Critique of myths about marriages and families

¶ … Marriage & Family Myths

CRITIQUE of "DEBUNKING MYTHS ABOUT MARRIAGE and FAMILIES"

In Debunking Myths about Marriages and Families, Mary Ann Schwartz and Barbara Marliene Scott argue very effectively against five specific beliefs that dominate American cultural views on the institution of marriage and the nuclear family. In doing so, the authors present very persuasive arguments that are, with perhaps one exception, logically sound, devoid of any obvious logical fallacies, reliance on emotionally loaded terms, or any other apparent faulty reasoning. Instead, the authors simply present five specific conceptual beliefs and undermine their validity by providing the historical context for their evolution and the logical basis for their objective refutation.

The views of Schwartz and Scott are quite consistent with those expressed by contemporary researchers in the field of sociology and human sexual evolution, such as encapsulated by New York Times writer, Sam Roberts, in his 2007 article, "The Shelf Life of Bliss," as well as those of renowned psychologist and family therapist, Nathaniel Branden, as detailed in his 1999 book, the Psychology of Romantic Love. Myth # 1 - the Universal Nuclear Family:

Schwartz and Scott (2000) take on the proverbial notion that the concept of family is necessarily defined only the way it has been presented in the U.S. mainstream culture.

The authors suggest that family is more accurately defined much more broadly than by the image of one man and one woman married for life and raising children together.

Instead, they argue that any survey of cultures worldwide would reveal very different expectations of what a family is and that the description commonly accepted in this particular part of the world represents only one of many models evident in human culture.

Branden (1999) agree wholeheartedly and goes even farther, pointing out that as the human lifespan continues to increase, the expectation that marriage is necessarily a permanent arrangement becomes more and more difficult to maintain. Branden points out that more than half of all marriages end in divorce; that many of the rest are less content than the marital partners would like; and that living up to the cultural image of what many believe marriage is supposed to be may cause tremendous harm within families. Likewise, Roberts (2007) explains that in many respects, the expectations fostered in the modern media about families and, especially, relationships between spouses is extremely unrealistic and at odds with both statistical and anecdotal evidence that most marriages are less harmonious than many believe.

Myth # 2 - the Self-Reliant Family:

Schwartz and Scott (2000) suggest that, contrary to reality, American culture reflects the general belief that families should be entirely self-reliant and that the healthy family should not require any assistance of any kind from anyone outside the family.

They point out, correctly, that this perception belies the fact that American families have traditionally relied on outside help substantially, whether in the form of government programs or merely extended social networks and institutions such as churches and even, prior to the late 19th century, from slavery.

Branden (1999) agrees, again going even further, by drawing a parallel between the manifestations of personal low self-esteem and shame that often prevents individuals from accepting (or even from admitting their need for) help and the collective low self- esteem of the entire family whose members are too concerned with maintaining appearances to accept help from others.

Myth # 3 - the Naturalness of Different Spheres for Wives and Husbands:

Schwartz and Scott (2000) explain that, contrary to popular perception, husbands and wives have not always divided up their respective responsibilities into home care and child rearing for women and the sole responsibility the financial sustenance of the family for men. According to the authors, this dynamic that many contemporary views consider to be a universal fact of life actually evolved only after the social changes introduced by the Industrial Revolution. In fact, any so-called "modern" shift to a more egalitarian sharing of family responsibilities represents more of a return to the more natural state of families than any "radical" or "new" approach.

Branden (1999) agrees, again tying in excessive adherence to typical male and female roles as a potential source of unnecessary strain, especially where marital partners may be better suited to a different arrangement or sharing of responsibilities. Likewise, Roberts (2007) also acknowledges the damage caused to marriage by dissatisfaction, especially among wives, as to the roles prescribed to them by society.

Myth # 4 - the Unstable African-American Family:

In their criticism of the notion that the African-American community reflects a lower level of marital and family stability than other cultures in the U.S., Schwartz and Scott (2000), seem to contradict themselves as well as to rely on a non-sequitur and the emotional power of the concept of racism. Specifically, while acknowledging that African-Americans, as a group, reflect less family stability than many other groups, the authors suggest that this conclusion ignores the complexities of the underlying causes, in conjunction with the suggestion that the perception amounts to racism. However, the causes are irrelevant to the correctness or incorrectness of the perception and the authors do not deny that, for whatever reasons, African-American communities seem to suffer somewhat more from the phenomenon at issue than other cultures.

Myth # 5 - the Idealized Nuclear Family of the 1950s: