There is a set of variables which shapes the family: income level, religion, race, the presence or absence of substance abuse, gambling, etc. But the single most powerful variable is whether or not the family is headed by an intact married couple.
The divide between rich and poor, the divide between races, and divide between other demographic factors all pale in comparison to the massive influence which parents have on their children.
The biggest gap in society now is not between levels of income, and not between races, but between the single-parent family and the intact family. Citing the research of James Wilson, Mary Eberstadt writes:
It’s the family divide, Wilson argued in his book Two Nations (1998), that has become the best indicator for all kinds of problematic behaviors: dropping out of school, going to jail, delinquency, emotional problems, out-of-wedlock births, early sexual activity, and unemployment, to name just some. “These differences,” noted Wilson as he analyzed the piles of numbers, “are not explained by income. Children in one-parent families are much worse off than those in two-parent families even when both families have the same earnings.”
Statistically, the impact of different income levels is erased when the factor of family structure is included in the calculations.
This surprising result was not sought, and not even wanted, by those who found it. Both culture and policy have believed that race, ethnicity, and income were the variables which most influenced the nature of childhood.
It is an idea so potent that it still has the power to shock, even 14 years after its first appearance: Family structure has replaced poverty as the best predictor of youth problems.
Policies and programs designed to help children have instead merely enabled the underlying cause. With good intentions, society has created mechanisms which make it ever easier for parents to abdicate their responsibilities.
Think of all the institutions created to replace the family. What is the dawn-to-dusk school day, and the concomitant attempt to abolish summer vacation, if not a necessity mothered by the empty home? What is the tres chic anti-bullying movement, if not an elaborate, improvised response to the need to do something that capable fathers, especially, used to do — i.e., stick up for their kids?
Nothing will substitute for parents. The best and most ethical social workers, teachers, counselors, and coaches are excellent ancillaries for parents, but poor replacements for parents.
The search continues for substitute mothers, substitute fathers, and substitutes for all the others who once took care of their own.
An effective way to address education problems, to address recreational or illegal drug use, to address juvenile crime, and to address teen pregnancy is to explore, and then reduce, the underlying causes which create increasing numbers of single-parent families.
Few girls or women, in their late teen years, have it as an express goal to become a single mother. They do not, and did not, want this. Which factors have led to the rise in single-parent families, and how can they be curbed? Both the factors, and the actions which can reduce their impact on society, may be partly addressable by policy actions, but will certainly require interventions that no city, county, state, or federal government can orchestrate. Organic changes in culture and society, in families and lifestyles, cannot be legislated.
The occasional policy move might help, but it will be people, not governments, who begin to create better lives for children in American society.
