That a pastor can so succinctly summarize my thoughts on the condition of the family doesn’t really surprise me. The 1861 date did a little. It sounds so much like today (emphasis mine):
It is a fact conceded by all, that the constitution of the Christian family, and its social and spiritual relations, are not as fully developed as they should be. In this age of extreme individualism, we have almost left out of view the mission of home as the first form of society, and the important bearing it has upon the formation of character. Its interests are not appreciated; its duties and privileges are neglected; husbands and wives do not fully realize their moral relation to each other; parents are inclined to renounce their authority; and children, brought up in a state of domestic libertinism, neither respect nor obey their parents as they should. The idea of human character as a development from the nursery to the grave, is not realized. Home as a preparation for both the state and the church, and its bearing, as such, upon the prosperity of both, are renounced as traditionary, and too old and stale to suit this age of mechanical progression and ‘young Americanism.’The Christian Home As It Is In The Sphere of Nature And The Church, Reverend S. Phillips, 1861
One of the greatest debates in America today is what even lies at the foundation of society: the individual or the family?
Since Rousseau at least, western culture seems to hold that society is based on the individual. Consider these well-known sayings and what they communicate to us:
To each his own.
To thine own self be true.
Look out for number one.
Families get in the way of this view of society because families have the habit of passing on traditions, patterns of behavior and ways of thinking to their offspring.
It entails a view of liberty, but very different from our historic conceptions. It is more closely related to the libertine, also known more recently as the freethinker.
lib·er·tinen.
1. One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person.2. One who defies established religious precepts; a freethinker.
We have replaced the mission of home as the first form of society. Hence the need to separate the child from the parent and teach him “different points of view.” In other words he must be liberated from the tyranny of the family, as Aldous Huxley did in his final work Island.
Home is no longer necessarily viewed as a haven, a sanctuary or a refuge from the world. Instead, the state is viewed as a haven from the family.
As Allan C. Carlson and Paul T. Mero put it in The Natural Family,
Public authorities actively subvert parental rights and authority, substitution a state morality. Children learn that their futures lie with the modern State rather than the pre-modern family. (p. 70-71)
We are quickly setting a new foundation for society, and its effects are being felt.
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
I do think society is founded upon the individual, but I do not think the family gets in the way of the individual.
Quite the opposite, I think the family helps form the individual with its values and morals and traditions, it provides that safe haven when the individual finds himself at odds with a larger context in society or swimming up stream with his ideals, values, morals and traditions. The family can provide a safe sounding board–even if not in agreement with or understanding–for emerging ideals, where society can be harsh and unforgiving.
Yes, the individual separates from the family, but usually only temperarily as he finds himself and defines his individualism for himself–usually not that much different from that of him family/community. Not uncommon practice in many relious groups. The Catholic church has noticed a great exodus of parishioners in their 20’s whom return to the church and their ways sometime after they start their own families; the Amish practice rumspringa in which adolescents are released from the church and its rules. When they are ready they come back to embrace their family’s/community’s ways.
No, I do not see the individual as a threat to the foundation of our country or our society or the family. I see the individual as a reflection of the family and community in which s/he was formed. And in that regard, maybe…I see an absense of religion.
By the way you explained yourself, I don’t think we substantially disagree.
But to say that society is based on the individual to me seems to defy some basic principles of nature…the individual cannot raise himself. In fact, in orphanages in Romania, children were given everything they “needed.” Food, water, shelter, medical care…but there wasn’t enough staff for basic cuddling. And the infants died. Humans are social beings and we need each other.
I believe we find the fullest expression of liberty and what it means to be human in the family. It is the first sphere of government and it is where the individual learns character.
Hopefully what I’m saying will become clearer as I progress through my own thoughts.
Hi, Im from Melbourne Australia.
Please check out these references (plus associated website) which points out that freely chosen Spiritually inspired Cooperative Community is the true basis for human culture and civilization.
1. http://www.dabase.org/sacrstat.htm
2. http://www.coteda.com/fundamentals/index.html
Interesting. Thank you for sharing.
I’m not quite sure where to begin, but then I don’t quite understand, either. So I guess I’ll leave it at that.
[we have almost left out of view the mission of home as the first form of society]
When Marissa first came to me at 7, she carried the diagnosis… reactive attachment disorder, anxious ambivalent type. I don’t think it is an accurate diagnosis and I think FAS more than explains her behavior. At the time, I couldn’t confirm prenatal exposure. I am sure you know that services both medical/education don’t come without a payable diagnosis. This was the one Marissa possessed.
I read a lot of literature from the attachment community. Most of it was hogwash and couldn’t be supported by either a mother’s gut feeling or evidence based research. I threw out rebirthing, holding, feeding your grown child a bottle…
But, the attachment community understands that if a child cannot participate as an active, vital productive member of a microsociety, the family, they will not be good citizens of the greater society.
Julie, have you read “Attachments” by Tim Clinton and Gary Sibcy? It is a wonderful book about attachment and attachment disorder. I agree that a lot of the treatments out there are nutty, but I do believe that attachment theory explains a lot of the behaviors we see in abused children.
I think it explains a lot of what we see in children who are raised in daycare, as well, but that probably isn’t so PC.
Dana,
I don’t believe I have read those authors. And… I am not sure I can explain this well, but I found most of the scholarly writing on RAD presented children as either attached or unattached. As I watched Marissa, I began to feel that attachment exists on a continuum between securely attached and indifferent/detatched. Every individual exists somewhere on this continuum. So, I saw the theory as too simple… the hypothesis drawn from the theory inherently flawed and the “research” biased. The people doing the research, attachment therapists, were making money from the diagnosis.
In the adoption community, I felt this diagnosis was overused. Psychologist rarely rule out organic causes of behavioral problems before reaching this diagonsis in behaviorly challenged children. I personally think Marissa behavior coupled with her mother’s history should have triggered a FAS evaluation when she was 4, DCFS was actively working with her mother (knew where she was) and the U of W… experts in the diagnosis and management of FAS was right up the street.
Last, I really wish that we could think of a better name. Attachment Disorder implies that the child response to neglect, multiple foster home and abuse is somehow deranged. Some people use attachment theory to write-off children who have had disrupted childhood experiences as inherently flawed.
Sorry, I blogged in your comments again! :o)
Blog away, Julie! This is the only book I’ve read on the subject, so anything I say is from there. The authors are Christian and they talk about attachment styles more than disorders. I think it is very relevant in the foster system, and important to recognize how abusive the system inherently is. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist. There are obviously situations worse than what removal does to a child. And in my personal experience, I can only think of one instance where I thought the state was too quick to remove a child. It was my general experience that they erred on the other side.
A diagnosis of attachment disorder seemed difficult around here. I forget the criteria, but it wasn’t the first thing they looked at. Maybe that varies by state? I actually thought some of the other diagnoses were overused. Not FAS, but ADHD. A kid went through who knows what in the home, gets bounced through 13 foster homes and gets Strattera?
The other thing I liked about the book is its general “treatment.” Assuming I’m not confusing it with other stuff I’ve read about other problems, the basic treatment is time and consistency…the child with attachment difficulties needs everything every secure child needs, just more consistently. It is the only way to establish trust.