« Gay Games | Main | Late Thoughts About Ash Wednesday »
March 16, 2006
The Outbred
The Liberal Baby Bust, a column by Philip Longman that appeared in USA Today, has been zipping through the e-mail, but I thought I ought to post the link for those of you whose friends didn't send it along. He argues that "progressives are so much less likely to have children" than conservatives or traditionalists, and that this is a
pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. . . . As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.
He offers several useful statistics and insights, including one I'd never thought of, though once provided by Dr. Longman it seems obvious:
Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.
I commend the whole article. We had planned a review of his book The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It but the reviewer never delivered it, which I much regret.
Posted by David Mills at 09:29 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834b12f0f69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Outbred:
Comments
Thanks for posting it! It's a good piece, if unsurprising. However, the most liberal family I know has 5 children, and my own very conservative family only has 3, so it doesn't quite always work out that way.
Posted by: Luthien the nasty den mother | Mar 16, 2006 10:26:44 PM
Not to mention that children don't always grow up to vote like their parents (understatement).
Posted by: Juli | Mar 17, 2006 8:44:54 AM
Yes, Luthien, but on the larger scale the math works out. Which is why it is so vital to leftist to propagate themselves by indoctrinating their neighbors' young, in the education system.
Ironically enough, there may be a parallel to the celibate priesthood there - no biological offspring, but the mentoring of spiritual "sons". (As a Presbyterian I may have that metaphor all messed up, of course.)
Posted by: Joe Long | Mar 17, 2006 8:47:05 AM
Luthien -
True, there will always be exceptions to the patterns. However, my wife's half of the family shows where this trend leads rather quickly.
My wife and I are of the 'traditionalist' stance and are now with 4 children (so far). My wife's only sibling/sister is in the mold of their more liberal mother. She is part of a two career marriage that will likely not be having children. Our values are far more likely be passed on to 4+ children, while my sister-in-law's family values are shared amongst their co-horts, who also are not having children. The math quickly works itself out. We homeschool in large part because we want to guard against the attempts to pass along worldly values to our children.
In a Hugh Hewitt interview, Father Joseph Fessio replies to a question on Home-Schooling that seem relevant...
"home schools are the monasteries of the new dark ages..... [this] is where families are having children. They're passing on the faith to their children. They're giving them wisdom and the knowledge of our culture. And we have an advantage here, because the homosexuals, and the pro-abortionists, and the pro-contraception people, are not having children by definition."
Posted by: JRD | Mar 17, 2006 9:12:28 AM
Longman's book is near hysterical in tone; he's truly a demographic determinist.
The work of the demographers he cites, Lesthaeghe and Surkyn, is controversial. Even if you buy their thesis that long-term value change drives changes in fertility, his argument still rests on the heroic assumption that parents transmit values to their children largely in the absence of countervailing economic and social forces. Any theory that posits children as clones of their parents is bound to be mistaken.
I would further note that the brand of modernization theory that Lesthaeghe and Surkyn support relies on a notion of "higher-order needs." That is, a society's collective values depend on their level of economic development. Once societies have already met their basic material needs, their citizens will seek self-fulfillment, value individualism, etc. So the theory of value change implicit in Lesthaeghe and Surkyn's work is actually incompatible with Longman's thesis of intergenerational value transmission.
Longman's book also is ridiculously alarmist -- to the point he even says that Western European states are creeping toward becoming "failed states" like Somalia.
It's just hard to take a guy like this seriously.
Posted by: Silence Dogood | Mar 17, 2006 9:57:52 AM
It's also hard to take seriously a critic who hides behnd a pseudonym. This critique caricatures Longman's arguments (e.g., "posits children as clones of their parents," which is something he is careful not to say).
Posted by: David Mills | Mar 17, 2006 10:10:53 AM
Longman's Foreign Policy piece is available on the web (in four parts) starting here:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3376
I thought the invocation of evolution as a reason for patriarchy was a bit of academic boilerplate--does anybody in real life ever think like this? (I know I don't and I'm a professional biologist.) But it is an interesting statistical consideration of the genetic footprint left by couples who have only one (or even two) children. Alas for Sweden. And Italy. And Spain. And Japan. And...well, you see the problem.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Mar 17, 2006 12:58:14 PM
Mr. Mills,
People write with pseudonyms all the time on this blog. Why is it only the ones who write "critical" comments who get called on it? This pseudonym, for what it's worth, was actually one used by Ben Franklin to critique society during his day. What a coward, that Ben Franklin!
Of course Longman says that some children will reject their parents' values. But his grand theory of history (and let's face it, that's what it is) depends on the assumption of intergenerational value transmission on a mass level. And I think it's very reasonable to critique that assumption. To be persuasive, Longman would at least have to explain why modernization theory is wrong.
To engage in further pseudonymous critique, I would note that it's interesting how countries where patriarchy continues to flourish -- Japan and South Korea -- have among the very lowest fertility rates. What gives?
I would definitely encourage you all to check out Longman's book. Longman's primary interest, in fact, is "how can the modern economy, the modern welfare state, and modern principles of equality be sustained in a world in which the threat of population loss becomes ever more apparent?" (p. 36) You may not like his policy suggestions, though; he's actually a raving liberal!
Posted by: Silence Dogood | Mar 17, 2006 2:33:16 PM
Also, the post refers to Longman as "Dr. Longman," but I don't believe he has a doctoral degree. Just FYI.
Posted by: Silence Dogood | Mar 17, 2006 2:56:37 PM
One of my best friends has lived in Japan since 1990 and, if patriarchy is flourishing there, you could sure fool him. Most guys (and women) are allergic to kids because it cuts into their lifestyle. And a significant percentage of the guys are so overbearing ("little Emperor" syndrome) that no self-respecting women would want to marry them.
I'd be interested in a more in-depth look at Korea. Christianity is a flourishing sub-culture there and I wonder if the fertility rates among this sub-culture vs the general population are significantly different. Does Mr. Longman address this?
Incidentally, I bet Brad Wilcox would be a good guy to write a review of the book. I'm going to go ahead and volunteer him. I'm sure he's got plenty of time on his hands. :-)
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Mar 17, 2006 3:09:06 PM
I've lived in Japan, too. My impression couldn't be further opposite from Gene's friend's. Here's why:
1. There's still widespread support for traditional gender roles in Japan. Most people believe that fathers should be breadwinners, and that mothers should take care of children full-time until the kids turn three. Japanese sociologist Yamada Masahiro actually blames Japan's declining birthrate partially on the *persistence* of traditional gender roles.
The notion that young Japanese people aren't marrying because they want to preserve their high-flying lifestyles was previously called the "parasite singles" syndrome. But the new conventional wisdom is that Japan's stagnating economy has left single young men (and women) unable to meet the financial prerequisites of marriage in Japan.
The most common reason given in Japanese public opinion surveys for why the birthrate is so low is that the financial burden is so high. The financial burden, at least in Japan and South Korea, is mostly due to extraordinarily high education costs.
2. The government has tried to open up more employment opportunities for women, most recently by revising the Equal Employment Opportunity Law. There is still massive employment discrimination against women in Japan. But efforts to promote gender equality have actually triggered a pretty significant political backlash against the ideals of a "Gender-Free society." ("Gender free" is the Japanese misnomer for gender equality.)
3. Japan is still one of the only countries in the world where women can't keep their maiden names after they marry. It's simply illegal. (Actually, the law is that both husband and wife must have the same last name; in a very few cases, the husband adopts the wife's last name, but even this is usually done for patriarchal reasons -- to keep the "male line" going by adopting a son into the family.)
4. When demographers have done cross-national studies of value change (the World Values Survey), they find that Japan comes off as much more traditional than the countries of Northern and Western Europe. To be sure, Japanese values are marked by much more individualism today than they have been in the past, but comparatively speaking, they are still very traditional. In fact, Japan's top demographer, Atoh Makoto, wonders whether Japan and Southern Europe actually fit into the "second demographic transition" posited by Lesthaeghe, Surkyn, and van de Kaa (the demographers Longman cites and misappropriates).
5. I'm not really sure why men being selfish ("little emperors") is incompatible with patriarchy. In fact, the widespread refusal of men to do much housework or cooking in Japan could also be interpreted as vestiges of patriarchy.
6. Patriarchy and blood ties, the very kind Longman describes, are intricately woven together in Japan. Take, for example, the current debate about whether little Princess Aiko can ever be empress. Japanese conservatives say she shouldn't ascend the throne because it would be distorting the male blood-line of thousands of years that is carried on the Y chromosome. For everyday families, the importance of patriarchal blood ties means that sometimes families "adopt" sons when their daughters marry. But regular adoption like we practice in the US is a big no-no; a Japanese friend explained that adoption of infants and young children in Japan is still considered "heresy."
On Korea -- Longman's book doesn't mention South Korea even once, though I, too, would be interested to know if there are differences in the sub-population of Christians vs. non-Christians in South Korea. Christians make up about 1% of Japanese, so comparisons there aren't really meaningful, but a much larger percentage of Koreans are indeed Christian. Then again, the birthrate in Korea is even lower than it is in Japan...
Posted by: Silence Dogood | Mar 17, 2006 3:58:06 PM
People write with pseudonyms all the time on this blog. Why is it only the ones who write "critical" comments who get called on it?
For the obvious reason that if one is going to criticize someone, one should risk critism oneself. Using pseudonyms is a lot like sending anonymous notes denouncing someone you don't like. There's something more straightforward and, if I may put it this way, manlier about putting your own name on it. The respondent to a blog doesn't have any reason to use a pseudonym, other than the ability to denigrate anonymously.
And as a matter of fact, I don't think anyone has ever been criticized for using a pseudonym before, contrary to the implication of your question, though I don't by any means read all the comments.
Thank you for your follow-up comments, which were all helpful. And interesting.
Posted by: David Mills | Mar 17, 2006 7:28:03 PM
There is something about the use of a pseudonym that is intentionally provocative on the part of the commenter. Particularly one like "silence" who is not so subtly trying to impress with his clever name. Ah, "for what it's worth" really means "look at my impressive erudition". It seems unnecessary and distracts from anything of substance that the commenter would want to say...
Posted by: Christopher | Mar 17, 2006 10:04:46 PM
>There is something about the use of a pseudonym that is intentionally provocative on the part of the commenter.
Particularly when attached to a phony email.
Posted by: David Gray | Mar 18, 2006 9:57:11 AM
Christopher,
The "for what it's worth" comment was meant to point out that there is a long and sometimes venerable, sometimes mischievous tradition of pseudonymous social commentary in our country. I hope you wouldn't read anything more than that into it.
Mr. Mills,
This may not be "manly," but a) I'm not a man, and b) what's wrong with a bit of mischief and provocation now and then? If not manly, then boyish!
Posted by: Silence Dogood | Mar 18, 2006 4:49:08 PM
"There is something about the use of a pseudonym that is intentionally provocative on the part of the commenter."
Is that really fair? I use a pseudonym because I've been taught not to use my real name on the internet (in a public setting, anyway. If you e-mail me, you'll find out my real name). My e-mail address is real; moreoever, Luthien is my standard appellation on the internet. Anywhere else I comment or post, I'm called Luthien/Ladyluthien and give a real address, so i fail to see how it's a provocation. And did I mention I hate my real name? This is my one escape from it :)
Posted by: Luthien the nasty den mother | Mar 19, 2006 4:58:17 PM
Dear SD,
I should have been more careful in my posting. I was internally contrasting a Christian notion of patriarchy (which I view as a good and positive thing flowing from the life of the Father and which Prof. Wilcox has explored sociologically in his research) with the traditional version practiced in Japan (and which Japanese women increasingly view as oppressive--'cause it is). But there is no way you could have gathered that from what I wrote. I apologize for posting too hastily and not explaining.
From my conversations with my buddy in Japan (who is married to a Japanese Christian and has three kids) and articles he has sent me from such sources as the Daily Yomiyuri (I hope I spelled that correctly), I've gathered that Japanese women exposed to western media have become less tolerant of the little emperors in their midst precisely because they tend to be selfish oafs who provide no help with any daily chores. This increasing selectivity is one of the factors (along with the others that you ably point out in #2 and #3) that has prolonged the age of marriage and reduces the chance that large families will be produced.
Everything said about the costs of education as a barrier to having large families are true only IF you have bought into a particular type of societal myth that only one (expensive) mode of education is adequate. This model precludes (in theory) multiple children because the parents need to spend their time working to amass the resources to pay for it. I have encountered this argument in the United States from op-eds in newspapers (such as the Washington Post) and in person (my graduate adviser and many of the folks I have encountered subsequently in academia and professional life).
The strong form of the US version posits that the only education worth having is a private prep school followed by attendance at an Ivy League institution (or one of the small expensive schools of the Swarthmore/Reed class). (I suppose the Japanese version terminates with admittance to Tokyo University after grueling years of study to jump through the requisite testing hoops. It's kind of a different focus for the Japanese since *getting in* is most of the battle, not how you do when you get there.)
But of course, it is possible to get a good education on the cheap if you are willing to have at least one parent invest themselves temporally in their children. This method also has the benefit of actually acquainting you in a profound way with your offspring (which I view as a win-win situation). My wife homeschools our four oldest children and we have told them that we can only pay for a state-supported school.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Mar 20, 2006 10:09:17 AM
"Of course Longman says that some children will reject their parents' values. But his grand theory of history (and let's face it, that's what it is) depends on the assumption of intergenerational value transmission on a mass level. And I think it's very reasonable to critique that assumption. To be persuasive, Longman would at least have to explain why modernization theory is wrong."
This IS interesting. Yet there will be a "Longman effect" even if there is only a positive CORRELATION between parents' values, and their children's. In other words, conservatives will be overrepresented in the next generation even if the children from families with patriarchal values are SLIGHTLY more likely to be conservatives than liberals, themselves- when the traditional folks are having lots, lots more kids.
So if people would "randomly" fall Right or Left on the spectrum, but parental involvement has SOME influence - you still get a "Longman effect", I think.
Add to that, that families with traditional values, for a number of reasons including the understanding that those values MUST be inculcated against a hostile culture, are deliberately trying to pass on their ideas. You get high parenting investment, which one hopes tips the scale even further. It is certainly INTENDED to do so.
And further - Mr. Godbold's homeschoolers - and mine - are not being socially shaped by their peer groups to the extent that previous generations were or test study groups tend to be. No, I think my hopes and Mr. Longman's fears are justified: more little traditionalists, fewer little moderns out there. Other demographic changes (immigration, anyone?) will have huge impacts, too, but patriarchy looks pretty effective nonetheless.
(Oh - and can you call it "patriarchy" at all, in those cultures minimizing the succeeding generations - like Japan, from what I understand? A "patriarch" is not just a dominant male - the root word is "father". A man ordering his wife around can't even be a BAD patriarch unless he has children to order around, too!)
Posted by: Joe Long | Mar 20, 2006 2:06:26 PM
Luthien brings up a good point. While I would comment using my last name if I thought it added any substance or if I was asked, I would hesitate recommending that to my wife or daughter. Luthien also is a regular commentator and this gives us a 'personality' and a certain amount familiarity. Still as we can see by more than one persons reaction and her own admission, "Silence" purpose was to be "mischievous". In this case (apart from any tradition of political discourse) it was an irritation and distracted from the substance of the post and comments...
Posted by: Christopher | Mar 20, 2006 5:07:44 PM
Thank you, Christopher! Actually, I wouldn't recommend that you use your lastname too publicly, either, since identity theft is as much an internet problem as sexual harrasment. (That said, if you e-mail me, I think you'll wind up knowing my whole name...and get to see why I don't like it :)
Posted by: Luthien the nasty den mother | Mar 20, 2006 7:17:41 PM
Just for the record, I think it makes me think twice before being snarky in a post since I put my name on it. I suppose someone could begin to amass data on me, but I'm careful not to throw my social security or credit card numbers around...
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Mar 21, 2006 9:06:19 AM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004