Family breakdown and_civilization_decline
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
8 gefällt mir•5,312 views
Historical Research – Important Lessons from History Arnold Toynbee, Dr. Joseph Daniel Unwin, Pitirim Sorokin, Dr. Carle Zimmerman
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (13)
Ähnlich wie Family breakdown and_civilization_decline
Ähnlich wie Family breakdown and_civilization_decline (10)
Mehr von Jesus Gonzalez Losada
Mehr von Jesus Gonzalez Losada (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Family breakdown and_civilization_decline
- 1. Historical Research – Important Lessons from HistoryHistorical Research – Important Lessons from History Dr. CarleDr. Carle ZimmermanZimmermanArnold ToynbeeArnold Toynbee Pitirim SorokinPitirim Sorokin Family Breakdown and Civilization DeclineFamily Breakdown and Civilization Decline Dr. Joseph Daniel UnwinDr. Joseph Daniel Unwin
- 2. Important Lessons from HistoryImportant Lessons from History Family breakdownFamily breakdown leads to social instabilityleads to social instability Social instabilitySocial instability leads to theleads to the decline of the civilizationdecline of the civilization ImmoralityImmorality leads to family breakdownleads to family breakdown Family Breakdown leads to Social InstabilityFamily Breakdown leads to Social Instability Dr. Carle ZimmermanDr. Carle ZimmermanArnold ToynbeeArnold ToynbeeAldous HuxleyAldous Huxley Pitirim SorokinPitirim Sorokin
- 3. Family Breakdown leads to Social InstabilityFamily Breakdown leads to Social Instability Sexual promiscuity, infidelity, and pornography lead to sexually transmitted disease, divorce, and family breakdown Family breakdown undermines social stability, good citizenship, educational development, and contributes to crime, youth alienation, and suicide. To build a world of lasting peace, we need to restore true love, true parenthood, and true family FAMILYFAMILY BREAKDOWNBREAKDOWN SOCIALSOCIAL INSTABILITYINSTABILITY HUSBANDHUSBAND WIFEWIFE Modern statistics support many of these propositions. But are there historicalModern statistics support many of these propositions. But are there historical investigations over long periods of time that prove such premises?investigations over long periods of time that prove such premises?
- 4. HistorianHistorian Arnold ToynbeeArnold Toynbee observed,observed, ““Out of twenty-one notableOut of twenty-one notable civilizations, nineteencivilizations, nineteen perished not by conquestperished not by conquest from without but by moralfrom without but by moral decay from within.”decay from within.” Arnold ToynbeeArnold Toynbee Source: Why Character Matters: How to Help OurSource: Why Character Matters: How to Help Our Children Develop Good Judgment, Integrity andChildren Develop Good Judgment, Integrity and Other Essential Virtues - By Thomas LickonaOther Essential Virtues - By Thomas Lickona Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline
- 5. Joseph Daniel Unwin - Main Works: Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1934); Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior (London: Oxford University Press, 1935) Hopousia: Or the Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1940). Sigmund FreudSigmund Freud (1856-1939)(1856-1939) Dr. Joseph D.Dr. Joseph D. UnwinUnwin British ethnologist and social anthropologist at OxfordBritish ethnologist and social anthropologist at Oxford University and Cambridge University,University and Cambridge University, Joseph DanielJoseph Daniel Unwin MC (1895 - 1936Unwin MC (1895 - 1936)) conducted a massive study ofconducted a massive study of 6 major6 major civilizations and 80 lesser societies covering 5,000 years of historycivilizations and 80 lesser societies covering 5,000 years of history. He. He set out his study expecting to find evidence supportingset out his study expecting to find evidence supporting SigmundSigmund Freud’s theoryFreud’s theory that civilizations are essentially neurotic and destroythat civilizations are essentially neurotic and destroy themselves by restricting sex too much. But to Unwin’s surprise, allthemselves by restricting sex too much. But to Unwin’s surprise, all the evidence he discovered pointed exactly to opposite conclusions.the evidence he discovered pointed exactly to opposite conclusions. In his exhaustive examination of sexual behavior and their affect upon society, Unwin observed that monogamous cultures prosper and those disinclined to restrain sex to monogamous marriage remain primitive or, if once successful, they decline. Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline
- 6. Dr. Joseph Daniel UnwinDr. Joseph Daniel Unwin ““Thousands of years and thousands of miles separate theThousands of years and thousands of miles separate the events; and there is no apparent connection betweenevents; and there is no apparent connection between them. In human records, there is no case of anthem. In human records, there is no case of an absolutelyabsolutely monogamousmonogamous society failing to display great [cultural]society failing to display great [cultural] energy. I do not know of a case on which great energy hasenergy. I do not know of a case on which great energy has been displayed by a society that has not beenbeen displayed by a society that has not been absolutelyabsolutely monogamousmonogamous…”…” ““Sexual Regulations and Cultural BehaviorSexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior”” by Jby Joseph Daniel Unwin, Ph.Doseph Daniel Unwin, Ph.D.,., Address given March 27, 1935, to the Medical Section of the British Psychological SocietyAddress given March 27, 1935, to the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline ““The whole of human history does not contain a singleThe whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has beeninstance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamousabsolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted lessgroup retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.”rigorous customs.” ((Unwin, J. D. (1927Unwin, J. D. (1927). "). "Monogamy as a Condition of SocialMonogamy as a Condition of Social EnergyEnergy,” ,” The Hibbert Journal,The Hibbert Journal, Vol. XXV, p. 662.) Vol. XXV, p. 662.)
- 7. ““Unwin's conclusionsUnwin's conclusions, which are based upon an, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summedenormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of sixup as follows. All human societies are in one or another of six cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic,cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic, expansive, productive. Of these societies the zoistic displaysexpansive, productive. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the productivethe least amount of mental and social energy, the productive the mostthe most.. Investigation shows that the societiesInvestigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are thoseexhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed andwhere pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence afterwhere the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest.marriage are greatest. The cultural condition ofThe cultural condition of aa society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre- nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexualnuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.”opportunity.” (Huxley, Aldous (1946).(Huxley, Aldous (1946). "Ethics.""Ethics." In: Ends and Means. London: Chatto & Windus, pp. 311– In: Ends and Means. London: Chatto & Windus, pp. 311– 12.)12.) Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline
- 8. ““Absolute monogamy”Absolute monogamy” generatesgenerates ““social energy”social energy” What is surprising and worrying, Unwin says:What is surprising and worrying, Unwin says: …… I know of no exceptions to these rulesI know of no exceptions to these rules!!!!!! Societies with high levels ofSocieties with high levels of ““social energysocial energy”” progressprogress in every category of creative growth. This would bein every category of creative growth. This would be expressed in all areas of culture such as economics,expressed in all areas of culture such as economics, science, justice, education, arts, and so on…science, justice, education, arts, and so on… When the levels of what he called “absolute monogamy” were compromisedWhen the levels of what he called “absolute monogamy” were compromised by the increase pre-nuptial (premarital) and post-nuptial (extramarital)by the increase pre-nuptial (premarital) and post-nuptial (extramarital) continence, such society decline in the span of three generationscontinence, such society decline in the span of three generations Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline Dr. Joseph Daniel Unwin, discovered:Dr. Joseph Daniel Unwin, discovered: Dr. Joseph Daniel UnwinDr. Joseph Daniel Unwin
- 9. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v138/n3484/abs/138234b0.htmhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v138/n3484/abs/138234b0.htm Nature 138, 234-234 (08 August 1936)Nature 138, 234-234 (08 August 1936) doi:10.1038/138234b0doi:10.1038/138234b0 Obituary - Dr. Joseph Daniel Unwin August 8,1936Obituary - Dr. Joseph Daniel Unwin August 8,1936 WE regret to record the death of Dr. J. D. Unwin,WE regret to record the death of Dr. J. D. Unwin, anthropologist and head of Cambridge House, theanthropologist and head of Cambridge House, the University social settlement in south London, whichUniversity social settlement in south London, which took place after an operation at the age oftook place after an operation at the age of forty yearsforty years.. Dr. Unwin's studies were interrupted by his death at age 40Dr. Unwin's studies were interrupted by his death at age 40 UnwinUnwin died before fully developing hisdied before fully developing his theory of ‘theory of ‘the sexual foundations of a newthe sexual foundations of a new societysociety,’ but the incomplete results were,’ but the incomplete results were published in another book, 'published in another book, 'HopousiaHopousia,',' withwith an introduction by Aldous Huxley.”an introduction by Aldous Huxley.” Hopousia: Or the Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1940).
- 10. ““J. D. Unwin, whose untimely death in 1936 deprivedJ. D. Unwin, whose untimely death in 1936 deprived the world of a mind at once original and methodical,the world of a mind at once original and methodical, unorthodox and sound, was one who liked to stressunorthodox and sound, was one who liked to stress the spiral and undulatory nature of human history.”the spiral and undulatory nature of human history.” Dr. Unwin's studies were interrupted by his death at age 40Dr. Unwin's studies were interrupted by his death at age 40 “…“…At the time of his death Unwin was at work on aAt the time of his death Unwin was at work on a sequel to hissequel to his Sex and CultureSex and Culture. This book of which. This book of which the unfinished fragments are now being publishedthe unfinished fragments are now being published under the titleunder the title HopousiaHopousia, treats at length of a single, treats at length of a single question:question: What are the conditions which must beWhat are the conditions which must be fulfilled if a society is to go on displaying maximumfulfilled if a society is to go on displaying maximum energy for an indefinite periodenergy for an indefinite period? ...”? ...” Aldoux HuxleyAldoux Huxley writes in the introduction ofwrites in the introduction of HOPOUSIA: Or theHOPOUSIA: Or the Sexual and EconomicSexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society :Foundations of a New Society : Aldous HuxleyAldous Huxley
- 11. The American Sex RevolutionThe American Sex Revolution (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1956)(Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1956) Following J. D. Unwin'sFollowing J. D. Unwin's Sex andSex and CultureCulture,, SorokinSorokin asserts thatasserts that societies tend to blossom, besocieties tend to blossom, be creative, and grow when the sexualcreative, and grow when the sexual mores favor exclusivity, monogamy,mores favor exclusivity, monogamy, fidelity, responsibility, and familyfidelity, responsibility, and family stability. Conversely, when moresstability. Conversely, when mores encourage permissiveness, sexualencourage permissiveness, sexual exploration, serial monogamy, easyexploration, serial monogamy, easy divorce, and brief and changeabledivorce, and brief and changeable family relationships (particularly withfamily relationships (particularly with children), then societies becomechildren), then societies become unstable and alienating, and theyunstable and alienating, and they declinedecline.. Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline Dr. Pitirim A. Sorokin - Founder of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University - 55th President of the American Sociological Association.
- 12. Sorokin, PitirimSorokin, Pitirim The ArticleThe Article discusses the impact of sexual revolution on American society. Published 1954discusses the impact of sexual revolution on American society. Published 1954 ““The appearance ofThe appearance of this little book is duethis little book is due to a voluminousto a voluminous reaction of thereaction of the readers to my article,readers to my article, 'The Case Against'The Case Against Sex Freedom,"Sex Freedom," published in Thispublished in This Week Magazine,Week Magazine, January 3, 1954January 3, 1954..
- 13. Dr. Sorokin, PitirimDr. Sorokin, Pitirim ""During the first stage of the Revolution, itsDuring the first stage of the Revolution, its leaders deliberately attempted to destroyleaders deliberately attempted to destroy marriage and the family.marriage and the family. Free love was glorifiedFree love was glorified by the officialby the official 'glass of water'glass of water' theory. If a person' theory. If a person is thirsty, so went the Party line, it is immaterialis thirsty, so went the Party line, it is immaterial what glass he uses when satisfying his thirst; it iswhat glass he uses when satisfying his thirst; it is equally unimportant how he satisfies his sexequally unimportant how he satisfies his sex hunger.hunger. The legal distinction between marriageThe legal distinction between marriage and casual sexual intercourse was abolished.and casual sexual intercourse was abolished. Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline Pitirim SorokinPitirim Sorokin wrote of his own country's revolution:wrote of his own country's revolution: The Communist law spoke only of contracts between males and females forThe Communist law spoke only of contracts between males and females for the satisfaction of their desires either for an indefinite or a definite period, athe satisfaction of their desires either for an indefinite or a definite period, a year, a month, a week, or even for a single night. One could marry andyear, a month, a week, or even for a single night. One could marry and divorce as many times as desired. Husband and wife could obtain a divorcedivorce as many times as desired. Husband and wife could obtain a divorce without the other being notified. It was not even necessary that marriage bewithout the other being notified. It was not even necessary that marriage be registered. Bigamy and even polygamy were permissible under the newregistered. Bigamy and even polygamy were permissible under the new provisions... Premarital relations were praised and extramarital relationsprovisions... Premarital relations were praised and extramarital relations were considered normal.were considered normal.
- 14. Dr. Sorokin, PitirimDr. Sorokin, Pitirim Within a few years, hordes of wild, homelessWithin a few years, hordes of wild, homeless children became a menace to the Soviet Union.children became a menace to the Soviet Union. Millions of lives, especially of young girls, wereMillions of lives, especially of young girls, were wrecked; divorces sky-rocketed, as did abortions.wrecked; divorces sky-rocketed, as did abortions. The hatreds and conflicts among polygamous andThe hatreds and conflicts among polygamous and polyandrous mates rapidly mounted--and so didpolyandrous mates rapidly mounted--and so did psychoneurosis.psychoneurosis. The results were so appalling that the governmentThe results were so appalling that the government was forced to reverse its policy.was forced to reverse its policy. The propaganda ofThe propaganda of the 'glass of water' theory was declared to bethe 'glass of water' theory was declared to be counter-revolutionary, and its place was taken bycounter-revolutionary, and its place was taken by official glorification of premarital chastity and of theofficial glorification of premarital chastity and of the sanctity of marriage...sanctity of marriage... Considering that the whole cycle occurred under aConsidering that the whole cycle occurred under a single regime, the experiment is highly informative.single regime, the experiment is highly informative. It clearlyIt clearly shows the destructive consequences ofshows the destructive consequences of unlimited sexual freedomunlimited sexual freedom."." Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline
- 15. Sorokin, Pitirim -Sorokin, Pitirim -The American Sex RevolutionThe American Sex Revolution (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1956)(Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1956) Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline Pitirim SorokinPitirim Sorokin Harvard sociologist Dr. PitirimHarvard sociologist Dr. Pitirim Sorokin, analyzing studies of culturesSorokin, analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousand years onspanning several thousand years on several continents, found that virtuallyseveral continents, found that virtually all political revolutions that broughtall political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were precededabout societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in whichby a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devaluedmarriage and family were devalued
- 17. Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline 1. The breakdown of marriage and rise of divorce.1. The breakdown of marriage and rise of divorce. 2. The loss of the traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony.2. The loss of the traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony. 3. The rise of Feminism.3. The rise of Feminism. 4. Increased public disrespect for parents and authority in general.4. Increased public disrespect for parents and authority in general. 5. Acceleration of juvenile delinquency, promiscuity and rebellion.5. Acceleration of juvenile delinquency, promiscuity and rebellion. 6. Refusal of people with traditional marriages to accept their family6. Refusal of people with traditional marriages to accept their family responsibilities.responsibilities. 7. A growing desire for and acceptance of adultery.7. A growing desire for and acceptance of adultery. 8. Increasing interest in and spread of sexual perversions8. Increasing interest in and spread of sexual perversions (homosexuality) and sex-related crimes.(homosexuality) and sex-related crimes. In 1947, Harvard sociologistIn 1947, Harvard sociologist Dr. Carle ZimmermanDr. Carle Zimmerman wrotewrote ““Family and CivilizationFamily and Civilization..”” He studied the decline ofHe studied the decline of several civilizations and empires, discovering eightseveral civilizations and empires, discovering eight patterns of domestic behavior that signaled the decline ofpatterns of domestic behavior that signaled the decline of a civilization:a civilization: http://www.case-studies.com/nation-in-declinehttp://www.case-studies.com/nation-in-decline
- 18. Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline 1. No-fault divorce 2. “Birth dearth”; increased disrespect for parenthood and parents 3. Meaningless marriage rites/ceremonies 4. Defamation of past national heroes 5. Acceptance of alternative marriage forms 6. Widespread attitudes of feminism, narcissism, hedonism 7. Propagation of antifamily sentiment 8. Acceptance of most forms of adultery 9. Rebellious children 10. Increased juvenile delinquency 11. Common acceptance of all forms of sexual perversion Dr. ZimmermanDr. Zimmerman identifiedidentified eleven ‘symptoms of final decayeleven ‘symptoms of final decay’ observable in the’ observable in the fall of both the Greek and Roman civilizationsfall of both the Greek and Roman civilizations. See how many characterize our. See how many characterize our society:society: Dr. CarleDr. Carle ZimmermanZimmerman
- 19. Patrick Fagan, The Heritage Foundation - “The Breakdown of the Family” Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline Patrick Fagan ““When the number of single parent familiesWhen the number of single parent families reaches about 30%, thereaches about 30%, the community beginscommunity begins to break downto break down, and the rate of crime begins, and the rate of crime begins to soar. The community changes from ato soar. The community changes from a supportive environment to one thatsupportive environment to one that jeopardizes the development of children...jeopardizes the development of children... whenever there iswhenever there is too high a concentrationtoo high a concentration of broken familiesof broken families in any community,in any community, thatthat community will disintegratecommunity will disintegrate..
- 20. CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION ““The professional literature of criminology isThe professional literature of criminology is surprisingly consistent on the real root causes ofsurprisingly consistent on the real root causes of violent crime: the breakdown of the family andviolent crime: the breakdown of the family and community stability. The sequence has its deepestcommunity stability. The sequence has its deepest roots in the absence of stable marriageroots in the absence of stable marriage.”.” Patrick Fagan, The Heritage FoundationPatrick Fagan, The Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/f/patrick-faganhttp://www.heritage.org/about/staff/f/patrick-fagan http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crimehttp://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crime Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline Patrick Fagan Essay: The real root-causes of violent crimeEssay: The real root-causes of violent crime
- 21. An example of this social decline -An example of this social decline - USAUSA from 1970 to 2000:from 1970 to 2000: Rate of marriageRate of marriage declineddeclined by one thirdby one third Divorce rate hasDivorce rate has doubleddoubled Married couples with childrenMarried couples with children declineddeclined by one thirdby one third Out-of-wedlock births haveOut-of-wedlock births have tripledtripled Cohabitation (couples living together withoutCohabitation (couples living together without marriage) hasmarriage) has increased 1000 %increased 1000 % Source:Source: U. S. Bureau of the CensusU. S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports, 1970-2000Current Population Reports, 1970-2000 Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline
- 22. The USA leads the industrialized world in the:The USA leads the industrialized world in the: percentage of single-parent homes (23%)percentage of single-parent homes (23%) abortion rate (22.9 / 1,000 women aged 15-44),abortion rate (22.9 / 1,000 women aged 15-44), sexually transmitted diseasessexually transmitted diseases teenage birth rateteenage birth rate use of illegal drugs by students (44.9 % in ‘98)use of illegal drugs by students (44.9 % in ‘98) size of the prison population (327 / 100,000).size of the prison population (327 / 100,000). Source: "Lost in America" by Tom Clegg and Warren BirdSource: "Lost in America" by Tom Clegg and Warren Bird Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline
- 23. ““If there isIf there is righteousness in the heartrighteousness in the heart,, there will bethere will be beauty in the characterbeauty in the character.. If there is beauty in the character, thereIf there is beauty in the character, there will bewill be harmony in the homeharmony in the home.. If there is harmony in the home, thereIf there is harmony in the home, there will bewill be order in the nationsorder in the nations.. When there is order in the nations,When there is order in the nations, there willthere will peace in the worldpeace in the world.”.” ――Confucian ProverbConfucian Proverb Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline Family Stability and Civilization ProsperityFamily Stability and Civilization Prosperity
- 24. ““Righteousness in the heart…Righteousness in the heart… beauty in the character…beauty in the character… Harmony in the home…Harmony in the home… order in the nation…order in the nation… peace in the world.”peace in the world.” The Great LearningThe Great Learning Family breakdown and Civilization declineFamily breakdown and Civilization decline Family Stability and Civilization ProsperityFamily Stability and Civilization Prosperity
- 25. The moral man findsThe moral man finds the moral lawthe moral law beginning in the relation betweenbeginning in the relation between man and womanman and woman, but ending in the, but ending in the vast reaches of the universe.vast reaches of the universe. (Confucianism) Doctrine of the Mean 12(Confucianism) Doctrine of the Mean 12
- 26. The author,The author, Jesus Gonzalez LosadaJesus Gonzalez Losada expressly grants permission forexpressly grants permission for reproduction, always under thereproduction, always under the premises of good faith, fair use,premises of good faith, fair use, gratuity and citing the sourcesgratuity and citing the sources More information on:More information on: http://jesus-gonzalez-losada.blogspot.com/http://jesus-gonzalez-losada.blogspot.com/ THANK YOU VERY MUCH…THANK YOU VERY MUCH…
Hinweis der Redaktion
- http://verdadero-amor.blogspot.com.es/index.html -----------------The Rise & Fall of Civilization - Brian Fitzpatrick http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/CltWr/RiseFallCvlzation.htm Sociology Perhaps the definitive work on the rise and fall of civilizations, was published in 1934 by Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin. In Sex and Culture, Unwin studied 86 human civilizations ranging from tiny South Sea island principalities to mighty Rome. He found that a society’s destiny is linked inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression and that those sexual constraints correlate directly to its theological sophistication and religious commitment. Unwin noted that the most primitive societies had only rudimentary spiritual beliefs and virtually no restrictions on sexual expression, whereas societies with more sophisticated theologies placed greater restrictions on sexual expression and achieved greater social development. In particular, cultures that adopt what Unwin dubbed “absolute monogamy” proved to be the most vigorous, economically productive, artistically creative, scientifically innovative, and geographically expansive societies on earth. Absolute monogamy is a very strict moral code. Under absolute monogamy, sex can occur only within one-man/ one-woman marriage. Premarital and extramarital sex are not tolerated and divorce is prohibited. Understandably, the only societies that practice absolute monogamy are the ones that take their religion very seriously. Whether monotheistic or polytheistic, they believe devoutly in God or gods, and they order their society according to divine moral laws. Unwin himself was raised in Christian England, but he did not appear to be a believer in orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, he was honest enough to acknowledge what his research revealed—that absolute monogamy, the key to societal health, is deeply consistent with the sexual regulations laid out in the Bible, particularly in the moral code Unwin described as “Pauline.” Unwin’s contemporary, British historian Arnold Toynbee, was much more explicit about the centrality of religion in history. Toynbee’s masterpiece, his 12-volume Study of History, charted the rise and fall of 26 civilizations. In Toynbee’s view, “The course of human history consists of a series of encounters…in which each man or woman or child…is challenged by God to make the free choice between doing God’s will and refusing to do it.” “Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now.” ― Arnold Joseph Toynbee Why exactly does absolute monogamy, the Pauline moral code, bring vitality to a society? Absolute monogamy fosters cultural growth by solving what anthropologist Margret Mead called the “central problem of every society”— that is, to “define appropriate roles for the men.” Monogamous civilizations require men to choose either lifelong celibacy or the responsibilities of a husband: fidelity, breadwinning, and fatherhood. Most men choose to marry, to their good fortune, because married men tend to be healthier, happier, and more productive than bachelors. Those committed husbands create stable marriages, which offer the greatest opportunity for raising healthy, productive children who can keep a society strong and growing. Likewise, the great economist Joseph Schumpeter attributes the success of capitalism not to the entrepreneur’s lust for money or status, but to his love of family. To Schumpeter, the central pillar of any healthy civilization is the self-sacrificing married man who doesn’t spend his income on his pleasures, but prefers “to work and save primarily for his wife and children.” And in Family and Civilization, Harvard historian Carle Zimmerman concludes that “the creative periods in civilization have been based upon” the strongest form of family, which he terms the “domestic” type: “The domestic family affords a comparatively stable social structure and yet frees the individual sufficiently from family influence to perform the creative work necessary for a great civilization.” If devotion to God, a Pauline moral code, and strong marriages and families are the key to cultural success, then what causes civilizations to decline? Zimmerman warns of “periods of family decay in which civilization is suffering internally from the lack of basic belief in the forces which make it work.” Unwin’s explanation would be that if people lose their faith in God, they tend to lose their motivation to live by the strict moral code. In This Present Age, sociologist Robert Nisbet writes, “What sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than the spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.” Moral standards begin to erode when a society’s members chafe at the discipline imposed by absolute monogamy and begin to gratify their personal impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others. In other words, in an amoral, hedonistic society, you can’t trust the people you need to trust, not even your spouse. Moreover, if people can make and break relationships at will, with no legal repercussions or social stigma, they are much more likely to abandon their marriages—at their children’s expense—when the going gets tough. Husbands with roving eyes are much more likely to trade in their wives for new models. Thus, the founder of Harvard’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin, warned that if individualistic selfishness and self-seeking are not checked, a society will lapse into a state of “sexual anarchy.” In The American Sex Revolution, Sorokin writes that “both man and society are degraded” as a culture becomes “sexually obsessed:” “The members of such a society are habituated to look at the opposite sex as a mere instrument for pleasure…To these individuals, talk of human dignity, religious, and moral commandments, and rules of decency is just bosh…The society degrades the values of womanhood and manhood, of motherhood and fatherhood and venerable age, of marriage and family, and even of love itself.” —Brian Fitzpatrick, Whistleblower, Nov. 2010, pp. 38f Brian Fitzpatrick, a writer, editor, and commentator on political and cultural issues, is the Senior Editor at Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute. Brian has also served as editorial director for Salem Communications, the largest religious radio broadcasting company in the United States, and as executive director of Accuracy in Academia. He served on the board of directors of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. He was educated at Dartmouth College and Capital Bible Seminary. http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/brianfitzpatrick ------------------------------------------------
- http://verdadero-amor.blogspot.com.es/index.html The Rise & Fall of Civilization - Brian Fitzpatrick http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/CltWr/RiseFallCvlzation.htm Sociology Perhaps the definitive work on the rise and fall of civilizations, was published in 1934 by Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin. In Sex and Culture, Unwin studied 86 human civilizations ranging from tiny South Sea island principalities to mighty Rome. He found that a society’s destiny is linked inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression and that those sexual constraints correlate directly to its theological sophistication and religious commitment. Unwin noted that the most primitive societies had only rudimentary spiritual beliefs and virtually no restrictions on sexual expression, whereas societies with more sophisticated theologies placed greater restrictions on sexual expression and achieved greater social development. In particular, cultures that adopt what Unwin dubbed “absolute monogamy” proved to be the most vigorous, economically productive, artistically creative, scientifically innovative, and geographically expansive societies on earth. Absolute monogamy is a very strict moral code. Under absolute monogamy, sex can occur only within one-man/ one-woman marriage. Premarital and extramarital sex are not tolerated and divorce is prohibited. Understandably, the only societies that practice absolute monogamy are the ones that take their religion very seriously. Whether monotheistic or polytheistic, they believe devoutly in God or gods, and they order their society according to divine moral laws. Unwin himself was raised in Christian England, but he did not appear to be a believer in orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, he was honest enough to acknowledge what his research revealed—that absolute monogamy, the key to societal health, is deeply consistent with the sexual regulations laid out in the Bible, particularly in the moral code Unwin described as “Pauline.” Unwin’s contemporary, British historian Arnold Toynbee, was much more explicit about the centrality of religion in history. Toynbee’s masterpiece, his 12-volume Study of History, charted the rise and fall of 26 civilizations. In Toynbee’s view, “The course of human history consists of a series of encounters…in which each man or woman or child…is challenged by God to make the free choice between doing God’s will and refusing to do it.” “Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now.” ― Arnold Joseph Toynbee Why exactly does absolute monogamy, the Pauline moral code, bring vitality to a society? Absolute monogamy fosters cultural growth by solving what anthropologist Margret Mead called the “central problem of every society”— that is, to “define appropriate roles for the men.” Monogamous civilizations require men to choose either lifelong celibacy or the responsibilities of a husband: fidelity, breadwinning, and fatherhood. Most men choose to marry, to their good fortune, because married men tend to be healthier, happier, and more productive than bachelors. Those committed husbands create stable marriages, which offer the greatest opportunity for raising healthy, productive children who can keep a society strong and growing. Likewise, the great economist Joseph Schumpeter attributes the success of capitalism not to the entrepreneur’s lust for money or status, but to his love of family. To Schumpeter, the central pillar of any healthy civilization is the self-sacrificing married man who doesn’t spend his income on his pleasures, but prefers “to work and save primarily for his wife and children.” And in Family and Civilization, Harvard historian Carle Zimmerman concludes that “the creative periods in civilization have been based upon” the strongest form of family, which he terms the “domestic” type: “The domestic family affords a comparatively stable social structure and yet frees the individual sufficiently from family influence to perform the creative work necessary for a great civilization.” If devotion to God, a Pauline moral code, and strong marriages and families are the key to cultural success, then what causes civilizations to decline? Zimmerman warns of “periods of family decay in which civilization is suffering internally from the lack of basic belief in the forces which make it work.” Unwin’s explanation would be that if people lose their faith in God, they tend to lose their motivation to live by the strict moral code. In This Present Age, sociologist Robert Nisbet writes, “What sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than the spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.” Moral standards begin to erode when a society’s members chafe at the discipline imposed by absolute monogamy and begin to gratify their personal impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others. In other words, in an amoral, hedonistic society, you can’t trust the people you need to trust, not even your spouse. Moreover, if people can make and break relationships at will, with no legal repercussions or social stigma, they are much more likely to abandon their marriages—at their children’s expense—when the going gets tough. Husbands with roving eyes are much more likely to trade in their wives for new models. Thus, the founder of Harvard’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin, warned that if individualistic selfishness and self-seeking are not checked, a society will lapse into a state of “sexual anarchy.” In The American Sex Revolution, Sorokin writes that “both man and society are degraded” as a culture becomes “sexually obsessed:” “The members of such a society are habituated to look at the opposite sex as a mere instrument for pleasure…To these individuals, talk of human dignity, religious, and moral commandments, and rules of decency is just bosh…The society degrades the values of womanhood and manhood, of motherhood and fatherhood and venerable age, of marriage and family, and even of love itself.” —Brian Fitzpatrick, Whistleblower, Nov. 2010, pp. 38f Brian Fitzpatrick, a writer, editor, and commentator on political and cultural issues, is the Senior Editor at Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute. Brian has also served as editorial director for Salem Communications, the largest religious radio broadcasting company in the United States, and as executive director of Accuracy in Academia. He served on the board of directors of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. He was educated at Dartmouth College and Capital Bible Seminary. http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/brianfitzpatrick ------------------------------------------------
- The Rise & Fall of Civilization - Brian Fitzpatrick http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/CltWr/RiseFallCvlzation.htm Sociology Perhaps the definitive work on the rise and fall of civilizations, was published in 1934 by Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin. In Sex and Culture, Unwin studied 86 human civilizations ranging from tiny South Sea island principalities to mighty Rome. He found that a society’s destiny is linked inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression and that those sexual constraints correlate directly to its theological sophistication and religious commitment. Unwin noted that the most primitive societies had only rudimentary spiritual beliefs and virtually no restrictions on sexual expression, whereas societies with more sophisticated theologies placed greater restrictions on sexual expression and achieved greater social development. In particular, cultures that adopt what Unwin dubbed “absolute monogamy” proved to be the most vigorous, economically productive, artistically creative, scientifically innovative, and geographically expansive societies on earth. Absolute monogamy is a very strict moral code. Under absolute monogamy, sex can occur only within one-man/ one-woman marriage. Premarital and extramarital sex are not tolerated and divorce is prohibited. Understandably, the only societies that practice absolute monogamy are the ones that take their religion very seriously. Whether monotheistic or polytheistic, they believe devoutly in God or gods, and they order their society according to divine moral laws. Unwin himself was raised in Christian England, but he did not appear to be a believer in orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, he was honest enough to acknowledge what his research revealed—that absolute monogamy, the key to societal health, is deeply consistent with the sexual regulations laid out in the Bible, particularly in the moral code Unwin described as “Pauline.” Unwin’s contemporary, British historian Arnold Toynbee, was much more explicit about the centrality of religion in history. Toynbee’s masterpiece, his 12-volume Study of History, charted the rise and fall of 26 civilizations. In Toynbee’s view, “The course of human history consists of a series of encounters…in which each man or woman or child…is challenged by God to make the free choice between doing God’s will and refusing to do it.” “Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now.” ― Arnold Joseph Toynbee Why exactly does absolute monogamy, the Pauline moral code, bring vitality to a society? Absolute monogamy fosters cultural growth by solving what anthropologist Margret Mead called the “central problem of every society”— that is, to “define appropriate roles for the men.” Monogamous civilizations require men to choose either lifelong celibacy or the responsibilities of a husband: fidelity, breadwinning, and fatherhood. Most men choose to marry, to their good fortune, because married men tend to be healthier, happier, and more productive than bachelors. Those committed husbands create stable marriages, which offer the greatest opportunity for raising healthy, productive children who can keep a society strong and growing. Likewise, the great economist Joseph Schumpeter attributes the success of capitalism not to the entrepreneur’s lust for money or status, but to his love of family. To Schumpeter, the central pillar of any healthy civilization is the self-sacrificing married man who doesn’t spend his income on his pleasures, but prefers “to work and save primarily for his wife and children.” And in Family and Civilization, Harvard historian Carle Zimmerman concludes that “the creative periods in civilization have been based upon” the strongest form of family, which he terms the “domestic” type: “The domestic family affords a comparatively stable social structure and yet frees the individual sufficiently from family influence to perform the creative work necessary for a great civilization.” If devotion to God, a Pauline moral code, and strong marriages and families are the key to cultural success, then what causes civilizations to decline? Zimmerman warns of “periods of family decay in which civilization is suffering internally from the lack of basic belief in the forces which make it work.” Unwin’s explanation would be that if people lose their faith in God, they tend to lose their motivation to live by the strict moral code. In This Present Age, sociologist Robert Nisbet writes, “What sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than the spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.” Moral standards begin to erode when a society’s members chafe at the discipline imposed by absolute monogamy and begin to gratify their personal impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others. In other words, in an amoral, hedonistic society, you can’t trust the people you need to trust, not even your spouse. Moreover, if people can make and break relationships at will, with no legal repercussions or social stigma, they are much more likely to abandon their marriages—at their children’s expense—when the going gets tough. Husbands with roving eyes are much more likely to trade in their wives for new models. Thus, the founder of Harvard’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin, warned that if individualistic selfishness and self-seeking are not checked, a society will lapse into a state of “sexual anarchy.” In The American Sex Revolution, Sorokin writes that “both man and society are degraded” as a culture becomes “sexually obsessed:” “The members of such a society are habituated to look at the opposite sex as a mere instrument for pleasure…To these individuals, talk of human dignity, religious, and moral commandments, and rules of decency is just bosh…The society degrades the values of womanhood and manhood, of motherhood and fatherhood and venerable age, of marriage and family, and even of love itself.” —Brian Fitzpatrick, Whistleblower, Nov. 2010, pp. 38f Brian Fitzpatrick, a writer, editor, and commentator on political and cultural issues, is the Senior Editor at Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute. Brian has also served as editorial director for Salem Communications, the largest religious radio broadcasting company in the United States, and as executive director of Accuracy in Academia. He served on the board of directors of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. He was educated at Dartmouth College and Capital Bible Seminary. http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/brianfitzpatrick ------------------------------------------------
- The historian Arnold Toynbee observed, “Out of twenty-one notable civilizations, nineteen perished not by conquest from without but by moral decay from within.” Source: Why Character Matters: How to Help Our Children Develop Good Judgment, Integrity and Other Essential Virtues - By Thomas Lickona ------------------ “Out of twenty-one notable civilizations, nineteen perished not by conquest from without but by moral decay from within.” Arnold Toynbee, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire cited in McQuilkin, Biblical Ethics, 245. ---------------------------------------- The Greek philosopher Heraclitus said it simply: “Character is destiny.” Character shapes the destiny of an individual person. It shapes the destiny of a whole society. “Within the character of the citizen,” Cicero said, “lies the welfare of the nation.” Transmitting values, as the essayist Lance Morrow points out, “is the work of civilization.” A glance at history reminds us the civilizations do not flourish forever. They rise, and they fall. They fall when the moral core deteriorates-when a society fails to pass on its core virtues, its strengths of character, to the next generation. The historian Arnold Toynbee observed, “Out of twenty-one notable civilizations, nineteen perished not by conquest from without but by moral decay from within.” More than a century ago in a lecture at Harvard University, Ralph Waldo Emerson asserted, “Character is higher than intellect.” Writes the psychiatrist Frank Pittman, “The stability of our lives depends on our character. It is character, not passion, that keeps marriages together long enough to do their work of raising their children into mature, responsible, productive citizens. In this imperfect world, it character that enables people to survive, to endure, and to transcend their misfortunes,” “To do well,” Stephen Covey says, “you must do good. And to do good, you must first be good.” All of us who are parents naturally want our children to be successful. But we know in our bones that success without character–qualities such as honesty, a sense of responsibility, kindness and determination in the face of difficulty–doesn’t count for much. The novelist Walker Percy once said, “Some people get all A’s but flunk life.” In living a life well, as a proverb puts it, “An ounce of character is worth a pound of intelligence.” Source: Why Character Matters: How to Help Our Children Develop Good Judgment, Integrity and Other Essential Virtues - By Thomas Lickona ---------------- “Out of twenty-one notable civilizations, nineteen perished not by conquest from without but by moral decay from within.” Arnold Toynbee, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire cited in McQuilkin, Biblical Ethics, 245. ----------------------------------------------------------- http://www.angelfire.com/id/ronajoyner/troubles.html The Decline of Christianity - Increasing Permissive Decadence I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on this occasion. I have chosen as my speech topic "The Decline of Christianity - Increasing Permissive Decadence." A. My Testimony to Christ's Sovereignty To introduce myself, let me say that God brought me out of spiritual darkness and into His marvellous light about 40 years ago. I was a lost sheep and He came and found me. Blind but He made me see. My favourite subject at school was British History, where I was most interested in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, and the influence of Christianity in human affairs. When God was ready to convert me from atheism, He turned my interest in my British heritage to an interest in Biblical History and God's amazing fulfilment of prophecy,and then to an interest in my rich inheritance in heaven. He convinced me that Jesus Christ is alive and in control; that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. As the Bible says, no man comes to the Father but by Christ. His is the ONLY Name given under heaven whereby we must be saved - from sin in ourselves and from the permissive decadence in our modern society. There is no other WAY for us to walk; no other TRUTH to make us free; and certainly no other more abundant LIFE to be lived than the life without end that Christ gives to those whom He has chosen to live with Him in the new Heaven and the renewed earth, wherein dwells righteousness. We cannot boast of anything, but Christ, for it was all of Him and through Him. For 40 years, I have been a keen Bible student. In all those years I have found nothing in the Word of God that could possibly cast doubt on its claim to be inspired by God. It is authentic. It is the only reliable way to know Christ as the source of true learning, wisdom, knowledge and understanding. By searching the Bible you will find Jesus Christ to be the answer to every problem - and you will gain instruction in right and successful ways of living, and also of governing the country and preventing permissive decadence. Truly the Bible is worth reading and worth believing. I therefore say on the authority of Christ that the Bible is true no matter what people say about it. Heaven and hell are not optional extras - they are realities, even if no one believes in them, but the Gospel is the good news that Christ died for lost sinners. B. Our Liberty Laws - God's Word teaches that there is a Divine Law upon the individual soul where Christ reigns. It is Christ's law of love, fulfilling the Ten Commandments. There is also Sovereign Law, appointed by God for external conduct, where Her Majesty's government reigns. That law has the Ten Commandments as its standard. Despite what so many people falsely claim, Australia does have a current operative Bill of Rights which operates in our favour for just so long as we remain a Christian Constitutional Monarchy. It is upheld for us by our Queen by her Coronation Oath, by God's Laws, and by the various Oaths of Office. This Bill of Rights is entrenched in the Commonwealth Constitution, and this is confirmed by the Imperial Acts Application Acts of each State, by numerous Court cases, and now this month it has been confirmed in writing by the Queensland Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Hon. Denver Beanland, after he received legal advice on the matter. Several other Attorneys-General have also provided similar letters of confirmation. It is the centuries-old traditional Coronation Oath, together with the Commonwealth Constitution, that makes Australia a Christian nation, and a free country. It has nothing to do with church attendance, but everything to do with living in a society with Biblical spiritual foundations. Originally these laws were to prevent the Royals from becoming dictators. Now they operate in Australia to prevent Prime Ministers or governments from becoming dictatorial and wielding too much power over us. Republicans or those with ambitions of ultimate control on a grand scale, do not like our Bill of Rights because it is there to keep the powers of our rulers in check so we can retain true freedom. No wonder Centralists in the Canberra want to do away with our Constitutional Monarchy which was designed to save us from oppressive dictatorship. It even proves that there is no supremacy of parliament allowed in Australia, because God is supreme, and the Queen must uphold God's laws over man-made laws, by her power of veto if need be. God tells us to declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20.27) and to publish and not conceal anything (Jer.50.2). Therefore I have campaigned for 26 years for God's Laws to be taken seriously in our modern society, especially in our schools, parliaments, and courts, and for our Christian rights to be upheld. However the outcome depends on God, not on me, for He has prophesied the decline of Christian influence through a special famine that He will bring upon us. C. A Famine of Hearing the Word of Truth For Bible believers these are very exciting times in which to be living, because we are seeing so many prophecies coming to pass before our eyes. Some were prophesied in the Old Testament, some in the New. I will read you one that is currently being fulfilled. It is recorded in the Old Testament in the book of Amos, chapter 8, verse 11. God gave it to me through a radio programme last week because it fits so well into this talk. I quote from the King James version: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord God that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread nor a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the Lord. ... and they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord and shall not find it." The important thing to notice in that text is that it is the Almighty Sovereign God who brings about this lack of hearing of His Words, and God Himself who decrees that His Words will not be available to certain people. He is causing this to happen right here in Australia, in this land of plenty - we have plenty to eat and drink, and plenty of churches and Bibles, but we are hearing less and less of God's Truth - the words that give eternal life to all who believe. Apart from the compulsory prayer that is said to open Parliament each day, God and His Laws are rarely mentioned or taken into account by our Parliamentarians, except in the case of Rev.Fred Nile in New South Wales , and now Mrs.Liz Cunningham in Queensland. Despite the fact that a requirement for Bible readings in the classroom has been entrenched in the Education Act for 86 years - put there by referendum in 1910 - the Goss government changed the wording of the Act without a vote on it, nor any regard to my own and many other protests and requests for another referendum. Today, as God predicted, there is a famine, a widespread scarcity of God's Word, in schools, or on radio or TV, as used to be the case, or written in newspaper columns or magazines. The hearing of the Word of Truth is also decreasing in those churches where congregations are losing members, because God is fulfilling His prophecy to send a famine. So many young people are starving spiritually, because of the shortcomings of the older generation. Australia was a country greatly blessed by God and the hearing of His Word, but we have now become a nation where the influence of Christianity in public life has almost disappeared. This is a punishment being brought on us by God, because so many church and political leaders are wolves in sheep's clothing. They no longer teach, believe or uphold the basic Biblical teachings - i.e. Creation, not Evolution; Virgin Birth of the Son of God; His Death and Resurrection; Man's Total Depravity that separates us from God; Jesus Christ as our only Saviour; His Second Coming to Earth to raise the dead and to judge the world; and a Literal Heaven and and an Everlasting Hell. This was a treasure worth guarding, but Australians have angered God by failing to guard what was entrusted to them. That is why Australia is in so much trouble as we near the 21st century. D. Decline of Christian Influence in Society Causes Crisis I will now document various research findings from experts in their fields: Arnold Toynbee, for years Research Professor in International History at the London University, and Director of Studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, wrote in Study of History that nearly all nations have perished from internal moral decadence. He emphasized, "There is right and there is wrong." Professor E.Blaiklock, a famous classical historian, confirmed that "The moral core of this ethos of Western civilization, the heart of it all, the strength by which it stands, is embodied in the Holy Bible." ".... For commonly in the story of a nation's rise and fall, there comes the time when the authority of the ideal is questioned. Then comes permissiveness." (which he describes as being when what used to stir up shame and revulsion is first tolerated, then accepted, and finally becomes the way of life.)" Professor Blaiklock warned that this is the beginning of the end, unless there are sufficient intelligent, courageous leaders, or people become frightened enough, or there is a great revival of faith, to cause the country to return to its original greatness and high ideals. Dr. J.D.Unwin, Cambridge University, in his book Sex and Culture, stated that all civilizations which have arisen have been monogamous and ruled by men. They remained strong so long as this way of life was maintained but when they departed from this standard they finally disappeared. Dr.Unwin said that all history showed there is no exception to this. (which means no feminist or homosexual society has ever survived or gone on to greatness, so what are these minority groups trying to do to us?). He concluded his book by stating how strange it is that each civilization in turn, with all this evidence before them, still proceeded to go the same way, by breaking down the standard that is basic to their existence and continued survival. Australia is also following suit. Professor P.Sorokin, Harvard University, is quoted in support of the fact that all societies which have attempted to live without a civic code based on a specific religious belief, have disintigrated. In order to survive a country must stay monocultural. It can be multi-racial, but to try to organize a country under conflicting cultural standards is a death wish. Australia will prosper again only if we return to our roots - the Christian monoculture. Despite many warnings, the West seems determined to self-destruct, and I include specifically a little about England, America and Australia: 1. Western Civilization In Trouble: Dr. Graham Leonard, the Bishop of London, (in a lecture he delivered in Missouri, USA, in September 1987) said that the West is in crisis because "it has rejected the one essential belief" that it held for centuries - "...namely that man, by his very nature, has to be obedient to an authority over and above himself. The rejection of such authority leads not to freedom but to tyranny." The Bishop went on to say that real freedom is lost when absolute authority is given to what people say are self-evident truths, but which, in fact, are only contemporary fashions. People think that principles and values are "no more than statements about the likes and dislikes, desires and aversions, of those who hold them." Thinking this way leads to violence because it has no standard of right and wrong to use as an unbiassed method of judging. So if you are wondering why some societies are displaying a culture of violence, don't point to guns - point to the declining influence of Chrstianity in the world and the rejection of Christ as King of kings. 2. England in Trouble Lord Devlin, famous law lord of the House of Lords, and distinguished Judge in England, wrote in his book The Enforcement of Morals as follows:- "If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil, they will fail." "The moral standards generally accepted in western civilizations being those belonging to Christianity. The true principle is that the law exists for the protection of society." Rev.Dr. Michael Green, adviser in Evangelism to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, is reported in 'The Times' 30/11/93, as saying: "It is hypocrisy for the Church to disclaim any responsibility for the moral decline of our country when for years it has, in its theological institutions and pulpits, abandoned Biblical moorings and trimmed its moral imperatives to the fashions of political and social 'correctness'. "Nothing short of full-blooded New Testament Christianity can change this nation. Jesus Christ transforms lives: it is Him we must proclaim." 3. America in Trouble When I was young I began collecting things, the older and more antique, the better. Now one of my daughters has taken up my collecting hobby. In my collection I have what is branded as 'The World's Smallest Dictionary'. It is contained in a small metal case with a hinged front cover that has a magnifying glass built into it, for the print is too small to read. It measures probably about an inch by half an inch and a little over a quarter of an inch thick. It is a Webster's Dictionary and was produced as an advertisement for a brand of printing ink. I have read that when Noah Webster published the first American Dictionary in 1828, he used Bible verses as definitions. In his day there was no false wall dividing private faith and public service. He was an author, teacher, and preacher who founded a college and also served in Congress. Mr.Webster understood what too many today have forgotten or never known: i.e. the importance of Christian faith to public institutions in a democratic country. Yet in recent times in America, there has been controversy and debate over the role of religion in public life and the role that Christians should play in politics. Much of what I will be saying about Australia has also been written about America. However, it is encouraging to read in an American magazine I received recently, that the writer is forecasting that America's 1996 election may be decided by the religious vote. 4. Australia in Trouble: In Australia it is acknowledged that our culture is in crisis. It also came into crisis because of the decline of the influence of Christianity in government, in education and in public life. The nation to its peril has turned its back on God, Christ is the only answer to society's problems, and only His way will work in the long term. His side is the winning side. Here is a list of Australia's problems caused by turning from God:- a) The Welfare State - One of the good things about being in my age group is that we have the advantage of knowing where we've been as well as where we are going. We lived over half a lifetime under a system that allowed for the relevance, compassion, and benevolent love of God, and now we are retired under the modern welfare system that is based on the false expectation of government meeting every need and providing every solution to our problems. It is not a workable system, and it is judged by renowned sociologists as helping to cause the destruction of every civilization that remained too long entangled in its unethical philosophy. Already our welfare state is being regularly measured by the depth of its failures, brought about by the cycle of stealing from Peter to pay, not only Paul, but also the army of bureaucrats who make it their career to operate a system that the family and the church used to do freely for love of Christ. It has been said that we now live better, but we no longer live nobly. Those of us who have wisdom derived from the past, know that IF the lessons of history are not well and truly learnt, the terrible events of history will be repeated. b) The Loss of Values - Biblical absolutes are the values that keep civilization together. Christian values such as "Worship God and serve Him only," "Do not commit adultery," "Do not steal," "Do not shed innocent blood," "Flee fornication," "Keep away from every appearance of evil," "Work no ill to your neighbour," "Love one another as Christ loves you," and there are many more - these are the values worth defending, for they are the values with eternal significance and they are above any questions of race, gender, class and power. God is love and He produces love in the human heart. There is no other way to produce true love. "Love is the fulfilling of the law," "Love is patient, kind, unselfish, does not envy and is not easily provoked." With God's love we can love those we do not even like. It is the "agape" love as described by Paul in 1 Cor. chapter 13. Political correctness is the great enemy of Christian values for it does not legislate tolerance, it only organizes hatred. c) The Loss of Truth Political correctness tells us that truth depends on our point of view. Therefore one person's 'truth' is as unreliable as every other person's 'truth. Christ is Truth and there is no other valid point of view. d) The Loss of Morals Honour and virtue are becoming increasingly rare. Cheating, lying, sex outisde marriage and violence are more acceptable, almost a way of life. Society is failing to teach right and wrong as found in the Biblical absolutes. We are suffering from moral poverty, which puts us in a worse position than financial poverty. I grew up through the Great Depression, but moral poverty was not evident as a problem then as it is today.' e) The Loss of Trust We live an amazing contradiction, being cynical and gullible at the one time. We are sceptical about many things that we should believe - such as the infallibility of God's Word. We blindly accept many things that we should question, such as the so-called 'supremacy of Parliament'. We distrust politicians, journalists, and TV and film-makers, because we know that they have often deceived us, but strangely, we look to these very people as our primary sources of information and as our interpreters of reality. But we trust our fellow citizens (parents, workers, businessmen, etc) less and less This weakens our communities, our economy and our civil society, including families. Goodwill, ethical norms and expectations are diminishing. We can already see the beginning of a type of enforced cooperation with others, under a system of regulation by legislation. Thankfully, in all this confusion, the child of God is not dependent on the fluctuating opinions of men for his belief in the Scriptures. His faith is wrought in him inwardly by the Holy Spirit. f) Loss of Independence & Confidence There is an explosion of laws and regulations. The State dictates how we are to educate our children, earn our living, guard our health, care for our communities, and even how to worship God. We look to the government to provide a range of services that would be better left to the private sector, responsibilities that we once proudly undertook for ourselves. This shows a growing lack of confidence in ourselves. We say that problems are too big and complex for us to handle, so the state must intervene. This is a move from Christian principles to socialism. g) The Loss of Family The breakdown of the family, rather than poverty, race or any other factor, is now being almost universally cited as the real root cause of rising rates of drug abuse, teen suicide, abortion, academic failure, welfare dependency, and violent crime. However, as I have been pointing out for 26 years, it was the humanist school curricula since World War II that ousted the Christian philosophy in State education and had the most damaging effect on families and society. This preceded the breakdown of the family and actually undermined parental authority and Christian absolutes so severely as to be the real cause behind the root cause. My husband and I had seven children going to school over a period of 41 years, and we carefully monitored the decline of Christian influence in State schools. We did not like what we saw and heard. We transferred our youngest son to a Christian school and then I later set up my own private school (with 50 students over five years) specifically so that they could avoid the anti-family anti-Christian values being promoted in High Schools in the 70s and 80s. I also campaigned for the Christian philosophy of Education, and for parents rights to homeschool as God expects. h) The Loss of Empathy We are losing the ability to transcend our own immediate concerns to understand other human beings and their circumstances. Some of us are becoming remote from a victim's suffering or misfortune as though having no sense of their pain, whereas we should be like the Good Samaritan who devoted himself to the man injured by robbers. i) The Loss of Faith Millions of people still attend church and profess to believe in God, the Creator of the universe, but their faith may not extend to practical living based on Biblical absolutes, with Christ being the guiding force in everything. The Bible tells us of Christ's dislike for lukewarm followers, for it means that many people who say they believe don't take God seriously enough to stand up and be counted as on Christ's side - but Christ's side is the winning side, the only side worth being on! God has personal involvement with individuals whom He chooses. He also has corporate involvement with nations as He chooses. Individuals are saved on the basis of Christ's dealings with them, but those who live in countries that lack real involvement with God (the Bible calls them 'goat nations') will suffer from the famine of the hearing of the Word. That was the position the aborigines were in before God sent them the Gospel via the early missionaries, thus overcoming their famine of God's Word, and enabling many of them to be saved from hell. What God did for them, He also does for others In terms of census percentages Christians are still the largest group in Australia, but in terms of God's stated claim to the tithe, i.e. only one-tenth, I believe loss of faith in a country shows that God is in control over who will be allowed to be counted as God's people. The Bible teaches that salvation is all of the Lord - He does the choosing. One thing is certain, however, when God's number is reached and that last individual is converted, then the day of the Lord shall come as God prophecied in 2 Peter 3.10, with great noise, extreme brightness, a melting of the elements and the burning up of the heavens and the present earth. Christ will provide us with a new heavens and a new earth in which to live, where there is no more sin or death. However, before this can happen, the Bible says that there must a falling away from the faith first (2 Thess.2, 2&3). Details of this are also prophesied in 2 Timothy 3.1-8, 12&13, where we are told to expect, and not be surprised at, the perilous times that will come, with many types of sinful behaviour, including coveting, blaspheming, being disobedient to parents, unthankful, without natural affection, despisers of those who are good, and lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. The fact that these things are all happening, including the decline in the influence of Christianity, is proof that God is at work in human affairs. He is the One who causes prophecies to be fulfilled. j) Loss of Safety Most people want a nation of safe streets, but are not agreed on how to achieve this ideal. The answer will be found only by those who are prepared to learn the details of our Constitutional Monarchy in the context of our English history and inherited Liberty Laws, and then accept the supremacy of God's Laws over man's feeble attempts at lawmaking without even considering His absolute standards. Our rulers must realise that it is totally unlawful for them to breach the citizens' rights under the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta in order to disarm Australia and make us totally defenceless. They are exploiting a tragic massacre so as to obey their masters in the United Nations who called for our "general and complete disarmament" in 1983, under the terms of The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. " Total Disarmament means total loss of safety for every Australian. It is too horrible to contemplate. E. Christ Has Won All Dominion & Authority When it came time for God to fulfil the 300-odd ancient prophecies about Christ made during the 4,000 years covered by the Old Testament, God prepared a body for His Son so that He could enter into this world's affairs as the God/Man. As a man He lived, died, and rose again from the dead. Finally in the sight of His friends, a cloud took him back into heaven, where He now reigns in His glorious resurrection body, as the victorious King with absolute dominion and authority, over every country and over ownership of land. As King of kings, He owns everything. Under God, the land has its lords and heirs, its owners, in rightful delegated dominion, and God, in His mercy, and by His everlasting Law-Word, protects our personal rights - such as right to life, to faith in God, to family, to good reputation, to self-defence, to property ownership, etc. Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of England who died in 1634, believed this so strongly that he made this notable statement: "If the judgments of the Parliament are not consistent with the Ten Commandments then they are invalid." He also said: "The Common Law is the best and most common birthright that the subject hath for the safeguard and defense, not only of his goods, lands and revenues, but of his wife and children, his body, fame and life also." In 1814 Thomas Jefferson wrote on Coke's Institutes: "This work is executed with so much learning and judgment, that I do not recollect a single position in it has ever been judicially denied.... It may still be considered as the fundamental code of the English law." In 1688, 50-odd years after the death of Sir Edward Coke, our God-given rights were carefully written down as a Bill of Rights by a committee chaired by Baron John Somers. A Coronation Oath was also prepared by the church at the same time, so that no king or queen from then on could be crowned without first acknowledging Christ as King over all earthly kings and swearing to uphold and defend the Christian faith and the laws of God. 1. The Coronation Oath, Constitution and Inherited Laws All earthly rulers, whether they believe in God or not, are accountable to Christ as King, and to encourage the extension of His Church. Those that will not are called by Christ "goat nations". In obedience to almost 300 years of this valuable tradition, our Queen Elizabeth II also swore this required oath and signed it in 1953. She (like all other monarchs before her) promised before God and her people never to allow either the Bill of Rights nor Magna Carta to be diminished or denied by anyone. Our State and Federal Governments also did this when they worded their Constitutions, their Oaths of Allegiance, Oaths of Office and the Opening Parliamentary Prayers that incorporate these ideals and acknowledge that Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. The task for God's people now is to reverse the decline in Christianity as an influence on society. To do this they must apply the victory and authority that Christ has won to every area of life, including government, education, the media, etc. 2. What is The Answer? - Christ is the Answer. There is only one answer to Australia's troubles - the answer that provides for strong families, schools that work, marriages that last, smaller government, lower taxes, and rights that are derived from God, not the state. It is this: Stop saying "We will not have this man to rule over us," and start restoring Christ's role as King of kings in this country that belongs to Him. God's ideal is for children to be nurtured by capable God-fearing parents who have made a lifelong commitment to each other within the Biblical institution of marriage. This gives them stability and consistency in their lives, and the many moral and practical lessons that are better taught in the context of daily family life than anywhere else. Above all they need the lifelong love that God provides through stable God-fearing parents. Australia achieved happiness and contentment because earlier generations honoured God, and respected 'people of faith' in public life. Nowadays those like myself who want to continue promoting the system that never fails are for some strange reason labelled fanatics and extremist fundamentalists. I remember not so long ago that the Christian way of life was the norm in Australian society. 3. Despite our Troubles There is a Bright Side There is a way back to real lasting contentment, joy and happiness. But it will come only as a result of a revival of Biblical absolutes in lawmaking. From Parliament laws will flow out to restore education, which in turn will restore the family unit, marriage commitment, daily living, the work-place, the media, and entertainment. Social collapse began with 30 years of detrimental education; Social restoratiion will need to start with Parliament because laws are the means of educating the population generally. Faulty education led to faulty laws and the destruction of values, but it will take godly government and godly laws to re-educate an entire generation such as yours, that has already suffered the loss of true absolutes and effective time-honoured values. We have many reasons to count our blessings and to expect a bright future for Australia. There are probably millions of people who, for the most part, do defend our values, do tell the truth, do live honourably and virtuously, do live up to high moral standards, do exhibit trust, independenc
- SEX AND CULTURE de J. D. Unwin --------------------------------------- Digitalized book: https://archive.org/stream/b20442580#page/n5/mode/2up ----------------------------------------- J. D. Unwin From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin Joseph Daniel Unwin MC (1895 - 1936) was a British ethnologist and social anthropologist at Oxford University and Cambridge University. Contributions to anthropology[edit] In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe: ("Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation." Unwin, J. D. (1934) Sex and Culture. London: Oxford University Press, p. 412.) "Sex and Culture is a work of the highest importance," Aldous Huxley wrote; “Unwin's conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of six cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic, expansive, productive. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the productive the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.” (Huxley, Aldous (1946). "Ethics." In: Ends and Means. London: Chatto & Windus, pp. 311–12.) According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The effect, says the author, is irrevocable: The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs. (Unwin, J. D. (1927). "Monogamy as a Condition of Social Energy,” The Hibbert Journal, Vol. XXV, p. 662.) See also[edit] Bronisław Malinowski Pitirim Sorokin Sigmund Freud Works Sexual Regulations and Human Behaviour. London: Williams & Norgate ltd., 1933. Sex and Culture. London: Oxford University Press, 1934. The Scandal of Imprisonment for Debt. London: Simpkin Marshall Limited, 1935. Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behaviour. London: Oxford University Press, 1935. Sex Compatibility in Marriage. New York: Rensselaer, 1939. Hopousia: Or, The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society, with and introduction by Aldous Huxley. New York: Oskar Piest, 1940. Our Economic Problems and Their Solution (An Extract from "Hopousia.") London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1944. Selected articles "Monogamy as a Condition of Social Energy,” The Hibbert Journal, Vol. XXV, 1927. "The Classificatory System of Relationship," Man, Vol. XXIX, Sep., 1929. "Kinship," Man, Vol. XXX, Apr., 1930. "Reply to Dr. Morant's 'Cultural Anthropology and Statistics'," Man, Vol. XXXV, Mar., 1935. Other Dark Rapture: The Sex-life of the African Negro, with an Introduction by J. D. Unwin. New York: Walden Publication, 1939. Boggs, Kelly (2009). "Sexual Anarchy: America's Demise?," Crosswalk. Burkett, Bob (2014). "On Civilizations and Sex," Ethika Politika. Craven, S. Michael (2008). "In Defense of Marriage," Part II, Part III, Crosswalk. Firth, Raymond (1936). "Sex and Culture," Africa, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 126–129. Morant, G. M. (1935). "Cultural Anthropology and Statistics; A One-Sided Review of 'Sex and Culture'," Man, Vol. 35, pp. 34–39. Vitagliano, Ed (2012). "The Morally Heroic and the Rescue of Culture," AFA Journal. Yancey, Philip (1994). "The Lost Sex Study," Christianity Today. -------------------------------------------- The Rise & Fall of Civilization - Brian Fitzpatrick http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/CltWr/RiseFallCvlzation.htm Sociology Perhaps the definitive work on the rise and fall of civilizations, was published in 1934 by Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin. In Sex and Culture, Unwin studied 86 human civilizations ranging from tiny South Sea island principalities to mighty Rome. He found that a society’s destiny is linked inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression and that those sexual constraints correlate directly to its theological sophistication and religious commitment. Unwin noted that the most primitive societies had only rudimentary spiritual beliefs and virtually no restrictions on sexual expression, whereas societies with more sophisticated theologies placed greater restrictions on sexual expression and achieved greater social development. In particular, cultures that adopt what Unwin dubbed “absolute monogamy” proved to be the most vigorous, economically productive, artistically creative, scientifically innovative, and geographically expansive societies on earth. Absolute monogamy is a very strict moral code. Under absolute monogamy, sex can occur only within one-man/ one-woman marriage. Premarital and extramarital sex are not tolerated and divorce is prohibited. Understandably, the only societies that practice absolute monogamy are the ones that take their religion very seriously. Whether monotheistic or polytheistic, they believe devoutly in God or gods, and they order their society according to divine moral laws. Unwin himself was raised in Christian England, but he did not appear to be a believer in orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, he was honest enough to acknowledge what his research revealed—that absolute monogamy, the key to societal health, is deeply consistent with the sexual regulations laid out in the Bible, particularly in the moral code Unwin described as “Pauline.” Unwin’s contemporary, British historian Arnold Toynbee, was much more explicit about the centrality of religion in history. Toynbee’s masterpiece, his 12-volume Study of History, charted the rise and fall of 26 civilizations. In Toynbee’s view, “The course of human history consists of a series of encounters…in which each man or woman or child…is challenged by God to make the free choice between doing God’s will and refusing to do it.” “Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now.” ― Arnold Joseph Toynbee Why exactly does absolute monogamy, the Pauline moral code, bring vitality to a society? Absolute monogamy fosters cultural growth by solving what anthropologist Margret Mead called the “central problem of every society”— that is, to “define appropriate roles for the men.” Monogamous civilizations require men to choose either lifelong celibacy or the responsibilities of a husband: fidelity, breadwinning, and fatherhood. Most men choose to marry, to their good fortune, because married men tend to be healthier, happier, and more productive than bachelors. Those committed husbands create stable marriages, which offer the greatest opportunity for raising healthy, productive children who can keep a society strong and growing. Likewise, the great economist Joseph Schumpeter attributes the success of capitalism not to the entrepreneur’s lust for money or status, but to his love of family. To Schumpeter, the central pillar of any healthy civilization is the self-sacrificing married man who doesn’t spend his income on his pleasures, but prefers “to work and save primarily for his wife and children.” And in Family and Civilization, Harvard historian Carle Zimmerman concludes that “the creative periods in civilization have been based upon” the strongest form of family, which he terms the “domestic” type: “The domestic family affords a comparatively stable social structure and yet frees the individual sufficiently from family influence to perform the creative work necessary for a great civilization.” If devotion to God, a Pauline moral code, and strong marriages and families are the key to cultural success, then what causes civilizations to decline? Zimmerman warns of “periods of family decay in which civilization is suffering internally from the lack of basic belief in the forces which make it work.” Unwin’s explanation would be that if people lose their faith in God, they tend to lose their motivation to live by the strict moral code. In This Present Age, sociologist Robert Nisbet writes, “What sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than the spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.” Moral standards begin to erode when a society’s members chafe at the discipline imposed by absolute monogamy and begin to gratify their personal impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others. In other words, in an amoral, hedonistic society, you can’t trust the people you need to trust, not even your spouse. Moreover, if people can make and break relationships at will, with no legal repercussions or social stigma, they are much more likely to abandon their marriages—at their children’s expense—when the going gets tough. Husbands with roving eyes are much more likely to trade in their wives for new models. Thus, the founder of Harvard’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin, warned that if individualistic selfishness and self-seeking are not checked, a society will lapse into a state of “sexual anarchy.” In The American Sex Revolution, Sorokin writes that “both man and society are degraded” as a culture becomes “sexually obsessed:” “The members of such a society are habituated to look at the opposite sex as a mere instrument for pleasure…To these individuals, talk of human dignity, religious, and moral commandments, and rules of decency is just bosh…The society degrades the values of womanhood and manhood, of motherhood and fatherhood and venerable age, of marriage and family, and even of love itself.” —Brian Fitzpatrick, Whistleblower, Nov. 2010, pp. 38f Brian Fitzpatrick, a writer, editor, and commentator on political and cultural issues, is the Senior Editor at Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute. Brian has also served as editorial director for Salem Communications, the largest religious radio broadcasting company in the United States, and as executive director of Accuracy in Academia. He served on the board of directors of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. He was educated at Dartmouth College and Capital Bible Seminary. http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/brianfitzpatrick ------------------------------------------------ Obituary - Dr. J. D. Unwin http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v138/n3484/abs/138234b0.html Nature 138, 234-234 (08 August 1936) | doi:10.1038/138234b0 WE regret to record the death of Dr. J. D. Unwin, anthropologist and head of Cambridge House, the University social settlement in south London, which took place after an operation at the age of forty years. ------------------------------------------------- (From the article: DECONSTRUCTING THE FAMILY TO JUSTIFY LUST - By Daniel R. Heimbach – (Full article at the end) - This article first appeared in the October/November 2005 issue of The Religion & Society Report.) http://www.hanadam.com/?p=8204 In the early twentieth century, the British social scientist J. D. Unwin conducted a massive study of 6 major civilizations and 80 lesser societies covering 5,000 years of history in order to understand how sexual behavior affects the rise and fall of social groups.49 The study Unwin conducted included every social group on which he could find reliable information. He set out expecting to find evidence supporting Sigmund Freud’s theory that civilizations are essentially neurotic and destroy themselves by restricting sex too much. But to Unwin’s surprise, all the evidence he discovered pointed exactly the other way. Freud had said, “It is natural to suppose that under the domination of a civilized morality (one that restricts sex) the health and efficiency in life of the individuals may be impaired, and that ultimately this injury to the individual, caused by the sacrifices imposed upon him, may reach such a pitch that the civilized aim and end will itself be indirectly endangered.”50 This led Freud to think civilization was unstable and perhaps self-defeating, so that he once wrote Albert Einstein saying he feared by limiting sex civilization “may perhaps be leading to the extinction of the human race.”51 Freud especially feared total sexual abstinence outside monogamous marriage. Some restriction might be tolerable, but that was dangerous. According to Freud, “It is now easy to predict the result which will ensue if sexual freedom is still further circumscribed, and the standard demanded by civilization is raised to the level... which taboos (prohibits) every sexual activity other than that in legitimate matrimony. Under these conditions the number of strong natures who openly rebel will be immensely increased, and likewise the number of weaker natures who take refuge in neurosis... (When) civilization demands from both sexes abstinence until marriage, and lifelong abstinence for all who do not enter into legal matrimony, ... We may thus well raise the question whether our civilized sexual morality is worth the sacrifice it imposes upon us.”52 Freud was not a social scientist and never proved his theory. But he did think someone should try saying, “If the evolution of civilization has such a far-reaching similarity with the development of an individual, and if the same methods are employed in both, would not the diagnosis be justified that many systems of civilization have become neurotic under the pressure of the civilizing trends? ...we should have to be very cautious and not forget that, after all, we are only dealing with analogies... But in spite of all these difficulties, we may expect that one day someone will venture on this research into the pathology of civilized communities.”53 Unwin accepted Freud´s challenge setting out to study how sexual morality affects civilization and especially whether Freud was right about restricting sex to monogamous marriage threatening the survival of societies. He did indeed find strong evidence linking “the cultural condition of any society in any geographical environment” with “its past and present methods of regulating the relations between the sexes.”54 But, rather than being injured by restricting sex to marriage, Unwin found in every case the “expansive energy” of a social group comes from restricting sex to marriage, and sexual license is always “the immediate cause of cultural decline.”55 In other words, all the evidence he discovered showed that the survival of civilization or society depends on keeping sexual energy focused on supporting family life and not allowing individuals access to sex in ways that do not support family life. Unwin found, without exception, that if a social group limited sex to marriage, and especially to lifelong monogamous marriage, it would always prosper. There was “no recorded case of a society adopting absolute monogamy without displaying expansive energy.” He said, when sexual standards were high, “men began to explore new lands... commerce expanded; foreign settlements (were) established, colonies (were) founded.”56 In contrast, if a social group lowered standards so that sex was no longer limited to marriage, it always lost social energy. And again he found absolutely no exceptions saying, “In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial (premarital) and post-nuptial (extramarital) continence.”57 In every verifiable case, he found once a group became sexually permissive, “the energy of the society... decreased and finally disappeared.”58 He came across the same pattern over and over. A society would begin with high standards limiting sex to one partner in marriage for life. This produced great social strength and that society or culture would flourish. Then a new generation would arise demanding sex on easier terms and would lower moral standards. But when that happened the society would lose vitality, grow weak and then die. He explained that, “In the beginning, each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same strengths took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and, displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity (lowered standards); its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.”59 Therefore, based on overwhelming evidence, Unwin decided “Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; (but) the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.”60 Not only was Freud wrong, he was dangerously wrong. No matter how strong, no society can ever avoid losing social strength once it lowers sexual standards, and once it does signs of growing weakness appear within one generation. Freud thought restricting sex to marriage threatened the survival of civilization and might even threaten survival of the human race. But Unwin discovered that restricting sex to the traditional marriage structure makes societies strong, and that easing sexual standards supporting the traditional family structure is always leads to social collapse. Based on Unwin´s findings, there is no other outcome, and if we heed his findings, it means we must realize that deconstructing the family to justify lust will certainly threaten the strength and survival of a society as a whole. ------------------------- 49 . Joseph Daniel Unwin, Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1934); Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior (London: Oxford University Press, 1935); and Hopousia: Or the Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1940). 50 . Sigmund Freud: Collected Papers, translated by Joan Riviere, vol. 2 (New York: Basic, 1959), 76. 51 . Sigmund Freud, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, trans. and ed. James Strachey in collaboration with Anna Freud, vol. 22 (1964), 214. Also note, ibid., vol. 11 (1957), 54, 215 (London: Hogarth). 52 . Freud, Collected Papers, 87-88, 99. 53 . Sigmund Freud, Gesammelte Werks, vol. 14 (London: Imago, 1940-1952), 504-505. Also: Freud, Standard Edition, vol. 21 (1961) 110; and Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, vol. 3 (New York: Basic, 1957), 346. My translation follows Ernest Jones. 54 . Unwin, Sex and Culture, 340. 55 . Unwin, Sexual Regulations, 31; and Unwin, Sex and Culture, 326. 56 . Unwin, Hopousia, 82-83; also see Society and Culture, 431 and Sexual Regulations, 20, 32. 57 . Unwin, Hopousia, 84-85. 58 . Unwin, Sex and Culture, 382. See also: ibid., 380, 431; Sexual Regulations, 21, 34; Hopou-sia, 84. 59 . Unwin, Sex and Culture, 381. 60 . Ibid., 412. ------------------------------------------------------------- Absolute monogamy— the practice or circumstance of having one spouse at one time, but presupposing conditions whereby legally the wife is under the dominion of her husband and must confine her sexual qualities to him, under pain of punishment, for the whole of his or her life - (Joseph Daniel Unwin, Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1934); NECESSITY IN HUMAN AFFAIRS page-343) Sex and Culture: By I. D. Unwin. (Oxford University Press, 1934. Pp. 677. Price 36 s.) (1936). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 17:243-245 Review by: Géza Róheim In reviewing this book I would rather stress the question of method than the conclusions drawn by the author. The author is trying to demonstrate that societies are either 'zoistic' or 'manistic' or 'deistic', that these forms of society represent phases of cultural evolution and are in a definite correlation with the reduction of sexual opportunity. It will strike the anthropologist that this classification is arbitrary. Why should we regard the form in which the concept of the super-natural appears in a certain area as the only important feature in classifying a society? Moreover the classification itself is extremely doubtful. Supernatural beings are usually 'zoistic', 'manistic' and 'divine' at the same time and not either one thing or the other. These categories are familiar to all students of anthropology: we know them as 'animalistisch', 'manistisch', 'solar' in one of the early publications of Frobenius. We are told that the Trobriand Islanders are 'zoistic' (p. 1…. ----------------------------- (1935). Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 4:640-653 Sex and Culture - By J. D. Unwin. London: Humphrey Milford: Oxford University Press, 1934. xvi+676 p. Henry Alden Bunker This is a remarkable book, one which should make as strong an appeal as any work I know to those who are interested in the phylogeny no less than in the ontogeny of the human mind. It presents in great detail and with the fullest documentation the results of an inquiry which the author conducted, not, he assures us, with any idea of proving a thesis, for he had none to prove, or of establishing anything, for he had no idea of what the result would be, but solely with the purpose of testing "a somewhat startling conjecture that had been made by the analytical psychologists." This suggestion was "that if the social regulations forbid direct satisfaction of the sexual impulses, the emotional conflict is expressed in another way, and that what we call 'civilization' has always been built up by compulsory sacrifices in the gratification of innate desires". Is this conclusion, arrived at on quit … ---------------------------- Marriage is Essential for a Vibrant Civilization http://www.familywatchinternational.org/fwi/marriage_Unwin_and_Marriage.pdf In 1935, renowned anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin tried to prove the opposite: that marriage was an irrelevant and even harmful cultural institution. He was forced by the evidence to conclude that only marriage with fidelity, what he called absolute monogamy, would lead to the cultural prosperity of a society. Anything else, such as “domestic partnerships” would degrade society. In his address to the British Psychological Society, Unwin said this: “The evidence was such as to demand a complete revision of my personal philosophy; for the relationship between the factors seemed to be so close, that, if we know what sexual regulations a society has adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its cultural behavior... Now it is an extraordinary fact that in the past sexual opportunity has only been reduced to a minimum by the fortuitous adoption of an institution I call absolute monogamy. This type of marriage has been adopted by different societies, in different places, and at different times. Thousands of years and thousands of miles separate the events; and there is no apparent connection between them. In human records, there is no case of an absolutely monogamous society failing to display great [cultural] energy. I do not know of a case on which great energy has been displayed by a society that has not been absolutely monogamous... If, during or just after a period of [cultural] expansion, a society modifies its sexual regulations, and a new generation is born into a less rigorous [monogamous] tradition, its energy decreases... If it comes into contact with a more vigorous society, it is deprived of its sovereignty, and possibly conquered in its turn. It seems to follow that we can make a society behave in any manner we like if we are permitted to give it such sexual regulations as will produce the behavior we desire. The results should begin to emerge in the third generation. "Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior," Joseph Daniel Unwin, Ph.D., in an address given to the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society. Library of Congress No. HQ12.U52 Studies show that couples who are abstinent until marriage have a fidelity rate of 95% + 1). Domestic same-sex partners have a fidelity rate of zero to 5% 2). Any attempt at establishing “domestic partnerships” is an attempt to deconstruct marriage and its implicit fidelity. "Domestic partnerships" would have a deleterious impact on our civilization. The clash of the European Union's mores with Islamic mores may well prove this theory, once again. 1) Among all heterosexual couples, 75 percent of husbands and 90 percent of wives claim never to have had extramarital sex. Robert T. Michael et al., Sex in America: A Definitive Survey (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1994). Other studies and surveys confirm the percentage of faithful spouses between 7581 percent for husbands and 8588 percent for wives. Michael W. Widerman, “Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlated in a National Survey,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 2. 2) Barbara C. Leigh "The Sexual Behavior of U.S. Adults: Results from a National Survey" American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 83, Number . , 1993. Page(s) 14001406. David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, (Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall, 1984 ----------------------------- http://www.afajournal.org/2012/December/1212heroes.html By Ed Vitagliano A nation coming apart at the seams, rent by strife and factionalism. Founding principles are jettisoned, replaced by a cynical “will to power” that engenders graft and corruption. The people, having rejected moral traditions and embraced relativism, become obsessed with sex, heartily applauding sexual anarchy and perversion. Monogamy is disregarded, and marriage as an institution begins to disintegrate. A declining birthrate threatens eventual extinction as the use of contraceptives and abortion abounds as a means to limit the number of children. Unemployment grows and a flagging creative spirit haunts a once robust economy. All these symptoms of a sick society are everywhere evident in America, but in reality the symptoms have been repeated countless times in human history. That is the conclusion, not of a moralizing pulpit-banger or a conservative Christian commentator blathering on talk radio, but of two non-Christian scientists from the last century. In his 1934 classic work, Sex and Culture, British anthropologist J. D. Unwin studied 80 societies, including the Sumerians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, English and others. He analyzed their cultural beliefs and practices, especially as related to sex and marriage. Then in 1956, Pitirim A. Sorokin, founder of the sociology department at Harvard University, released a similar work titled The American Sex Revolution. Both saw the same cultural patterns throughout history: As nascent societies are led upward by discoveries, new ideas and trailblazing individuals, energy is put forth into cultural improvements. Expansion and new endeavors and even more discoveries are made, and success ensues. Enjoying those successes eventually leads to stagnation, population decline, egotism and a rejection of the common good. Decay sets in and a period of wrestling with this decay is the result, often followed by a downward death spiral from which the society cannot extricate itself. A younger, more vigorous culture that is in the second stage begins to push on the edges and eventually supplants the older, once great culture. Linchpin: Sex and marriage Both Unwin and Sorokin saw a common factor in every such decaying society: changing attitudes and actions regarding monogamy in marriage. Strong cultures always upheld monogamy in marriage and resisted a loosening of mores regarding sex outside it. However, when the people turned away from this view of sex and marriage, they always began the process of decline. In effect, cultures always experienced something akin to our own sexual revolution as a catalyst to the decay process. As the Bible says, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Unwin said the culture “that tolerates sexual anarchy is slowly but surely debilitating itself, impairing its collective health and endangering its very survival.” Why should this be so? Sexual laxness becomes a manifestation of a broader and deeper problem – a growing love of pleasure and self-indulgence. In order to enjoy life’s pleasures, self-discipline is cast aside and decay sets in, much like a once strong and fast athlete who has retired to a luxurious but sedentary lifestyle loses the “edge” that once resulted in excellence. Morally heroic’ counter-revolutionaries Historically, there were always some within a culture that resisted the initiation of sexual revolution, and these people hindered the corruption process. While neither Unwin nor Sorokin was religious, both argued from their research that a decaying society might be saved – but only if there remained within it a stratum of citizens who were willing to hold to the culture’s moral traditions. Sorokin explained that, as the ideas and consequences of a sexual revolution become evident, the members of this moral resistance “become more religious, morally heroic and sexually continent in the periods of disorders and great calamities.” If they remained committed to sexual restraint and monogamous marriage; and if these counter-revolutionaries did not themselves succumb to the rising tide of immorality; “the process of decline may be halted,” Sorokin said, and the society “may regain its mental and moral sanity; may halt the dangerous drift through complete deterioration.” Christians should see the clear biblical parallels in the research of Unwin and Sorokin. Believers are called by Jesus to be salt and light in their culture (Matthew 5:13-16). Using Sorokin’s words, Christians must be willing to be that “morally heroic” stratum in an otherwise decaying populace if there is any hope for a reversal of cultural decline. Enduring persecution and pain Of course, being salt and light is not an easy thing to do. Jesus repeatedly warned His disciples that they would endure pressure, ridicule and even persecution for remaining faithful to His word. Not surprisingly, the research of Unwin and Sorokin validate this as well. Sorokin, for example, said that the majority, up until the very brink of disaster, failed to understand the dangerous path upon which it had embarked. “Most peoples and leaders of decaying societies were unaware of their cancerous sickness,” he said. “Most of them were sanguine about their present state and future prospects. They continued to live cheerfully in a fool’s paradise, and hopefully looked forward to the realization of their unrealistic dreams. Their leaders attacked all honest appraisals of the situation and called them false prophecies of doom and gloom.” Ironically, then, the sexual revolutionaries didn’t appreciate the warnings of the counter-revolutionaries. As George Orwell, author of Animal Farm and 1984, famously said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Even if outright persecution does not break out against faithful Christians, they must still be prepared to endure the hardships of living in a society that is deteriorating. The Bible is filled with the examples of godly men and women who had to live through the pain and anguish of cultural corruption – and often the judgment that followed. For example, Jeremiah – the “weeping prophet” – cried out as his nation disintegrated all around him: “My eyes run down with streams of water because of the destruction of the daughter of my people” (Lamentations 3:48). Repairing ruined lives Rolling up the sleeves to help the victims of societal upheaval, enduring the slings and arrows of the adherents of debauchery, preparing for a long renovation of overturned foundations – this is the workload that will fall upon the shoulders of those called by Jesus Christ to be salt and light. Obviously, no society is eternal and all cultures eventually weaken and die. But the research of Unwin and Sorokin provide real world examples of the pain of disobedie
- According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The effect, says the author, is irrevocable: The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs. (Unwin, J. D. (1927). "Monogamy as a Condition of Social Energy,” The Hibbert Journal, Vol. XXV, p. 662.) Here are his words: The evidence was such as to demand a complete revision of my personal philosophy; for the relationship between the factors seemed to be so close, that, if we know what sexual regulations a society has adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its cultural behavior…. Now it is an extraordinary fact that in the past sexual opportunity has only been reduced to a minimum by the fortuitous adoption of an institution I call absolute monogamy. This type of marriage has been adopted by different societies, in different places, and at different times. Thousands of years and thousands of miles separate the events; and there is no apparent connection between them. In human records, there is no case of an absolutely monogamous society failing to display great [cultural] energy. I do not know of a case on which great energy has been displayed by a society that has not been absolutely monogamous…. If, during or just after a period of [cultural] expansion, a society modifies its sexual regulations, and a new generation is born into a less rigorous [less monogamous] tradition, its energy decreases…. If it comes into contact with a more vigorous society, it is deprived of its sovereignty, and possibly conquered in its turn. It seems to follow that we can make a society behave in any manner we like if we are permitted to give it such sexual regulations as will produce the behavior we desire. The results should begin to emerge in the third generation. Joseph Daniel Unwin, Ph.D., “Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior,” address given to the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society. (Library of Congress No., HQ12.U52)
- MONOGAMY AS A CONDITION OF SOCIAL ENERGY J. D. Unwin -Reprinted from The Hibbert Journal 25 (July 1927): 663–77. The records of history show a series of different societies, in different places, each rising to civilization as they become absolutely monogamous, (I use the following terms in these senses: absolute monogamy—the state of having only one husband or wife at one time, but presupposing conditions whereby the wife is under the dominion of the husband; modified monogamy—the state of having one spouse at one time, the association being terminable by either party upon terms laid down by the law; indissoluble monogamy—a lifelong association of one man with one woman, neither party being allowed to break the bond on any pretext.) achieving high culture while that absolute state is preserved, and falling into decline as it is modified or discarded. Just as societies have advanced from savagery to civilization, and then faded away into a state of general decrepitude, so in each of them has marriage first previously changed from a temporary affair based on mutual consent to a lifelong association of one man with one woman, and then turned back to a loose union or to polygamy. The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs. Marriage as a lifelong association has been an attendant circumstance of all human achievement, and its adoption has preceded all manifestations of social energy, whether that energy be reflected in conquest, in art and science, in the extension of the social vision, or in the substitution of monotheism for polytheism, and the exaltation of the conception of the one God. It is my purpose not only to present these historical data, but also to show that, besides being contemporaneous, these coincident facts are intimately connected, and that indissoluble monogamy must be regarded as the mainspring of all social activity, a necessary condition of human development. We will consider the facts first. Among the Amoritish Semites, in the fourth phase of Babylonian history (c. 2300–1950 BC), marriage was originally by purchase. Bride price was paid to the father; wives and children were property, and could be sold, mortgaged, and repudiated at will. A wife caught in adultery was drowned. For her to refuse conjugal rights was an offense against society, punishable by death. By the end of Hammurabi’s reign customs had completely changed. Jastrow says: The social advance over earlier conditions is considerable. The husband can no longer put away his wife at will. If no blame attaches to her, a fair compensation must be given, not merely half a mina; but in case there are children, also the dowry; or if there are children, then in lieu of the dowry sufficient alimony to bring up her children, and a share in the husband’s estate, after the children shall have reached their majority. The marital power thus appears greatly curbed, corresponding to the restrictions put upon the exercise of parental authority. The old Sumerian family laws give the power of absolute divorce to the husband, without distinction whether there are children or not, whether the woman has done wrong or is entirely innocent. The Hammurabi Code not only makes a distinction between the childless wife and the one who has borne children, but permits absolute divorce without compensation only in the case of guilt on the part of the wife (Journal of American Oriental Society 36: 7.) And the wife was granted power to break a bond which had become repugnant to her. She could refuse conjugal rights, and justify her aversion in the courts. Her own conduct being adjudged innocent, she was allowed to return to her people—a separation for incompatibility. Finally, the position of woman in the community improved so much that she could hold property, trade and contract in her own name, and bear witness in the courts. She was jointly responsible for debts incurred by her husband, and was on a footing of legal equality. During the great Sumerian revival in the days of the Kings of Ur (c. 2600–2300 BC) the same process had already gone on. The original Sumerian family laws were severe, but a part of a Sumerian Code contains some sections which are the same as some of those in the later code, introducing the modifications mentioned above. Especially is there one which deals with adultery. The penalty is no longer drowning, but merely permission to the man to take another wife. As Professor Langdon says, (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1920.) this involves a less serious estimate of the crime. In the time of Gudea wives are being mentioned in the contracts as being equally responsible for the carrying out of the provisions—this showing considerable economic advancement over previous conditions. We know that Dungi appointed his daughters rulers of provinces. The habits of the people whom the Amorites supplanted as the ruling race, therefore, were afterwards adopted by their successors; that is, the Sumerians had much modified their monogamy when they fell into decline, and these same or similar modifications being adopted by the Amorites, they too fell away before the rude and uncultivated Kassites. Nor is this all. In the twenty-eighth century, before the time of Akkadian domination, Lagash had enjoyed two centuries of Sumerian hegemony. Great conquerors were her rulers. But Urukagina usurped the throne at a time of general decadence, when the city was throttled by a huge hierarchy. Open adultery had become rampant. His first reform was to reinforce the old rules of continence and to reintroduce the old severe punishments. His efforts did not prevent the fall of the city, but it is interesting to note that after the Akkadian power had passed away it is the rulers of Lagash who inaugurate “a new epoch in literature and art, and the new sentiment is profound.” (Langdon, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 1, 433.) The Assyrians, though subject to Hammurabi, had lagged behind in the matter of social development. After the fall of the Babylonian Empire they were still absolutely monogamous. A childless widow was married to a brother of the husband. A woman had no control over property, and if she pledged or sold her husband’s goods she was guilty of theft. It was a punishable offense to contract with her. By the fifteenth century the Assyrians were being treated by Egypt as the equals of their former masters. But by the seventh century, just before the final debacle, polygamy, aggravated by the influx of war captives, had become common. A record of a district around Harran shows that out of sixty-four men, nine are wifeless, while sixteen have two wives, six have three, and four and five are possessed by two. At the same time also Assyrian women had secured their freedom and were able to trade and contract in their own name; they also succeeded to high office in civil administration. Of the marriage customs of the Cretans we have no knowledge. The sixteenth and fifteenth centuries were for them what the sixth and fifth were for Athens. All we know is that during that time there were female pugilists, female toreadors, and that women are depicted as driving chariots and hunting. They openly attended public functions, and seem also to have taken a leading part in religious ceremony. In no society which has attained civilization is there any record of women achieving such high position unless their rise has been accompanied by the adoption of a less rigorous form of marriage. But the evidence stops there. Of the Achaeans, Homer affords details of the original absolute monogamy and its gradual qualification. They are “out and out monogamists.” Wives are bought; daughters are “cattle bringing.” Parental and marital authority is complete. Then “edna” comes to be equal to “pherne,” service in war is accepted in lieu of bride price, and personal qualities even come to be preferred to price. And while tacitly admitting that Alcinous will have the final word, Nausicaa implies that her own wishes will be consulted in the choice of a husband. The rise in the position of women is too well known to need remark. But concubinage comes to be practiced. The children of such unions were bastard, but there are traces that the mark of bastardy was losing its sting and that the tendency was to regard the bastard on the same terms as a legitimate son. It is this tendency to polygamy which is the chief complaint of Thersites— “Soft fools,” he calls the Atridae, “base things of shame, ye women of Achaea, and men no more.” Two generations after Agamemnon the great Achaean passes into oblivion. “The general tone of the Iliad and the Odyssey is not a nascent, but a decaying order of things. (J. P. Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece, 18.) (No Egyptian code of laws has been recovered, and we have no continuous record of their social customs over the 3,000 years of history— a period equal in length to that which separates the present day from the fall of Troy. The fact that there are many hieroglyphic combinations which are translated by the same English word, (Budge’s Dictionary gives seven different combinations which are all translated “concubine”; five which are rendered “harem”; and three for “handmaid”; cf. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 74n. For relations of the sexes during Old Kingdom, Breasted, History, 86; Petrie, History, vol. 1, 31; Budge, History, vol. 2, 20; in New Empire, Petrie, vol. 2, 146, 181; Budge, vol. 4, 95; etc.) the subtlety of the difference between which cannot be read, seems to indicate that there was some change in the relations between the Pharaoh and the women of his household. It is sufficient, perhaps, that the people themselves seem to have been monogamous, and that it is not until the last days of the Empire that we have information that marriage had become for them a temporary affair, easily terminated.) When culture comes again, in Attica, an area untouched by the Achaeans and unaffected by the Dorians, it is with a people who still regard marriage as a lifelong association. The Greeks of Attica were absolutely monogamous. Wives were originally bought, and the marital power was supreme. Time brings the same changes as before, and the date of their full institution is the fifth century. By the end of that century, three generations before the Greeks became a subject race, the old customs had completely changed. Isocrates complains (in a way which sounds familiar), referring to Marathon and Salamis, “Then our young men did not waste their days in gambling houses and with music girls.” The denial of legality to a marriage with an “Outlander” woman, and the popularity to which these ladies attained, endangered the monogamic tie. The effect was at first refining, a little later enervating. For, like the word “mistress” in English, “companion” came to mean not much more than a concubine. A generation after Pericles, Demosthenes could say, “We have companions for the sake of pleasure, and wives to bear us legal offspring.” And divorce, at first in the hands of the man alone, became possible for the wife. She had but to apply to the archon. Paederasty became a common indulgence—a thing unknown in Homer. Women could not endure the continual seclusion to which they were subjected, and clandestine love affairs were common amongst them, as was drunkenness. In spite of a movement for their emancipation, their economic status was not much improved. Professor Westermarck thus sums it up: Among the Greeks of early days marriage was a union of great stability, although in later times it became extremely easy and frequent. (History of Human Marriage, vol. 3, 318. The law of inheritance, by which the “epicleros” was a mere appendage of the estate, and inseparable from it, undoubtedly caused many divorces.) In Dorian Sparta there was no such thing as a virtue of lifelong faithfulness. It was the object of the law to organize society in such a way that the finest women were mated with the finest men. This desirable end was not to be interfered with by any ideas of fidelity or monandry. But Sparta does not enter into the history of culture; she bred no historian to write her history, nor did she make the slightest contribution to the knowledge or achievement of the human race. The patricians were the original populus Romanus. They were married by confarreatio, while the unions of the plebs, admitted to citizenship under the Tullian constitution, were coemptio and usus. These unions, not being in accordance with the old Sabine religion of Numa, were regarded by the patricians as irregular. After a long struggle marriage between the orders was legalized in 445 BC. And in the meantime and immediately after, the patricians began to depart from their indissoluble institution; the tendency is seen in the story of Claudius and Verginia, and Antonius was excluded from the Senate for putting away his wife without consultation with the family. The plebs, married by coemptio (for usus is rare), are rising; the patricians are losing their domination. A little later there is the poisoning episode of the Matrons; the Licinian law passes, and all the offices of state are in turn opened to the plebs. (The Ogulnian law throwing open the office of pontifex maximus shows that they have adopted confarreatio. - This is also clear from Tacitus, Annals, bk. 4, sec. 16.) During the Third Samnite War the wife of Volumnius sets up in her house the worship of Plebeian Pudicitia, “to be honoured with a holier observance and by purer worshippers than that of the patricians.” (Livy, bk. 10, 23. Trans. Everyman Library.) Matrons are put on public trial for adultery. Two centuries after the expulsion of the kings, therefore, the patricians are giving up their old rigorous customs, and are falling in influence and power. The plebeians are adopting them, and they attain the power. Rome still expands. And her population becomes homogeneous. By the middle of the third century Rome is mistress of Italy. The Punic Wars put the Mediterranean under her rule. But this century also sees the changes in customs. Marriage sine in manum conventione came in with the ius gentium. These were not iustae nuptiae, nor did they involve potestas. Marriages of this kind became frequent. Women acquired economic independence. The Maenian Law transferred the judgment of divorce from the family council to a iudicium de moribus. The procedure for dissolution of marriage was thus facilitated. At the beginning of the third century Pyrrhus received a glowing account of the dignity of the Roman Senate. The power and influence of Rome were paramount. After the Punic Wars divorces increased, marriage became an affair of temporary attachment, and the upper classes declined to an alarming extent. Confarreatio disappeared and civil war arose. The plebs followed the patricians, and the modification of their monogamy followed the same line as before. It took over thirty years to pass the Lex Julia and Papia Poppaea, (For the effect of this law, see Muirhead, Roman Law, 275.) such was the opposition to the tightening of the marriage tie. The later operation of the law was assisted by the introduction of Christian marriage amongst the proletariat. There followed two centuries of peace such as have seldom been enjoyed in history. But what effect there was could not be permanent, and in the time of Diocletian marriage was a very loose union indeed. Husband and wife had separate estates, the lady kept her own name, and the bond between them could be easily dissolved, no reason being assignable. In the next century the Germans came down. Tacitus describes their marriage customs: Their marriage code is strict. They are content with one wife, except a very few of them, and these not from sensuality but because their noble birth procures for them many offers of alliance. (For this plurality, see later, 672.) The wife does not bring a dower to the husband but the husband to the wife.... They live uncorrupted. Clandestine correspondence is equally unknown to men and women. Very rare is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt, and in the husband’s power. The loss of chastity meets with no indulgence; neither beauty, youth, nor wealth will procure for the culprit a husband. No one in Germany laughs at vice, nor do they call it the fashion to corrupt and to be corrupted. Only maidens are given in marriage; they receive one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further reaching desires, that they love not so much the husband as the married state.(Tacitus, Germania, vols. 18–19. Trans. Church and Brodribb.) These absolutely monogamous Germans swept over the Western Empire, and upon them the white civilization was founded. It is only possible here to follow the course of history in its hitherto leading nation, the English. Various conquests had mixed the races resident in England. Marriage was a private transaction taking the form of a sale of the bride by the father or guardian.... Later on the consent of the bride seems to have been needed, and Canute made some advances in this direction.... Still later the bride gained the right of self-betrothal and the parties could conduct their own ceremony. (Howard, History of Matrimonial Institutions, vol. 1, 258, 278, 281.) Customs thus started to move in the same direction as in other societies, the parental power being gradually lessened and the contracting parties obtaining the right to act on their own responsibility. It was at this stage that the Church gained control of the institution, and by the tenth century it was the custom for the newly wedded pair to attend a regular bride mass. Soon after the clergy inherited the functions of the ancient orator, and came to direct the whole celebration, the nuptial ceremony taking place at the church door, followed by mass in the church itself. The next stage was that marriage was not valid unless conducted by a priest. (Howard, History of Matrimonial Institutions, vol. 1, 308.) And it was this control by the Church which arrested temporarily the changes observed above. It preserved absolute monogamy, and put all its weight against divorce and temporary unions. At the same time, however, it proclaimed that marriage was a remedy for fornication, that celibacy was the most desirable of virtues and that virgins peopled Heaven. (The conquering Normans took to monasticism, and they gradually lost their dominant position to the conquered, who were not allowed by them to enter the religious houses.) The Reformers, however, did not regard marriage from the magical point of view, nor as a concession to the flesh. It was for them the most desirable state in which a man could live. The growth of their influence and power, therefore, reintroduced absolute monogamy after its practice had been much affected by organized and consistent exhortation to monasticism. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw the complete adoption of their attitude, and England rose to her heights. Marriage as a lifelong association continued until the nineteenth century, when the first modifications were introduced. Further changes were made in the twentieth century, the two sexes being placed upon almost equal terms. Meanwhile the usual and inevitable female emancipation had taken place, and women became economically independent. Time produces, therefore, the same changes in English marriage customs which have been observed elsewhere, changes which the impositions of external authority are powerless to affect. (The course of the changes in the customs of other sections of the white civilization differs only in time; those nations in the twentieth century who have not yet modified their monogamy succeed to more and more influence.) And the rise and expansion of England’s power and influence is contemporaneous with the preservation of marriage as a lifelong institution. As her decline is not yet an historical fact, the evidence stops there; but it is interesting to observe that, as her methods of legal administration demanded on the part of the plaintiff possession of some wealth, and therefore those with wealth were the first to be able to take advantage of the changes in the law, the result was that her old landed aristocracy were the first to practice a modified monogamy, and they soon lost that superior position in the State which had been theirs. Such are the parallel events in the history of those civilized societies which have modified their absolute monogamy. Before considering those groups which have discarded monogamy for polygamy, it is convenient first to notice the path by which a state of absolute monogamy is arrived at. There are in history many survivals (such as the avunculate, female eponyms, the permission of marriage between brother and sister german, but not uterine, etymological and philological phenomena, etc.) which can only be satisfactorily explained by concluding that at a time in the remote past, in the society amongst whom the survivals are found, mother-right prevailed; that is, when descent, kinship, etc., was reckoned solely through the mother. The evidence is supplemented by the quaint custom of the couvade which is found all over the world today. Traces of matrilineal kinship and/or other customs pointing to mother-right are found among the Teutons, Greeks, Latins, Etruscans, Picts, Celts, Semites, Sumerians, and Aztecs; that is, among all the great civilized families of which we have continuous record. Mother-right grew up as the result of the recognition of kinship. As McLennan was the first to point out, ideas of kinship, like many other things cognizable to the senses, grew, and there was a time when there was no recognition of it. And when kinship began to be appreciated it was uterine filiation which was first noted. Ideas of kinship through males came later. The priority of the recognition of kinship through females is accepted by all students as the more archaic. Rivers, “Mother-right,” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; Lang, Social Origins, 21; Crawley, Mystic Rose, 460; Hartland, Primitive Paternity, i, 256; Hartland, Mem. American Anthropological Association, iv; Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, 69, 159; Letourneau, Evolution of Marriage, 302; Spencer, Sociology, vol. 1, 754; Giddings, Principles of Sociology, 158; Howard, ibid., vol. 1, 222; etc. For people amongst whom the change is now taking place, Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy, vol. 1, 71; vol. 2, 196, 325, 589; vol. 4, 131, 240. When matrilineal kinship is the rule, the social unit is at first the clan; marriage is matrilocal; and children belong to the kin of the mother. Marriage is a temporary arrangement based on mutual consent; the woman remains with her own people and receives only occasional visits from her husband (or husbands). Mother-right in its purest and first phases, then, may mean polyandry, or a mixture between polyandry and polygamy, or a very loose monandry. The growth of knowledge of kinship through males would cause alteration of these customs. Possession of the offspring being of advantage to the clan, that of the husband would demand that their claim be considered. The methods adopted to secure the children would naturally vary with the conditions obtaining in the locality. If there were a state of peace, through an intermediate step by which a husband had left his kin and taken up residence with the wife’s people whose sole mate he was, purchase would be the method to which they would have to resort. For the producer of valuable children would herself be of great value. Whether such purchased women were monandric or no would depend, perhaps, on the numerical proportion of the sexes, or on the customs which had preceded the change of residence on the part of the woman. Or it might be that there was a continual state of war between localities, and the women would become the prizes of the conquerors. It may be that in so far as it is probable that in his most savage state man was always in a state of enmity with his neighbors, the recognition of kinship through males came as the result of a man having possession of a captive woman. Or, again, it may have been that purchase succeeded capture as the accepted means of securing a wife. At any rate, in all cases a woman would become a piece of property, bought and secured for the purpose of providing descendants of the blood of the male. From the stage when a woman received her husband (or husbands) as an occasional visitor to the time when she was the prize of one man who possessed her amongst his own people is a long step; and accompanying these changes there is to be observed a growth in the unit of social organization from the clan to the tribe, substitution of religion for magic, and an increase of knowledge of the physical universe. And whether or no the group ever practiced polyandry preliminary to monandry, and with or without the intermediate step of capture as the usual method of obtaining a wife, marriage, from a loose union subject only to mutual consent, becomes an association of a lifetime. It is just after this stage has been reached that societies enter history. The customs which we saw in operation at the beginning of each group’s historical career are now easily understood, as is the way in which polygamy came to be practiced. In a state of war the prizes go to the chief first, and woman is man’s most valuable possession. In a state of peace the chief has the wealth to purchase more women—these to ensure heirs of his blood. Further, intermarriage cements an alliance. In all societies of which we have continuous record, it is the chief who is the first to have more than one wife. (Compare German customs quoted above.) His senior men naturally follow him, and more than one wife becomes the custom of all who can afford the larger household. Before the fall of the Assyrian Empire the Iranians were absolutely monogamous. How they came to be so we do not know: whether or no we are justified in ascribing to them the institution of the maternal clan on the ground that all those Aryan societies of which we have continuous knowledge undoubtedly show traces of mother-right, this is no occasion to inquire. Anyway, marriage in the Avesta shows a monogamous condition combined with a high position for women. The Pishdadian period was a time when “men hunted and tilled, women minded the house, and children were enjoined to be reverent to elders, dutiful to parents, and diligent workers for the household.” “Sexual infidelity was a grave moral offence, and violation of the sanctity of marriage grieves Astrivanghuhi” (Manickji Nussuvangi Dhalla, Zoroastrian Civilisation, 69–70, 111.) (female genius of chastity). But just before Zoroaster polygamy was starting to occur amongst the higher classes. To be childless was the greatest possible calamity which could befall a household. It was doubtless this childlessness, or the fear of it, which was the cause of the change. (Cf. de Harlez, quoted in Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, vol. 3, 44; vol.) The virile Medes, after living a frugal life in the mountains, fell down upon Assyria. Indulgence sapped their energy, and in four or five generations they gave way to the Persians, who conquered all the peoples which had been subject to the Assyrians, and founded their great empire. But they had no culture of their own; by the time they enter history they are polygamous; and they were defeated as soon as they came up against an absolutely monogamous people. Alexander had not to fight very much to gain possession of all their country. After 500 years of stagnation and suffering of alien rule, a fresh group arose, the Sassanids, and again the rise is attended by absolute monogamy. They arose just as Rome was starting to weaken, had five different modes of marriage, all monogamous, and retained their power until the Arabs burst over the land. Meantime they conquered Egypt from Rome. But their kings went the same way as before, maintained vast seraglios, and as soon as a people sufficiently virile arose they disappeared. The demonstration of the steps by which the Arabs went through the stage of absolute monogamy and then quickly adopted polygamy is made easy if we may follow Robertson Smith. He traces the path from the time when marriage was matrilocal, and the woman received periodical visits from her husband (or husbands), to a state when a number of men secured a wife for themselves. Then, as private rights came to be recognized in place of stock rights, and the idea of the family grew up in place of the idea of the clan, one man became “ba’al” of one woman. And this last condition of things was the state just before the time of Mohammed. Mohammed was born to a society in which “ba’al” marriage was the rule; the woman was under dominion of the husband, who was her lord and master. The temporary arrangements based on mutual consent were still the practice in some cases, but such loose unions were no longer looked upon as respectable. “Ba’al” marriages were constituted both by capture and contract, the subjection of the wife being complete in each case. Mohammed went out of his way to condemn the looser unions as “sisters of harlotry,” and laid great stress on conjugal fidelity. But polygamy was fast coming in. It was Arabs with such customs, but with no monogamic obligations, who burst over Egypt. But their conquering career was held up for three generations by the monogamous Berbers, whom no one had subjugated since the attempt of Rome. The Berbers were at length persuaded to accept the new religion, and then the Arab advance continued. It was these converted Berbers who conquered Spain (under Berber leaders), and who were the mainstay of the Moorish power in the country. It was men born of Berber, Jewish and Gothic women who founded the great civilization which arose in Spain. The Arab masters were soon enervated by their polygamous habits, twice more during their rule was the country swept by the monogamous Berbers from Africa, and finally, in the end of the tenth century, the whole country was a mass of anarchy and ruin. The Arab civilization in the east did not last so long as that of the west, and nowhere reached the height attained by the latter. It was soon reduced to lethargy. The reintroduction of monogamy amongst the people who had been born to polygamy was accompanied by the rise of Spain, her succession to great power and influence, her occupation of overseas lands. Then monasticism was introduced. Soon after, Spain received final defeat at the hands of England, who had just cast off monasticism and returned to absolute monogamy. Such, in outline, are the salient facts concerning the changes in marriage customs adopted by each society, and the dates of those changes. In every case, where we have a continuous record, the curve of development (savagery—civilization—decrepitude) has followed parallel to the curve of marriage changes (loose unions—absolute monogamy— modified monogamy, or polygamy) (In the exposition of adopted customs I have not seen fit to pay attention to the question whether the changes were due to a natural evolution or to a possible blending of cultures resulting from an admixture of peoples. I have been concerned only with the facts of the changes, not with the reasons for their occurrence.) The question which arises is whether the parallel facts have any relation to one another and affect one another. There is a simple truth in life which reveals the answer to this question. It is this—that all human achievement is the result of the sublimation of the force of life; that is, it is the product of the diversion of innate power into other forms of expression. For this to be granted it does not matter whether a man subscribes to an analytical, synthetical or academical form of psychology, or whether he heeds psychological speculation at all. It does not matter whether he is a mechanical determinist or a creative indeterminist. The one great argument in favor of “sublimation” is the personal experience of the individual. Life is a very mysterious force, and that which is within a man cannot, perhaps, be described as merely sexual without extending the term beyond the limit of its sense. But in its lowest forms the manifestation of the force of life is admittedly mainly sexual. My submission is that man, developing from homo sapiens, come
- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v138/n3484/abs/138234b0.htm Nature 138, 234-234 (08 August 1936) doi:10.1038/138234b0
- HOPOUSIA OR The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society BY J. D. UNWIN M.C., PH.D. (CANTAB.) LATE (1914) CLASSICAL EXHIBITIONER, ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD AND ( 1928-193 1 ) FELLOW COMMONER, RESEARCH STUDENT, PETERHOUSE, CAMBRIDGE WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY ALDOUS HUXLEY PREFACE BY Y. J. LUBBOCK NEW YORK - OSKAR PIEST - 1940 ------------------------ https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049770160;view=2up;seq=8 -------------------------- PREFACE Hopousia began to take shape in the author's mind soon after he had finished writing Sex and Culture in the spring of 1934. But that summer was spent in investigating the question of Imprisonment for Debt, and the early part of 1935 in writing the results of the investigation. So it was roughly for a year or eighteen months that he had been working exclusively on Hopousia when he died in June 1936. (And in saying "exclusively" I mean as exclusively as all his activities at Cambridge House would allow.) According to his fourth and last draft, the work rivalled Sex and Culture in magnitude. But little more than half the ground had been covered, though that, happily, was the more important half. The scope of the work, therefore, has had to be much reduced. In order to make a coherent whole it has sometimes been necessary to include notes which are a mere outline of the author's ideas, although these, by the side of more developed matter, may seem too flimsy to support an argument. A certain amount that was obviously not ready for publication has been re-written. Fresh chapters have been formed from those notes that were sufficiently full and clear. In spite of an almost overwhelming quantity of material, however, some gaps remain; those of most consequence being the question of Land, and the whole of Book VII which would have dealt with the actual preparation for and change-over to a completely Hopousian structure, together with the technicalities necessary for the dis- appearance of capitalism in forty years. That he had a plan worthy of serious consideration no one who knew J. D. Unwin or his work can doubt. But I am aware that for others the omission of Book VII may well vitiate the whole of the Hopousian structure. There may be a few—there may be many—unable to accept all the conclusions at which he arrived. But, however that may be, the work cannot fail to stimulate the receptive mind to thought along entirely new lines. That being so, he will not have laboured in vain. In fairness to the author, and for the interest of the reader, I append the last draft as I received it in January 1938, together with a rough outline of the re-shaping of the work. Y. J. LUBBOCK OLD BUCKENHAM, NORWICH August 3, 1938 It is known that J. D. Unwin himself was not altogether pleased with the title Hopousia, which is derived from the Greek word meaning "where." Had he lived it is probable that he would have found another title, but as no obvious one suggested itself, the original one has been retained. INTRODUCTION By Aldous Huxley IT has become fashionable to talk, in a rather romantic way, about the intellectual dangers of analysis. If one would understand anything we are told, one must consider it as a whole. By taking an organism or a process to bits, we destroy it, or at least distort it in such a way that it ceases to be itself. To be adequate to reality, knowledge must be a knowledge of wholes. All this, of course, is true and obvious. The entities which we describe as "society," "man," "cell," "molecules," "atom" are other than the sum of their respective parts. If our study is confined to the parts, we shall not understand the whole. Shall we then confine our study to the whole? No; for experience shows that, if we consider only the whole, we shall never understand the nature of the whole. Knowledge of a whole cannot be adequate unless it is based on a thorough knowledge of parts. The whole must be taken to bits; these bits must be studied: having been studied, they must be recombined and the whole re-examined in the light of our knowledge of its constituents. Meanwhile, of course, we must remember that this knowledge of the bits has been obtained by a process which profoundly modifies the nature of the whole of which they are the components; hence the light it throws upon the nature of the un- modified whole may be misleading. If we want knowledge we must first analyse, then synthesize the results of our analysis. But we must always remember to take our conclusions with a grain of salt. Synthesis is the process of putting Humpty Dumpty together again; but nobody can be absolutely sure that the reconstructed Humpty is identical with the Dumpty who existed before the original whole was subjected to the analysis. The problem of knowledge is greatly complicated when the whole we are considering is a process taking place at a relatively high rate of speed. Some processes are so slow that, for our human processes, we may regard any given cross section of them as specimens of a fixed and unchanging entity. Granite, for example, has been recognizedly granite during the whole course if human history, and what we say about it now is likely to be true at dates in the remote future. Other processes are brief, but reproduce themselves with a punctual fidelity that permits us to regard any given specimen as typical of similar processes recurring over long stretches of past and future time. "A primrose by the river brim a yellow primrose was to him." And a yellow primrose it is to us and is likely to be for some time to come. With certain other processes, however, the case is different. They take place at a rate which, for us, is relatively rapid and they do not reproduce themselves with complete fidelity. Typical of such processes are those to which we give the name "human societies." When we seek to understand a human society we must first analyse, then synthesize our knowledge of the bits to which, for the sake of convenience, we have reduced the whole under consideration. The bits we examine are aspects of the total behaviour of a society as observed directly by ourselves, or as recorded by other observers, in the near or distant past. (1 am assuming for the moment that we have considered enough of these different aspects of a society's behaviour to permit us, when we synthesize the results of our analysis, to form a tolerably complete picture of the whole. This is, of course, a very large assumption; for, as we shall see later on, there is hardly a single one, out of all the hundreds of reformers and sociologists, who has considered all even of the more significant aspects of a society's total behaviour.) Let us suppose, then, for the sake of argument, that our synthetic picture is reasonably complete. Will this complete picture be a likeness of the society at the moment when it is drawn ? No. It will always be a picture of the given society, as it was some time in the past. For practical purposes this will not be of much account in a society which is changing slowly. For a society which, like ours, is changing very rapidly, this out-of- dateness, which is an essential characteristic of any comprehensive picture, is a matter of the gravest import. "Life.'^ierkega.ard, re- marked, "can only be understood backwards; it must beuved for- wards." In cases where what is behind us is conspicuously different from what lies before, an understanding which, of its nature, is always retrospective, will not be of much use to us. Or, to be more accurate, it will be of use to us only if the changes taking place are taking place according to a regular recurrent rhythm. If the changes which are going on are changes, so to speak, in a spiral, or changes having the form of a wave of known contour, then it will not much matter if the picture we form at any given moment is up to, or out of, date; for if we look back far enough, we shall be able to see a number of entire cycles of similar changes. With the generalized typical wave or cycle before us, we shall be able to infer our own position on the circumference of the particular cycle, at the crest, or in the trough, of the particular wave, on which we find ourselves. Our picture will be out of date; but, if sufficiently out of date, will contain by implication a likeness of the immediately contemporary situation. Very different will be the case if the changes are taking place, not in a spiral, not on the track of a known undulation, but in a straight line. For then our retrospective picture will not be merely out of date; it will also be irrelevant. The "lessons of history" are valuable only if history is a succession of tos-and-fros, of rounds-and-rounds— a succession, that is to say, of processes in some way analogous to reversible physical changes (such as the transformation of water into steam and of steam into water) or the punctual recurrences of which Peter Bell's "yellow primrose" has served as our example. If, on the contrary, history should turn out to be "just one damned thing after another," then, its lessons will be singularly uninstructive. Looking at the facts, one is forced to the conclusion that history is neither a spiral, nor a wave, nor a straight line, but a mixture of all three. At some period it seems to be more spiral or undulating than straight, at others more straight than spiral or undulating. Nor must we forget that individual historians can and do insist upon one aspect rather than the other. J. D. Unwin, whose untimely death in 1936 deprived the world of a mind at once original and methodical, unorthodox and sound, was one who liked to stress the spiral and undulatory nature of human history. The behaviour of single atoms is not predictable nor even! accurately ascertainable; but the behaviour of very great numbers of atoms is determined in the sense that large numbers obey the law of averages, so that the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of their behaviour in a certain way. Similarly, Unwin claimed, the behaviour of human beings in the mass is determined, even though the behaviour of any given individual may be "free." In a given set of conditions societies behave in a certain way; with the removal of those conditions they cease to behave in that way and revert to the type of behaviour current before the appearances of the conditions. If the same conditions appear, disappear and reappear within a given society, it behaves like a material body subjected to a reversible physical process. If the conditions appear, disappear, and reappear at fairly regular intervals of time, this to-and-fro movement will take on the appearance of a spiral, and the historian will observe a series of recurrent cycles analogous to the life cycle of our yellow primrose. Anthropology and history reveal two highly significant facts: first, that, at any given moment of time the amount of energy displayed by human societies and by classes within societies is not the same; and second, that in the course of historical time, the amount of energy displayed by any given society or class may vary and, from being small, may become great, or, from being great, may become small. Many theories have been invented to account for these facts. Unwin's contribution to the subject was contained in Sex and Culture. In this book he set out to test, historically, a hypothesis propounded on psychological grounds byj-reud and his followers—the hypothesis that civilization is correlated with sexual repression. Unwin went through the available anthropological and historical literature and, in the light of the evidence contained in it, came to the conclusion that Freud was right, and that the energy necessary for producing what we call civilization is generated by imposing restraints on the sexual impulse; and that the amount of energy displayed by any class of society and the kind of civilization produced by it is directly proportional to the amount of sexual restraint which it suffers. The spiral appearance of history is due to the fact that societies (or, more often, classes within societies) have imposed sexual restraints upon themselves, have generated energy and produced a civilization, and have then grown tired of the restraints, lost their energy and, with it, their cultural and political position. Such, then, according to Unwin, have been the conditions determining large-scale human behaviour. Societies have reacted to these conditions of sexual restraint with as much regularity as water reacts to conditions of temperature, turning from water to steam as temperature rises and from steam to water, from water to ice, when it falls. At the time of his death Unwin was at work on a sequel to his Sex and Culture. This book of which the unfinished fragments are now being published under the title Hopousia, treats at length of a single question: What are the conditions which must be fulfilled if a society is to go on displaying maximum energy for an indefinite period? In order to answer this question, one must, according to Unwin, discover a solution to two specific problems. First, a way must be found for making a good deal of sexual restraint indefinitely acceptable to at least the ruling classes of a society. Second, it is necessary to discover an economic system which does not, as ours I \/ so manifestly does, interfere with the display of energy, but rather fosters and encourages it. In Hopousia, Unwin presents his solution to these two problems. The sexual restraint required to generate energy is to be made acceptable by the .institution of two distinct types of marriage “an alpha marriage” strictly monogamous and preceded by pre-nuptial continence; and a beta marriage, terminable at will and for which pre-nuptial continence is not a necessity. The Hopousians will be free to choose either type of marriage. Those who prefer intellectual satisfactions and political responsibility to emotional excitement and the pleasures of the senses will choose an alpha marriage, with its stringent restrictions as well as all its advantages. Those who are not interested in social position and the things of the mind, will conduct their sexual life according to the beta plan. JJiere will be no compulsion; and a circulatory movement of young betas opting for an alpha status, young alphas choosing the easier beta way, will go on incessantly.. That some such arrangement is probably sound would seem to follow from the fact that it merely systematizes and gives social sanction to a process which, unofficially, is going on in all societies dominated by an energetic ruling class. From time immemorial, moralists have recognized that men and women must make a choice between addictions on the one hand and possessions and social position on the other. The names applied to these entities have changed from age to age. For the dramatists of the / seventeenth century, for example, the struggle was between "love" and "honour." In our own age, we speak of "pleasure" and the "will to I power." In the language of the classical philosophers, there is a conflict between "the passions" and "the reason"; and "the reason" is frequently identified by popular moralists with calculating self- interest in the pursuit of power, possessions and, more rarely, of intellectual gratifications. (It should be noted, incidentally, that money-grubbing and power-hunting have been only too frequently sanctified with the name of "duty." Indulgence of the sexual impulse is a "duty" only during romantic periods.) The rejection by hardy individuals of the allurements of sensual and emotional pleasure in favour of power and possessions is a theme that has become classical in the literatures of all energetic societies. No less of a favourite is the converse of this theme. "All for Love, or the World Well Lost" is as classical as "All for the World, alias Duty, or Love Well Lost." The social mechanism proposed by Unwin would make it possible for people to lose the world for love or love for the world with the minimum of friction and discomfort and the maximum awareness of the consequences of choice, the privileges and penalties accruing to (them once their choice was made. Up to the present, no class or society has consented to suffer sexual restraint for very long. But then, up to the present, no class or society has known what precisely was the point of suffering sexual restraint. In Unwin's hypothetical community all the cards (or at any rate all of them belonging to what may be called the social suits) would be on the table. In these circumstances we may expect that, in every generation, enough people would select the alpha way of life to allow their society to go on displaying energy indefinitely. By means of suitable sexual restraint a society may develop energy; but this energy may find itself checked and hampered by imperfect economic arrangements. This is the case in all energetic societies at the present time. How can our economic arrangements be changed so that they will encourage the display of energy, not impede and pervert it as they do at present? Unwin's answer to this question is contained in a series of masterly chapters. I shall not attempt to summarize his arguments. Let it suffice to say that, if Unwin's scheme is sound, there exists a method by which the intolerable burden of usury can be lifted; by which political power can be taken out of the hands of those who control money; by which production can be automatically balanced by a corresponding quantity of purchasing power; by which unemployment, among the rich as well as among the poor, can be eliminated; by which personal liberty based upon economic independence can be fortified and the monstrous power of central authority diminished. Unwin professes to write, not as a "reformer," not as an "idealist," but as a man of science studying an entity—human society—whose nature is such that it always reacts to the same circumstances in the same way. Human society is determined, therefore, he insists, it is absurd to imagine that by working for specific "reforms" and "ideals" one will achieve what one wants to achieve. History shows that, when people aim at the realization of a particular ideal, they generally succeed in getting just the opposite of what they want. Thus, conservatives try to conserve a given state of affairs; what they generally get is revolution. Revolutionaries try to obtain liberty, justice, and equality by violent means: tyranny and the enslavement of the masses are the usual consequence of their efforts. When the prevailing ideal is to get rich, the result, as we see to-day in Europe and America, is that most of the members of the wealth-loving ^ society are reduced to poverty and an abject dependence on their plutocratic or bureaucratic rulers. A quarter of a century ago, militant idealists waged a war in order to end war and to make the world safe for democracy; 5i monumentum requiris, circumspice../the , , moralists discovered long since that those who make happiness their aim, seldom achieve it; happiness, like coal tar, is a by-product of something else./This is equally true of most other good things. Justice, liberty, tolerance, peace, even material prosperity are by-products. The problem which confronts the reforming idealist is to discover what it is they are the by-products of; in other words, what, if any, are the social conditions whose fulfilment will produce the states to which we attach these names. All this is excellent. But at this point Unwin begins to make assumptions which I find it impossible to accept. Justice, liberty, and the like cannot be achieved if pursued as specific goals; they are by- products which will not appear unless certain conditions are ful- filled. Unwin claims that these conditions will have been fulfilled when, by means of suitable sexual and economic arrangements, a society is made to display maximum energy for an indefinite period. To make such a claim is, it seems to me, enormously to over- simplify the problems. That suitable sexual and economic arrange- ments are essential to any society which would lead the good lifev^ / is obvious; and I am prepared to believe that the sexual and economic ^s/ arrangements devised by Unwin are of the right kind; that some such arrangements will have to be adopted by any society that seriously desires justice, liberty, and the rest. What is not obvious, what is, on the contrary, enormously doubtful, is the contention that suitable sexual and economic arrangements are the only necessary pre- conditions to the good life. I have already drawn attention to the fact that most reformers and sociologists fail to take into account all even of the more significant aspects of a society's behaviour. Unwin, it seems to me, has fallen into the almost universal error of over- simplification. This over-simplification is twofold. There is what may be called the extensional over-simplification which consists in the omission to consider all the significant factors existing at a given \\ time; and there is a temporal over-simplification, which is the failure to take into account the occasional and unpredictable emer- gence into actuality of entirely new entities. The factors which Unwin has chosen to omit may be classed under four main heads: biological, technological, psychological, intellectual. Let us con- sider a few characteristic examples of each class. In the biological category I shall list only two items, psycho- physical types and diet. Oliif Bruel, in the issue of Character and Personality for March 1936, has shown how the behaviour of individuals and perhaps even of a whole society, may be modified—by variations in the distribution of congenital types* Speaking of the Scandinavian countries, he points out that the morbidity of schizophrenia is lowest in Northern Sweden and Iceland, where the majority of individuals are of schizothymic types; highest in Southern Sweden and Denmark, where the population is heterogeneous and a large quantity of cyclothymic individuals are mixed with the schizothymes. In America/Sheldon\ has pointed to the danger of indiscriminately mixing children of different types in schools, while Sullivan has written of the particularly good results obtained in acute cases of schizophrenia by the simple device of providing the patients with attendants who are themselves of schizothymic type. Here, it is obvious, is a purely biological factor in social life to which it would be most unwise to remain indifferent. My other example is taken from the field of bio-chemistry. It has been shown that certain deficiencies in diet, especially deficiencies in minerals, may profoundly modify human character. There is evidence that recent developments in agricultural technique have tended to increase these deficiencies. The use of nitrates has greatly increased the yield of all crops, with the result that soils have been depleted of their mineral reserves at an alarming rate. The objects we call eggs and apples are probably different, chemically speaking, from the eggs and apples of a hundred and fifty years ago. A society living on a minerally deficient diet will not behave in the same way as a society whose diet is rich in all the factors necessary to sustain life at its- highest pitch. Before passing from this category to the next, I would like to remark parenthetically that the most significant novelties in our planetary history have been biological. Evolution has been an irrever- sible one-way process. Viewed as a whole, the history of life has the appearance of a straight line. True, there have been periods of relative stability during which living forms have reproduced them- selves in regularly repeated cycles. But for all living beings, these periods have alternated with others during which the spirals straighten out and there is no repetition, but the emergence of a novelty. "A primrose by the river brim a yellow primrose was to him," and so it is to us, and so, very likely, will it be for a long time to come. But if Wordsworth had substituted "scented musk plant" for "yellow primrose," the case would be different. For the musk plant which, to Peter Bell, would have been scented presents itself to us as a plant without a smell fta the last years of the nineteenth century all musk plants all over the world lost their perfume. Why or how, nobody knows. But the fact remains that, within a period of about a quarter of a century, an entirely novel fact about musk plants emerged into actuality^Like all the rest of us, Unwin writes about the human race as though its biological stability were assured-. He assumes that it will continue to be what it has been. And of course it may. But, on the other hand, it may not. In the past, physiological specialization and excessive size led to the extinction of many types of reptiles and mammals. At the present time human beings have embarked on a career j?f psychological specialization and have bur- dened themselves with social organizations at once much larger and much more complicated than anything of the kind evolved in the past. Is it legitimate to compare modern men and their societies on the one hand and the too bulky, too highly specialized saurians and mammals of earlier ages on the other? Is the resemblance merely accidental, or are the two cases homologous? Again, is the path we have taken a two-way street along which we can, if necessary, retreat? Or are we involved in an irreversible biological process? These are questions to which events alone can give the answers. We pass now to our second category, the technological. Here more than anywhere the lessons of history prove irrelevant; for the realm of technology is a realm of novelties, not of repetitions, of straight lines rather than of cycles. In the past, it is true, the technological process was similar to the biological, inasmuch as periods of straight-line advance alternated with relatively long periods of stability, during which established processes were repeated until they came almost to take on the regularity of natural phenomena. In recent centuries men have discovered the art of discovery, with the result that the periods of technological stability have grown absolutely and relatively shorter, the periods of straight- line advance more and more frequent until now they are practically continuous. Technological changes profoundly affect societies and individuals. Unwin is doubtless right in insisting that social energy is generated by sexual restraint and can be augmented or diminished by the pre- vailing system of exchange. He is surely wrong in ignoring the way in which technological discoveries determine the forms taken by social energy and the direction in which it flows. Let us consider an obvious example. The power plant of early industrialism was the steam engine. The nature of this power plant was such that huge factories had to be built near the coal mines and an intensive process of centralization inaugurated. The industrialization of England began at an early date and it is therefore in England that excessive urbanization, with all its attendant evils, has gone the farthest. Moreover, the forces of material and psychological inertia are such that it has proved impossible hitherto to reverse this process, in spite of the fact that, with the invention of the dynamo and the internal combustion engine, it is no longer economically necessary. This last fact has been clearly demonstrated by the Swedes, who entered the industrial field after the discovery of the electric generator and who have succeeded in combining high industrial efficiency with a minimum of urbanization. The fundamental system of exchange is the same in Sweden as in England; but, because the two countries embarked on their industrialization at different periods of techno- logical development, their respective ways of life are dissimilar. We may remark in this context that the psychological inertia mentioned in the preceding paragraph is displayed by theorists no less than by practical men enmeshed in vested interests. The innumerable advocates of "economic planning" continue, for the most part, to talk and write as though centralization was the last word in economic efficiency. Recent technological advances have made it the last word but one. For example, planners still talk about the desirability of great hydroelectric projects, oblivious of the fact that the enormous first cost of dams and power lines makes the electricity they produce much more expensive than the current that can be generated in any back yard by the new baby Diesel power plants. And, of course, electricity is not the only commodity that can now be produced more cheaply in the home or the local work- shop than in the factory. For example, the great steam mills at our ports produce flour very cheaply; but any housewife who wishes can now have better flour at lower cost by passing wheat through a tiny electric mill in her own kitchen. Again, a local workshop with electric current and perhaps a hundred pounds' worth of machinery can turn out wooden furniture almost as rapidly as, and certainly more cheaply than, a great factory. I have seen modern hand looms on which not very expert weavers could produce a yard of good cloth in an hour. Small-scale power machinery for doing light metal work is already available at prices which are within the reach of the artisan. And, of course, as the demand for such machinery increases, the prices will tend to fall/^orsodi has calculated that, in the present \ state of technological development, about two-thirds of all productive I processes can be carried out in the home or the small workshop more economically than in the mass-producing factory; the remainder are of such a nature that they cannot be carried out (in existing technological conditions) except in factories ./Technology is rapidly making nonsense of the old worship of size and centraliza- tion. Those who still preach it do so either through force of habit, because they are not aware of the new developments in technology, or because they are fascists or state socialists who believe in centralized tyranny and do not want individuals to enjoy that economic independence on which alone a system of political democracy can be based. That the greatest possible number of individuals should make use of recent technological discoveries to become as far as possible economically self-sufficient is not only desirable for political reasons: it is also necessary in order that they may be protected, as far as possible, from the impact of further technological discoveries. Let us consider a few obvious examples. Two or three years ago the Italians produced a synthetic wool from casein; this year the Americans improved on the Italian process. Within the next ten years we may confidently expect further improvements. Twenty years hence, what will have happened to the export trade and, with it, the entire economic structure of Australia? One shudders to think. If the majority of Australians are not economically self- sufficient by that date, there will be great suffering and probably serious political unrest. The discovery of artificial silk has already caused a good deal of local distress—for example in the Rhone valley. Real silk is still superior to artificial; consequently, where real silk can be produced cheaply, as in Japan, it can still compete successfully with rayon. This year Dupont announces the invention of a new artificial silk, produced from coal tar, which is actually superior to real silk. Japanese silk-worm growers and weavers will be well advised to make themselves economically self-sufficient. Meanwhile revolutionary advances in agricultural techniques are threatening farmers in every part of the world. In Southern California tomatoes are already being grown on a commercial scale, not in earth, but in scientifically prepared chemical solutions. Experimentally, many other plants and even fruit trees have been grown in similar solutions. In most cases, the growth has been more rapid, the yield considerably higher, the amount of land and labour con- siderably less than when traditional methods are employed. That Ha large proportion of agricultural land and its population will soon be superfluous seems very probable. The sooner farmers can get off a cash-crop economy on to a subsistence economy, the better for them—all the more so as moder n technological methods should make it possible for them to subsist with relatively little drudgery and relatively great comfort. Of the applications of modern technology to warfare so much has been written that I need not elaborate the
- THE AMERICAN SEX REVOLUTION - Sorokim Pitirin. An Extending horizons book. Boston: P. Sargent, 1956. 186p. http://cliffstreet.org/index.php/writings-pitirim-sorokin/278-reviews/158-sorokin-american-sexual-revolution In Sex Revolution, Sorokin argues that any significant change in the patterns of courtship; marriage; premarital, marital, and extramarital sexual relationships; and care of children would have significant consequences for society. Following J. D. Unwin's Sex and Culture, Sorokin asserts that societies tend to blossom, be creative, and grow when the sexual mores favor exclusivity, monogamy, fidelity, responsibility, and family stability. Conversely, when mores encourage permissiveness, sexual exploration, serial monogamy, easy divorce, and brief and changeable family relationships (particularly with children), then societies become unstable and alienating, and they decline. Sex Revolution was the result of one of Sorokin's most popular articles. As he noted in the preface: “The appearance of this little book is due to a voluminous reaction of the readers to my article, 'The Case Against Sex Freedom," published in This Week Magazine, January 3, 1954. The write-up was reprinted in several magazines [and] excerpts from it were reproduced in a number of other periodicals. The article was translated and published in several foreign countries... Finally, a sizeable stream of letters... has come to the author. At least ninety per cent of these... have expressed the wish that the author publish a more developed version of the article [fori the intelligent lay-reader. This book is my answer to these suggestions."Intending it for a popular audience, Sorokin kept the format and language of the book nontechnical." He also believed that many readers would be displeased because his analysis was inimical to prevailing opinion. Thus the book might meet either an unfriendly or a "silent reception" from the partisans of sexual freedom. His thesis was that America was undergoing a sexual revolution that threatened the continued moral growth and vitality of American culture. As evidence he cites the increasing rates of divorce and desertion, the growth of single-parent households, a decline in fertility, poor adjustment to and rising unhappiness with marriage, less attention to children, more adultery and infidelity, increasing promiscuity and illegitimate births, exploding numbers of sex crimes, and a growing preoccupation with sex. These changes in primary relationships had been accompanied by a growing sexualization of American culture, media, art, literature, music, and political life. Even science, and particularly the psychosocial sciences, had not been immune to the trend. Prominent among the guilty were Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey: The extraordinary popularity of Freudianism is a most convincing evidence of the sexualization of American psycho-social disciplines. One can hardly imagine a more degrading theory than the pan-sexual phantasmagories of Freud, which would hardly have had any serious chance among supposed scholars if today's psychology, psychiatry, sociology, education, and anthropology had not, in a sense, been infected by a growing sex obsession. In spite of the utterly unscientific nature of these [psychoanalytic] theories, and notwithstanding their extremely degrading effect; in spite of the fact that they drag into filthy sewers almost all the great values of humanity, beginning with love, marriage and parenthood... these theories continue to be accepted by many so-called scientists, and to win an ever-growing public. Their outstanding success is a tragic sign of sexual obsession. Equally harmful is Kinsey's theory. According to Sorokin, existing evidence shows that overindulgence in sex undermines physical and mental health, destroys morality, diminishes creativity, and increases guilt while undermining future prospects for happiness.180 But if one believes the unscientific, poorly researched claims of Alfred Kinsey that indulgence shows no harmful effects upon health and vitality while restrictions of libido may cause serious illness, then we are again misled by a prominent and accepted dictum of psychosocial science. The truth is that existing "evidence points clearly to the fact that excessive sexual activity, particularly when it is illicit, has markedly deleterious effects."181 Unhappily, a large number of gullible Americans overlook the truth and accept Kinsey because it provides a scientific justification for sexual excess and irresponsibility. In this way the psychosocial sciences contribute to a false awareness and feed the sexualization of society. -----------------------------------
- THE AMERICAN SEX REVOLUTION - Sorokim Pitirin. An Extending horizons book. Boston: P. Sargent, 1956. 186p. http://cliffstreet.org/index.php/writings-pitirim-sorokin/278-reviews/158-sorokin-american-sexual-revolution In Sex Revolution, Sorokin argues that any significant change in the patterns of courtship; marriage; premarital, marital, and extramarital sexual relationships; and care of children would have significant consequences for society. Following J. D. Unwin's Sex and Culture, Sorokin asserts that societies tend to blossom, be creative, and grow when the sexual mores favor exclusivity, monogamy, fidelity, responsibility, and family stability. Conversely, when mores encourage permissiveness, sexual exploration, serial monogamy, easy divorce, and brief and changeable family relationships (particularly with children), then societies become unstable and alienating, and they decline. Sex Revolution was the result of one of Sorokin's most popular articles. As he noted in the preface: “The appearance of this little book is due to a voluminous reaction of the readers to my article, 'The Case Against Sex Freedom," published in This Week Magazine, January 3, 1954. The write-up was reprinted in several magazines [and] excerpts from it were reproduced in a number of other periodicals. The article was translated and published in several foreign countries... Finally, a sizeable stream of letters... has come to the author. At least ninety per cent of these... have expressed the wish that the author publish a more developed version of the article [fori the intelligent lay-reader. This book is my answer to these suggestions."Intending it for a popular audience, Sorokin kept the format and language of the book nontechnical." He also believed that many readers would be displeased because his analysis was inimical to prevailing opinion. Thus the book might meet either an unfriendly or a "silent reception" from the partisans of sexual freedom. His thesis was that America was undergoing a sexual revolution that threatened the continued moral growth and vitality of American culture. As evidence he cites the increasing rates of divorce and desertion, the growth of single-parent households, a decline in fertility, poor adjustment to and rising unhappiness with marriage, less attention to children, more adultery and infidelity, increasing promiscuity and illegitimate births, exploding numbers of sex crimes, and a growing preoccupation with sex. These changes in primary relationships had been accompanied by a growing sexualization of American culture, media, art, literature, music, and political life. Even science, and particularly the psychosocial sciences, had not been immune to the trend. Prominent among the guilty were Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey: The extraordinary popularity of Freudianism is a most convincing evidence of the sexualization of American psycho-social disciplines. One can hardly imagine a more degrading theory than the pan-sexual phantasmagories of Freud, which would hardly have had any serious chance among supposed scholars if today's psychology, psychiatry, sociology, education, and anthropology had not, in a sense, been infected by a growing sex obsession. In spite of the utterly unscientific nature of these [psychoanalytic] theories, and notwithstanding their extremely degrading effect; in spite of the fact that they drag into filthy sewers almost all the great values of humanity, beginning with love, marriage and parenthood... these theories continue to be accepted by many so-called scientists, and to win an ever-growing public. Their outstanding success is a tragic sign of sexual obsession. Equally harmful is Kinsey's theory. According to Sorokin, existing evidence shows that overindulgence in sex undermines physical and mental health, destroys morality, diminishes creativity, and increases guilt while undermining future prospects for happiness.180 But if one believes the unscientific, poorly researched claims of Alfred Kinsey that indulgence shows no harmful effects upon health and vitality while restrictions of libido may cause serious illness, then we are again misled by a prominent and accepted dictum of psychosocial science. The truth is that existing "evidence points clearly to the fact that excessive sexual activity, particularly when it is illicit, has markedly deleterious effects."181 Unhappily, a large number of gullible Americans overlook the truth and accept Kinsey because it provides a scientific justification for sexual excess and irresponsibility. In this way the psychosocial sciences contribute to a false awareness and feed the sexualization of society.
- http://www.vitalchristianity.org/docs/NF/Human%20Sexuality2.pdf Sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, professor at Harvard University, published an influential volume in 1956 called The American Sex Revolution. He wrote of his own country's revolution: "During the first stage of the Revolution, its leaders deliberately attempted to destroy marriage and the family. Free love was glorified by the official 'glass of water' theory. If a person is thirsty, so went the Party line, it is immaterial what glass he uses when satisfying his thirst; it is equally unimportant how he satisfies his sex hunger. The legal distinction between marriage and casual sexual intercourse was abolished. The Communist law spoke only of contracts between males and females for the satisfaction of their desires either for an indefinite or a definite period, a year, a month, a week, or even for a single night. One could marry and divorce as many times as desired. Husband and wife could obtain a divorce without the other being notified. It was not even necessary that marriage be registered. Bigamy and even polygamy were permissible under the new provisions... Premarital relations were praised and extramarital relations were considered normal. Within a few years, hordes of wild, homeless children became a menace to the Soviet Union. Millions of lives, especially of young girls, were wrecked; divorces sky-rocketed, as did abortions. The hatreds and conflicts among polygamous and polyandrous mates rapidly mounted--and so did psychoneurosis. The results were so appalling that the government was forced to reverse its policy. The propaganda of the 'glass of water' theory was declared to be counter-revolutionary, and its place was taken by official glorification of premarital chastity and of the sanctity of marriage... Considering that the whole cycle occurred under a single regime, the experiment is highly informative. It clearly shows the destructive consequences of unlimited sexual freedom." 24 History illustrates the fact that the powerful forces that feed our sexual adventures ought to be repressed because when they are freed from the moral playground they run wild. J. D. Unwin, historian at Cambridge University, after studying 80 civilizations ranging over a period of 4000 years, concluded that a society either chooses promiscuity and decline, or sexual discipline and creative energy. He wrote: "Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy, or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that they cannot do both for more than one generation." 25 The time is about up for our generation. It was in the early 60's that hedonism took root in our country. A generation lasts 30 to 40 years. This means the time for decline is upon us. 23 Pitirim Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1956), 113-115. 24 Norman Vincent Peale, “Man, Morals, and Maturity,” 178 cited in McQuilkin, Biblical Ethics, 245. 171 25 Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 114,117,127,142,128.
- http://www.vitalchristianity.org/docs/NF/Human%20Sexuality2.pdf Sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, professor at Harvard University, published an influential volume in 1956 called The American Sex Revolution. He wrote of his own country's revolution: "During the first stage of the Revolution, its leaders deliberately attempted to destroy marriage and the family. Free love was glorified by the official 'glass of water' theory. If a person is thirsty, so went the Party line, it is immaterial what glass he uses when satisfying his thirst; it is equally unimportant how he satisfies his sex hunger. The legal distinction between marriage and casual sexual intercourse was abolished. The Communist law spoke only of contracts between males and females for the satisfaction of their desires either for an indefinite or a definite period, a year, a month, a week, or even for a single night. One could marry and divorce as many times as desired. Husband and wife could obtain a divorce without the other being notified. It was not even necessary that marriage be registered. Bigamy and even polygamy were permissible under the new provisions... Premarital relations were praised and extramarital relations were considered normal. Within a few years, hordes of wild, homeless children became a menace to the Soviet Union. Millions of lives, especially of young girls, were wrecked; divorces sky-rocketed, as did abortions. The hatreds and conflicts among polygamous and polyandrous mates rapidly mounted--and so did psychoneurosis. The results were so appalling that the government was forced to reverse its policy. The propaganda of the 'glass of water' theory was declared to be counter-revolutionary, and its place was taken by official glorification of premarital chastity and of the sanctity of marriage... Considering that the whole cycle occurred under a single regime, the experiment is highly informative. It clearly shows the destructive consequences of unlimited sexual freedom." 24 History illustrates the fact that the powerful forces that feed our sexual adventures ought to be repressed because when they are freed from the moral playground they run wild. J. D. Unwin, historian at Cambridge University, after studying 80 civilizations ranging over a period of 4000 years, concluded that a society either chooses promiscuity and decline, or sexual discipline and creative energy. He wrote: "Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy, or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that they cannot do both for more than one generation." 25 The time is about up for our generation. It was in the early 60's that hedonism took root in our country. A generation lasts 30 to 40 years. This means the time for decline is upon us. 23 Pitirim Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1956), 113-115. 24 Norman Vincent Peale, “Man, Morals, and Maturity,” 178 cited in McQuilkin, Biblical Ethics, 245. 171 25 Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 114,117,127,142,128.
- Culture in Crisis: The Visionary Theories of Pitirim Sorokin https://satyagraha.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/pitirim-sorkin-crisis-of-modernity/ Introduction Pitirim Sorokin, a leading 20th century sociologist, is someone you should know about. Consider this quote of his: The organism of the Western society and culture seems to be undergoing one of the deepest and most significant crises of its life. The crisis is far greater than the ordinary; its depth is unfathomable, its end not yet in sight, and the whole of the Western society is involved in it. It is the crisis of a Sensate culture, now in its overripe stage, the culture that has dominated the Western World during the last five centuries…. Shall we wonder, therefore, that if many do not apprehend clearly what is happening, they have at least a vague feeling that the issue is not merely that of “prosperity,” or “democracy,” or “capitalism,” or the like, but involves the whole contemporary culture, society, and man? … Shall we wonder, also, at the endless multitude of incessant major and minor crises that have been rolling over us, like ocean waves, during recent decades? Today in one form, tomorrow in another. Now here, now there. Crises political, agricultural, commercial, and industrial! Crises of production and distribution. Crises moral, juridical, religious, scientific, and artistic. Crises of property, of the State, of the family, of industrial enterprise… Each of the crises has battered our nerves and minds, each has shaken the very foundations of our culture and society, and each has left behind a legion of derelicts and victims. And alas! The end is not in view. Each of these crises has been, as it were, a movement in a great terrifying symphony, and each has been remarkable for its magnitude and intensity. (P. Sorokin, SCD, pp. 622-623) Background Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin (1889–1968) was born in Russia to a Russian father and an indigenous (Komi, an ethnic group related to Finns) mother. Like other intellectuals of his age, he was swept up in the revolt against the tsarist government. He held a cabinet post in the short-lived Russian Provisional Government (1917), and had the distinction of being imprisoned successively by both tsarist and Bolshevist factions. Eventually sentenced to death, he was pardoned by Lenin, emigrated, and came to the US. There he enjoyed a long and distinguished academic career, much of it at Harvard University, where he served as head of the sociology department. His experience and acute observations of Russian politics left him uniquely suited for understanding the transformational forces of the 20th century. By 1937 he published the first three volumes of his masterpiece, Social and Cultural Dynamics, but he continued to refine his theories for nearly three more decades. Based on a careful study of world history – including detailed statistical analysis of phases in art, architecture, literature, economics, philosophy, science, and warfare – he identified three strikingly consistent phenomena: There are two opposed elementary cultural patterns, the materialistic (Sensate) and spiritual (Ideational), along with certain intermediate or mixed patterns. One mixed pattern, called Idealistic, which integrates the Sensate and Ideational orientations, is extremely important. Every society tends to alternate between materialistic and spiritual periods, sometimes with transitional, mixed periods, in a regular and predictable way. Times of transition from one orientation to another are characterized by a markedly increased prevalence of wars and other crises. Main characteristics of the Sensate, Ideational, and Idealistic cultural patterns are listed below. (A more detailed explanation of alternative cultural orientations, excerpted from Sorokin’s writings, can be found here.) Sensate (Materialistic) Culture The first pattern, which Sorokin called Sensate culture, has these features: The defining cultural principle is that true reality is sensory – only the material world is real. There is no other reality or source of values. This becomes the organizing principle of society. It permeates every aspect of culture and defines the basic mentality. People are unable to think in any other terms. Sensate culture pursues science and technology, but dedicates little creative thought to spirituality or religion. Dominant values are wealth, health, bodily comfort, sensual pleasures, power and fame. Ethics, politics, and economics are utilitarian and hedonistic. All ethical and legal precepts are considered mere man-made conventions, relative and changeable. Art and entertainment emphasize sensory stimulation. In the decadent stages of Sensate culture there is a frenzied emphasis on the new and the shocking (literally, sensationalism). Religious institutions are mere relics of previous epochs, stripped of their original substance, and tending to fundamentalism and exaggerated fideism (the view that faith is not compatible with reason). Ideational (Spiritual) Culture The second pattern, which Sorokin called Ideational culture, has these characteristics: The defining principle is that true reality is supersensory, transcendent, spiritual. The material world is variously: an illusion (maya), temporary, passing away (“stranger in a strange land”), sinful, or a mere shadow of an eternal transcendent reality. Religion often tends to asceticism and moralism. Mysticism and revelation are considered valid sources of truth and morality. Science and technology are comparatively de-emphasized. Economics is conditioned by religious and moral commandments (e.g., laws against usury). Innovation in theology, metaphysics, and supersensory philosophies. Flourishing of religious and spiritual art (e.g., Gothic cathedrals). Integral (Idealistic) Culture Most cultures correspond to one of the two basic patterns above. Sometimes, however, a mixed cultural pattern occurs. The most important mixed culture Sorokin termed an Integral culture (also sometimes called an idealistic culture – not to be confused with an Ideational culture.) An Integral culture harmoniously balances sensate and ideational tendencies. Characteristics of an Integral culture include the following: Its ultimate principle is that the true reality is richly manifold, a tapestry in which sensory, rational, and supersensory threads are interwoven. All compartments of society and the person express this principle. Science, philosophy, and theology blossom together. Fine arts treat both supersensory reality and the noblest aspects of sensory reality. Update: A more recent article that concisely describes the features of Materialism, Ideationalism, and Idealism is ‘What is Materialism? What is Idealism?‘ (Uebersax, 2013b) Western Cultural History Sorokin examined a wide range of world societies. In each he believed he found evidence of the regular alternation between Sensate and Ideational orientations, sometimes with an Integral culture intervening. According to Sorokin, Western culture is now in the third Sensate epoch of its recorded history. Table 1 summarizes his view of this history. Table 1 Cultural Periods of Western Civilization According to Sorokin Period Cultural Type Begin End Greek Dark Age Sensate 1200 BC 900 BC Archaic Greece Ideational 900 BC 550 BC Classical Greece Integral 550 BC 320 BC Hellenistic – Roman Sensate 320 BC 400 Transitional Mixed 400 600 Middle Ages Ideational 600 1200 High Middle Ages, Renaissance Integral 1200 1500 Rationalism, Age of Science Sensate 1500 present Based on a detailed analysis of art, literature, economics, and other cultural indicators, Sorokin concluded that ancient Greece changed from a Sensate to an Ideational culture around the 9th century BC; during this Ideational phase, religious themes dominated society (Hesiod, Homer, etc.). Following this, in the Greek Classical period (roughly 600 BC to 300 BC), an Integral culture reigned: the Parthenon was built; art (the sculptures of Phidias, the plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles) flourished, as did philosophy (Plato, Aristotle). This was followed by a new Sensate age, associated first with Hellenistic (the empire founded by Alexander the Great) culture, and then the Roman Empire. As Rome’s Sensate culture decayed, it was eventually replaced by the Christian Ideational culture of the Middle Ages. The High Middle Ages and Renaissance brought a new Integral culture, again associated with many artistic and cultural innovations. After this Western society entered its present Sensate era, now in its twilight. We are due, according to Sorokin, to soon make a transition to a new Ideational, or, preferably, an Integral cultural era. Cultural Dynamics Sorokin was especially interested in the process by which societies change cultural orientations. He opposed the view, held by communists, that social change must be imposed externally, such as by a revolution. His principle of immanent change states that external forces are not necessary: societies change because it is in their nature to change. Although sensate or ideational tendencies may dominate at any given time, every culture contains both mentalities in a tension of opposites. When one mentality becomes stretched too far, it sets in motion compensatory transformative forces. Helping drive transformation is the fact that human beings are themselves partly sensate, partly rational, and partly intuitive. Whenever a culture becomes too exaggerated in one of these directions, forces within the human psyche will, individually and collectively – work correctively. Crises of Transition As a Sensate or Ideational culture reaches a certain point of decline, social and economic crises mark the beginning of transition to a new mentality. These crises occur partly because, as the dominant paradigm reaches its late decadent stages, its institutions try unsuccessfully to adapt, taking ever more drastic measures. However, responses to crises tend to make things worse, leading to new crises. Expansion of government control is an inevitable by-product: “The main uniform effect of calamities upon the political and social structure of society is an expansion of governmental regulation, regimentation, and control of social relationships and a decrease in the regulation and management of social relationships by individuals and private groups. The expansion of governmental control and regulation assumes a variety of forms, embracing socialistic or communistic totalitarianism, fascist totalitarianism, monarchial autocracy, and theocracy. Now it is effected by a revolutionary regime, now by a counterrevolutionary regime; now by a military dictatorship, now by a dictatorship, now by a dictatorial bureaucracy. From both the quantitative and the qualitative point of view, such an expansion of governmental control means a decrease of freedom, a curtailment of the autonomy of individuals and private groups in the regulation and management of their individual behavior and their social relationships, the decline of constitutional and democratic institutions.” (MSC p. 122) But, as we shall consider below, at the same time as these crises occur, other constructive forces are at work. Trends of our Times Sorokin identified what he considered three pivotal trends of modern times. The first trend is the disintegration of the current Sensate order: In the twentieth century the magnificent sensate house of Western man began to deteriorate rapidly and then to crumble. There was, among other things, a disintegration of its moral, legal, and other values which, from within, control and guide the behavior of individuals and groups. When human beings cease to be controlled by deeply interiorized religious, ethical, aesthetic and other values, individuals and groups become the victims of crude power and fraud as the supreme controlling forces of their behavior, relationship, and destiny. In such circumstances, man turns into a human animal driven mainly by his biological urges, passions, and lust. Individual and collective unrestricted egotism flares up; a struggle for existence intensifies; might becomes right; and wars, bloody revolutions, crime, and other forms of interhuman strife and bestiality explode on an unprecedented scale. So it was in all great transitory periods. (BT, 1964, p. 24) The second trend concerns the positive transformational processes which are already at work: Fortunately for all the societies which do not perish in this sort of transition from one basic order to another, the disintegration process often generates the emergence of mobilization of forces opposed to it. Weak and insignificant at the beginning, these forces slowly grow and then start not only to fight the disintegration but also to plan and then to build a new sociocultural order which can meet more adequately the gigantic challenge of the critical transition and of the post-transitory future. This process of emergence and growth of the forces planning and building the new order has also appeared and is slowly developing now…. The epochal struggle between the increasingly sterile and destructive forces of the dying sensate order and the creative forces of the emerging, integral, sociocultural order marks all areas of today’s culture and social life, and deeply affects the way of life of every one of us. (BT, 1964, pp. 15-16) The third trend is the growing importance of developing nations: “The stars of the next acts of the great historical drama are going to be – besides Europe, the Americas, and Russia – the renascent great cultures of India, China, Japan, Indonesia, and the Islamic world. This epochal shift has already started…. Its effects upon the future history of mankind are going to be incomparably greater than those of the alliances and disalliances of the Western governments and ruling groups. (BT, 1964, pp. 15-16) Social Transformation and Love While the preceding might suggest that Sorokin was a cheerless prophet of doom, that is not so, and his later work decidedly emphasized the positive. He founded the Harvard Research Center for Creative Altruism, which sought to understand the role of love and altruism in producing a better society. Much of the Center’s research was summarized in Sorokin’s second masterpiece, The Ways and the Power of Love. This book offered a comprehensive view on the role of love in positively transforming society. It surveyed the ideals and tactics of the great spiritual reformers of the past – Jesus Christ, the Buddha, St. Francis of Assisi, Gandhi, etc. – looking for common themes and principles. We need, according to Sorokin, not only great figures like these, but also ‘ordinary’ individuals who seek to exemplify the same principles within their personal spheres of influence. Personal change must precede collective change, and nothing transforms a culture more effectively than positive examples. What is essential today, according to Sorokin, is that individuals reorient their thinking and values to a universal perspective – to seek to benefit all human beings, not just oneself or ones own country. A significant portion of the book is devoted to the subject of yoga (remarkable for a book written in 1954), which Sorokin saw as an effective means of integrating the intellectual and sensate dimensions of the human being. At the same time he affirmed the value of traditional Western religions and religious practices. The Road Ahead Sorokin’s theories supply hope, motivation, and vision. They bolster hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and that it may not be too far distant. The knowledge that change is coming, along with an understanding of his theories generally, enables us to try to steer change in a positive direction. Sorokin left no doubt but that we are at the end of a Sensate epoch. Whether we are headed for an Ideational or an Integral culture remains to be seen. It is clearly consistent with his theories that an Integral culture – a new Renaissance – is attainable and something to actively seek. One reason that change may happen quickly is because people already know that the present culture is oppressive. Expressed public opinion, which tends to conformity, lags behind private opinion. Once it is sufficiently clear that the tide is changing, people will quickly join the revolution. The process is non-linear. The West and Islam Viewed in terms of Sorokin’s theories, the current tensions between the West and Islam suggest a conflict between an overripe ultra-materialistic Western culture, detached from its religious heritage and without appreciation of transcendent values, against a medieval Ideational culture that has lost much of its earlier spiritual creativity. As Nieli (2006) put it: “With regard to the current clash between Islam and the West, Sorokin would no doubt point out that both cultures currently find themselves at end stages of their respective ideational and sensate developments and are long overdue for a shift in direction. The Wahabist-Taliban style of Islamic fundamentalism strays as far from the goal of integral balance in Sorokin’s sense as the one-sidedly sensate, post-Christian societies of Northern and Western Europe. Both are ripe for a correction, according to Sorokin’s theory of cultural change, the Islamic societies in the direction of sensate development (particularly in the areas of science, technology, economic productivity, and democratic governance), the Western sensate cultures in the direction of ideational change (including the development of more stable families, greater temperance and self-control, and the reorientation of their cultural values in a more God-centered direction). Were he alive today, Sorokin would no doubt hold out hope for a political and cultural rapprochement between Islam and the West.” (Nieli, p. 373) The current state of affairs between the West and Islam, then, is better characterized as that of mutual opportunity rather than unavoidable conflict. The West can share its technological advances, and Islam may again – as it did around the 12th century – help reinvigorate the spirit of theological and metaphysical investigation in the West. Individual and Institutional Changes Institutions must adapt to the coming changes or be left behind. Today’s universities are leading transmitters of a sensate mentality. It is neither a secret nor a coincidence that Sorokin’s ideas found little favor in academia. A new model of higher education, perhaps based on the model of small liberal arts colleges, is required. Politics, national and international, must move from having conflict as an organizing principle, replacing it with principles of unity and the recognition of a joint destiny of humankind. A renewal in religious institutions is called for. Christianity, for example, despite its protestations otherwise, still tends decidedly towards an ascetic dualism – the view that the body is little more than a hindrance to the spirit, and that the created world is merely a “vale of tears.” Increased understanding and appreciation of the spiritual traditions of indigenous cultures, which have not severed the connection between man and Nature, may assist in this change. Sorokin emphasized, however, that the primary agent of social transformation is the individual. Many simple steps are available to the ordinary person. Examples include the following: Commit yourself to ethical and intellectual improvement. In the ethical sphere, focus first on self-mastery. Be eager to discover and correct your faults, and to acquire virtue. Think first of others. See yourself as a citizen of the world. Urgently needed are individuals who can see and seek the objective, transcendent basis of ethical values. Read Plato and study Platonism, the wellsprings of integral idealism in the West. For a warm-up, read works of Emerson — Platonism come to America. Cultivate your Intellect and encourage others to do likewise: read history, literature, and poetry; listen to classical music; visit an art museum. Practice yoga. Be in harmony with Nature: plant a garden; go camping; protect the environment. Reduce the importance of money and materialism generally in your life. Turn off the television and spend more time in personal interaction with others. A little reflection will doubtless suggest many other similar steps. Recognize that in changing, you are not only helping yourself, but also setting a powerfully transformative positive example for others. The Supraconscious Sorokin’s later work emphasized the role of the supraconscious — a Higher Self or consciousness that inspires and guides our rational mind. Religions and philosophical systems universally recognize such a higher human consciousness, naming it variously: Conscience, Atman, Self, Nous, etc. Yet this concept is completely ignored or even denied by modern science. Clearly this is something that must change. As Sorokin put it: By becoming conscious of the paramount importance of the supraconscious and by earnest striving for its grace, we can activate its creative potential and its control over our conscious and unconscious forces. By all these means we can break the thick prison walls erected by prevalent pseudo-science around the supraconscious. (WPL, p. 487) The reality of the supraconscious is a cause for hope and humility: hope, because we are confident that the transpersonal source of human supraconsciousness is providential, guiding culture through history with a definite plan; and humility, because it reminds us that our role in the grand plan is achieved by striving to rid ourselves of preconceived ideas and selfishly motivated schemes, and by increasing our capacity to receive and follow inspiration. It is through inspiration and humility that we achieve a “realization of man’s unique creative mission on this planet.” (CA, p. 326). References and Reading Coser, Lewis A. Masters of Sociological Thought. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977. Nieli, Russell. “Critic of the sensate culture: rediscovering the genius of Pitirim Sorokin“. The Political Science Reviewer (Intercollegiate Studies Institute), 2006, 35: 264-379. Sorokin, Pitirim A. Social and Cultural Dynamics. 4 vols. 1937 (vols. 1-3), 1941 (vol. 4); rev. 1957 (reprinted: Transaction Publishers, 1985). [SCD] Sorokin, Pitirim A. The Crisis of Our Age. E. P. Dutton, 1941 (reprinted 1957). [CA] Sorokin, Pitirim A. Man and Society in Calamity. E. P. Dutton., 1942 (reprinted: Transaction Publishers, 2010). [MSC] Sorokin, Pitirim A. The Reconstruction of Humanity. Beacon Press, 1948. [RH] Sorokin, Pitirim A. The Ways and Power of Love. 1954 (reprinted: Templeton Foundation Press, 2002). [WPL] Sorokin, Pitirim A. The Basic Trends of Our Times. Rowman & Littlefield, 1964. [BT] Suburban Emergency Management Project. “Influence of Catastrophes on Political Organization: The Sorokin Perspective.” Biot Report #467: October 11, 2007. Accessed: 9 August 2010. Uebersax, John S. Materialism, Idealism, and Higher Education in California. Californians for Higher Education Reform. April 2013 (2013a). Uebersax, John S. What is Materialism? What is Idealism? Californians for Higher Education Reform. August 2013 (2013b). Uebersax, John S. Pitirim Sorokin and the Transformation of Society by the Power of Love.satyagraha.wordpress.com. January 2014. Uebersax, John S. Pitirim Sorokin’s Personality Theory. satyagraha.wordpress.com. February 2015. updated 11 March 2015 --------------------------------------------------------- Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin (January 21, 1889 – February 11, 1968) was an important figure in twentieth-century American sociology and a founding professor of the department of sociology at Harvard University. He was a fearless pioneer in his field, researching human conflict from an integrated perspective. Sorokin was not content with discovering the problems of human society; he wanted to improve the human condition. He believed that people could achieve a peaceful society and live in harmony without conflict, if they learned how to love and to live for the sake of others. Life Son of an icon maker, Pitirim Sorokin grew up in a rather poor family in the village of Turya, in northern Russia. After the death of his wife, Sorokin’s father became an alcoholic, often turning to rage and violence against his own children. Such experiences deeply affected Sorokin, who later became famous for his fierceness in the academic world. Sorokin received formal education in criminal law and sociology. During his young adulthood, he became an activist against the Tsarist government and was subsequently jailed several times. After the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of communism, Sorokin started to teach and write, publishing his first book in criminology. He established the first Department of Sociology at Petrograd University in 1919–1920. However, he soon came under attack by the Soviet police after fiercely criticizing the government as ineffective and corrupt. Sorokin and his wife, Elena, whom he married in 1917, left Russia in September 1923 and moved to Prague. Soon after, they settled in America, where Sorokin continued his research. Sorokin soon became a famous and well-respected scholar. In 1924 he was invited by the head of the sociology department to teach at the University of Minnesota, where he stayed for six years and wrote six books. Sorokin was then invited to be one of the founders of the Department of Sociology at Harvard, where he continued to teach from 1930 to 1955. In 1965, he became the 55th president of the American Sociological Association. In his later life, however, Sorokin became somewhat isolated and neglected by his contemporaries. That didn’t bother him though. He continued to work on his own projects, directing his Research Center in Creative Altruism, until his retirement at the end of 1959 at age 70. He died on February 11, 1968, in the presence of his wife and two sons, all of whom were successful scientists. Works Sorokin’s reputation grew at the University of Minnesota. Of the six books he wrote there, four of them were considered controversial for their time: Social Mobility (1927), Contemporary Sociological Theories (1928), Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology (1929) with Carle C. Zimmerman, and the first of the three-volume work A Systematic Source Book in Rural Sociology (1929) with Zimmerman and Charles J. Galpin. It was the fame of those books that led to Sorokin being invited in 1930 to become the first chair of the newly formed Department of Sociology at Harvard. Influenced by the ideas of Ivan Pavlov and his work on operant conditioning, Sorokin approached sociology in a practical manner. With that, he set himself in direct opposition to the more philosophical schools—the Chicago School and Social Darwinists—that dominated American sociology in the first half of the twentieth century. Sorokin’s sharp language and iron determinism brought him under severe criticism by several influential scientists, particularly Talcott Parsons and his followers. The clash between the two views lasted for decades and is still a matter of debate among sociologists today. Sorokin stayed on at Harvard for 30 years. During that time he turned from scientific sociology to philosophy and history. In his Social and Cultural Dynamics, he tried to find out the basic principles of social change. He analyzed and compared the history of art, ethics, philosophy, science, religion, and psychology, to discover general principles of human history. Based on these principles, in his Social and Cultural Dynamics, Sorokin predicted that modern civilization was moving toward a bloody period of transition. That period would be characterized by wars, revolutions, and general conflict. Sorokin spent almost 20 years studying not only human conflict, but also the means to reduce conflict, namely integralism and altruism. Sorokin believed that through understanding the past and present human condition, we can understand how to prevent social violence. Sorokin’s approach was rather broad: he wanted to include all spheres of knowledge to find the ultimate answer. He believed that science alone cannot give the answer, but that knowledge must be integrated, based on empirical, rational, and supersensory input. Thus, truth is multidimensional, consisting of sensory, mental, and spiritual parts. With this combination of Eastern and Western philosophical traditions, Sorokin challenged the purely empirical scientific method, which ultimately drew severe criticism from the scholarly community and subsequently led to his isolation. Sorokin also maintained that sociologists needed to study how to improve the human condition, not only to observe it. He believed that could be achieved through teaching people to be more loving and compassionate. Sorokin spent more than ten years researching human altruism and eventually established the Harvard Center for Creative Altruism. He published numerous books on altruism. Legacy The legacy of Pitirim Sorokin is multifaceted. He influenced many important scholars of twentieth-century sociology—Robert Merton, Wilbert Moore, Kingsley Davis, Robert Bierstedt, Robin M. Williams, Charles Tilly, and Edward Tiryakian. His studies on social mobility, social conflict, and social change secured him worldwide recognition. Sorokin’s studies on altruism and how to improve the human condition can be seen as an overture to modern humanistic psychology. In his work, Sorokin always tried to take an integrative approach, broadening the concept of the scientific method by including not only empirical and sensory knowledge but also arguing for the acceptance of the supersensory, or spiritual, dimension. Although criticized for those ideas, Sorokin remained faithful to them throughout his life. In 1965, when he became the president of the American Sociological Association, based on a victorious write-in nomination organized by several of his past students, Sorokin finally became acknowledged as one of the greatest figures in twentieth-century American sociology. References Johnston, B.V. 1995. Pitirim A. Sorokin: An Intellectual Biography. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0700607366 Sorokin, P.A. 1959. Social and cultural mobility. New York: Free Press. Sorokin, P.A. 1967. The sociology of revolution. New York: Howard Fertig. Sorokin, P.A. 1970. Social and Cultural Dynamics. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers. ISBN 0875580297 Sorokin, P.A. 1975. Hunger as a factor in human affairs. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Sorokin, P.A. 1992. The crisis of our age. Chatam, NY: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 1851680284 Sorokin, P.A. 1998. On the practice of sociology, edited by Barry V. Johnson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sorokin, P.A. 2002. The Ways and Power of Love: Types, Factors, and Techniques of Moral Transformation. Templeton Foundation Press. ISBN 1890151866 Sorokin, P.A. and W.A. Lunden. 1959. Power and morality: who shall guard the guardians? Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers. Credits New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pitirim_Sorokin
- http://cdm15126.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p201201coll4/id/4404
- Carle Clark Zimmerman was a distinguished Harvard sociologist, and an inaugural member on the faculty of the university’s Department of Sociology. He studied rural and international social dynamics, working with the American Presbyterian Mission in Thailand (then known as the Kingdom of Siam) in the 1930s. He is best known for his work Family and Civilization, an analysis of the impact of evolving family structures on the health of civilizations. - See more at: http://www.conservativebookclub.com/authors/carle-c-zimmerman#sthash.6rAEUf6Y.dpuf -------------------------------- Carle C. Zimmerman, “Family and Civilization” “This is the basic theme of family and civilisation. Civilization grows out of familism; as it grows it loses its original connection with the basic spring which furnished the essence of civilization. When this process has gone too far, the civilization soon exhausts its inventory of social ‘material’. Then occurs a reaction or decay. The amount of reaction and decay and the length of these ‘Dark Age’ periods seem to depend upon how quickly the culture finds its way back to the fundamental mothersource – familism.” Carle C. Zimmerman, Family and Civilization (ISI, 2008 [1947]) extract from page 262. ---------------------------------- Dr Carle Zimmerman Family and Civilization. Edward Gibbon's, classic 18th century book "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," being "the first systematic history of the later Empire" has done well to stay in print for some reason. Methodology, perhaps? Dr. Carle Zimmerman in 1947 wrote a book called Family and Civilization. He studied the decline of several civilizations and empires, discovering eight patterns of domestic behavior that signaled the decline of a civilization: 1. The breakdown of marriage and rise of divorce. 2. The loss of the traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony. 3. The rise of Feminism. 4. Increased public disrespect for parents and authority in general. 5. Acceleration of juvenile delinquency, promiscuity and rebellion. 6. Refusal of people with traditional marriages to accept their family responsibilities. 7. A growing desire for and acceptance of adultery. 8. Increasing interest in and spread of sexual perversions (homosexuality) and sex-related crimes. http://www.case-studies.com/nation-in-decline -------------------------- In 1947, sociologist Dr. Carle Zimmerman wrote a text called “Family and Civilization.” He identified eleven ‘symptoms of final decay’ observable in the fall of both the Greek and Roman civilizations. See how many characterize our society: 1. No-fault divorce 2. “Birth dearth”; increased disrespect for parenthood and parents 3. Meaningless marriage rites/ceremonies 4. Defamation of past national heroes 5. Acceptance of alternative marriage forms 6. Widespread attitudes of feminism, narcissism, hedonism 7. Propagation of antifamily sentiment 8. Acceptance of most forms of adultery 9. Rebellious children 10. Increased juvenile delinquency 11. Common acceptance of all forms of sexual perversion -------------------------- Family and Civilization by Carle C. Zimmerman, 428 Pages Publisher: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1947 “The struggle over the modern family and its present rapid trend toward a climactic breakup will be one of the most interesting and decisive ones in all history. So much is at stake.” So writes Harvard sociologist Carle Zimmerman in his 1947 classic “Family and Civilization.” Sixty-one years later, residents of Western democracies do indeed find themselves in the midst of a climactic breakup of family life — and few books offer more much-needed insight into our current social crisis than Zimmerman’s remarkably prescient work. In this unjustly forgotten work, Zimmerman demonstrates the close and causal connections between the rise and fall of different types of families and the rise and fall of civilizations, particularly ancient Greece and Rome, medieval and modern Europe, and the United States. Zimmerman traces the evolution of family structure from tribes and clans to extended and large nuclear families to the small nuclear families and broken families of today. And he shows the consequences of each structure for the bearing and rearing of children; for religion, law, and everyday life; and for the fate of civilization itself. Zimmerman also predicted many of today’s cultural and social controversies and trends — including youth violence and depression, abortion and homosexuality, the demographic collapse of Europe and of the West more generally, and the displacement of peoples. In permissive modern attitudes, Zimmerman recognizes the emergence of “the idea of atomistic man as the only unit in society” — an idea whose cultural prominence can only mean that “the Western world has entered a period of demoralization comparable to the periods when both Greece and Rome turned from growth to decay.” Indeed, as he surveys life in modern America, Zimmerman catalogues various forms of action and thought identical with those during the high period of atomism in Greece and Rome — including: Increased and rapid “causeless” divorce Decreased number of children, population decay, and increased public disrespect of parenthoods and parenthood Elimination of the real meaning of the marriage ceremony Popularity of pessimistic doctrines about the early heroes Rise of theories that companionate marriage or a permissible looser family form would solve the problem The refusal of many other people married under the older family form to maintain their traditions while other people escape these obligations. (The Greek and Roman mothers refused to say home and bear children.) The spread of the antifamilism of the urbane and pseudointellectual classes Breaking down of most inhibitions against adultery Revolts of youth against parents so that parenthood becomes more and more difficult Rapid rise and spread of juvenile delinquency Common acceptance of all forms of sex perversions Scholarly yet readable, Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization” helps readers understand why the recent changes in family life constitute a civilization-threatening crisis, and shows how many of our most threatening social problems originate in family disintegration. The accompanying essays by modern commentators show how his argument has retained relevance today, especially in the wake of the West’s demographic collapse. “Dr. Zimmerman disdained his academic colleagues, who in his view denied history because the facts led them to conclusions they didn’t want to accept. James Kurth, the distinguished Swarthmore political scientist who edited the new version of Family and Civilization, says that the book’s publication made one of the nation’s premiere sociologists a politically incorrect nonperson overnight. Why should we read Dr. Zimmerman today? For one thing, the future isn’t fated. We might learn from history and make choices that avert the calamities that overtook Greece and Rome.” — ROD DREHER, Dallas Morning News - See more at: http://www.conservativebookclub.com/book/family-and-civilization#sthash.AtvfoHXO.dpuf -------------------------- Sociologist and historian Carle Zimmerman, in his 1947 book Family and Civilization, compared the disintegration of various cultures with the parallel decline of family life in those cultures. Eight specific patterns of domestic behavior typified the downward spiral of each culture Zimmerman studied. Marriage loses its sacredness; it is frequently broken by divorce. Traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony is lost. Feminist movements abound. Public disrespect for parents and authority in general increased. Juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, and rebellion accelerate. People with traditional marriages refuse to accept family responsibilities. Desire for and acceptance of adultery grow. Interest in and spread of sexual perversions and sex-related crimes increase. --------------------------- El sociólogo e historiador Carl Zimmerman en su libro “Familia y Civilización” investiga la desintegración de varias culturas y observa que van paralelas con el declive y la desintegración de la vida familiar. El enumera 8 patrones de comportamiento que tipifican el deterioro vertiginoso de cada cultura: El matrimonio deja de ser sagrado y se rompe frecuentemente por el divorcio Se pierde el significado tradicional de la ceremonia matrimonial Los movimientos feministas crecen Se incrementa en forma pública la falta de respeto a los padres y a toda autoridad en general Se acrecienta la delincuencia juvenil, la promiscuidad y la rebelión. Las personas con matrimonios tradicionales se niegan a aceptar las responsabilidades familiares Crece el deseo por el adulterio y la aceptación del mismo. Crece el interés y la difusión en las perversiones sexuales y crecen los delitos sexuales. ---------------------------- El Dr. Carle C. Zimmerman de la Universidad de Harvard se refería a las familias antiguas como “familias depositarias”. En su monumental obra “Family and Civilization”, explicaba: «la familia depositaria se llama así porque se considera a sí misma, más o menos, como inmortal: existe de forma perpetua y no se extingue jamás. Por consiguiente, los miembros que viven no son la familia en sí, sino simplemente "depositarios" de su sangre, derechos, propiedades, nombre y posición, mientras viven» 7. La familia depositaria enfoca la familia principalmente en términos religiosos. No es sólo la familia nuclear, ni siquiera la extensa, sino todos los miembros de la familia del pasado y del futuro, así como los de la generación presente. Un lazo sagrado une a los miembros de la presente generación con los antepasados que les dieron la vida; el mismo lazo los une con sus futuros descendientes, que perpetuarán el nombre de la familia, su honor y sus ritos. Esto se parece poco a lo que la mayoría de la gente de hoy se refiere al hablar de familia. Las familias modernas tienden a caer bajo lo que Zimmerman clasificaría como «familia doméstica» o «familia atomista». La familia doméstica describe un hogar basado en el vínculo matrimonial: marido, mujer e hijos. En esta estructura los miembros de la familia hacen hincapié en los derechos individuales junto con los deberes familiares. En las familias atomistas, sin embargo, los derechos individuales están muy por encima de los vínculos familiares, y la familia en sí misma existe para el placer del individuo. Hay muchas diferencias destacables entre estas etapas históricas'. En las sociedades de familia depositaria, la familia se ve como una realidad mística; en las sociedades de familia doméstica, se trata de una tradición moral; cuando predomina la familia atomista, el hogar se ve como una especie de capullo de la crisálida, algo en lo que uno nace para escapar de él. En las sociedades depositarias, el matrimonio es un acuerdo sagrado; en las domésticas, es un contrato; en el hogar atomista, es un modo práctico de compañía. En la familia depositaria, los hijos son bendiciones divinas; en la doméstica, agentes económicos indispensables; en la familia atomista, sin embargo, se convierten en una carga económica, un «gasto» y un obstáculo para la realización personal. En la familia depositaria, el padre es el patriarca, un rey-sacerdote que debe servir a sus antepasados tanto como a su descendencia; en la doméstica, es el autoritario director jefe de la unidad económica fundamental de la sociedad; en la familia atomista, es una patética figura que hay que dejar atrás para poder crecer como individuo. Y cada tipo de familia ve la inmoralidad sexual de forma diferente. Para la familia depositaria, es un acto criminal; para la doméstica se trata de un pecado individual; para la familia atomista es un asunto privado, una elección, un estilo de vida alternativo. Zimmerman señala que sólo las sociedades basadas en la familia depositaria han sido capaces de alcanzar el nivel de civilizaciones. Pero ninguna de esas sociedades fueron capaces de mantener para siempre el orden depositario. En algún momento de la historia de las civilizaciones, la gente empieza a vivir según el modelo de familia doméstica. El período de predominio de la familia doméstica, sin embargo, es por lo general de corta duración, una fase de transición hasta que la familia atomista ocupa su lugar. Cuando la familia atomista llega a ser el modelo dominante de la sociedad, entonces las obligaciones familiares se ven habitualmente como impedimentos para el desarrollo personal. La familia atomista, caracterizada por la generalización del divorcio, la actividad sexual desenfrenada y el descenso de la población, indica normalmente que una civilización está en su declive final. ---------------------- Freedom and the Family: The Family Crisis and the Future of Western Civilization http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/06/freedom-and-the-family-the-family-crisis-and-the-future-of-western-civilization.html by Stephen Baskerville Stephen Baskerville In April 2009, Dr. James Dobson stepped down as head of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family with a pessimistic message about his years in the “culture wars.” “We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict,” he declared. “Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”[1] Dobson’s words were widely taken as an admission of defeat. His statement highlighted a trend that now seems inexorable: In the Western World the traditional family continues to unravel, and its defenders are increasingly giving way to resignation and despair. Yet an historical perspective reveals that the conflict over the family may only be beginning and that we may be on the verge of a wider confrontation that will decide not only the survival of the family but fundamental questions about the scope and nature of the modern state. At first glance, it appears that history may not be on the side of the family. Today’s crisis originated well before the cultural and sexual revolutions of the 1960s. A sobering perspective on how family decline undermines our civilization may be gained from realizing how limited awareness has been of the nature and dimensions of the decline over decades and even centuries and from realizing how today’s awakening—still partial at best—comes at the eleventh hour. As early as 1933, Christopher Dawson, in “The Patriarchal Family in History,” drew a parallel with the declining stages of Greek and Roman civilization.[2] Harvard sociologist Carle Zimmerman elaborated in Family and Civilization (1947).[3] At a time when the “baby boom” was occurring and few people were disposed to listen to Cassandra warnings of a crisis for the family, Zimmerman described long-term reality: the traditional family had been deteriorating since the Renaissance and was nearing the point of no return. Like Dawson, Zimmerman noted unmistakable parallels with Greece and Rome. Dawson and Zimmerman make thought-provoking reading today because they wrote long before the political and sexual radicalism of the 1960s launched an open and direct ideological attack on the family and placed it on the public agenda. Moreover, popular culture is not the only family solvent. From the start of the modern era, political culture has included a strain of hostility to the family. “The attack on the family in modern political thought has been sweeping and unremitting,” writes political theorist Philip Abbott. “If the family is to survive as an institution . . . the major thrust of modern politics must be altered.”[4] Virtually every theorist in the modern Western canon has had something to say about the family, often to its detriment, including Erasmus, Milton, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Marx, and Freud. Dissenters, like Louis de Bonald, author of On Divorce (1805), have been relegated to obscurity. The family crisis, in other words, is not simply a product of the sexual and feminist revolutions, though they certainly accelerated the pace of deterioration. Family decline may be inherent in what is commonly called modernity. Political theory might seem only to compound the dangers posed by television, movies, rock music, videos, and other elements of popular culture, but the battle of political ideas is one that family defenders cannot ignore. By retreating into “culture” (though in a rather cramped sense) to the neglect of politics, family advocates may have invited precisely the political paralysis Dobson laments. “If you believe, as I do, in the power of culture,” writes political scientist James Q. Wilson of single motherhood, “you will realize that there is very little one can do.”[5] Without neglecting culture, Dawson and Zimmerman were much more explicit than today’s family advocates in emphasizing the power wielded by government. “As in the decline of the ancient world, the family is steadily losing its form and its social significance, and the state absorbs more and more of the life of its members,” Dawson wrote. “The functions which were formerly fulfilled by the head of the family are now being taken over by the state, which educates the children and takes the responsibility for their maintenance and health.” Dawson wrote this in 1933, which makes his next observation even more startling: “The father no longer holds a vital position in the family,” he noted. “He is often a comparative stranger to his children, who know him only as ‘that man who comes for weekends.’” Zimmerman pointed out that the state views the family as a threat, eviscerates the family, co-opts its critics and sponsors family-hostile intellectuals, and demands supremacy over society in general and the family in particular. Whenever the family shows signs of dysfunction, “the state helps to break it up.” The state constantly aspires to reduce the family to its instrument. “The state wishes to have only enough family power left as is needed to achieve the functions of government.” In the United States during the nineteenth century, “law piled on law, and government agency upon government agency” until by 1900 “the state had become master of the family.” The result (in 1947!) is that “the family is now truly the agent, the slave, the handmaiden of the state.” Today the situation has evolved to the point that we might well regard 1947 as a golden age for the family. One of Zimmerman’s most telling observations regarding the family is that “[t]hese changes came about slowly, over centuries, and almost imperceptibly.”[6] The atomization of the family has proceeded so incrementally that each generation has become acculturated to the changes, contributed more changes of its own, and passed them on to the next generation. Each generation thus accepts as normal what would have shocked their grandparents had it happened all at once: premarital sex, cohabitation, illegitimacy, divorce, same-sex marriage, daycare, fast-food dinners. Indeed, shocking the previous generation is part of the thrill of what might be said to amount to the institutionalization and politicization of filial rebellion. Warnings about family decline will, to the extent that it involves “culture,” simply sound to the liberal and the young as “no big deal”: these are the perennial lamentations of the hopelessly old-fashioned—the old and conservative bemoaning the good old days. Things change: “Deal with it!” But this kind of cultural development is not all that has become accepted as normal. Filial rebellion has a political dimension. Zimmerman describes destructive family policies enacted not only during the French and Russian revolutions, but also following the American. What might shock even the liberal and the young, yet today barely disturbs the conservative and the old, are destruction of constitutional protections and intrusive invasions of personal freedom and family privacy by the government’s ever-expanding family machinery. Here we see something highly consequential, but perhaps also more susceptible to redress than what is indicated by Wilson’s cultural despair, that is, the heavy hand of the state. G. K. Chesterton once suggested that the family was the main check on state power and that weakening it would destroy freedom. Chesterton was writing about divorce, and here another critical difference emerges between today’s debates and the way the issue was framed by Dawson and Zimmerman and theorists they cite. While homosexuality, abortion, pornography, and other cultural issues on today’s family-values agenda do appear in their writings, they are not central. The recurring issue throughout Western history that seems to be the most direct cause of marriage and family breakdown is divorce. Most Americans know from personal experience that the most direct and common threat to the family today is not the marriage of two homosexuals but divorce within families. Divorce now threatens most families and every society in the Western world. Not only is it multiplying single-parent homes among the affluent as welfare did among the poor; it now poses a serious threat to privacy, civil liberties, and constitutional government, as children are forcibly taken from their parents on a variety of divorce-related pretexts and parents who resist are taken away in handcuffs. Most people know someone whose children and private life have been placed under government supervision through divorce, very likely without the person’s consent. Yet even many who think of themselves as conservatives do not raise as a public issue this flagrant restriction of freedom. Public debates over “family values” convey little of the traumas of actual families. Family-values advocates, eloquently denouncing same-sex marriage, say little of relevance to the fact that Uncle Bob now lives in an apartment (if not a jail) instead of with his children. Americans would be amazed and shocked if they knew what goes on today under the name of divorce: unprecedented government intrusion into private life, including the power to seize children, loot family savings, and incarcerate parents without trial. The divorce machinery of the state, comprising secretive courts and vast federally funded social services bureaucracies wielding what amount to police powers, may have become the most repressive governmental sector in Western society.[7] The Divorce Revolution Some four decades ago, at the height of the sexual revolution, the Western world embarked on one of the boldest social experiments in its history. With little public discussion, laws were enacted in virtually every jurisdiction that ended marriage as an enforceable contract. Today it is not possible to form a binding agreement to create a family. Government can now, at the request of one spouse, simply dissolve a marriage over the objection of the other. Maggie Gallagher aptly titled her 1996 book The Abolition of Marriage. The full implications of the “no-fault” revolution have never really been publicly debated. “The divorce laws…were reformed by unrepresentative groups with very particular agendas of their own and which were not in step with public opinion,” writes Melanie Phillips. “Public attitudes were gradually dragged along behind laws that were generally understood at the time to mean something very different from what they subsequently came to represent.”[8] Today’s disputes over marriage in fact originated in the divorce revolution. Demands to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples are a consequence of the redefinition of marriage already effected by heterosexuals through divorce. Though gays cite the very desire to marry as evidence that their sexual behavior is not inherently promiscuous, activist Andrew Sullivan acknowledges that gays want the right to marry only because of the promiscuity permitted in modern marriage. “The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” he points out. “All homosexuals are saying…is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is…a denial of basic civil equality”[9] (emphasis added). Sullivan and others do not want traditional monogamous marriage, only marriage as transformed by divorce. Few stopped to consider the implications of laws that turned the breakup of private households into an involuntary process. Unilateral divorce involves government agents forcibly removing legally innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It inherently abrogates not only the inviolability of marriage but the very concept of private life. If marriage is not a wholly private affair, as today’s marriage advocates insist, involuntary divorce by its nature requires constant government supervision of family life. Far more than marriage, divorce mobilizes and expands government power. Marriage creates a private household, which may or may not require signing some legal documents. Divorce dissolves a private household, usually with one spouse having done nothing legally wrong. It inevitably involves state functionaries—including police and jails—to enforce the divorce and the post-marriage order. Otherwise, the involuntarily divorced spouse will continue to enjoy the protections and prerogatives of private life: the right to live in the common home, to possess the common property, or—most vexing of all—to parent the common children. These claims must be expunged by force, using the penal system if necessary. Given that 80 percent of divorces are unilateral, divorce today seldom involves two people simply parting ways.[10] Under “no-fault” rules divorce often becomes a power grab by one spouse, assisted by people who profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, counselors, mediators, and social workers. The most serious consequences involve children. The first action in a divorce is typically to separate the children from one parent, usually the father. Even if he is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and did not agree to the divorce, the state seizes his children with no burden of proof to justify its action. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) to demonstrate that they should be returned falls on him. A legally unimpeachable parent can thus be arrested for associating with his own children without government authorization. He can also be arrested through additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even without evidence that he has committed any such acts. He can be arrested for not paying child support, even without proof that he actually owes it. He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or psychotherapist whom he has not hired. In each case there is no formal charge, no jury, no trial. The parent is simply incarcerated. Our refusal to face the implications of this unique judicial procedure—the only area of the law where the penal system can intervene against a legally unimpeachable citizen—has resulted in serious and widespread violations of the most basic constitutional liberties, a situation that is now openly acknowledged but seldom publicized or discussed. “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating,” a New Jersey divorce judge instructed his colleagues. “We don’t have to worry about the rights.”[11] To justify this repression, the divorce machinery has directed charges against unconvicted citizens so hideous that few dare question them: family abandonment, child abuse, wife-beating, and nonpayment of “child support.” Virtual hysteria of this kind has been generated by feminists, bar associations, and socialwork bureaucracies, whose federal funding is shared with penal officials. The accused almost never sees a jury. He simply loses his children, often permanently, and finds himself abandoned by friends, family members, pastors, parishioners, co-workers, and employers—all terrified to be associated with an alleged “pedophile,” “batterer,” or “deadbeat dad.” In fact, there is simply no evidence that the family crisis is caused by fathers abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children. While sensational examples can be found to the contrary, these charges are usually fabrications. Few would deny that divorce proceedings produce trumped-up accusations that are used by divorce courts forcibly to separate parents from their children. We do not know how many parents are criminalized and incarcerated by the divorce machinery, because the government does not publish figures on this phenomenon as it does on every other form of criminal justice. But large inmate populations are not necessary to establish that no free society can permit repression of this kind. Few go to prison over taxes, but this does not mean that taxation cannot become tyrannical. Going to jail is now the ultimate sanction against parents who resist the government takeover of their families. Most parents sued for divorce are not jailed because in the end they dare not defy the government’s assumption of control over their children and private lives. When served with divorce papers, most parents surrender their children and property. And this is part of the problem. When we tolerate any tyranny we all become less free. When we acquiesce in tyranny over families and the private recesses of life we invite tyranny that is, in the most basic sense, total. In the case of the present divorce machinery we allow the coercion of the penal apparatus to be commandeered not to punish convicted criminals but to enforce involuntary divorce and keep innocent people away from their children. That we remain silent or give excuses as law-abiding parents are taken away in handcuffs and incarcerated without trial raises serious questions about our willingness to defend freedom. The Loss of Civic Virtue This passivity (if not servility) not only is manifested in modern divorce; it also proceeds from it. Forced divorce erodes the civic “virtue” that has been a theme in American political thought since before the founding of the republic: the willingness to sacrifice and fight and if necessary die for freedom. So-called conservatives have turned America’s loss of civic virtue into a cliché. They preach (in the popular sense of nag) that people must be more “virtuous,” less selfish, and more devoted to the public good. These exhortations are empty and deserve only derision so long as they are combined with silence in the face of tyranny. Instead of resisting the government’s takeover of the family, many lament and bemoan “the crisis of the family” as resulting from a decline in “culture” and declare explicitly or implicitly that “there is very little one can do.” Needless to say, the family has been greatly and adversely affected by changes in “the culture,” but that change is no argument for accepting tyrannical intrusion. The growing confrontation between the family and the state reveals that the relationship between personal morality and freedom is more than a cliché. It illustrates the direct connection between the breakdown of traditional morality and tolerance of governmental intrusion and control. Sacrifice for others begins in the family. The family is where both parents and children learn to love sacrificially, to put others’ needs before their own desires, and to sacrifice for the wellbeing and protection of the whole. If such responsibility does not begin in one’s own home among loved ones, it is not likely to begin at all. People unwilling to sacrifice for their own flesh and blood are not likely do so for the strangers who constitute their fellow citizens and country. Linda McClain writes that families are “seedbeds of civic virtue” and “have a place in the project of forming persons into capable, responsible, self-governing citizens.”[12] For the American founding fathers, argues David Forte, “The bridge from reining in ‘private passions’ to producing a ‘positive passion for the public good’ was the family’s inculcation of public virtue.”[13] But we can say more. In the family, children learn to obey and respect authorities other than the state—God, parents, extended family, and others who are not government officials: pastors and priests, teachers, neighbors, coaches, and other figures of civil society. By accepting these authorities, the bonds to which often are reinforced with love, children learn that government is not the sole authority and claim on their allegiance and that it is an institution t
- Carle Clark Zimmerman was a distinguished Harvard sociologist, and an inaugural member on the faculty of the university’s Department of Sociology. He studied rural and international social dynamics, working with the American Presbyterian Mission in Thailand (then known as the Kingdom of Siam) in the 1930s. He is best known for his work Family and Civilization, an analysis of the impact of evolving family structures on the health of civilizations. - See more at: http://www.conservativebookclub.com/authors/carle-c-zimmerman#sthash.6rAEUf6Y.dpuf -------------------------------- Carle C. Zimmerman, “Family and Civilization” “This is the basic theme of family and civilisation. Civilization grows out of familism; as it grows it loses its original connection with the basic spring which furnished the essence of civilization. When this process has gone too far, the civilization soon exhausts its inventory of social ‘material’. Then occurs a reaction or decay. The amount of reaction and decay and the length of these ‘Dark Age’ periods seem to depend upon how quickly the culture finds its way back to the fundamental mothersource – familism.” Carle C. Zimmerman, Family and Civilization (ISI, 2008 [1947]) extract from page 262. ---------------------------------- Dr Carle Zimmerman Family and Civilization. Edward Gibbon's, classic 18th century book "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," being "the first systematic history of the later Empire" has done well to stay in print for some reason. Methodology, perhaps? Dr. Carle Zimmerman in 1947 wrote a book called Family and Civilization. He studied the decline of several civilizations and empires, discovering eight patterns of domestic behavior that signaled the decline of a civilization: 1. The breakdown of marriage and rise of divorce. 2. The loss of the traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony. 3. The rise of Feminism. 4. Increased public disrespect for parents and authority in general. 5. Acceleration of juvenile delinquency, promiscuity and rebellion. 6. Refusal of people with traditional marriages to accept their family responsibilities. 7. A growing desire for and acceptance of adultery. 8. Increasing interest in and spread of sexual perversions (homosexuality) and sex-related crimes. http://www.case-studies.com/nation-in-decline -------------------------- In 1947, sociologist Dr. Carle Zimmerman wrote a text called “Family and Civilization.” He identified eleven ‘symptoms of final decay’ observable in the fall of both the Greek and Roman civilizations. See how many characterize our society: 1. No-fault divorce 2. “Birth dearth”; increased disrespect for parenthood and parents 3. Meaningless marriage rites/ceremonies 4. Defamation of past national heroes 5. Acceptance of alternative marriage forms 6. Widespread attitudes of feminism, narcissism, hedonism 7. Propagation of antifamily sentiment 8. Acceptance of most forms of adultery 9. Rebellious children 10. Increased juvenile delinquency 11. Common acceptance of all forms of sexual perversion -------------------------- Family and Civilization by Carle C. Zimmerman, 428 Pages Publisher: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1947 “The struggle over the modern family and its present rapid trend toward a climactic breakup will be one of the most interesting and decisive ones in all history. So much is at stake.” So writes Harvard sociologist Carle Zimmerman in his 1947 classic “Family and Civilization.” Sixty-one years later, residents of Western democracies do indeed find themselves in the midst of a climactic breakup of family life — and few books offer more much-needed insight into our current social crisis than Zimmerman’s remarkably prescient work. In this unjustly forgotten work, Zimmerman demonstrates the close and causal connections between the rise and fall of different types of families and the rise and fall of civilizations, particularly ancient Greece and Rome, medieval and modern Europe, and the United States. Zimmerman traces the evolution of family structure from tribes and clans to extended and large nuclear families to the small nuclear families and broken families of today. And he shows the consequences of each structure for the bearing and rearing of children; for religion, law, and everyday life; and for the fate of civilization itself. Zimmerman also predicted many of today’s cultural and social controversies and trends — including youth violence and depression, abortion and homosexuality, the demographic collapse of Europe and of the West more generally, and the displacement of peoples. In permissive modern attitudes, Zimmerman recognizes the emergence of “the idea of atomistic man as the only unit in society” — an idea whose cultural prominence can only mean that “the Western world has entered a period of demoralization comparable to the periods when both Greece and Rome turned from growth to decay.” Indeed, as he surveys life in modern America, Zimmerman catalogues various forms of action and thought identical with those during the high period of atomism in Greece and Rome — including: Increased and rapid “causeless” divorce Decreased number of children, population decay, and increased public disrespect of parenthoods and parenthood Elimination of the real meaning of the marriage ceremony Popularity of pessimistic doctrines about the early heroes Rise of theories that companionate marriage or a permissible looser family form would solve the problem The refusal of many other people married under the older family form to maintain their traditions while other people escape these obligations. (The Greek and Roman mothers refused to say home and bear children.) The spread of the antifamilism of the urbane and pseudointellectual classes Breaking down of most inhibitions against adultery Revolts of youth against parents so that parenthood becomes more and more difficult Rapid rise and spread of juvenile delinquency Common acceptance of all forms of sex perversions Scholarly yet readable, Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization” helps readers understand why the recent changes in family life constitute a civilization-threatening crisis, and shows how many of our most threatening social problems originate in family disintegration. The accompanying essays by modern commentators show how his argument has retained relevance today, especially in the wake of the West’s demographic collapse. “Dr. Zimmerman disdained his academic colleagues, who in his view denied history because the facts led them to conclusions they didn’t want to accept. James Kurth, the distinguished Swarthmore political scientist who edited the new version of Family and Civilization, says that the book’s publication made one of the nation’s premiere sociologists a politically incorrect nonperson overnight. Why should we read Dr. Zimmerman today? For one thing, the future isn’t fated. We might learn from history and make choices that avert the calamities that overtook Greece and Rome.” — ROD DREHER, Dallas Morning News - See more at: http://www.conservativebookclub.com/book/family-and-civilization#sthash.AtvfoHXO.dpuf -------------------------- Sociologist and historian Carle Zimmerman, in his 1947 book Family and Civilization, compared the disintegration of various cultures with the parallel decline of family life in those cultures. Eight specific patterns of domestic behavior typified the downward spiral of each culture Zimmerman studied. Marriage loses its sacredness; it is frequently broken by divorce. Traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony is lost. Feminist movements abound. Public disrespect for parents and authority in general increased. Juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, and rebellion accelerate. People with traditional marriages refuse to accept family responsibilities. Desire for and acceptance of adultery grow. Interest in and spread of sexual perversions and sex-related crimes increase. --------------------------- El sociólogo e historiador Carl Zimmerman en su libro “Familia y Civilización” investiga la desintegración de varias culturas y observa que van paralelas con el declive y la desintegración de la vida familiar. El enumera 8 patrones de comportamiento que tipifican el deterioro vertiginoso de cada cultura: El matrimonio deja de ser sagrado y se rompe frecuentemente por el divorcio Se pierde el significado tradicional de la ceremonia matrimonial Los movimientos feministas crecen Se incrementa en forma pública la falta de respeto a los padres y a toda autoridad en general Se acrecienta la delincuencia juvenil, la promiscuidad y la rebelión. Las personas con matrimonios tradicionales se niegan a aceptar las responsabilidades familiares Crece el deseo por el adulterio y la aceptación del mismo. Crece el interés y la difusión en las perversiones sexuales y crecen los delitos sexuales. ---------------------------- El Dr. Carle C. Zimmerman de la Universidad de Harvard se refería a las familias antiguas como “familias depositarias”. En su monumental obra “Family and Civilization”, explicaba: «la familia depositaria se llama así porque se considera a sí misma, más o menos, como inmortal: existe de forma perpetua y no se extingue jamás. Por consiguiente, los miembros que viven no son la familia en sí, sino simplemente "depositarios" de su sangre, derechos, propiedades, nombre y posición, mientras viven» 7. La familia depositaria enfoca la familia principalmente en términos religiosos. No es sólo la familia nuclear, ni siquiera la extensa, sino todos los miembros de la familia del pasado y del futuro, así como los de la generación presente. Un lazo sagrado une a los miembros de la presente generación con los antepasados que les dieron la vida; el mismo lazo los une con sus futuros descendientes, que perpetuarán el nombre de la familia, su honor y sus ritos. Esto se parece poco a lo que la mayoría de la gente de hoy se refiere al hablar de familia. Las familias modernas tienden a caer bajo lo que Zimmerman clasificaría como «familia doméstica» o «familia atomista». La familia doméstica describe un hogar basado en el vínculo matrimonial: marido, mujer e hijos. En esta estructura los miembros de la familia hacen hincapié en los derechos individuales junto con los deberes familiares. En las familias atomistas, sin embargo, los derechos individuales están muy por encima de los vínculos familiares, y la familia en sí misma existe para el placer del individuo. Hay muchas diferencias destacables entre estas etapas históricas'. En las sociedades de familia depositaria, la familia se ve como una realidad mística; en las sociedades de familia doméstica, se trata de una tradición moral; cuando predomina la familia atomista, el hogar se ve como una especie de capullo de la crisálida, algo en lo que uno nace para escapar de él. En las sociedades depositarias, el matrimonio es un acuerdo sagrado; en las domésticas, es un contrato; en el hogar atomista, es un modo práctico de compañía. En la familia depositaria, los hijos son bendiciones divinas; en la doméstica, agentes económicos indispensables; en la familia atomista, sin embargo, se convierten en una carga económica, un «gasto» y un obstáculo para la realización personal. En la familia depositaria, el padre es el patriarca, un rey-sacerdote que debe servir a sus antepasados tanto como a su descendencia; en la doméstica, es el autoritario director jefe de la unidad económica fundamental de la sociedad; en la familia atomista, es una patética figura que hay que dejar atrás para poder crecer como individuo. Y cada tipo de familia ve la inmoralidad sexual de forma diferente. Para la familia depositaria, es un acto criminal; para la doméstica se trata de un pecado individual; para la familia atomista es un asunto privado, una elección, un estilo de vida alternativo. Zimmerman señala que sólo las sociedades basadas en la familia depositaria han sido capaces de alcanzar el nivel de civilizaciones. Pero ninguna de esas sociedades fueron capaces de mantener para siempre el orden depositario. En algún momento de la historia de las civilizaciones, la gente empieza a vivir según el modelo de familia doméstica. El período de predominio de la familia doméstica, sin embargo, es por lo general de corta duración, una fase de transición hasta que la familia atomista ocupa su lugar. Cuando la familia atomista llega a ser el modelo dominante de la sociedad, entonces las obligaciones familiares se ven habitualmente como impedimentos para el desarrollo personal. La familia atomista, caracterizada por la generalización del divorcio, la actividad sexual desenfrenada y el descenso de la población, indica normalmente que una civilización está en su declive final. ---------------------- Freedom and the Family: The Family Crisis and the Future of Western Civilization http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/06/freedom-and-the-family-the-family-crisis-and-the-future-of-western-civilization.html by Stephen Baskerville Stephen Baskerville In April 2009, Dr. James Dobson stepped down as head of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family with a pessimistic message about his years in the “culture wars.” “We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict,” he declared. “Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”[1] Dobson’s words were widely taken as an admission of defeat. His statement highlighted a trend that now seems inexorable: In the Western World the traditional family continues to unravel, and its defenders are increasingly giving way to resignation and despair. Yet an historical perspective reveals that the conflict over the family may only be beginning and that we may be on the verge of a wider confrontation that will decide not only the survival of the family but fundamental questions about the scope and nature of the modern state. At first glance, it appears that history may not be on the side of the family. Today’s crisis originated well before the cultural and sexual revolutions of the 1960s. A sobering perspective on how family decline undermines our civilization may be gained from realizing how limited awareness has been of the nature and dimensions of the decline over decades and even centuries and from realizing how today’s awakening—still partial at best—comes at the eleventh hour. As early as 1933, Christopher Dawson, in “The Patriarchal Family in History,” drew a parallel with the declining stages of Greek and Roman civilization.[2] Harvard sociologist Carle Zimmerman elaborated in Family and Civilization (1947).[3] At a time when the “baby boom” was occurring and few people were disposed to listen to Cassandra warnings of a crisis for the family, Zimmerman described long-term reality: the traditional family had been deteriorating since the Renaissance and was nearing the point of no return. Like Dawson, Zimmerman noted unmistakable parallels with Greece and Rome. Dawson and Zimmerman make thought-provoking reading today because they wrote long before the political and sexual radicalism of the 1960s launched an open and direct ideological attack on the family and placed it on the public agenda. Moreover, popular culture is not the only family solvent. From the start of the modern era, political culture has included a strain of hostility to the family. “The attack on the family in modern political thought has been sweeping and unremitting,” writes political theorist Philip Abbott. “If the family is to survive as an institution . . . the major thrust of modern politics must be altered.”[4] Virtually every theorist in the modern Western canon has had something to say about the family, often to its detriment, including Erasmus, Milton, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Marx, and Freud. Dissenters, like Louis de Bonald, author of On Divorce (1805), have been relegated to obscurity. The family crisis, in other words, is not simply a product of the sexual and feminist revolutions, though they certainly accelerated the pace of deterioration. Family decline may be inherent in what is commonly called modernity. Political theory might seem only to compound the dangers posed by television, movies, rock music, videos, and other elements of popular culture, but the battle of political ideas is one that family defenders cannot ignore. By retreating into “culture” (though in a rather cramped sense) to the neglect of politics, family advocates may have invited precisely the political paralysis Dobson laments. “If you believe, as I do, in the power of culture,” writes political scientist James Q. Wilson of single motherhood, “you will realize that there is very little one can do.”[5] Without neglecting culture, Dawson and Zimmerman were much more explicit than today’s family advocates in emphasizing the power wielded by government. “As in the decline of the ancient world, the family is steadily losing its form and its social significance, and the state absorbs more and more of the life of its members,” Dawson wrote. “The functions which were formerly fulfilled by the head of the family are now being taken over by the state, which educates the children and takes the responsibility for their maintenance and health.” Dawson wrote this in 1933, which makes his next observation even more startling: “The father no longer holds a vital position in the family,” he noted. “He is often a comparative stranger to his children, who know him only as ‘that man who comes for weekends.’” Zimmerman pointed out that the state views the family as a threat, eviscerates the family, co-opts its critics and sponsors family-hostile intellectuals, and demands supremacy over society in general and the family in particular. Whenever the family shows signs of dysfunction, “the state helps to break it up.” The state constantly aspires to reduce the family to its instrument. “The state wishes to have only enough family power left as is needed to achieve the functions of government.” In the United States during the nineteenth century, “law piled on law, and government agency upon government agency” until by 1900 “the state had become master of the family.” The result (in 1947!) is that “the family is now truly the agent, the slave, the handmaiden of the state.” Today the situation has evolved to the point that we might well regard 1947 as a golden age for the family. One of Zimmerman’s most telling observations regarding the family is that “[t]hese changes came about slowly, over centuries, and almost imperceptibly.”[6] The atomization of the family has proceeded so incrementally that each generation has become acculturated to the changes, contributed more changes of its own, and passed them on to the next generation. Each generation thus accepts as normal what would have shocked their grandparents had it happened all at once: premarital sex, cohabitation, illegitimacy, divorce, same-sex marriage, daycare, fast-food dinners. Indeed, shocking the previous generation is part of the thrill of what might be said to amount to the institutionalization and politicization of filial rebellion. Warnings about family decline will, to the extent that it involves “culture,” simply sound to the liberal and the young as “no big deal”: these are the perennial lamentations of the hopelessly old-fashioned—the old and conservative bemoaning the good old days. Things change: “Deal with it!” But this kind of cultural development is not all that has become accepted as normal. Filial rebellion has a political dimension. Zimmerman describes destructive family policies enacted not only during the French and Russian revolutions, but also following the American. What might shock even the liberal and the young, yet today barely disturbs the conservative and the old, are destruction of constitutional protections and intrusive invasions of personal freedom and family privacy by the government’s ever-expanding family machinery. Here we see something highly consequential, but perhaps also more susceptible to redress than what is indicated by Wilson’s cultural despair, that is, the heavy hand of the state. G. K. Chesterton once suggested that the family was the main check on state power and that weakening it would destroy freedom. Chesterton was writing about divorce, and here another critical difference emerges between today’s debates and the way the issue was framed by Dawson and Zimmerman and theorists they cite. While homosexuality, abortion, pornography, and other cultural issues on today’s family-values agenda do appear in their writings, they are not central. The recurring issue throughout Western history that seems to be the most direct cause of marriage and family breakdown is divorce. Most Americans know from personal experience that the most direct and common threat to the family today is not the marriage of two homosexuals but divorce within families. Divorce now threatens most families and every society in the Western world. Not only is it multiplying single-parent homes among the affluent as welfare did among the poor; it now poses a serious threat to privacy, civil liberties, and constitutional government, as children are forcibly taken from their parents on a variety of divorce-related pretexts and parents who resist are taken away in handcuffs. Most people know someone whose children and private life have been placed under government supervision through divorce, very likely without the person’s consent. Yet even many who think of themselves as conservatives do not raise as a public issue this flagrant restriction of freedom. Public debates over “family values” convey little of the traumas of actual families. Family-values advocates, eloquently denouncing same-sex marriage, say little of relevance to the fact that Uncle Bob now lives in an apartment (if not a jail) instead of with his children. Americans would be amazed and shocked if they knew what goes on today under the name of divorce: unprecedented government intrusion into private life, including the power to seize children, loot family savings, and incarcerate parents without trial. The divorce machinery of the state, comprising secretive courts and vast federally funded social services bureaucracies wielding what amount to police powers, may have become the most repressive governmental sector in Western society.[7] The Divorce Revolution Some four decades ago, at the height of the sexual revolution, the Western world embarked on one of the boldest social experiments in its history. With little public discussion, laws were enacted in virtually every jurisdiction that ended marriage as an enforceable contract. Today it is not possible to form a binding agreement to create a family. Government can now, at the request of one spouse, simply dissolve a marriage over the objection of the other. Maggie Gallagher aptly titled her 1996 book The Abolition of Marriage. The full implications of the “no-fault” revolution have never really been publicly debated. “The divorce laws…were reformed by unrepresentative groups with very particular agendas of their own and which were not in step with public opinion,” writes Melanie Phillips. “Public attitudes were gradually dragged along behind laws that were generally understood at the time to mean something very different from what they subsequently came to represent.”[8] Today’s disputes over marriage in fact originated in the divorce revolution. Demands to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples are a consequence of the redefinition of marriage already effected by heterosexuals through divorce. Though gays cite the very desire to marry as evidence that their sexual behavior is not inherently promiscuous, activist Andrew Sullivan acknowledges that gays want the right to marry only because of the promiscuity permitted in modern marriage. “The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” he points out. “All homosexuals are saying…is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is…a denial of basic civil equality”[9] (emphasis added). Sullivan and others do not want traditional monogamous marriage, only marriage as transformed by divorce. Few stopped to consider the implications of laws that turned the breakup of private households into an involuntary process. Unilateral divorce involves government agents forcibly removing legally innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It inherently abrogates not only the inviolability of marriage but the very concept of private life. If marriage is not a wholly private affair, as today’s marriage advocates insist, involuntary divorce by its nature requires constant government supervision of family life. Far more than marriage, divorce mobilizes and expands government power. Marriage creates a private household, which may or may not require signing some legal documents. Divorce dissolves a private household, usually with one spouse having done nothing legally wrong. It inevitably involves state functionaries—including police and jails—to enforce the divorce and the post-marriage order. Otherwise, the involuntarily divorced spouse will continue to enjoy the protections and prerogatives of private life: the right to live in the common home, to possess the common property, or—most vexing of all—to parent the common children. These claims must be expunged by force, using the penal system if necessary. Given that 80 percent of divorces are unilateral, divorce today seldom involves two people simply parting ways.[10] Under “no-fault” rules divorce often becomes a power grab by one spouse, assisted by people who profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, counselors, mediators, and social workers. The most serious consequences involve children. The first action in a divorce is typically to separate the children from one parent, usually the father. Even if he is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and did not agree to the divorce, the state seizes his children with no burden of proof to justify its action. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) to demonstrate that they should be returned falls on him. A legally unimpeachable parent can thus be arrested for associating with his own children without government authorization. He can also be arrested through additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even without evidence that he has committed any such acts. He can be arrested for not paying child support, even without proof that he actually owes it. He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or psychotherapist whom he has not hired. In each case there is no formal charge, no jury, no trial. The parent is simply incarcerated. Our refusal to face the implications of this unique judicial procedure—the only area of the law where the penal system can intervene against a legally unimpeachable citizen—has resulted in serious and widespread violations of the most basic constitutional liberties, a situation that is now openly acknowledged but seldom publicized or discussed. “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating,” a New Jersey divorce judge instructed his colleagues. “We don’t have to worry about the rights.”[11] To justify this repression, the divorce machinery has directed charges against unconvicted citizens so hideous that few dare question them: family abandonment, child abuse, wife-beating, and nonpayment of “child support.” Virtual hysteria of this kind has been generated by feminists, bar associations, and socialwork bureaucracies, whose federal funding is shared with penal officials. The accused almost never sees a jury. He simply loses his children, often permanently, and finds himself abandoned by friends, family members, pastors, parishioners, co-workers, and employers—all terrified to be associated with an alleged “pedophile,” “batterer,” or “deadbeat dad.” In fact, there is simply no evidence that the family crisis is caused by fathers abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children. While sensational examples can be found to the contrary, these charges are usually fabrications. Few would deny that divorce proceedings produce trumped-up accusations that are used by divorce courts forcibly to separate parents from their children. We do not know how many parents are criminalized and incarcerated by the divorce machinery, because the government does not publish figures on this phenomenon as it does on every other form of criminal justice. But large inmate populations are not necessary to establish that no free society can permit repression of this kind. Few go to prison over taxes, but this does not mean that taxation cannot become tyrannical. Going to jail is now the ultimate sanction against parents who resist the government takeover of their families. Most parents sued for divorce are not jailed because in the end they dare not defy the government’s assumption of control over their children and private lives. When served with divorce papers, most parents surrender their children and property. And this is part of the problem. When we tolerate any tyranny we all become less free. When we acquiesce in tyranny over families and the private recesses of life we invite tyranny that is, in the most basic sense, total. In the case of the present divorce machinery we allow the coercion of the penal apparatus to be commandeered not to punish convicted criminals but to enforce involuntary divorce and keep innocent people away from their children. That we remain silent or give excuses as law-abiding parents are taken away in handcuffs and incarcerated without trial raises serious questions about our willingness to defend freedom. The Loss of Civic Virtue This passivity (if not servility) not only is manifested in modern divorce; it also proceeds from it. Forced divorce erodes the civic “virtue” that has been a theme in American political thought since before the founding of the republic: the willingness to sacrifice and fight and if necessary die for freedom. So-called conservatives have turned America’s loss of civic virtue into a cliché. They preach (in the popular sense of nag) that people must be more “virtuous,” less selfish, and more devoted to the public good. These exhortations are empty and deserve only derision so long as they are combined with silence in the face of tyranny. Instead of resisting the government’s takeover of the family, many lament and bemoan “the crisis of the family” as resulting from a decline in “culture” and declare explicitly or implicitly that “there is very little one can do.” Needless to say, the family has been greatly and adversely affected by changes in “the culture,” but that change is no argument for accepting tyrannical intrusion. The growing confrontation between the family and the state reveals that the relationship between personal morality and freedom is more than a cliché. It illustrates the direct connection between the breakdown of traditional morality and tolerance of governmental intrusion and control. Sacrifice for others begins in the family. The family is where both parents and children learn to love sacrificially, to put others’ needs before their own desires, and to sacrifice for the wellbeing and protection of the whole. If such responsibility does not begin in one’s own home among loved ones, it is not likely to begin at all. People unwilling to sacrifice for their own flesh and blood are not likely do so for the strangers who constitute their fellow citizens and country. Linda McClain writes that families are “seedbeds of civic virtue” and “have a place in the project of forming persons into capable, responsible, self-governing citizens.”[12] For the American founding fathers, argues David Forte, “The bridge from reining in ‘private passions’ to producing a ‘positive passion for the public good’ was the family’s inculcation of public virtue.”[13] But we can say more. In the family, children learn to obey and respect authorities other than the state—God, parents, extended family, and others who are not government officials: pastors and priests, teachers, neighbors, coaches, and other figures of civil society. By accepting these authorities, the bonds to which often are reinforced with love, children learn that government is not the sole authority and claim on their allegiance and that it is an institution th
- http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crime http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/f/patrick-fagan
- http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crime http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/f/patrick-fagan
- Read Slide
- Read Slide
- Morals Goal — Loving Relationships & Family Strong marriages Effective parenting Ethical practice living for higher purpose
- Morals Goal — Loving Relationships & Family Strong marriages Effective parenting Ethical practice living for higher purpose