house in Michigan
> in which his grandparents and several aunts and uncles and cousins
> lived. My generation has been scattered to every part of this continent.
> What is interesting to note is that the states in which people are most
> obsessed with so-called "family values," the divorce rates are highest
> as are the rates of pregnancies out of wedlock. These are also states in
> which opportunities for employment tend to be less than elsewhere, and
> where wages are very low. So people either stay where they are and live
> in poverty, or they move on down the line. Whichever they do puts a huge
> strain on the family. In this case, philosophical persuasion and
> ideologies have followed economic realities rather than creating them.
> (Sorry to sound so Marxist on a Buddhist forum; if it's any consolation,
> I tend to prefer Weber to Marx in most matters pertaining to the
> relationship between ideology and economics.)

I don't share your belief that nobody ever set out to "attack" the family,
since some people do with undisguised intention, some as a result of
adopting an ideology the principles of which are antithetical to the well-beng
of the human person as a being in relation with others (especially those
immediately related by blood), and some as unreflectively assimilating an
ideology and substituting its principles for specifically former religious
principles and customs that had the effect of promoting familial cohesion
and well-being.  However, I agree with you that the break up of the
family, nuclear and extended, primarily for reasons of economic viability,
is an important factor in analyzing this sociological phenomenon.  Whether
it is the most important one seems to me open to question.  Where well-
established structures for support of the family remain the problems attending
relocation from one region to another are diminished (I'm thinking of such
structures as church or temple or mosque communities, neighborhood groups,
civic organizations, sports groups).  I'm also thinking that immigrants
who are welcomed and assimilated into sub-communities of their people who
came here before they did fare better than those who do not.  In short, I
don't think that the fact of mobility itself explains the breakdown of the
family in contemporary America, which would be the case if mobility were
the primary reason.  There are other, more radical influences, and I would
posit that they are the reasons I mentioned yesterday, reasons you
question in a fruitful way.  It may be the case that, in this matter,
philosophical persuasion and ideologies have followed economic realities,
but even that may be open to question.  The present economic realities are
the fruit of earlier ideologies, and so what is currently the articulation
of a present economic reality follows from (or responds to) the earlier
underlying philosophical or ideological suppositions.  I trust that
nothing we are discussing here is unimportant for Buddhist scholars to
consider since, as is obvious, many of them live in the USA and are
confronted with these realities in their daily lives.

> > an understanding of custom and tradition as oppresive horizons rather
> > than as vehicles of enculturation and socialization
>
> Outside a fairly small circle of people, I just don't believe this is a
> widespread "understanding" of things. But then I hang out mostly with
> people who, like me, have a very positive regard for custom and
> tradition. (People tend to hang out with people with whom they agree, I
> reckon.)

I was thinking here of the social movers who made it possible for the
various social upheavals (some of which, like the later Civil Rights
Movement) were needed and positive of the Sixties and Seventies to transpire.
I hang out with some people who positively value tradition and custom, yet
they espouse causes and ideologies that weaken these same customs and
traditions.  Why there is this disconnection, I don't know.

I'll continue this in a later post.  I'm now aware of size limits to our
postings and want to stay within them as much as possible.

Stan