I find it interesting that Yuval and his writing partner wuss out on one of the unanswered questions their review of research leaves -- chiefly, why do the social indicators improve despite the decline in the "traditional (married) family" in this country?
Early in their artcile, Yuval and his partner posit the "central" importance of the traditional family to a "good" society. Yet, they also note that despite a steady decline in the # of traditional families in the US, all of the leading social indicators are improving. If their theory is correct, it should be just the opposite -- the decline in traditional families should coincide with a DECLINE in other leading social indicators.
Instead of positing any good reason for this seemingly paradoxical coincidence, they essentially shrug and say, "Eh, we don't know why these things happen."
I'd like to see them take a hack at analyzing the relationship -- but I suspect that doing so might undermine the central pillar of social conservative dogma -- that heterosexual, married families are the most important stabilizing force in American society, and that it must be protected and encouraged above all other things.
Just for the record, I support the importance of the family unit in society -- I just would like to see Yuval and his writing partner explore the question rather than wussing out.
3 comments:
I find it interesting that Yuval and his writing partner wuss out on one of the unanswered questions their review of research leaves -- chiefly, why do the social indicators improve despite the decline in the "traditional (married) family" in this country?
Early in their artcile, Yuval and his partner posit the "central" importance of the traditional family to a "good" society. Yet, they also note that despite a steady decline in the # of traditional families in the US, all of the leading social indicators are improving. If their theory is correct, it should be just the opposite -- the decline in traditional families should coincide with a DECLINE in other leading social indicators.
Instead of positing any good reason for this seemingly paradoxical coincidence, they essentially shrug and say, "Eh, we don't know why these things happen."
I'd like to see them take a hack at analyzing the relationship -- but I suspect that doing so might undermine the central pillar of social conservative dogma -- that heterosexual, married families are the most important stabilizing force in American society, and that it must be protected and encouraged above all other things.
Just for the record, I support the importance of the family unit in society -- I just would like to see Yuval and his writing partner explore the question rather than wussing out.
It sounds so dirty when you call him Yuval's "writing partner." Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Perhaps because the authors don't believe the party line they're being tasked with expressing via the Wall Street Journal?
Post a Comment