I’m reading Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart. I’ve been truly floored by the scope of social science evidence, the creativity of his methods, and the excellence of his writing style. Writing about vast amounts of statistical results in a compelling and colorful style sprinkled with much wit and humor is a rare talent, but Murray clearly has it. For instance, in Murray’s self-test for qualifying as an “Overeducated Elite Snob,” one of the scores of questions he asks is this: “What does the word Branson mean to you?” I can’t recommend this book enough to readers of this blog. It’s entertaining, alarming, rigorous, and convicting.
There are several items in the book that are compelling (my highlighter is melting due to friction). One that really resonated with me concerns how we respond today regarding nonmarital births (a century ago, we used the term ‘bastard,’ then we moved to ‘illegitimate,’ now the neutral term, ‘nonmarital births’ is preferred). In the social sciences, we have no laws, like those observed scientifically in nature. Humans sometimes behave in fairly predictable patterns, but not to the extent that atoms or mice do. Humans are not different from atoms or mice in degree, but in kind, so identifying laws in human behavior is virtually impossible.
Even so, some behaviors produce outcomes so routinely as to approximate a social scientific law of sorts. In political science, there is the axiom regarding education and voting (they are positively related). We also have the so-called “Duverger’s law” (societies with winner-takes-all election systems end up with a two-party election system as well; India being the primary exception). Murray points up one such axiom in the study of families and children, but unlike other well-established causal relationships, this one is simply ignored in academia and elsewhere.
It doesn’t matter who you ask (and I ask people this over and over again), college professor or college student, the reaction is nearly always the same. Social problems like poverty are a result of the wrong mix of public policies, economic injustice, racism, sexism, etc. Political science students, for instance, are told of many social problems facing society, in class after class, especially those affecting minority communities (housing, jobs, poverty, health care, education, etc.). But when the discussion turns to the causes, the answers given by professors are nearly always the same, economic disadvantage, unequal education, lack of social service provision (that’s always pitched as a ’cause’, despite the logical fallacy of attributing causation of an illness to absence of a treatment) labor exploitation, racism, etc. (things for which we can “occupy” something somewhere). These are the “acceptable” answers, even though social science on this topic has clearly established a virtually axiomatic answer concerning the true and overarching and absolutely primary cause of everything from crime to poverty: the status of the traditional family. But, this answer is simply ignored, and I’ll argue it’s ignored because it doesn’t fit the political narratives that many commentators on the left want to tell. Truly, a student of political science will hear discussion and lectures on social problems and their alleged causes very frequently, but they will almost never hear of what amounts to the virtually law-like cause (the breakdown of the traditional family). Perhaps the reason is that this answer seems to invite society to morally judge the family arrangements that people are in and sexual choices that people make. That’s a no-no in the secular liberal academy, entertainment culture and in contemporary journalism. Even showing a graph, like I’ve done, can engender all sorts of hysteria (“What are you implying, Dr. Gibson?”). So, rather than actually and accurately diagnose the cancer in order to get to a suitable treatment, we call it something else and blame it on other far lesser factors (as real as they may be). It’s like telling someone they they developed throat cancer because they don’t exercise much, even though you know they smoke like a chimney. To avoid judging them, it’s better just not to bring it up. That way, we can remain ‘tolerant’ and ‘open-minded’ and ‘non-judgmental’ and ‘accepting’ of all. For the sake of being enlightened moderns, we’ll just focus on causes of social problems that, even if solved, would improve conditions only at the margins.
In empirical social science, there are dependent variables (effects) and independent variables (causes). So, in the relationship between voting and education, education is the IV and voting is the DV. In some cases, there is another variable at play, called an antecedent variable. An AV is prior and the cause of the IV, which in turn causes the DV to vary. Often, AVs are not known or measurable. Such is most certainly NOT the case here. The reason why there are so many social problems (crime and cyclical dependence as DVs, for instance) is due to economic destitution (IV). So far so good. Typically, this is where the narrative of social crises stop in the classroom. But we know empirically what the AV is here. The AV is family breakdown, absentee fatherhood, and nonmarital births. Economic destitution is rare when the traditional family is in tact, and the social problems that attend economic destitution are also rare in those circumstances. The Great Depression is a case in point (economic destitution, but the AV was not present: broken homes). So, crime remained relatively low. But even when the AV is clearly determinative, easily measured, it still gets little attention because of an overriding political or ideological narrative. Again, it’s better to be politically correct than actually properly diagnose the causes of human suffering. Even showing a graph like these, clearly establishing the superiority of the traditional family over its alternatives, can get you accused of bigotry, purtianism, and racism (no matter who suffers because of our silence and ignorance):
I suppose all this academic ignorance or dishonesty would be fine, if real deep vast levels of human suffering weren’t at stake, but they are. So, we (I) must pick between risking making liberal elites and MTV educated young people angry or uncomfortable (or worse, being labeled a ‘puritan’) and children trapped in a cycle of hopelessness. I think Jesus has made it clear with whom we must side. It’s time to talk about this stuff, openly and honestly with compassion and genuine concern.
Well, apparently, I’m not the only social scientist who is just fed up with keeping silent about what amounts to a social science law, ignored at the peril of the most helpless among us. Charles Murray writes, ”
“Trends in marriage are important not just with regard to the organization of communities [which Murray demonstrates in the pages before this passage], but because they are associated with large effects on the socialization of the next generation. No matter what the outcome being examined [with respect to each of the following, Murray cites using endnotes the relevant empirical study] — the quality of the mother-infant relationship, externalizing behavior in childhood (aggression, delinquency, and hyperactivity), delinquency in adolescence, criminality as adults, illness and injury in childhood, early mortality, sexual decision making in adolescence, school problems and dropping out, emotional health, or any other measure of how well or poorly children do in life — the family structure that produces the best outcomes for children, on average are two biological parents who remain married. Divorced parents produce the next best outcomes. Whether the parents remarry or remain single while the children are growing up makes little difference. Never-married women produce the worst outcomes [despite the Hollywood celebration and admiration of women who go that route]. All of these statements apply after controlling for the family’s socioeconomic status. I know of no other set of important findings that are as broadly accepted by social scientists who follow the technical literature [on this subject], liberal or conservative, and yet are so resolutely ignored by network news programs, editorial writers for the major newspapers, and politicians of both major political parties [and I’ll add other liberal arts profs talk a whole lot about “social justice” without ever mentioning the family]” (Murray, 2012, p. 158)
Well, I suppose we could just “spend more” on those problems, right? The state, with its resources and programs, can surely makeup the difference for illegitimacy (not that there’s anything wrong with that!). One graph:
Well, maybe it’s just not getting to them? Two graphs:
So, these problems are rooted in a cultural thing, a values thing. No government programs or solutions, especially since government can’t (or won’t) morally judge behaviors, can solve it. Social institutions like church, family, local communities/cultures are the vehicles by which these problems are solved. So, we can continue to just pretend, for the sake of being morally neutral and tolerant, that this is not the reality, but as as Christian commanded to plea for the poor, I can’t do that any longer.
thereformedmind 