Families Without Fatherhood

Rating:
Summary: Father, you left me but I never left you, I needed you...
Review: This is an excellent piece of work by Dennis and Erdos continuing their earlier work in a new and expanded edition with a new afterward by Peter Saunders.

The authors clain to have established the reason for societal breakdown in terms of the postwar breakdown of the family, which coupled with the growing number of households established by same sex couples. They combine results of sociological surveys and studies with anecdotal evidence to paint an alarming picture odf societal breakdown directly attributable to the lack of a permanent father authority figure in the home whilst the welfare state treats individuals as more worthy of receiving welfare benefits than a traditional heterosexual married couple.

Further the authors go on to link the breakdown of the family with the rising crime numbers and suggest that public policy be geared up to restoring the traditional family to the centre of the public policy agenda. They draw on evidence from other countries to give their case a more general flavour and to provide examples of policy actions.

This is certainly an articulate and persuasive work which it is claimed gave new impetus to the UK Blair government to alter it's policies on welfare provision in this area whilst refraining from taking the whole step and reasserting the family as the centrality of their social policy agenda. They are wise in not doing so. To paraphrase Popper, a theory that explains everything explains nothing and in many ways their case seems too good to be true. The finer points of dispute I will leave to others but I wish to focus on one major point which the authors refer to specifically with which i am at odds.

Throughout my years as a student of social policy I was always encouraged to be sceptical if not agnostic about cause and correlation in social science. My nose twitched rapidly when the correlation of rising crime and family breakdown from the 1950's was introduced. To me that period represents the implementation of the Keynsian consensus and the development of the age of affluence and the emergence of the consumer age in the aftermath of widespread economic destruction. I would personally place the time of family breakdown in the early 1960's when the introduction of the female contraceptive pill broke the link between sex and reproduction and enabled more married women to have their own careers, determine when they were ready and able to have children and allowed them the capacity to become more financially independent. However, I digress.

The authors cite statistics indicating the rise in crime numbers and contrast these with statistics of crime when unemployment was at historic highs. The comparison is certainly a valid one, unemployment is not the main cause of crime but it is and can be a contributory factor. But then so can the government. For instance, if government makes some drugs legal say nicotine, but not others say heroin, it alters the way people behave. Suppliers can maximise profits through trafficking and have an incentive to get more people addicred thus boosting the demand for a drug already in short supply through legislative action. To finance their habit, addicts resort to petty theft, burglary, prostitution, fraud and others thus boosting the crime statistics. They are caught, fned and/or imprisoned and then return to their old ways if not helped. QED. Drug users are not confined to the lower income groups and are often to be found in the professional and managerial higher income groups where fathers are often to be found.

So I am afraid that the analysis just will not do. The problem of socital brakdown is a much more complex issue which to me reflects a transition to an age of more family and lifestyle choices than we are used to where individuals, who after all should be the best people to choose their destiny, amke choices which the paternalistic conservatives of right and left may not like.

John Lennon did not know his father as he was growing up, his mother was killed in an accident and he was raised by his aunt. His first marriage failed and during his second marriage he stayed at home, giving up a career worth millions to bring up his son with Yoko Ono. He did not turn his back on marriage or fatherhood but despite his lack of a traditional family upbringing he made choices about how to live his life with others. Surely the authors do not have the right to deny others the ability to make those choices?