Missing concepts and topics in week eight

¶ … Miss Something?

Putnam spends his first two paragraphs extolling the idea that divorce notwithstanding, every one in his family (including him) adjusted perfectly to the break up of his parents. One of his main claims (in the first paragraph): "I cannot sense any schism in my life resulting from the event to which other people seem to attribute so much importance." He goes on to say he can't differentiate between the "supposed angst" and the "normal" part of his youth, which pretty much says that it all seems very normal and he's fine with the way it all turned out. But by the third paragraph he is backtracking wholeheartedly, saying "in all truthfulness, there have been some decidedly negative ramifications stemming from out family separation." Which way is it, Putnam?

Moreover, I do not agree at all with his statement that people talk about divorce "in an almost pious reverence saved only for life threatening illness." People talk about divorce like they talk about the weather or the need to mow that back lawn. Divorce is a ubiquitous institution in American society; it happens to nearly every family in some sense. So there is no "pious reverence" unless one is alluding to one's impending divorce, then it's serious. Another of his main claims is that "…divorce happens a lot in today's society, and… our culture has evolved to accommodate these new family arrangements…" (fourth paragraph).

Question TWO: Aside from his lone bitter memory and some wishy-washy going back and forth from how bad the divorce was to how he was living in the "best of all worlds," he bases his claim on the fact that there "is no such thing as a perfect life or a 'normal' life." Moreover, he knows that he got to spend six months in New York City with one parent and six months in Boston with the other parent, and he "cherishes" his time with each parent. He is honest about the darker side of his parents' divorce, which is convincing, but he also builds up the advantages of spending every other Thanksgiving with one group of relatives and the Thanksgiving following that one with different relatives.

Question FOUR: I agree that loving parents without great financial resources are more important to children than wealthy or affluent parents that don't share love openly. He bases his warrant on the belief that with love as the driving force, the correct decisions will be made. He says being with one happy parent at a time is preferable to being with both unhappy parents. He is gracious in saying each of his parents made a "sacrifice" to relinquish control of him for six months. There is one statement he makes I certainly disagree with: "I can hardly imagine a more well-adjusted and contented family." That is stretching credulity because in my mind a well-adjusted, contented family would be one in which both parents provide love and nurturing for their children in the same home -- as a loving couple.

Question SIX: As already mentioned in this paper, when Putnam changes course in the opening of the third paragraph, it is almost like a night and day difference from what he put forth in the first two paragraphs. All of a sudden his argument is weakened. Later (in paragraphs 4-6) he returns to his earlier assertions that the divorce wasn't bad and in fact was kind of good. But paragraph three is a radical departure from what he had been saying in the earlier narrative.