Bahá’í World/Volume 32/World Watch, The Family
 | The text below this notice was generated by a computer, it still needs to be checked for errors and corrected. If you would like to help, view the original document by clicking the PDF scans along the right side of the page. Click the edit button at the top of this page (notepad and pencil icon) or press Alt+Shift+E to begin making changes. When you are done press "Save changes" at the bottom of the page. |
World Watch -
Arm Boyle: look: at the hirtmy, tb: present canditian, and II}: fiuure prospects of the nuclearfimi/y, fiom a Ba/ui 'I' persptm'ue.
the International Yea; of the Family, and many governments,
nongovernmental organizations, and UN agencies will be hold— ing events or undertaking studies to reflect on the current state of the family—at the same time that long-standing notions about it are being revisited.
One barometer of change is language. To accommodate current social realities, the authors of a respected family therapy volume have made significant revisions to their terminology in the recently published third edition, replacing “nuclear family” with “immediate family,“ which they see as “more comprehensive,” encompassing not only the nuclear model, but also a variety of other arrangements. Further, in the growing absence of formal, recognized marriage, the authors refer to the family bond simply as “commitment.”l
With these revisions, it is clear that the authors are seeking to be more inclusive. But the relationship between language, perception, and reality is intricate. Do such changes in terminology also alter our expectations and standards? And that question, in turn. raises others, such as whether the traditional nuclear family is dead, how we should define family in this age, and What its future might be.
In 2004, the United Nations marks the tenth anniversary of
170 THE BAHA’f WORLD 2003—2004
Until relatively recent times, and across many cultures, the family encompassed several generations and extended relations. However, at some point—possibly as early as the sixteenth century, according to some sociologists—European families experienced a radical shift, when marriages began to be contracted on the basis of affection rather than for economic or other advantages, and couples were no longer so closely intertwined with their clans. Families then began to depend to an unprecedented degree on the continuation of the husband’s and wife's afl'ection for each other. The family’s traditional “economic, protective, educational, religious, and recreational Func- tions” were supplanted by “affectional and cultural” ones.2 With the support of religion and state, the nuclear family evolved to epitomize “the goal of human sexuality combined with romantic love” and became “the only socially acceptable form of adult pair-bond.”3
By the late nineteenth century, what Christopher Lasch calls the “bourgeois family system” had evolved to rest on four pillars: ucompanionate marriage,” “the child—centered household,” “the emancipation or quasi—emancipation ofwomen,” and “the structural isolation of the nuclear family from the kinship system and from society in general.” The family became “an emotional refuge in a cold and competitive society" in which privacy was highly valued, while work was simply the means by which breadwinners made that refuge more comfortable“ By the midpoint of the twentieth century, this “structural differentiation”5 was championed as making the family more effective in delivering its emotional goods; therefore, the thinking went, it should limit itself to that role, while the other functions previously in the family’s domain would best be left to more efficient social institutions.
As the family’s arena of responsibility has shrunk, however, the emotional weight it bears has grown heavier and heavier. As Suanne Keiman argues in All in the Family: A Cultural Hixtmy of Family Life, marriage partners in Western society are now expected to be “financial associates, co—parents, passionate lovers, best friends, constant companions am! even exercise partners.” How realistic are these expectations? Kelman observes, “In cultures with lower divorce rates, marriage is often iess demanding.”5 And indeed, many sociolo— gists contend that for these sorts of reasons the ideal of the isolated nuclear family has never been terribly successful.
[Page 171]
WORLD WATCH 171
While we have loaded more and more emotion onto the family, other factors have also worked changes on it. These include radical shifts in norms of sexual behavior, which have led to greater numbers ofnon—man'ied couples and couples of the same sex cohabiting open— ly, for example. Established ideas about what constitutes a family are continually being challenged. At the same time, throughout the past century we have seen “an increase in standards for what constitutes a successful marriage,” accompanied by "a weakening commitment to the norm of lifelong marriage.”7 The result is a large jump in the rate of divorce and in the number of single—parent families. A more general acceptance ofsexual equality constitutes another transforma— tive Factor. On the positive side, domestic violence has been widely condemned and ctiminalized, but on the negative side, expectations regarding gender roles have become increasingly confused. And one fiirthet factor changing the family springs from the development of reliable means to limit family size: cultural norms have now shifted to the point where smaller families are not only acceptable but also desirable. This. in turn, has resulted in a radical change in attitudes towards children.
While these factors are particularly evident in Families in “ad- vanced” societies, other developments affect families on a global scale. Even where there is no conscious desire to turn away from established models, families are disrupted by economic deprivation, war and conflict, and diseases such as HIV/AIDS. In sub—Saharan Africa, for example, many children orphaned by AIDS are left either to Fend for themselves or to be raised by grandparents or other relatives. And these problems appear to be increasing exponentially. The United Nations estimates that by 2010, 25.3 million children around the world will have lost either one or both parents to AIDS~——20.l million of these in sub-Saharan Africa.8 The resulting social disruption will be extreme. Upon what model will these children, who are deprived of life with their mothers and fathers, establish their own families when they grow up?
In spite of such catastrophic factors, and in spite of numerous predictions of its demise, the ideal of the nuclear family endures. Yet it is clear that in its current Form, it is not in tune with the needs of a changing society. So what is the future of this beleaguered institu— tion? 13 it, as some have suggested. simply a revival of the traditional
177. THE BAHA’f WORLD 2003—2004
nuclear model, or is it, as others have advocated, the abandonment ofmarriage and family altogether? Or, as still others contend, should the ideal of marriage and family be reconceptualized to accommodate shifting social mores?
Since many sociologists argue that the concept of Western society’s traditional nuclear family has been in decline for at least a hundred years, the desirability of reviving it seems questionable— assuming it were even possible. After all, that family ideal arose in a world significantly diflierent from the one we now inhabit.
First, the situation of women was disadvantaged. Basically, they were prisoners of the household with no choice but to stay home, unless they were forced to work in menial jobs to try to keep the family from starvation—in which event there was no (or, at best, small and demeaning) government assistance. Domestic violence was tacitly accepted, and if women were brutalized within the marriage they had little recourse. Divorce was an impossibility for the vast majority of them. In that world, public education was not widely available, so parents with means educated their children at home, while families lacking resources had few opportunities for children to acquire knowledge and skills in order to make better lives for themselves. Nor was there any social safety net. Individuals with dis— abilities, for example, were excluded From the work force and were entirely the responsibility of their families, which were also the sole caregivers of elderly, dependent relatives.9
Families that grew in this matrix can be categorized generally as patriarchal and authoritarian. In The Violence Free Family: Building Blork afu Peatefid Civilization, Hossain Danesh describes such pow— er-based families as exhibiting the following characteristics: unequal access to knowledge (with women being denied education), lack of truthfulness and trust in the relationships of the various members, and conditionality of the expression of parental love on children’s efforts to conform to their parents’ wishes.’0
It is clear that the context in which the traditional nuclear family functioned was not an ideal world to which we should hasten back. In any case, how could families provide adequate education for their children in today’s society? And how could they possibly remain self—suflicient enough to gainfully employ all their members? The material and social inequalities perpetuated by the powerfial, self-
I
WORLD WATCH K73
suflicient family model have also been reduced, over time, through income and inheritance taxes; new laws and social agencies curtail wife and child abuse and provide women with the option of leaving had marriages. On the whole. advantages outweigh the disadvantages attached to the changes in the family’s situation, even if the present situation is far from idea].
If looking backwards is not a solution to the dilemma bf the modern family, neither is the prospect of abandoning marriage and family altogether. Except in me instances. communal experiments in family life and child rearing have not proved to be enduring, and they do not appear to be an emerging model.
What, then, about refashioning the idea] of marriage to accom- modate a wider range of commitments? That is the tack taken by many contemporary sociologists and family therapists. Caner and McGoldrick. for example. state, “It is high time we gave up on our traditional concept of Family and expanded our very definition of the term,” continuing, “[tlhe backlash forces in our society use code terms such as ‘family values' to imply that traditional nuclear families are the only valid families. We must resist such insidious definitions and insist on a more inclusive definition of Family and family values." They include in theirs not only the traditional nuclear model but also heterosexual unmarried partners, homosexual couples, divorced parents who live alone, single unmarried parents, families composed of remarried adults (with or without children). single adults, and widowed partners. In any of these arrangements, family members such as children may live with them or in other households, visiting periodically."
However. many challenges and concerns arise from the continual revision of the ideal of marriage and family to suit changing norms and practices. ranging from the emotional and psychological well- being of partners and children to their legal status and protection. If, as some sociologists have suggested, both “the psychological ‘an— chorage' of adults"'2 and child rearing remain the most important functions served by the nuclear family structure, providing a sense of identity and belonging to its members, how can the family cope with the stresses it faces so as to better perform these functions?
One stress that demands attention is society’s response to the entry of women into the workplace. In her book The Setond Sbifi,
174 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2003—2004
Arlie Russell Hochschild argues that While the entrance ofboth men and women into the industrial economy changed relations between the sexes, especially within marriage, “the entrance of men into in— dustrial work did not destabilize the family whereas in the absence of other changes, the rise in female employment has gone with the rise in divorce.”13 Hochschild contends that women who have entered the economy have largely been absorbed into the existing culture of the workplace, but no evolution has occurred in the “cultural under- standing of marriage and work.”” Employers have largely refused to adapt to meet employees’ family demands, and most husbands and fathers have not compensated for changes in family life that have resulted from women’s entry into the workplace.
A major factor in this “stalled revolution,” as Hochschild calls it,15 is the tension between the family’s need for care and the way our society has devalued work that has traditionally been done by homemakers, passing it on “to low—paid housekeepers, baby-sit— ters, and daycare workers,”"’ while other responsibilities previously handled by families—care of disabled or elderly family members, for example—have been taken over by the state. Meanwhile, families “emotionally downsize,” devoting less time and energy to the home environment, the spouse, and the children.17 The whole process eventually leaves the Family in a state ofemotional impoverishment, and we have the inverse of Taleott Parsons’ vision: the family is no longer capable of effectively delivering its emotional goods.
Looking at the child—rearing function of the family, authors Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth observe that, in healthy families, parental care and encouragement give children a sense of security and self—worth, and that parents play an important part in help— ing their children acquire skills, form goals, learn about limits and social boundaries, and become self—regulating—all while convey- ing a sense of caring about their children’s f-‘uture.18 However, like Arlie Hochschild, David Popenoe warns that “social and cultural forces” are “subtly corroding the parent—child relationship.” He contends that the movements throughout the twentieth century that championed individual rights, freedoms, and the pursuit of self—fiilfillment (particularly the sexual, feminist, therapeutic, welfare, and consumer revolutions) have also contributed to “growing disin-
WORLD WATCH I7;
vestments in family life" and “the increasing dissolution of families with children.”‘9
Other scholars concur with this view. Amato and Booth note that while young people expect “companionship, personality develop— ment, and emotional security” in marriage, they no longer see it as necessarily meeting needs for “children, a steady sexual relationship, and maintenance of a home.” Thus, partners may be quickei’ now than in previous eras to give up on marriage and parenting.20
The family mode] that has flourished in such a climate is what Hossain Danesh calls the permissive or indulgent family, which fo— cuses primarily on personal fulfillment, to the exclusion of all else. Danesh writes. “In such families pursuit of knowledge and truth do not have relevance except for personal gain. Love in indulgence- based families is viewed as identical to gratification," and children raised in such an atmosphere become uself—centered, intolerant, and undiscipline ."2‘
With the increase in marriage and relationship breakups, the absence of fathers in many contemporary Families has become a matter ofserious concern. Even as we give lip service to the idea that fathers should be more involved in raising their children, the reality is that with the increase in divorce and in “nonmarital birth,” the role of fathers has diminished in the lives of many children. More men are spending fewer years living with their oflcspring, and those who aren’t living with their children often have little contact with them—and contribute little or nothing to their support. Not sur- prisingly, studies show that children benefit when fathers manage to maintain “close and supportive relations” with the mothers of their children, and that children sufier “to the extent that fathers create discord in their marriages”;
The situation in which the modern Family finds itself, then, is in many respects far from ideal. and remedies need to be sought on a variety of fronts. First and most Fundamentally, perhaps, we need to revisit our expectations of marriage and family life. The difference between previous generations and ours, writes Suanne Kelman, is our expectation that the world owes us uninterrupted happiness.“ In short, our vision of the family is not realistic. Instead of “models of couples making their way through each stage of life,” we have “enormous concentration on courtship and romance." as popularized
176 THE BAHA’I WORLD 2003—2004
in Hollywood movies and television shows, for example. She laments, “I wish that Westerners would renounce their delusion that they can be happy all the time, and learn to deal with the less—than—perfect families they have,” living with “restraint and kindness and intel— ligence” within their choices.24 Another necessary attitudinal change is the very “notion of manhood,” so that men will be encouraged “to be active parents and share at home.”25
At the policy—making level, many commentators recommend that governmental policies adversely affecting families with children receive closer scrutiny before their adoption and implementation. Workplace policies also need what Hochschild calls “humane” adap- tation to the reality that in most families two parents work outside the home and are also responsible for domestic duties, including childcare. Policies supporting greater involvement of fathers in their children’s care would include flexible working hours, permanent part—time work and job—sharing, a compressed work week, work based in the home, and paid family leaves for the birth of children or care of sick ones, and other situations. More ambitious plans might include convenient, affordable housing and even community—based laundry and meal services. In short, policies supporting marriage, including the provision of marriage and family counseling, need enhancing.26
But many of these suggestions are reactive means for dealing with the crisis; while they are certainly needed, a constructive, proactive approach is also imperative. As David Popenoe puts it, “public fa— cilities and services alone . . . cannot halt the decline of Families . . . the family must also be nurtured and sustained as a thing of value through the moral suasion of cultural, intellectual, and political leaders.” While governments should certainly safeguard the rights of all of their citizens, they should not “downgrade the ideal of the nuclear family,” because “[i]n an egalitarian society the protection of minority life—styles is important, but good family life is something on Which every society depends for its very existence.”7
It now appears that hard scientific data are bearing out such calls for strong family life. Evidence published in a recent report titled Hardwired to Connect, by the Commission on Children at Risk,28 cites findings in the field of neuroscience that children are born needing (or “hardwired” for) deep connections with others and
WORLD WATCH x77
seeking moral meaning in their lives. The report attributes increasing emotional and mental problems in American children and youth, including rising suicide rates, to a lack of connectedness to other people and a lack of “moral and spiritual meaning” in their lives. The rather unusual consequence of this study is that scientists and experts on children’s health have joined forces to urge that serious attention be given to “young people’s moral, spiritual, and religious needs.”
In its report, the Commission stresses the importance in children’s development ofwhat it terms “authoritative communities”—“groups of people who are committed to one another over time and who model and pass on at least part of what it means to be a good person and live a good life." Lacking these—which begin with the family, but also include religious and civil groups—children’s development is warped.”
Baha’i Families live in this same difficult environment and are coping with the same stresses that other families face. Their ad— vantage, however, is a distinct vision of the nature. purpose, and functioning of the family.
From a Baha'i perspective, the importance of the family lies primarily in the fact that it is the basic building block of society. The Baha’i writings state that “human evolution . . . had its earliest beginnings in the birth of family life”30 and eventually expanded to encompass the tribe, the city-state, and the nation—state. Because of its role as the basic social unit, the family’s health has a direct impact on the well-being of the wider community and the state as a whole.
Bahé’fs, then, regard the cohesion of the family as vitally impor— tant and believe that this condition develops in a marriage that is built on harmony and unity‘ While a couple’s relationship should spring from attraction and affection (‘Abdu'l—Bahé says, “first thou must choose one who is pleasing to thee”), there must be more. ‘Abdu’l—Baha continues, “Bahé’i’ marriage is the commitment of the two parties one to the other, and their mutual attachment of mind and heart." In preparing to build a lasting commitment, the couple must “become thoroughly acquainted" with each other’s character, finding common purpose in the goal of becoming “loving compan- ions and comrades" throughout their earthly lives and beyond.”
178 THE BAHA’I’ WORLD 2003—2004
Thus, the couple begins marriage on a unified spiritual basis, taking them beyond the ephemeral notions of romantic love and courtship that are popularized in the Western media, and away from practices of arranged marriages common in other cultures.
Furthermore, in order for Bahé’l’ marriage to take place, the partners must receive their parents’ consent. It is a law designed “to strengthen the social fabric, to knit closer the ties of the home, to place a certain gratitude and respect in the hearts of the children for those who have given them life and sent their souls out on the eternal journey towards their Creator.”35 Thus, the importance of family unity is stressed from the outset of a couple’s life together, providing them with a wellspring of support from their extended family.
For Baha’fs marriage is both a social and a moral relationship. While marriage is not obligatory, it is beneficial; Baha’u’lla'h has called it “a fortress for well being and salvation”54 and has indicated that this commitment is the basis of a sound family life that will, in turn, form the foundation for the structure and perpetuation of society in this day. Furthermore, Baha’u’lléh has provided clear and explicit guidance about the parameters of this institution.
First, He identified one of the primary purposes of marriage as procreation. “Enter into wedlock, 0 people,” He said, “that ye may bring forth one who will make mention of Me amid My servants. This is My bidding unto you; hold fast to it as an assistance to yourselves.”5 For this reason, Shoghi Effendi elaborates: “Marriage is thus, according to the Baha’i Teachings, primarily a social and moral act. It has purpose which transcends the immediate personal needs and interests of the parties.”36 While “self—fulfillment” within marriage is certainly not disparaged by Bahi’i’s, it is not seen as the relationship’s primary purpose, and both partners recognize that there may well be times within their married life when they must sacrifice their individual wants and desires for the good of the entire unit.
The Baha’i teachings state explicitly that the institution of mar— riage serves as a place for “the proper use of the sex instinct,” which is “the natural right of every individual,”37 that marriage should take place only between men and women, and that men and women should confine their sexual relationship to matriage—“Before mar— riage absolutely chaste, after marriage absolutely faithful to one’s Chosen companion. Faithful in all sexual acts, faithful in word and
[Page 179]
WORLD WATCH .79
in deed.” The trust that is established between the couple through this fundamental expression of loyalty adds tremendous strength to their relationship.
‘Abdu’l-Bahé placed great importance on parenting. urging moth- ers and Fathers to guide their children “unto those things which lead to everlasting honor” and to strive after high ideals. Parents are responsible for educating their children not only materially, 5-0 that they will be equipped to earn a living and contribute to the progress of humanity, but also morally, so that they will grow to live upright lives. ‘Abdu’l-Bahé says, “All the virtues must be taught the family.”“’ In particular, the aspiration to serve others permeates both Bahé'f community and family life; service is considered to be the highest station one can attain, and parents attempt to inculcate this value in their children From an early age.
In the “very special kind of community" that is a family.“ all members have rights and responsibilities, but the family’s unity must also be preserved. ‘Abdu’l—Bahé urges:
The integrity of the family bond must be constantly considered, and the rights of the individual members must not be trans— gressed. The rights of the son, the father, the mother—none of them must be transgressed, none of them must be arbitrary. Just as the son has certain obligations to his father, the father, likewise, has certain obligations to his son. The mother, the sister. and other members of the household have their certain preroga— tives. All these rights and prerogatives must be conserved, yet the unity of the family must be sustained. The injury of one shall be considered the injury ofall; the comfort ofeach, the comfort of all; the honor of one, the honor of all.“2
Achieving and maintaining this delicate balance between individual rights and family unity is crucial.
We have previously seen Hossain Danesh’s classifications of the authoritarian or power-based and the permissive or indulgent mod— els of family life. The Bahé’l Family ideal could be described as the integrated or unity—based model of family life. Danesh characterizes this model as being constructed on the basis of unity, promoting equality and mutuality between husband and wife, and observing the rights and responsibilities ofall family members. He writes, “In
180 THE BAHA’f WORLD 2003—2004
these families, the power— and indulgence—based practices ofcontrol, competition, and excessive individualism and independence give way to those of equality, cooperation, universality, and interdepen- dence."43
Danesh sees the necessity of humanity evolving to the point where this type of family becomes the norm. The benefits of such functioning, and the perils of the opposite, are captured in the fol— lowing words of ‘Abdu’l—Bahé: “If love and agreement are manifest in a single Family, that family will advance, become illumined and spiritual; but if enmity and hatred exist within it, destruction and dispersion are inevitable.”M ‘Abdu‘I—Bahé also outlines the material benefits, as well as the moral and spiritual ones, that accrue to the
family if it is unified:
Note ye how easily, where unity existeth in a given family, the affairs of that family are conducted; what progress the members of that family make, how they prosper in the world. Their con- cerns are in order, they enjoy comfort and tranquillity, they are secure, their position is assured, they come to be envied by all. Such a family but addeth to its stature and its lasting honor, as day succeedeth day.45
An important element contributing to family unity and its successful functioning is the principle of the equality of men and women. Equality of the sexes is manifested through the practice of consultation, adherence to the principle ofjustice, respectful behav- ior, and striving to embody high moral standards. Violence against and abuse of women and children is condemned in the strongest terms.46 Bahé’u’lléh writes that just as men “do not allow themselves to be the object of cruelty and transgression, in like manner they should not allow such tyranny to visit the handmaidens of God.”7 Furthermore, the Universal House of Justice has explicitly stated, “No Eahé’i husband should ever beat his wife, or subject her to any form of cruel treatment; to do so would be an unacceptable abuse of the marriage relationship and contrary to the teachings of Bahé’u’lléth.”8 And with regard to the protection of children in the Bahé’f community, the House ofJustice writes, “Bahé’i institutions must be uncompromising and vigilant in their commitment to the protection of the children entrusted to their care.”9 Neither beating
WORLD WATCH 181
nor vilifying a child is permissible. because it is a violation of his rights and, in the words of ‘Abdu’l—Bahfi, his character “will be totally perverted if he be subjected to blows or verbal abuse.”’"
In Bahé'f families, parents are enjoined to educate their children. Girls are to receive the same education as boys—and, furthermore, they are to be given priority, should it prove impossible for the par— ents to provide for the education of both their sons and daughters. Bahi’u’lléh clarifies that this preference is due to the mother’s role as the primary educator of the children. Clearly, if she is ignorant, she will raise ignorant children, and if she is educated, she will not perpetuate ignorance and superstition in the next generation.
This teaching indicates the high value accorded to mothering in the Bahé'f writings, but it does not preclude the role of the father in child rearing; both parents are enjoined to be actively involved in the training of their children and in family life. The principle of equality demands that husband and wife share the work and duties within the home.“
Because ofthe close relationship between the family and society as a whole, the principle ofequality of the sexes holds wide—ranging signifimnce. Identifying Full equality as a prerequisite for the achieve- ment ofworld peace, the Universal House ofjusticc has stated, “The denial of such equality perpetrates an injustice against one half of the world’s population and promotes in men harmful attitudes and habits that are carried from the family to the workplace, to political life, and ultimately to intemationai relations."52
Recognizing the interconnectedness of the actions within the family and in the wider society, Bahé’ls certainly do not see the nuclear family Functioning in isolation. ‘Abdu'I-Bahé says, “Consider the harmful eflect ofdiscord and dissension in a family; then reflect upon the favors and blessings which descend upon that Family when unity exists among its various members.” He then broadens the view, exclaiming, “What incalculable benefits and blessings would descend upon the great human family if unity and brotherhood were estab- lished!”” Bahé’i families seek to promote this ideal at both the micro and the macro levels, with support from Bath“ institutions, the Bath“ community itself, and in partnership with other “authoritative communities." In the process they share learning about healthy Fam- ily life and child-rearing practices. with the knowledge that in time
182 THE BAHA’f WORLD 2003—2004
the children they raise will grow up and exert an effect on society, for good or for ill, with the attitudes they have acquired.
It is clear, then, that, for Bahé’fs, the effort to create harmonious family life carries significance far beyond the confines of the family itself. In the world, as in the family, unity is imperative for progress to occur. ‘Abdu’l-Bahé says:
Compare the nations of the world to the members of a family. A family is a nation in miniature. Simply enlarge the circle of the household and you have the nation. Enlarge the circle of nations, and you have all humanity. The conditions surrounding the family surround the nation. The happenings in the family are the happenings in the life of the nation. Would it add to the progress and advancement ofa family ifdissensions should arise among its members, all fighting, pillaging each other, jealous and revengefiil of injury, seeking selfish advantage? Nay, this would be the cause of the eficacement of progress and advancement. So it is in the great family of nations, for nations are but an ag- gregate of families.“
The Bahé’l community is vitally concerned with nurturing strong families that base their actions on the Faith’s spiritual principles and teachings, in the conviction that this will lead eventually to a healthier, more vibrant culture. Everywhere in the world, whether in developed or developing societies, robust families are equipped to contribute more effectively to both the social and the economic development of the entire community and to pursue the goal of prosperity in its most complete sense—the full development of each family and community member’s God—given capacities, to con— tribute to the good of all. In this way, Bahé’fs believe, families will mold the sturdy, durable building blocks of an “an ever-advancing civilization.”55
NOTES
1 Betty Carter and Monica McGoldrick, Tl): Evpanded Family Life Cycle: Individual. Family ana'Social Perspectives, 3rd ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. xv—xvi.
2 Ernest W. Burgess, cited in Christopher Lasch, “The Family as a Haven in a Heartless World,” in Family in Namition: Rethinking Marriage, Smudh't}
WORLD WATCH 183
Child Rearing and Family Organization. Arlene Skolnick and jerome H. Skolnick. eds., 3rd ed. (Boston: Little, Brawn and Co.. 1980), p. 87.
5 David Popenoe. Disturbing the New Family Change and Devlin: in Mad— n'n Saa'elz'u. Social Institutions and Social Change Series. Peter H. Rossi, Michael Useem. and James D. Wright. eds. (New York: Aldine dc Gruyter, 1988). p. 329.
‘ Lasch. pp. 81-82.
" Talcott Parsons. cited in Lasch, p. 89.
6 Suanne Kelman, All in the Famibm Cultum/ Him”) qumib Lifi (Toronto:
Viking, 1998). p. 296.
Popenoe, pp. 118-19. See also Kelman. p. 7.82., and Lasch, p. 83. for a discus—
sion of the Factors contributing to the decline of the modern fitmily.
3 See Dawn K. Smith. “Facing the Global HW/AIDS Epidemic: A Bah“ Pet- spcctive.” in Tl» Balzd’! Worldzooz—zoa} (Haifa: World Centre Publimxions, 2004). PP 179—97.
9 See Popenoe. p. 508, and Carter and McGoldrick. p. 3.
“' Hossain B. Danesh. The Violence Fm Family: Building Block qfa Peacefid Ciuilimtian (Ottawa: Bahfi'l Studies Publications. 1995), pp. 11—13.
” Carter and McGoldrick, p. 10.
Popenoc. p. 309.
‘3 Adi: Russell Hochsdtild. with Anne Machung. The SemndSIJfi (New York: Viking, 1989; Quill, 7.002), p. 12.
“ lbid.
‘5 [bid.
Ibid., p. 215.
‘7 lbid.. p. 282.
“ Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Gmmtian 11: R1316: Gmwing Up in an Em
quann'Iy Upbeaml (Cambridge: Harvard University Plus. 1997), p. 18.
Popenoe, p. 330. One indicator of this development. Popenoe contends, is
that there is no ideological antithesis for individualism. To fill the vacuum.
h: proposes the term “familism” (Popcnoe, pp. 328-29).
1“ Amara and Booth. p. [2.
1‘ Danexh. p. 16.
2’ See Amato and Booth, pp. 20 and 228-30.
Kdman. p. 197.
2‘ Kelman. pp. 198—99.
2‘ Hochschild. p. I3.
For a Full discussion of these points, see Amato and Booth. pp. 134—37 and
p. 239, and Hochschild, pp. 12-13.
Popenoe. pp. 340—41.
The Commission on Children at Risk was cosponsored by the YMCA of the
USA, the Dattmouth Medial School, and the Institute for American Values.
27 28
184 THE BAHA’! WORLD 2003—2004
29
J!
J
32
)S
The objectives of the Institute for American Values. as stated on its Web
site at httpzllwwwaxncrimnvalucsnrgl. are as follows: To offer proposals for strengthening marriage and to help lead a mat- riage renewal movement‘ Through a new journal, Family Scholars, to critiquc and improve scholarly research and writing on the Family. To examine the social and moml-spiritual foundations of child well-bcing. To examine thc economic and moral-spiritual consequence: of divorcc. To put the status and Future of motherhood on the public agde To offer leadership for a movement for responsible fatherhood. To develop. with Muslim and other scholars, an international public appeal on the human person and civil society.
Sec http:l/wwwamericanvalumorg/hmd/hardwired.html for the Executive
Summary of Hardwired to Connect.
Another rcccnt volume, titled Barn to Buy: The Commmialized Child and
the New Camurrm‘ Culture, by Juliet B. Schor. concludes that consumer
involvement is a direct cause of unprecedented lcvels ofanxicty and depres—
sion in children. In fact, Schor found that children and youth today score.
on average. as high on anxiety scales as children with psychiatric disorders
back in 1957. Through media advertising and sponsorship partnerships
with public schools and trusted social organizations. advertisers now tar-
get children as young as three yars of age. (Sec “Arc hip tots heading for
trouble?” in the Globe and Mail [Toronto], 15 September 2.004, F8.) Such
findings as those of Schor and the Commission on Children at Risk can
only provide a catalyst for bolstering support of thc family and other social
organiutions to support children’s healthy development.
Shoghi Effcndi, The World Order 0fBahd’u'lldh: Selected Lttrm, md rev.
ed. (Wilmette, IL: Bahfi’f Publishing Trust. :993), p. 43.
‘Abdu’l—Bahd, Selections fivm the Writing: of thu’I-Bahd (Wilmette, IL:
Bahé’I Publishing Tmst, 1997), p. 125.
[bicL
Bahi'u’llfih, Th: Kitdh—i—Aqdm: The Most Holy Book (Wilmette. IL: Bah“
Publishing Trust, 1993), Notes, no. 92, pp. 207—08.
Bahé'u'llih, Bahd'l Prayers: A Selection afhuym Revealed by Bahd'quh.
the 8:16, and Hbdu’l—Bahd (\Vllmctte. IL: Bahé’f Publishing Trust. 1003).
p. 105.
Bahi'u’lléh, The Kitdh-i-Aqdax. para. 63. p. 41.
From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Eficndi to an individual believer.
14 October 1935; in 14th oquidance: A Bahd’l szmnu File. compiled
by Helen Hamby, 6th ed. (New Delhi: Bahé'i Publishing Trust, 1996),
P- 345-
[Page 185]
WORLD WATCH 185
3’ From a letter written on behalfofShoghi Eflcndi to an individual believer, s Sepumbet 1938, citzd in Message: firm the Universal Hm: nflum'u, 1953—1935 (Wilmette. IL: Bahé’f Publishing Trust, 1996), p. 233.
" From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Ffi‘endi to an individual believer, 18 September 1941; cited in Mmgn firm: the Universal Hm ofjum'te, 1963-1986. p. 233.
3" ‘Abdu'l-Bahé. Sela'tiansfi'am the Writing: offibdu'l-Bahd. p. :34.
” Cited in a lute: written on bchalfof the Universal House ofJustice to the National Spiritual Assembly of New Zmland, 28 December 1980, in Light: oquidarm. p. 2:8.
“ Ibid.
‘2 ‘Abdu'I-Bahd. Tl): Pramulgalian of Uniwnal Peace: 721k: Delivmd by Mdu'l—Babd during Hit Visit :0 ti): Um'ttd State: and Canada in 1912, rev. ed. (Wilmette. IL: Bahi'l Publishing Trust. 1995). p. 168.
" Danesh, p. 19.
“ ‘Abdu'l-Bahi. The Pmmulgation nfUnivmal Peace. pp. 144—45.
" 'Abdu’l-Bahi. Selectiomfiam the Wfitings anbdu’l—Babd. p. 192.
‘5 See Michael Penn's essay. “Inner Enlightenment, Moral Refinement and Justice: Anddotu to Domestic Violence,” on pp. 143—68 of this volume.
‘7 Bahfi'u'llih, cited in a letter from the Universal House ofjusticc. Depart- ment of the Sccrcmriat. [0 an individual. 24 jammy I993, on the subject of violence against women and sexual abuse.
" Ibid.
‘9 Ibid.
"1 'Abdu’I-Bahé, Selectiomfinm the Writing: af‘Abdu'I—Bahd, p. 137..
" See. I'm example. The Babd'l mild 1995—97 (Haifa: World Ccnttc Publiu— tions. I998). pp. 294—97. for a report on Bahé’f efforts to promote equal participation by men and women in family life in the “Traditional Media as Chang: Agent” project in Cameroon.
’3 The Universal House ofjustioe, The Promise afWar/d Peace (Haifa: Bahd’l World Centre, 198;). pp. u~xz.
‘3 ‘Abdu'I—Bahi. Tb: Pmmulgan‘on qum'umal Peace. p. 230.
5‘ lbid.. p. :57.
’5 Bahfu'llflh, Glamingtfiurn the Writing: #Babthh (Wilmette, IL: Bahi’f Publishing Trust. 1983). p. 21;.