Page 194 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 194
ššoollsskkooppoolljjee, ,lleettnniikkxxxxviii,i,šštteevvililkkaa33––44
who grow up without their biological father perform worse on the stand-
ardized tests, earn lower grades, and stay in school for fewer years, regard-
less of race and class. They are also more likely to demonstrate behavioural
problems …” The power (and danger) of such statements – and I do not by
any means opt here for a post-statistical society! – lies in generalizations
and in turning a blind eye to individual stories, not to mention essentialist
readings. This is of course not a suggestion to mothers to persist in abusive
relationships, but it treads on a very slippery terrain which is legitimized
by the very conventional conceptual framework mentioned before. It is of
course not solely the difficulty of the book, but also of the disciplines the
author is indebted to.
Similarly, as he claims, “The collapse of the traditional family hit the black
community earliest and hardest, in part because that community was al-
ready clustered at the bottom of the economic hierarchy”. One can, sure-
ly, understand the point that social changes brought some very difficult
consequences – but do we claim here that traditional family is something
that must be preserved by all means and is thoroughly and in every case a
good affair? Again, the trouble is in the interpretation and essentialist un-
derstandings.
Furthermore, while I can of course agree that “stable, two-parent loving
families” are good for children (“two-parent”, it is not stated but it can be
safely assumed, means heterosexual relations) and that stability in this re-
gard is a good thing7 and that poor single moms can have on general even
harder times than moms in a relations, but what about moms with abu-
sive husbands, not to mention black single moms etc.? (And how exact-
ly loving families and happy marriages Putnam is talking about should
be defined?) Should not there be real and realistic initiatives to help sin-
gle moms out instead of discussing the possibility that welfare benefits
gave poor single moms an incentive to have kids. Putnam refers to “some
careful studies” that have confirmed a modest, statistically significant ef-
fect of that sort. Should Americans rather not think along the lines of
introducing sexual education in schools (it is a rhetorical question, I am
aware of that, even more at the present moment) since this is a good meas-
ure to help prevent teen pregnancies, and make contraception more read-
ily available? More or less individual actions (such as “Avoid the stork”)
towards “changing the norm from childbearing by default to childbear-
ing by design” may not have as much effect as would a national initiative.8
7 To increase marriage rates, Putnam proposes seeking help from religious communities
that can influence their members without involving government (!).
8 For a current trends in this regard, see for example S. Singh (2017) at http://feministing.
com/2017/06/21/missouri-votes-to-let-employers-fire-people-who-use-birth-control/ for
192
who grow up without their biological father perform worse on the stand-
ardized tests, earn lower grades, and stay in school for fewer years, regard-
less of race and class. They are also more likely to demonstrate behavioural
problems …” The power (and danger) of such statements – and I do not by
any means opt here for a post-statistical society! – lies in generalizations
and in turning a blind eye to individual stories, not to mention essentialist
readings. This is of course not a suggestion to mothers to persist in abusive
relationships, but it treads on a very slippery terrain which is legitimized
by the very conventional conceptual framework mentioned before. It is of
course not solely the difficulty of the book, but also of the disciplines the
author is indebted to.
Similarly, as he claims, “The collapse of the traditional family hit the black
community earliest and hardest, in part because that community was al-
ready clustered at the bottom of the economic hierarchy”. One can, sure-
ly, understand the point that social changes brought some very difficult
consequences – but do we claim here that traditional family is something
that must be preserved by all means and is thoroughly and in every case a
good affair? Again, the trouble is in the interpretation and essentialist un-
derstandings.
Furthermore, while I can of course agree that “stable, two-parent loving
families” are good for children (“two-parent”, it is not stated but it can be
safely assumed, means heterosexual relations) and that stability in this re-
gard is a good thing7 and that poor single moms can have on general even
harder times than moms in a relations, but what about moms with abu-
sive husbands, not to mention black single moms etc.? (And how exact-
ly loving families and happy marriages Putnam is talking about should
be defined?) Should not there be real and realistic initiatives to help sin-
gle moms out instead of discussing the possibility that welfare benefits
gave poor single moms an incentive to have kids. Putnam refers to “some
careful studies” that have confirmed a modest, statistically significant ef-
fect of that sort. Should Americans rather not think along the lines of
introducing sexual education in schools (it is a rhetorical question, I am
aware of that, even more at the present moment) since this is a good meas-
ure to help prevent teen pregnancies, and make contraception more read-
ily available? More or less individual actions (such as “Avoid the stork”)
towards “changing the norm from childbearing by default to childbear-
ing by design” may not have as much effect as would a national initiative.8
7 To increase marriage rates, Putnam proposes seeking help from religious communities
that can influence their members without involving government (!).
8 For a current trends in this regard, see for example S. Singh (2017) at http://feministing.
com/2017/06/21/missouri-votes-to-let-employers-fire-people-who-use-birth-control/ for
192
