new right view on family essay

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• Family & Marriage

Examine the New Right view of the family

Millie Morgan L6HJ

 Examine the new right SOT of the family

The new right perspective comes from a group of thinkers who mainly share the same values and ideas, from the conservative government. These thinkers believe that the nuclear family is the ideal family in society, and therefore is the bedrock of society. The views of the new right are in keeping with the functionalist views. The new right thinkers are opposed to many things in modern society, such as the decline of the nuclear family, and the rise in the numbers of couples that now cohabite and the number of marriages that now end in divorce. They believe many things are undermining the nuclear family.

There are four main features of new right, the emphasis on individual freedom and choice, reduced spending by the state, free markets which encourage competition and the importance of tradition values and institutions. The new right believe that the family promotes decency, manners, respect for property and the law. They also believe that the new social policies have begun to undermine the nuclear family, such as welfare benefits. They believe that the government is too easy and generous with their benefits, and that this had a profound effect on the family, leading to more divorces, more single parent families and declining morals of the family. New right thinkers claim that the welfare state is leading to a culture of dependency, where society will eventually rely solely on the state. They argue that the breakdown of morals and values in the family have led to crime within society. Conservative politician john redwood said that the natural state for a family should be a two child two parent family, and that two adults caring for their children should be the norm.  New right thinkers have accused many people of exploiting the system of the welfare state by having more than two children, meaning they receive more benefits than they’re entitled to.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Charles Murray argues that the traditional nuclear family is under threat, and that the state is leading to a ‘culture of dependency’ where society finds it easier to accept benefits rather than go out to work. He also argues that there is an underclass, caused by single parenthood, consisting of people in society who live solely from benefits and make no effort to find a job or go out to work, who commit crime, become pregnant at a young age, or become truant from school or work. This also relates to the Marxist theory of the lumpenproletariat, referred to as the dangerous class. Murray argues ‘when I use the term underclass, I am indeed focusing on a certain type of poor person defined not by his condition, for example, long term unemployment, but by his deplorable behaviour in response to that condition, for example, unwilling to take jobs that are available to him’ therefore Murray is stating that the welfare state is being exploited and misused by certain people in society, and this then creates a generation of people who are socialized to do the same.

Murrays theory has faced some criticism however, with other sociological parties theories arguing that the new right ‘blames the victim’ and stigmatizes lone parent families, blaming them for problems such as unemployment and growing crime rates in young people. While functionalists agree to an extent that the nuclear family should remain the dominant family in society they disagree to an extent that modern society is undermining the values of the family, and believe that the family contributes to the needs of wider society.

The feminist sociological theory also criticises the new right way of thinking, claiming that their perspectives are outdated, and still ignore gender inequality and abuse within the family, allocation traditional gender roles and the failure to accept growing diversity within the family unit.

New right theorists argue that because of a result of growing numbers of cohabitating couples, increasing divorce rates, lone parent families and homosexual relationships, the nuclear family is losing its values and becoming the less dominant family in society. They also believe that because of this, the state has had greater financial costs imposed on to them. They believe that the government need to start cutting more welfare benefits in an attempt to reverse the decline of the nuclear family, such as cutting child benefit or unemployment benefit, so that more people are forced to work when they have the option, and lone parent families would decrease. However this theory is widely criticized. Cash more (1985) argued that often it is safer and preferable for a child to live in a lone parent family instead of living with one caring and one uncaring parent. He also argues that if single women parents live alone it gives them greater independence than they would have if the situation was different.

Marxists would see this theory as ignoring the contribution the family makes towards the interests of capitalism.

The new right doesn’t acknowledge unequal relationships in families, such as the exploitation of women, and it is intolerant and not inclusive, rejecting the idea of diversity in families, such as homosexual families, reconstituted families and unmarried parents. All these groups of people in society are condemned by the new right thinkers.

Dennis and erdos (1992) conducted a study which consequently argued that children who grow up without a father figure in their lives are more likely to make poorer life choice, have poorer health and have lower educational attainment than children who grow up in two parent families. This means that lone parent families are not an alternative to the nuclear family as there is a lack of adequate primary socialisation. They argued that boys are more likely to be affected by this due to the lack of male role model in their lives. This then leads to a generation of men who lack responsibility and leads to antisocial behaviour both in and out of the family, and may lead to their own children growing up without a father. Therefore, the new right would argue that families without fathers cost the state more in the way of benefits, health care and education costs.

In conclusion, the new right view of the family is that the nuclear family is the ideal family in society  as it is more likely to cost the state less, by encouraging good primary socialisation and therefore meaning less benefits, less lone parent families, more workers and a lower crime rate.

Document Details

• Author Type Student
• Word Count 1075
• Page Count 3
• Level AS and A Level
• Subject Sociology
• Type of work Homework assignment

Related Essays

Examine the Marxists view of the family

Examine the view that the nuclear family is universal. (24)

Examine the View that the Family is a Universal Institution

Examine the view that nuclear family did not exist in Britain before indust...

Theoretical perspectives Families/Households: New Right

New Right Perspective on Families and Households

Overview of New Right View

• The New Right perspective on families is deeply rooted in traditional values, idealising the nuclear family and traditional gender roles.
• This view asserts that societal problems result from a decline in traditional family structures and moral standards.

Key New Right thinkers and theories

• Charles Murray is a prominent New Right sociologist. He suggests that social policies encouraging single parenthood have led to a dependence on welfare and have disrupted societal norms.
• Patricia Morgan , another New Right scholar, maintains that the traditional nuclear family is beneficial for children’s welfare and that non-traditional family structures lead to social problems.

New Right and the Ideal Family

• The New Right view upholds the nuclear family – a married couple with biological children – as the ‘ideal’ family structure.
• They believe that fathers should play the instrumental role (economic provision) and mothers the expressive role (caregiver), based on biological differences.

New Right, Family Breakdown and Social Policies

• According to the New Right, divorce, single parenthood, and cohabitation contribute to the ‘decline’ in the family unit, leading to social problems such as crime, poor educational performance, and dependency on welfare.
• They argue that social policies should be aimed at promoting the traditional nuclear family and discouraging alternatives.

Critiques of New Right View on Families

• Critics argue that the New Right view is overly idealistic and doesn’t reflect the diversity of family forms in contemporary society.
• It has been critiqued for blaming societal problems on the victims (single parent families) instead of addressing structural issues.
• Critics also claim that the New Right view is ethnocentric as it overlooks family forms other than the traditional western nuclear family.

New Right and Changing Family Forms

• The New Right perceives changes in family forms, such as rise in single-parent households or same-sex families, as damaging to society.
• They are concerned that these changes lead to a decline in moral standards and the disintegration of social order.

Functionalist & New Right Perspectives

The functionalist perspective.

Functionalists see the family as beneficial to society, contributing to social stability and providing a source of practical and emotional support for individuals in a number of ways.

The Functionalist perspective

• The family meets the needs of society by socialising children into shared norms and values, that is, a value consensus leading to social harmony and stability.
• The family provides security for conception, birth and nurture of new members of society.

The male role

• The family stabilises adult personalities and helps to maintain a stable society through the sexual division of labour, with men performing instrumental roles and women performing expressive roles.
• Instrumental role refers to the role of the ‘breadwinner’ which can lead to stress and anxiety and can destabilise his personality.

The female role

• The stress caused by the man’s instrumental role can be countered by that of the woman and her expressive role, providing warmth, security and emotional support to the family.
• The family is a supportive and general happy social institution.

Loss of function

• Parsons argues that the family in contemporary society had lost many of its functions through the process of structural differentiation.
• Structural differentiation refers to the way functions are transferred to other specialised institutions, such as the welfare state and healthcare.
• Parsons believes that the two main functions of the family are the primary socialisation of children and the stabilisation of human personalities.

Benefits & Criticisms - the Functionalist Perspective

The Functionalist perspective holds the traditional nuclear family as the familial ideal. However many have taken issue with this perspective.

Benefits of the traditional nuclear family

• Parsons argues that the two-generational nuclear family ‘fits’ contemporary industrial societies better than extended families.
• Smaller families provide a more geographically mobile workforce who can easily move around the country to areas where their skills are most needed.

Social mobility

• Higher rates of social mobility make it easier to move up or down that social scale.
• Rising living standards and the welfare state taking over some functions previously performed by the family (structural differentiation) have reduced dependence on kin for support in times of distress.

Meritocracy

• The growth in meritocracy (where success is possible through people’s own efforts and skill, rather than family connections) means that extended kin have less to offer family members, for example, job opportunities.

Criticisms of the functionalist approach

• Functionalism assumes that the family is a happy and harmonious institution and ignores the reality of family conflicts and domestic abuse.

• The notion of instrumental and expressive roles is out-dated and bears little relation to modern families.
• Today, both partners are likely to be playing the instrumental and expressive roles.

Undermines women

• The functionalist view ignores the exploitation of women, who suffer the responsibility of housework and childcare, undermining their position in paid employment and reducing their power.

The New Right Perspective

The New Right is a political rather than sociological approach and views the role of the family in society in similar way to functionalists.

Gender roles

• The New Right support traditional family values and a traditional heterosexual nuclear family.
• The New Right believe that the best way to bring up children is to encourage conformity and raise them within a family made up of two natural parents and the division of instrumental and expressive gender roles.

Alternative families

• The New Right opposes changes to the law that would make divorce easier.
• They are also opposed to stepfamilies, an increase in lone parents, cohabitation as an alternative to marriage, and births outside marriage.

State policy

• The New Right believe that welfare state policies that support relationships outside the conventional nuclear family undermine personal responsibility and create a dependency culture and social problems such as juvenile crime and anti-social behaviour.

1 Theory & Methods

1.1 Sociological Theories

1.1.1 Marxism

1.1.2 Feminism

1.1.3 Social Action Theories

1.2 Sociological Methods

1.2.1 Types of Data

1.2.2 Positivism & Interpretivism

1.2.3 Research Design

1.2.4 Research Considerations

1.2.5 Values in Research

1.2.6 Modernity & Post-Modernity

1.2.7 Sociology as a Science

1.2.8 Sociology & Social Policy

1.2.9 End of Topic Test - Sociology Methods & Theories

1.3 Sources of Data

1.3.1 Introduction

1.3.2 Experiments

1.3.3 Surveys

1.3.4 Longitudinal Studies

1.3.5 Questionnaires

1.3.6 Types of Questionnaires

1.3.7 Interviews

1.3.8 Observation

1.3.9 Case Studies

1.3.10 Documents

1.3.11 Official Statistics

1.3.12 End of Topic Test - Sources of Data

2 Education with Methods in Context

2.1 Role & Function of the Education System

2.1.1 Introduction

2.1.2 Functionalist Theories

2.1.3 Marxist & Feminist Theories

2.1.4 The New Right

2.2 Educational Achievement

2.2.1 Social Class: Internal Factors

2.2.2 Social Class: External Factors

2.2.3 Social Class: Attitudes to Education

2.2.4 Social Class: Difference in Achievement

2.2.5 Gender

2.2.6 Ethnicity

2.3 Relationships & Processes Within Schools

2.3.1 Processes

2.3.2 Labelling

2.3.3 Categorisations

2.3.4 Student Experience

2.3.5 End of Topic Test -Education with Methods

2.4 Educational Policies

2.4.1 Equality

2.4.2 Privatisation

2.4.3 Marketisation

2.4.4 Government Policies by Party

2.4.5 Globalisation

2.4.6 End of Topic Test- Educational Policies

2.4.7 Practice Exam Question - Social Policies

3 Option 1: Culture & Identity

3.1 Conceptions of Culture

3.1.1 Culture

3.1.2 Mass Culture

3.1.3 Popular Culture

3.1.4 Global Culture

3.1.5 End of Topic Test - Culture and Identity

3.2 Identity & Socialisation

3.2.1 Identities

3.2.2 Socialisation

3.2.3 Secondary Socialisation

3.2.4 Theories of Socialisation

3.2.5 End of Topic Test - Identity

3.2.6 Practice Exam Question - Socialisation & Equality

3.3 Social Identity

3.3.1 Social Class

3.3.2 Upper & Middle Class

3.3.3 Working & Underclass

3.3.4 Social Class Evaluation

3.3.5 Gender

3.3.6 Changing Gender Identities

3.3.7 Ethnicity

3.3.9 Disability

3.3.10 Nationality

3.3.11 End of Topic Test - Social Identity

3.4 Production, Consumption & Globalisation

3.4.1 Production & Consumption

3.4.2 Globalisation

3.4.3 Evaluation

3.4.4 End of Topic Test - Production

4 Option 1: Families & Households

4.1 Families & Households

4.1.1 Definitions

4.1.2 Functionalist & New Right Perspectives

4.1.3 Marxist & Feminist Perspectives

4.1.4 Postmodernist Perspective

4.1.5 End of Topic Test - Families & Households

4.1.6 Practice Exam Question - Function of Family

4.2 Changing Patterns

4.2.1 Marriage

4.2.2 Divorce

4.2.3 LAT Relationships

4.2.4 Child-Bearing

4.2.5 Lone Parenthood

4.2.6 Diversity

4.2.7 The Sociology of Personal Life

4.2.8 Government Policies Post-WW2

4.2.9 End of Topic Test - Changing Patterns

4.3 The Symmetrical Family

4.3.1 The Symmetrical Family

4.3.2 Evaluation

4.4 Children & Childhood

4.4.1 Childhood

4.4.2 Childhood in the UK

4.4.3 Childhood as a Social Construct

4.4.4 The Disappearance of Childhood

4.4.5 Child Abuse

4.4.6 Domestic Violence

4.4.7 End of Topic Test - Family & Childhood

4.5 Demographic Trends UK

4.5.1 Introduction

4.5.2 Birth Rates

4.5.3 Death Rates

4.5.4 The Ageing Population

4.5.5 Studies on the Ageing Population

4.5.6 Migration

4.5.7 Globalisation

4.5.8 End of Topic Test - Demographics UK

5 Option 1: Health

5.1 Social Constructions

5.1.1 The Body

5.1.2 Health, Illness & Disease

5.1.3 Disability

5.1.4 Models of Health & Illness

5.1.5 End of Topic Test - Social Constructions

5.2 Social Distribution of Healthcare

5.2.1 Social Class

5.2.2 Gender

5.2.3 Ethnicity

5.2.4 Regional

5.3 Provision & Access to Healthcare

5.3.1 The NHS

5.3.2 Inequalities in Provision

5.3.3 Sociological Explanations

5.3.4 Inequalities in Access

5.3.5 Inequalities in Access 2

5.3.6 End of Topic Test - Distribution Health

5.4 Mental Health

5.4.1 The Biomedical Approach

5.4.2 Social Patterns

5.4.3 Social Constructionist Approach

5.5 The Globalised Health Industry

5.5.1 The Functionalist Approach

5.5.2 The Postmodernist Approach

5.5.3 The Globalised Health Industry

5.5.4 End of Topic Test - Mental Health & Globalisation

6 Option 1: Work, Poverty & Welfare

6.1 Poverty & Wealth

6.1.1 Types of Poverty

6.1.2 Types of Poverty 2

6.1.3 Distribution of Wealth UK

6.1.4 Sociological Theories

6.1.5 Sociological Theories 2

6.1.6 Distribution of Poverty UK

6.1.7 End of Topic Test - Poverty & Wealth

6.2 Welfare

6.2.1 The Welfare State

6.2.2 Theoretical Approaches to Welfare

6.3 Labour Process

6.3.1 Nature of Work

6.3.2 Technology & Control

6.3.3 Work & Life

6.3.4 The Effects of Globalisation

6.3.5 Globalisation & Worklessness

6.3.6 End of Topic Test - Welfare & Labour

7 Option 2: Beliefs in Society

7.1 Ideology, Science & Religion

7.1.1 Types of Religion

7.1.2 Ideology & Belief Systems

7.1.3 Social Stability & Religion

7.1.4 Social Change & Religion

7.1.5 End of Topic Test - Ideology, Science & Religion

7.2 Religious Movements

7.2.1 Religious Organisations

7.2.2 New Religious Movements

7.2.3 New Age Movements

7.2.4 Practice Exam Question - Growth of NRMs

7.3 Society & Religion

7.3.1 Social Groups & Religion

7.3.2 Gender & Religion

7.3.3 End of Topic Test- Religious Movements & Society

7.4 Contemporary Religion

7.4.1 Secularisation UK

7.4.2 Against Secularisation

7.4.3 Secularisation US

7.4.4 Fundamentalism

7.4.5 Economic Development & Religion

7.4.6 End of Topic - Contemporary Religion

8 Option 2: Global Development

8.1 Development, Underdevelopment & Global Inequality

8.1.1 Development

8.1.2 Underdevelopment & Global Inequality

8.2 Globalisation & Global Organisations

8.2.1 Globalisation

8.2.2 Transnational Corporations & International Agency

8.2.3 Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)

8.3 Aid, Trade, Industrialisation, Urbanisation

8.3.1 Development: Aid & Trade

8.3.2 Development: Industrialisation & Urbanisation

8.3.3 Development: Environment & War

9 Option 2: The Media

9.1 Contemporary Media

9.1.1 New Media

9.1.2 Control of the Media

9.1.3 Sociological Approaches: New Media

9.1.4 Globalisation

9.1.5 News Selection

9.1.6 Moral Panics

9.1.7 End of Topic Test - Contemporary Media

9.2 Media Representations

9.2.2 Social Class & Ethnicity

9.2.3 Gender

9.2.4 Sexuality & Disability

9.2.5 Practice Exam Questions - Presentation of Women

9.3 Audiences

9.3.1 Media Theories

9.3.2 Media Theories 2

9.3.3 Media Representations & Audiences

10 Crime & Deviance

10.1 Crime & Society

10.1.1 Functionalism

10.1.2 Subcultural Theory

10.1.3 Marxism

10.1.4 Realism

10.1.5 Other Approaches

10.1.6 End of Topic Test - Crime & Society

10.1.7 Practice Exam Questions - Social Construction

10.2 Social Distribution of Crime

10.2.1 Ethnicity

10.2.2 Gender

10.2.3 Globalisation & Crime

10.2.4 Media & Crime

10.2.5 Types of Crimes

10.2.6 End of Topic Test - Social Distribution of Crime

10.3 Prevention & Punishment

10.3.1 Surveillance

10.3.2 Prevention

10.3.3 Punishment

10.3.4 Victimology

10.3.5 End of Topic Test - Prevention & Punishment

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Definitions

Marxist & Feminist Perspectives

Earlham Sociology and Politics Pages

Resources for gce advanced level, scottish higher and access to higher education courses. i hope also that some of the more detailed documents may be useful for beginning undergraduates., the new right ,families and households, russell haggar.

Very Useful Resource: Student Support Materials for AQA AS Sociology: Unit 1: Families and Households by Martin Holborn and Liz Steel [Collins Publications]

For a recent restatement of New Right views from Iain Duncan SmithNew link added October 2017 –  Click Here

For a useful basis for further discussion NEW link added 10/12/12 –  Click Here

For information on the Troubled Families Programme  New links added 19/10/16

Click Here      Click Here      Click Here

For Thinking Allowed on Troubled Families. New link added 9/11/2016 –  Click Here

For research on the intergenerational transmission of unemployment New link added 19/10/16

Click Here      Click Here

For several more links on Underclass Theory New links added 19/10/16 –  Click Here

For link to the Centre for Social Justice and Breakthrough Britain .  New link added 3/11/2016 –  Click Here

• Introduction
• The Growth of Ideological Divisions within the Conservative Party
• The New Right , Families and Households
• Assignment: The New Right, Families and Households

In this document I first provide some  information on Conservatism, Thatcherism and the New Right distinguishing between its neo-liberal and neo-conservative elements . In the next section I try to summarise the content of New Right ideology more succinctly and then describe  the New Right approach to the analysis of families and households. In the final section of the document I  include some questions which might provide the basis for a written assignment and/or for class discussion and thereby enable students, with the help of their teachers, to make their own evaluations of New Right analyses of Families and Households.

However as an alternative you might like to use the above link to move directly to The New Right, Families and Households and to look at the development of New Right ideology within the Conservative Party after you have studied the information directly related to the  New Right, Families and Households.

•  The Growth of Ideological Divisions within the Conservative Party

  For much of the post 2nd World War period the Conservative Party was led and dominated by so-called Right Progressives or One Nation Conservatives such as R. Butler, I. Macleod, H. Macmillan and Q. Hogg who harked back to the Disraelian tradition of One Nation Conservatism and were prepared to accept pragmatically  the expansion of state activity ushered in via by the 1945-51 Labour government programmes involving selective nationalisation, expansion of the welfare state, Keynesian economic policies and tripartite decision making. Once in Government the One Nation Conservatives broadly retained these Labour  initiatives while emphasising that the most profitable sectors of the economy would remain in private control and  they also supported the continuation of economic inequality believing that private property was a pre-requisite for liberty and that capitalist economic inequality could best promote economic growth and rising living standards. However they also recognised that full employment and the expansion of the welfare state were necessary to improve health, housing, education and to reduce poverty if the UK was to be a cohesive One Nation community.

Consequently although the Right Progressive/ One Nation Conservatives did of course reject many of the details of Labour policy  it has been suggested that from the late 1940s  to the end of the  1960s a bipartisan political consensus existed between Labour and Conservative parties in relation to the most important areas of government policy.

Increasingly , however, and especially from the 1970s onwards the views of the Right Progressives were challenged  by the  New Right thinking associated especially with the theoretical ideas of academics such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman  and with their development in the UK in pro-Conservative think-tanks such as the Institute of Economic Affairs , the Adam Smith Institute and the Centre for Policy Studies. Among the first modern UK Conservative politicians to espouse elements of New Right thinking were Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph although it was only when Mrs Thatcher,[ having become leader of the Conservative Party in 1975 ] consolidated her hold on power in the early 1980s that New Right ideas became more influential in government. It is ,however, important to note that processes of government are so complex that it is impossible for any government to be ruled  entirely by ideology and strong supporters of the New Right have frequently criticised Mrs Thatcher to adhere to the principles more vigorously than she did. Nevertheless successive Thatcher governments were certainly influenced by New Right ideology to some extent.

Mrs Thatcher and her supporters were very critical of the Right Progressive tendency which dominated the Conservative Party during the period of the so-called post war consensus prior to Mrs. Thatcher’s ascendancy. The Thatcherites claim that successive Conservative governments of 1951-1964 more or less accepted the policies and institutional frameworks developed by the Labour governments of 1945-1951 which had resulted in the so-called post-war “Butskellite consensus between Labour and Conservative governments from 1945 until perhaps 1970.

According to the Thatcherites the Right Progressive Conservatives had themselves encouraged the growth of an excessively bureaucratic state; they supported economically inefficient nationalised industries at the expense of the private sector and they relied on flawed Keynesian techniques of macroeconomic management. Their  reliance on tripartite or corporatist bargaining processes undermined the ability of government itself to manage the political process; they had helped to destroy individual initiative because of their acceptance of high rates of income taxation which reduce incentives to work, save and invest; and they had permitted the growth of an  expensive, inefficient Welfare States which create exactly the kind of dependency culture which prevents individuals from helping themselves possibly leading to the development of a so-called Underclass.  In effect, because Conservative governments between 1951-64 and 1970-74 had made no serious attempts to reverse the Labour policies of 1945-51, subsequent Labour administrations of 1964-1970 and 1974-1979 were able to push the UK even further along the road toward what the New Right regarded as the eventual socialist nightmare.

Mrs Thatcher’s version of New Right ideology has involved a combination of neo-liberal and neo-Conservative ideology in that as well as accepting the importance of the private market mechanism she and her supporters have believed that a strong state would be necessary to re-establish law and order and maintain it in the face of significant industrial disputes such as the miners’ strike of 1984 -85, to increase expenditure on defence in order to counter the perceived USSR threat and strengthen the role of central government in the provision of state education which was believed to be failing to meet the needs of the capitalist economy. Consequently Andrew Gamble has argued, very importantly, that Mrs Thatcher’s beliefs may be summarised as involving a belief in the free economy and the strong state.

Supporters of the neo-liberal elements of New Right ideology argued that a greater emphasis on individualism especially in economic affairs was necessary to secure greater economic efficiency which ultimately would generate rising living standards for all. Therefore nationalised industries were to be privatised as a means of securing greater reliance on the market mechanism; rates of income taxation [especially the higher marginal rates of income tax paid by higher income earners] were to be reduced in order to increase incentives; rates of unemployment benefit were to be reduced in order to increase self –reliance and restrict the growth of the so-called welfare-dependent underclass; trade union power was to be reduced and Keynesian policies were to be discarded and the goal of full employment abandoned as Mrs Thatcher concentrated on the reduction of the rate of inflation for which Keynesian policies were held partly responsible.

Meanwhile supporters of the neo-conservative elements of New Right Ideology were likely to express traditionalist criticisms of the so-called permissive society of the 1960s and to call for a reassertion of traditional values in relation to issues surrounding the nature of the family, the output of the mass media, the education system, religion, law and order, controls over the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs, defence of national sovereignty [for example in relation to the EU], the protection of the environment and immigration controls.

From the above list of issues it is clear that within the New Right considerable tensions are likely to exist as between neo-liberals and neo-Conservatives such that whereas neo-liberals are strong supporters of individual freedom subject to the condition that it must not result in behaviour that harms others neo-conservatives believe that  traditional values and institutions have an important role to play in channelling individual behaviour in socially beneficial directions. In the next section I summarise the main elements of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism and indicate how these important divisions within New Right thought influence the New Right analyses of families and households.

• The New Right, Families and Households

For link to the Centre for Social Justice and Breakthrough Britain –  Click Here

It is widely accepted that the political ideology of the New Right contains two interconnected but also sometimes contradictory strands of political thought: neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. I shall first summarise the main elements of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism and then describe how these political beliefs influence New Right analyses of families and household.

The core elements of neo-liberalism are support for individualism, laissez faire and limited government intervention in economy and society. Neo-liberals believe that individuals are rational and therefore the best judges of their own best interests and that they should be allowed the maximum possible individual freedom to determine their own behaviour subject  only to the restriction that their behaviour should not harm others. They believe also that economic efficiency and rising living standards [including rising living standards for the poorest ] can best be achieved in capitalist economies based upon high levels of laissez faire and that the economic inequalities generated in these capitalist societies are both inevitable because they derive primarily from genetically determined differences in talents and abilities and desirable because they generate the financial incentives to work save and invest leading to faster economic growth, some of the benefits of which will “trickle down” to the poor. Meanwhile although governments should act to facilitate the organisation of capitalism, the maintenance of social order and effective defence against any foreign aggressors, further government intervention is potentially counterproductive  because it may undermine individual freedom, stifle initiative and divert scarce resources from the dynamic private sector of the economy into the overly bureaucratic and wasteful public sector.

The core elements of neo-conservatism differ in several respects from those of neo-liberalism. Whereas classic liberals are all in favour of free individualistic decision making, conservatives suggest that this kind of individualism is a recipe for near anarchy and that individual freedom, albeit limited, can best be guaranteed via respect for traditional norms, values and institutions. They claim that traditional  institutions and patterns of social behaviour which have stood the test of time must have done so because they have been socially beneficial  which leads neo-Conservatives to support the maintenance or at most only gradual change in the existing social order which implies support for traditional sources of authority, traditional patterns of social and economic inequality, traditional institutions and traditional values. They are therefore likely to be supporters of strong but limited government, the Monarchy and the Aristocracy, the Church, the traditional family and traditional education.

• Neo-conservatism, Families and Households

This general neo-conservative support for traditional values and institutions leads them to see the nuclear family as potentially an important source of social stability providing emotional security and effective socialisation of the young much as in the functionalist theories of Talcott Parsons. Many neo-conservatives would support also the traditional gender division of labour based upon Parsons’ distinction between the “instrumental male” and the “expressive female” whereby men are more suited to the world of work and females more suited to child care and other emotional tasks. However neo-conservatives would also argue that many nuclear families do not currently function as effectively as Parsons’ theory implies.

Also, of course, neo-conservatives are highly critical of the growth of what they describe as the liberal permissiveness of the 1960s and its influence on personal relationships leading to increased family diversity. According to neo-conservatives these trends have undermined traditional moral values [which, for neo-conservatives are often seen as deriving from Christian religious ethics] and resulted in the creation of unsuitable family forms which cannot fulfill the functions of “the family” which are necessary for the stability of society more generally.

Thus pre- marital heterosexual relationships, the legalisation of homosexuality, the growth of lone single parenthood, the increased rate of cohabitation rather than marriage, the growth of separation and divorce and the official recognition of single sex civil partnerships and subsequently single=sex  all signal for neo-conservatives a crisis of traditional values and a crisis of the nuclear family which threaten the foundations of society itself. Indiscipline in schools, educational underachievement, youth unemployment, social security fraud, vandalism, anti-social behaviour, drug and alcohol abuse and more serious criminal behaviour all derive at least to some extent from the decline of the traditional nuclear family. The solution, according to the neo-conservative New Right is “the remoralisation of society”: the reassertion of traditional moral values which will increase support for the traditional nuclear family based upon life-long marriage. [The Marriage [Same Sex Couples] Bill passed through the House of Commons in 2013  with a comfortable majority but whereas both Labour and Liberal Democrat parties were strongly in support of the Bill the Conservatives were deeply divided with more Conservative MPS voting against the Bill than in favour.]

• Neo-liberalism, Families and Households: Charles Murray and the Theory of the Underclass

The American political scientist Charles Murray’s theory of the underclass does contain elements of neo-conservatism but, as we shall see, it is influenced also by neo-liberal aspects of New Right ideology. Murray  has  claimed in relation to the USA that an underclass of perhaps 5% of the USA population exists whose members are disproportionately Black or Hispanic and who prefer to rely on welfare benefits rather than to seek employment and are also disproportionately likely to be involved in [often drug related] crime

According to Murray excessive welfare benefits encourage some young women to opt for lone single parenthood and these women are seen as responsible for socialising their children into a culture of dependency on welfare benefits  while the absence of fathers is seen as denying the children the example of a regularly employed male role model who might also be able to “discipline” growing teenage sons more effectively than can lone single mothers. Thus, in summary excessive welfare benefits result in the growth of lone singe parenthood and the absence of fathers from the household and these are the factors which lead to the intergenerational transmission of the culture of dependency in the USA and according to Murray all of these trends are increasingly evident in the UK.

Murray’s theory might be seen as in part influenced by neo-conservatism in its claims that the traditional heterosexual nuclear family with its positive male role model is best able to socialise children in preparation for their adult responsibilities but it also contains important elements of neo-liberalism in its conclusions about relationships between the family and the state. Thus Murray accepts much of the classical and neo-liberal analysis of the state in general and of the welfare state in particular. As indicated above he argues that it is over-generous welfare benefits for single parents which itself encourages the growth of single parenthood which in turn results in the intergenerational transmission of a culture of dependency leading to the perpetuation of poverty

Poverty in this view can be alleviated only by reducing the generosity of welfare state benefits and this view is linked to the neo-liberal view of the state in general which suggests that the overall scope of the state should be reduced so that more resources are made available for the dynamic private capitalist sector of the economy and rates of taxation can be reduced resulting in increased financial incentives, greater economic efficiency and rising living standards for all as the benefits of economic growth “trickle down” even to the poorest members of society. We see therefore that Murray’s theory contains elements of neo-conservatism but that it is also based, to a considerable extent  upon a broadly neo-liberal analysis of relationships between the state and society.

• The New Right: Contradictions and Tensions between Neo-Conservatism and Neo-Liberalism

There are, however, some contradictions and tensions between neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism within the overall New Right analysis of families and households. Whereas neo-conservatives believe that traditional values and traditional institutions are necessary to restrict excessive individualism neo-liberals support the freedom of individuals to behave in non -traditional ways so long as their behaviour does not harm others. Thus neo-liberals would be more likely than patriarchally inclined neo-conservatives to support increased female employment opportunities [ both for single and married women ] as a means of promoting meritocracy and increased economic efficiency and to support cohabitation, divorce, lone single parenthood and same sex relationships on grounds of individual freedom and choice only rejecting these options if, [as they believe especially likely in the case of lone single parenthood] they impose unnecessary financial burdens on the state.

Conservative parties influenced by New Right principles have had to attempt to find what they consider to be a reasonable balance between the principles of neo- conservatism and neo-liberalism. It has been argued that in practice in the 1980s the then  Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did sometimes use neo-conservative rhetoric in support of the traditional nuclear family but that she was influenced more by the neo-liberal belief in individual freedom and recognised  the practical economic necessity of increased employment of both single and married women, the apparent impossibility of reversing the growth of family diversity and the need to ensure that her statements on “the family” did not antagonise the many voters who did not espouse neo-conservative views. Consequently by the late 1980s Mrs. Thatcher’s governments’ family policies were often criticised as misguided by staunch supporters of neo-conservatism. [In her study Feminism and the Family [2000] Jennifer Somerville provides an interesting analysis of Thatcherite family policies.]

• New Right Analyses of Families and Households: Some Points of Evaluation.
• Neo-conservatives are strong defenders of traditional values and institutions as maintaining highly desirable existing structures of power and authority and contributing to social stability as a whole all of which implies that industrial societies should continue to be organised according to capitalist and patriarchal principles. Neo-liberals are also strong supporters of capitalism but they may well also support the increased employment of women on grounds of meritocracy, economic efficiency and individual freedom and their belief in individual freedom means that they do not automatically support traditional values and institutions. However in practice New Right thought does involve a combination of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism which means that it does retain aspects of neo-conservative traditionalism.
•  Marxists of course would criticise New Right thought  as simply a variant of ruling class ideology devoted to the maintenance of capitalism which they believe to be an unequal, exploitative, unjust economic system while feminists would criticise the patriarchal elements present in neo-conservatism and to some extent in neo-liberalism arguing for example that little of significance was done in practice to improve female employment opportunities during the years of UK Conservative government 1979-1997., a view which Conservative government supporters reject.
• Neo-conservatives would argue that in principle the traditional nuclear family can promote both individual happiness and social stability and that the growth of alternative family forms amounts to a crisis of the family and of society more generally. However critics of neo- conservatism have argued that economic necessity and the strength of the factors leading to the  growth of family diversity may well mean that it is now impossible to re-establish the former dominance of the nuclear family .
• In any case  the possible dysfunctions of the nuclear family have been emphasised by radical critics such as Leach, Laing and Cooper, by Marxists and especially by Feminists and these arguments may be used to suggest that alternative family forms may in many cases be viable and preferable alternatives to the nuclear family and that there is an ongoing necessity for improvement in personal relationships within many nuclear families if they are to promote the happiness of their members.
• Charles Murray’s theory suggesting that excessive welfare benefits promote the growth of lone single parenthood which in turn promotes the growth of a welfare-dependent underclass has also been subjected to several criticisms. Sociologists certainly agree that single lone parents are especially likely to experience poverty but the following points may also be made in criticism of Murray’s views.
• Only a small minority of single mothers become pregnant intentionally
• Young unmarried women recognise that lone single parenthood is likely to lead to poverty and unlikely to lead to preferential allocation of housing by local authorities.
• The vast majority of lone single parents  would prefer too be employed rather than dependent upon welfare benefits which are low in relation to average wages. Some lone single parents may face employment difficulties because they are poorly qualified and because of the relatively high costs of child care not because they are unwilling to work.
• It is not clear that the absence of a father present in the household necessarily discourages boys from acceptance of the necessity of future employment in preparation for parenthood. Most boys recognise that they can secure reasonable living standards only through employment and that a life on social security benefits is decidedly the second best option. It is lack of available jobs rather than unwillingness to work which is the main cause of young male unemployment and Murray. according to his critics , is blaming the victims of unemployment for an economic problem which derives from the structural organisation of capitalism as a system.

This concludes the information on the New Right, Families and Households. You will find out more once you have studied patterns of family diversity and New Right approaches to government social policies as applied to families and households. Meanwhile I hope that you will find the following questions useful.

The following questions may be used as a basis for a written assignment and/or for class discussion.

• Explain briefly how New Right ideology became increasingly influential in the British Conservative Party from the 1970s onwards.
• It has been said that New Right ideology contains elements of both neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. List 2 neo-liberal elements of New Right ideology.
• List 2 neo-conservative elements of New Right ideology.
• Are New Right theorists sympathetic to or critical of the capitalist system?
• How might Marxists criticise the New Right analysis of capitalism?
• Why do neo-conservatives support the traditional nuclear family?
• Why are neo-conservatives critical of what they describe as the liberal permissiveness of the 1960s?
• Why are neo-conservatives critical of increasing family diversity
• According to Charles Murray what is the most significant reason for the growth of single parent families?
• Why is Charles Murray critical of the growth of single parent families?
• What, according to Charles Murray , should be done to reduce poverty?
• How, according to Charles Murray , can reductions in taxation and in welfare spending increase the efficiency of capitalism?
• Are neo-conservatives and neo-liberals in agreement as to the gender division of labour in society?
• Why might neo-liberals disagree with neo-conservatives’ opposition to cohabitation, lone single parenthood, divorce and single sex relationships?
• Are New Right opinions about families and households influenced more by  neo-conservatism or by neo-liberalism?
• Compare Functionalist and New Right perspectives on families and households.
• How might Marxists criticise the New Right perspective on families and households?
• Why might Feminists criticise New Right perspectives on families and households?

• Navigate to any page of this site.

• In the menu, scroll to Add to Home Screen and tap it.

• In the menu, scroll past any icons and tap Add to Home Screen .

The Religion and Family Connection

Social science perspectives, darwin l. thomas , editor, the new christian right’s view of the family and its social science critics: a study in differing presuppositions, patrick h. mcnamara.

Patrick H. McNamara, “The New Christian Right’s View of the Family and Its Social Science Critics: A Study in Differing Presuppositions,” in The Religion and Family Connection: Social Science Perspectives, ed. Darwin L. Thomas (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1988), 285–302.

Patrick H. McNamara was an associate professor of sociology at the University of New Mexico when this was published. He received his PhD at UCLA, where he was a research associate with the Ford Foundation-sponsored Mexican American Study Project.

Introduction

The problems of the nature of social order and its relationship to individual action are recurring central issues in the social sciences (Alexander, 1982). These order and action issues, couched in the form of structures and roles, plus individual freedom and activities, are familiar themes in the writings of contemporary family researcher/ theorists. The social order vs. individual freedom dilemma is explored by John Scanzoni in Shaping Tomorrow’s Family (1983). Taking into account feminist critiques of female subordination in what Scanzoni calls the “conventional family” and aware of the rapid growth of single-parent families, dual wage-earner households, and the dramatic shrinkage in number of father-working/ mother-staying-at-home-with-children families, Scanzoni contrasts two models of the family. “Conservatives,” viewing society as an organic whole, see the family threatened with dissolution as ascendant individualism and insistence upon “freedom” and “rights” (action) erode authoritative hierarchical norms (order) once governing family relationships. Since family and society “constitute one organic whole,” modern cries for individual freedom and self-fulfillment must be resisted and authority and discipline restored if society as we know it is to endure. (Scanzoni, 1983: 56.)

Scanzoni explicitly embraces his second model, which he terms the “progressive” view of the family. This viewpoint holds that equal-partner relationships and a negotiatory model of husband-wife and parent-child relationships constitute the basis of a family form compatible with the basic dynamic of Western societies—participatory democracy. The conservative model, with its patriarchy-based hierarchical relationships requiring subordination of some human beings to others, is simply “out of phase” with Western democratic trends (1983: 93); a “morphostatic” script of fixed roles and behavioral prescriptions ill prepares children to take their places in a dynamically changing society insistent upon individual self-fulfillment and freedom to choose one’s roles and to modify them as one desires. Scanzoni is well aware of the challenge to “progressives” to integrate the individual’s ideals of action along the lines of freedom and personal growth with those ideals pointing toward the social order’s required commitment, trust, and responsible caring for children; but he is convinced a more flexible conception of family structure and roles can effect this reconciliation (1983: 193–94).

The New Christian Right’s (hereafter NCR) view of the family is one example of the “conservative” model and recently has drawn the critical attention of social scientists, notably authors represented in the D’Antonio and Al-dous volume, Families and Religions (1983). Barbara Hargrove sees the rise of the so-called Moral Majority as “a demand for the reassertion of the authority of the church over the family, and of the family over the individual, more in the pattern of earlier stages of modernization” (1983a: 45). While some evangelicals, according to Hargrove, acknowledge that the family is changing “even among their own members” and advocate counseling and other forms of support to deal with the changes, “the more militant evangelicals” refuse to compromise with changing sex roles or with premarital sexuality or abortion. “All these changes are viewed as a Satanic attack on the very foundations of Christian morality, to be resisted at all costs.” (Hargrove, 1983b: 136.) External regulation of a world in which “civilization is defined as control” is a hallmark of conservative Protestant views on the family, says Hargrove (1983b: 137). Sexual repression is far from unhealthy; it is God-ordained and promotes respect for the other person. A wife submissive to her husband expresses the will of God as revealed in scripture. While an “accent on individualism and its necessary correlate, freedom of choice,” has influenced the stances of mainline Protestant churches more adaptive to modern culture (1983b: 121), Hargrove points out that conservative Protestants see an issue framed by their opponents as “freedom” (abortion is a good example) “simply as one of expressing willingness or unwillingness to obey the will of God, whose power is evident in the fact of conception” (1983a: 39).

Further pursuing conservative/ mainline contrasts, D’Antonio points to three major religious values affecting the family, but susceptible to varying interpretations as they are applied. Conservative Protestants concretize these values in specific normative terms: (a) sacredness of life is defined vis-à-vis divorce and abortion; (b) patriarchy is expressed in obedience of wife to husband and children to parents, together with the prohibition of women at the altar; (c) concern for others remains focused on a person-to-person level and does not include an obligation to change oppressive institutional structures. By contrast, mainline Protestant as well as Catholic theologians “have been struggling to develop an ethic of developmental sexuality and personality growth that changes the focus away from the negative control mechanisms (sex as sinful, immoral behavior) and toward greater concern for the integrity of individuals” (1983: 103). D’Antonio’s principal contention in this essay, however, is that conservative Christians, in supporting the free enterprise system and individual entrepreneurship—which have given rise to and, in turn, been supported by values of equality, freedom, and the right to self-fulfillment—will ultimately be unable to restore their cherished mechanisms of social control. They fail to recognize how closely the legitimacy of the very norms and values they fear (individual freedom, etc.) “is tied to dominant economic and political structures” which they support (1983: 105). D’Antonio’s comment is succinct and pointed:

The struggle of the Moral Majority to restore the mechanisms seems doomed because, in fact, less than one-third of the adult population supports them. The irony is that the Moral Majority supports the social structures and the ideology of the larger society that make improbable coexistence of traditional family structures and values. (1983: 105–6.)

A direct focus of New Christian Right Moral Majority views of threats to the family characterizes Jeffrey Hadden’s essay in the above-cited volume. Hadden is explicitly critical of such views and points out that (a) little space or time is given to elaborating positive functions of the family in NCR’s critique of modern culture. What is wrong with American families is stressed at the expense of “roles of nurture, love and support” (1983: 254). Adultery, abortion, premarital sex, divorce, and remarriage receive more elaboration than finding new and creative ways of showing and maintaining parent-child love and husband-wife affection in the face of such pressures as dual wage-earner families, etc. Instead, (b) “the overwhelming message that comes across in their printed and audiovisual messages” is that the family as an institution is principally charged with control over the “base impulses of human beings” (1983: 254). Family members are all human beings weakened by original sin who can too easily go astray without obedience to biblical injunctions concerning discipline of children; submissiveness of wives to husbands; and husbands’ avoidance of temptations to anger, lust, and drunkenness, (c) No clear cause-and-effect analysis appears for the alleged evils attacking the family (divorce, abortion, etc.). These are sometimes cited as actively destroying the family; at other times, the breakdown of Christian values is what permits them to flourish (1983). (d) A theology of love is too little evident. NCR fails to spell out “how love could overcome the tensions and contradictions of modern life” (1983: 265). These approaches are pictured as reducing NCR’s potential for gaining a broader following among Americans concerned with tensions between family and society, yet who are unable to agree with fundamentalist catalogues of evils (“too much permissiveness,” etc.) and remedies (firmer discipline, wives remaining at home, etc.).

Both approaches to the conservative family model sketched above—the explicitly critical review by Scanzoni and the more implicit critiques of NCR ideology by Hargrove (1983a), D’Antonio (1983), and Hadden (1983)—are based on presuppositions that deserve clarification in a broader context of alternative models of scientific theory and methodological procedure. Much of the above social scientific analysis of NCR families is informed by presuppositions that result in a tendency to describe NCR views of the family as unprogressive and, therefore, out of phase with modern values. By emphasizing the social control dimensions, the NCR view of the family fails to address pressing contemporary needs, and freedom. These presuppositions act as blinders preventing social scientists from seeing dimensions of the NCR position that emphasize agency and personal autonomy. This failure by social scientists to perceive relevant dimensions of the family discussed by NCR “insiders” results in a blockage of what Max Weber (1978) called the act of verstehen, whereby the meanings social actors bring to their beliefs and activities are grasped (or attempt is made to do so). The purposes of this treatise, then, are to (a) place the discussion of the NCR family within the larger issue of the role of presuppositions in differing models of scientific theory and methodological procedures; (b) articulate the presuppositions and resultant blind spots inherent in the worldview portrayed by social scientists’ critiques of NCR families; (c) develop, from sources not utilized by social scientist “critics,” an “insider’s” view of NCR family worldviews, with the attendant presuppositions; and (d) draw conclusions pointing to ways in which NCR family ideology can be understood better as a result of making clear the relevant presuppositions. It is hoped that these purposes will contribute in a small way toward better understanding and to ways of realizing how religion and family values combine to meet individual and group needs.

Presuppositions and Postpositivist Thought

Brown (1977) and Suppe (1977) have reviewed the process by which philosophers of science in the twentieth century—such as Polanyi, Popper, Hanson, and Kuhn, to cite but a few—have moved away from the long-established terrain of positivism or logical empiricism, with its sharp separation of data or facts on the one hand and theory on the other. For the positivist, empirical facts are knowable and known antecedently to the interpretive overlay of the mind with its theoretical conceptions. In fact, objectivity is assured only if “the facts” are available for anyone to see; understanding is provided by the human mind bringing to bear theoretical formulations that “make sense” out of that which is evident to any observer. Progress occurs as theoretical frameworks are refined to effect a more comprehensive and parsimonious explanation of the data, or when a new paradigm (Kuhn, 1970) arises to displace a previous one and better account for the data at hand. In any case, the world of sensory data and the world of theoretical formulations remain two separate worlds and must be so if science is to be “objective” and “verifiable.”

The postpositivist view holds that empirical data are never simply “seen” atheoretically. Theoretical presuppositions are at work in the very act of looking at the world around us; an act of observing is already theory-laden. Every scientist and layperson brings presuppositions to the most basic activities of observing, thinking about, and attempting to make sense out of the data he or she confronts. These presuppositions are essential to understand what Brown refers to as “the new image of science”:

Science consists of a sequence of research projects structured by accepted presuppositions which determine what observations are to be made, how they are to be interpreted, what phenomena are problematic, and how these problems are to be dealt with. When the presuppositions of a scientific discipline change, . . . the scientist’s picture of reality [is] changed. (1977: 166.)

Sociological theorists also have used the critique of positivism as a point of departure. Jeffrey Alexander begins his search for a “theoretical logic” for sociology by reviewing the antipositivist critique and subsequently focuses on “the postpositivist persuasion” which entails, in part, clarifying those “problematic presuppositional decisions that fragment generalized sociological debate” (1982: 69). In summary, Alexander’s work demonstrates the importance of examining and clarifying one’s presuppositions.

Family theorists Thomas and Edmondson have explored the significance of postpositivist thinking for theoretical work focusing on the family. They argue that family theory of the postpositivist variety generates knowledge that is “increasingly seen as constructed knowledge rather than discovered knowledge in the positivistic sense” (1986: 61). They ask to what extent “truth claims emanating from family theory” will be “based on a foundation of consensus of the scientific community,” rather than upon a positivist “correspondence” theory of data with scientist’s knowledge (1986: 62). Furthermore, they ask if the “consensus criteria of knowledge” will serve the interest of theorists “who believe they have an emancipatory responsibility when it comes to the study of the family,” a question relevant both to theorists and to family practitioners and therapists (1986: 63). At stake here are knowledge claims about the family and the basis of such claims. If the postpositivist family theory calls attention to the constructed nature of scientific knowledge relying on the consensus view of “truth claims,” and if it also assumes that “agency and intentionality” of family actors is part of the reality of family life, then the necessity of making explicit the underlying presuppositions is apparent.

The hitherto common portraits of NCR-conservative families and family ideals as unprogressive and out of phase with modern society are themselves based upon taken-for-granted presuppositions. The “new image of science” is helpful, for, in bringing out the inevitability of the observer’s prior theoretical convictions or notions, it strongly suggests the ethical desirability of acknowledging and examining one’s presuppositions. Of no less importance, it underlines the centrality of actors’ own beliefs, viewpoints, intentions, and behaviors. These must be grasped if a genuine understanding of a group is to be achieved and the researchers’ presuppositions made explicit.

Presuppositions in Sociological Critiques of NCR Family Ideals

Warner’s work (1979) is one of the few efforts to identify presuppositional biases of social scientists who examine various religious groups. He observes that evangelical Christianity is often “overlooked, or discounted, stereotyped, and patronized” by sociologists. Sociologists tend to see concern for personal challenge—that is, to get one’s own moral life in order—as somehow secondary to social challenge or the effort to identify and criticize those socioeconomic structures that inhibit individuals and groups from attaining a fuller human existence. Second, sociologists inherit an evolutionary bias which sees the Western world as increasingly disenchanted (the Weberian legacy). Through this bias theological liberalism is seen as an advance in sensible adaptation and compromise, while contemporary evangelicalism is “a temporary and retrogressive, albeit disruptive, phenomenon, a symptom of the growing pains of society” (1979: 7). Its belief system is a kind of anachronism. Finally, social scientists, in Warner’s view, too easily fall prey to a “we versus they” mentality in which “we” are more privileged and enlightened, while “they” are backward and unenlightened.

To the degree that social analysts adopt such a view, they are unable to analyze the degree to which popular evangelicalism meets cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal needs often unmet in the larger culture or in alternative systems of faith (Warner, 1979: 8). In these typical social science analyses, the demands of the inner life are neglected, and personal agency and autonomy exercised in the choice to examine one’s own life and put it in order according to an internalized ethic of repentance and freedom from sin is not acknowledged. In addition to the general presuppositional biases discussed above, Warner’s analysis introduces some specific presuppositions more or less latent in the critiques of Scanzoni (1983), Hargrove (1983a), and D’Antonio (1983).

First, the socioeconomic structures of the larger society constitute formidable pressures that must be adapted to if intolerable strain and contradictions are not to invade family relationships. For Scanzoni, Western participatory democracy is an overriding dynamic whose impact families cannot and should not try to counter. This dynamic has set in motion irresistible trends toward husband-wife equality and toward negotiatory rather than strictly authoritative disciplining of children. Tension is bound to characterize any family role, relationship, or policy that reasserts or reflects hierarchical relationships. For D’Antonio, the demands of a bureaucratized work world, an inflationary economy, a consumer society “selling” a higher material standard of living to all comers are forces whose impact is not just underrecognized by NCR advocates; NCR actively supports the structures and ideologies (free enterprise) of advanced Western capitalist structures and ideologies deeply affecting family life today.

Second, loving relationships cannot easily develop nor be fully expressed in “fixed-role structures,” which are simply incompatible with the dynamics of change characterizing Western societies. Scanzoni reviews at some length Swidler’s four dimensions along which the meaning of love is changing in today’s world, (a) “Choice vs. commitment”: love as commitment involves “fixed unswerving loyalty—’my partner right or wrong no matter what the cost’ “; such a notion cannot coexist with demands for continual growth and change, (b) “Rebellion vs. attachment”: here “rebellion” indicates a modern “restlessness” in search of meaning wholly out of “sync” with the modern drive for honesty and equality in relationships. The latter cluster of virtues demands constant “negotiation and negotiation of personal relationships.” (c) “Self-realization vs. self-sacrifice”: in traditional relationships spouses feel obligated to sacrifice for one another. In the newer mode, self-development is the norm. Each partner has a right to pursue what will fulfill him or her, though not without some mutual yielding to “maximize joint profit.” (d) “Libidinal expression vs. restraint”: the former phrase is more in accord with the modern drive for enhancing individual growth and allowing for new experiences including freedom in emotional expressivity. (Scanzoni, 1983: 74–81, quoting Swidler, 1980.) These characterizations reinforce Scanzoni’s conviction that “morphostatic” relationships of traditional marriages, celebrated by conservative spokespersons, engender tensions between husbands and wives and parents and children; “we are entering an era in which negotiation processes are becoming a way of life permeating family as well as all other institutions” (Scanzoni, 1983: 153; emphasis in original).

Third, as Hadden and other critics who focus on NCR worldviews assume (as distinguished from those of conservative families), there is very little of a “positive” theology of love, nurture, and support and considerable emphasis on the need for social control. The “Christian admonitions” seem rooted in negatives and in warnings to avoid and oppose current trends—divorce, adultery, ERA, women working full-time outside the home, etc. The family is a locus where control mechanisms must be employed. The emphasis, thus, is on disciplining children rather than on ways of showing love and affection; wives’ subordination to husbands takes precedence over shared love and mutual growth and equal-partner decision making.

In summary, in the very “act of observing” NCR families and/ or family ideals, the social scientists cited previously bring with them fundamental assumptions that are rooted in values widely shared and disseminated within the social science community and within the ranks of those having received a “secular” higher educational experience and, finally, shared also by “mainline” church theologians. Elaborated above, these assumptions reflect a bedrock conviction not always articulated: each human being, born with practically unlimited potential for growth and development, must be allowed within the family, as well as in other social institutions, maximum freedom for self-development and the fullest self-expression. Subordinate roles are inconsistent with this ideal and must be changed toward partnership roles. This conviction constitutes a “truth claim” whose consequences, as Warner has indicated, are a tendency to relegate NCR family ideals to the categories of backward and unenlightened, and a blindness to the personal and group needs that these ideals, norms, and practices may serve within the NCR community of families. It is to these needs, ideals, and presuppositions that we now turn.

Presuppositions of the Christian Family Viewed through Pastoral Literature

The presuppositions discussed above make it difficult for researchers “carrying” them to utilize Weber’s verstehen approach to understanding social actors. If, as Thomas and Edmondson indicate, the postpositivist view of family theory requires attention to “agency and reasons for behavior” or “intentionality” (1984: 65; emphasis in the original), it is indeed crucial methodologically to grasp in as much detail as possible how NCR believers themselves view the family.

Marsden (1983) provides a helpful starting point. He points out that contemporary fundamentalism has several dimensions which include a polemical side and private or faith-nurturing side. NCR critics rely a great deal on published sermons and books, which deliberately stress the polemical side of the New Christian Right. LaHaye’s The Battle for the Family (1982), cited by Hadden (1983), is an excellent example. These polemics frequently state “conservative” positions in the strongest possible terms which, understandably, draw critical comment from “liberal” social scientists; and these, in turn, encourage more counterstatements from NCR authors.

Neglected in these polemical exchanges is the realm of pastoral literature and exhortations, both written and on cassette tapes readily obtainable. Why is this literature important? It is precisely within it that (a) the loving, nurturing, and caring dimensions of the NCR worldview on the family are to be found, as well as (b) a broader understanding of NCR presuppositions implicit in both pastoral and polemical literature.

An important source of popular pastoral material on the family is the work of Tim LaHaye and his wife Beverly. LaHaye is a member of the Executive Board of Moral Majority and the author of a dozen books. While citing LaHaye’s polemical treatise, The Battle for the Family (1982), Hadden neglects to cite, much less analyze, Tim and Beverly LaHaye’s Spirit-Controlled Family Living (1978). Another example of pastoral literature from NCR is a 3-cassette “Family Seminar Packet” by Dr. Ed Hindson (1978), director of the Christian Counseling Center at the Thomas Road Baptist Church of which Jerry Falwell is pastor. While polemics are by no means absent from these sources, their overall thrust is toward articulating a theological and pastoral framework designed to be helpful to families and particularly to parents, trying to find a “formula for a successful family” (Hindson’s title for the tape series).

The LaHayes open the book by stating flatly that “the family is the most important factor in our lives” (1978: 18). Without fulfillment through the family, “nothing else in life really matters” (1978: 18). Those attaining success in business, the professions, or the arts in later life, only “to spend their final years in despair,” are in such a state because “they become alienated from their families a n d . . . [have] sacrificed family to gain notoriety (1978: 18). The family, too, “is easily the most important single influence” in a child’s life. If a child is raised in a family in which “the father rebels against authority,” the child will grow up “taking advantage of his fellow man.” By contrast, a child growing up “in a loving home, where values are communicated, and laws are respected,” will become a productive adult “who makes a significant contribution to society” (1978: 19). On the other hand, a “child-centered home” is an aberration. The primary love relationship in the home must be that of husband and wife, from which will emerge an atmosphere in which “any child will flourish” (1978: 24).

Supportive relationships in the family are particularly essential today because of the “eight causes for today’s family breakdown.” These “causes” will sound familiar to many readers because they are elements of the more publicized and discussed polemical literature and may be briefly stated as follows: dominance of atheistic, anti-Christian humanism in schools and the media; sexual immorality and promiscuity; legalization of pornography; divorce made too easy; the permissive philosophy of child-rearing promoted in the last generation by Dr. Spock; women in the labor force; the morality of women’s liberation; and urbanized living, which makes for uprootedness and is inimical to development of solid community-supported moral norms.

Discussion of these “causes,” however, occupies only the book’s opening three chapters. The remaining seven concentrate on pastoral theology and counseling themes. In these themes can be seen most clearly the distinctive presuppositions of NCR family ideology. The LaHayes cite six “basic enemies” of home and marriage: (a) anger, hostility, and bitterness as a first cluster; (b) worry and anxiety; (c) selfishness; (d) infidelity; (e) self-rejection; and (f) depression. These enemies of Christian family living “grieve or quench the Holy Spirit and limit His use of our lives” (1978: 79). Husband and wife are urged to discuss these when they arise in family life. For each problem area, the basic formula of Spirit-filled family living is to be applied: facing the problem as a sinful area, confessing it, asking God to remove the problem or habit, asking for the filling of the Spirit in one’s life, thanking God for assistance and whatever success is achieved, repeating the formula when the problem arises again. Supportive biblical quotations illustrate each discussion of a problem area, together with examples of persons who have achieved success in overcoming these difficulties. (1978: 40–46.)

The first of two major presuppositions informs all of the proposed strategies offered for handling these problems: (a) By exercising personal agency and so choosing, one can change his/ her life by seeking spiritual input. The worldview so portrayed describes the human condition as peopled with responsible agents and a social and/ or “spiritual” reality which includes influences other than those attributed to a materialistic this-world view limited to matter-in-motion conceptualizations.

The second presupposition is illustrated by Beverly LaHaye as she discusses the “roles of the wife” within the governing evangelical norm of submission of wife to husband and submission of both to God. Submission, she insists, does not mean reduction to slavery or an inferior or unequal status. “She is a subordinate, a vice-president, who serves directly under the head of the household or the president, who is her husband” (1978: 82). Yet,

submission does not involve closing her mouth, shutting off her brain, and surrendering her individuality. The loving husband who is wise will seek the insights of his wife before he makes the final decision. We have found in our own marriage that we repeatedly see things differently and frequently do not agree on how to approach difficult circumstances. Because Tim has allowed me to develop my own thoughts and feelings, thus retaining my uniqueness, he listens respectfully to my counsel and considers it carefully before making the final decision. (1978: 83.)

Within the LaHayes’ framework the believing wife can develop multiple roles of home manager, lover, attentive mother, and teacher. Unity of husband and wife results in unity “on the teaching and disciplining of their children,” with the book of Proverbs—a chapter from which should be read daily by parents—a principal guide (1978: 104). An example of the latter is provided by the LaHayes: “And have joy of the wife of your youth. Her love will invigorate you always; through her love you will flourish continually.” (Proverbs 5:17–19.)

Tim LaHaye’s chapter on “the roles of the husband” emphasizes the headship of the husband and the husband’s obligation to assume the role of leader in the home. Decisions are not, however, to be made without hearing and evaluating the wife’s views nor without scrutinizing one’s motivation. “Always pray for the decision-making wisdom which God promises to provide” (1978: 110). In a section entitled “Handling Spirit-filled Disagreements,” LaHaye proposes a negotiatory process in settling differences, recommending prayer by both husband and wife, and stating that God “will cause one of us to acquiesce joyfully with the other’s point of view, or many times He will lead us to an entirely different decision” (1978: 114). Respect for the wife by the husband is essential to maintaining a love relationship in any decision-making context. A lengthy subsection is devoted to discussion and illustration of the major virtues of love found in 1 Corinthians 13: the husband is to be unselfish, gracious, trusting, sincere, polite, generous, humble, kind, and patient. Love that has “sputtered” is to be countered by mutual discussion of the problems, or “walking together in the Spirit”; by refusing to dwell on “insults, hurts, or weaknesses of your partner” (1978: 129) and by “thanking God for ten things about your partner, twice daily for three weeks” (1978: 130). The husband as “family priest” will strive to be a “Spirit-controlled man” who regularly reads the Bible, shares his reading with the children and discusses the reading with them, and leads family devotions.

Hindson’s tapes, Formula for a Successful Family (1978), while stressing the hierarchical structure of the family—obedience of wife to husband and of children to parents—contain much the same kind of practical pastoral advice for mothers and fathers in a context of mutual prayer and reading of the Bible. Hindson urges fathers to be fully and undistractedly present to their wives and children since they will be judged on their performance of these responsibilities rather than on success in their careers.

The same scriptural passages that command the wife to obey her husband command the husband to love his wive! Being a leader is not being a dictator, but a loving motivator who, in turn, is appreciated and respected by his family. Dad, God wants you to be the loving heartbeat of your home by building the lives of your family through teaching and discipline. (Tape 2; emphasis in the original.)

“Teenage rebellion” and a child’s self-image are subjects of two tape sides, with parental responsibility stressed again and love urged as the enveloping context in which children must be raised and disciplined. In the final tape, “Learning to Love,” Hindson attacks the “myth of perfect compatibility” and urges virtues of forbearance and forgiveness of spouse by spouse; he places this exhortation in the framework, once again, of 1 Corinthians 13, Paul’s celebration of love—which is a gift and must be sought in prayer for the benefit of husband and wife and for the sake of the children.

This discussion continues the emphasis identified in the first presupposition—namely, the reality of the Spirit’s influence on the human condition—and outlines the basic nature of the second presupposition: The highest form of love will emerge in relationships in which one willingly submits to true values held by another. Just as families are to look to the father as head, so too are fathers to look to Christ as head, and all are to be fundamentally concerned about the well-being of one another. Love of others as well as self can flourish only in service to others. The often-cited advice concerning charity by Paul (1 Corinthians 13), applied to fathers, identifies as necessary characteristics of a loving relationship such dimensions as being polite, kind, gracious, and patient. Traditionally the latter have been linked with female roles rather than with the mastery and dominance dimensions typical in masculine roles. Love is not antithetical to dominance. Submissive relations in the family and the Pauline characteristics of Christian love eventually ought to be found in all family members.

The foregoing brief overview of conservative evangelical pastoral theology demonstrates the cogency of Warner’s argument that social scientists tend to be blinded by their own presuppositions to central aspects of evangelical spirituality—in this case, the spirituality of the family. Thus, the verstehen mode of grasping the inner Welt of NCR believers is short-circuited. To be more specific, the primacy of individual choice and the centrality of Western participatory democracy define and illuminate the social scientist’s advocacy of a nonhierarchical universe or, at least, the assumption that binding decisions should be a result of the full participation in decision making of all persons affected. Any social institution that allocates decision making to some members and subordination to others is “out of phase” or “out of sync,” at the least and, at the worst, an instrument of oppression vis-à-vis classes of persons (women, children) who have a long history of being subordinated.

These suppositions tend to keep social scientists from considering the possibility that hierarchical structures and “external regulation” may be integrated with loving consideration by each spouse toward the other, in which negotiation of conflicting interests frequently occurs. Also obscured is the combining of firm discipline of children with manifestations of love toward them and the fact that this very combination is the condition under which children will develop self-esteem as well as respect for the rights and for the welfare of other persons. In other words NCR advocates seem fully supportive of the democratic ethos in the larger political arena (the polis) but believe firmly that rearing children disciplined in love produces the very kind of adult best prepared (because they respect the rights of others) to participate fully in a democratic society.

Second, social scientists focusing on the macrostructures of modern society and the impact of these structures on the family (a bureaucratized work world, and inflationary economy, a consumer society, etc.) fail to understand NCR’s focus on those macrostructures they consider as having inimical effects: the school system, the media, “secular” universities, the ERA movement, the Supreme Court, to name but a few. In addition, NCR advocates do not consider these developments as “inexorable” or incapable of being combatted. As the LaHayes have indicated, resistance takes place on two levels—that of counterinstitutions, such as Christian schools and media networks, and a family life imbued with the devotional and pastoral supports cited above.

Third, to the extent that social scientists and other modern commentators are convinced that “commitments” and “self-sacrifice,” “attachment” and “restraint” inhibit full individual growth, development, and emotional expression and simply perpetuate subordinate relationships, they are incapable of appreciating the conservative Christian insistence (an ethos shared by many “more liberal” Christians, as well as non-Christians) that love, particularly as it focuses on rearing children, per se involves subordination of one’s desires and inclinations; and that this is the case in a loving spousal relationship as well. Individuals can grow and find fulfillment through lifelong attachment to one spouse, a process that indeed may involve resistance to temptations to “find love elsewhere”; but the very resistance is seen as an expression and condition of love and not as a forgoing of possible further growth and development.

Certainly, some social scientists are re-evaluating the “modern conception of love” as stated by Swidler. Yankelovich (1981), quoted approvingly by Scanzoni (1983), strongly criticizes a “me-first, satisfy-all-my-desires attitude” as leading to “relationships that are superficial, transitory, and ultimately unsatisfying” (1981: 248). He proposes an “ethic of commitment” which shifts the focus away from self-concern with growth and development “toward connectedness with the world . . . commitment to people, institutions, objects, beliefs, ideas, places, nature, projects, experiences, adventures, and callings” (1981: 247). To the extent that this conception gains favor or becomes a “presupposition” of increasing numbers of analysts and commentators, it may well help build a bridge of understanding to the fulfillment-through-commitment orientation of conservative Christians.

Fourth, viewed from the “inside,” NCR’s vision of the family indeed involves a primary emphasis upon love; upon loving negotiation where conflict is present; and upon a conviction that human nature indeed requires “controls” because human beings, wounded through Original Sin, are easily susceptible to “going astray.” Viewed from the inside, again, a major presupposition not shared by “outsiders” is that scripture, being divinely inspired, is the major reliable guide for human living; furthermore, the hierarchical framework and the differing “natures” of men and women and their consequent asymmetrical relationship are precisely the conditions of human fulfillment, of order and stability in the family, and are maximally conducive to a nurturing, caring atmosphere in which children can be reared with proper values and secure identities intact. Once again, the pastoral sources cited (not the polemical on which social scientists have so heavily relied) make it clear that, even within the evangelical hierarchical framework, compromise, negotiation, and mutual adjustment can take place in husband-wife relationships precisely because the compromise and negotiation take place in a context emphasizing love of God, neighbor, and self (see LaHaye and LaHaye, 1978: chapters 5 and 6). From the “insider” viewpoint terms such as authoritarian, rigid, conformist distort a reality that allows for much more flexibility than the strictly normative expressions of scripture would suggest.

None of the foregoing should be taken to mean that social science criticism of NCR family worldviews is without insight or value. The observers cited above point to NCR ideological “blind spots,” too. D’Antonio’s (1983) strictures concerning NCR support of a free enterprise system, which has given rise to the very forces that undermine the traditional family, deserve serious consideration. This liberal critique, however, can be turned around by NCR advocates who can readily reply that inconsistency is not confined only to conservatives: liberals support “free enterprise” in gender relationships and decry any imposition of authority in this sphere as damaging to individual autonomy, yet are quick to call for government (that is, authority) controls on the free enterprise system within the economy.

Hadden’s contention that cause-and-effect relationships are obscured in NCR analysis seems cogent when one considers the LaHayes’ lament that so many married women are in the work force, because temptations to infidelity multiply. Furthermore, it is difficult not to agree with critics who see in NCR’s definition of the man-woman relationship a sacred legitimation of the continuing relegation of women to second-class personhood and of the cementing of male domination throughout society’s institutions.

Thus, whatever “foundations of consensus” the “scientific community” may develop concerning how to view the “social reality” of the family (Thomas and Edmondson, 1986: 62), that consensus must include explicit awareness of presuppositions and how to deal creatively with them so that analytical distortion is identified and caricatures avoided. There are woefully few social scientific studies of NCR families from “the inside”; and to this extent our understanding of how they actually work, as contrasted with ideal portraits painted by pastoral theologians on the one hand and critical commentary from social scientists on the other, is severely limited. One sociologist (Thomas, 1983) has attempted such an analysis in an “insider’s” portrait of the Mormon family experience. One theologian (Cox, 1984) recently has attempted to state the concerns of evangelical and fundamentalist preachers in a sympathetic fashion, yet without forgoing critical comment, making clear his own presuppositions. While the foregoing cannot be offered as ideal models, they are at least initial steps in the right direction. Family theorists are challenged to “go forth and do likewise” in their future studies of the New Christian Right. It is hoped that these studies will allow social scientists and religiously committed family members to understand better their own and each other’s presuppositions about familial and religious reality, better aware of the relative strengths and distortions inherent in the viewpoint one espouses. Perhaps then we will understand better how family and religion combine to meet the individual’s social, emotional, and even eschatological needs in a world not only threatening to families, but whose continued existence may be in doubt.

Bibliography

Alexander, J. C. 1982. Theoretical Logic in Sociology (Vol. 1). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Brown, H. I. 1977. Perception, Theory and Commitment: The New Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cox, H. 1984. Religion in the Secular City: Toward a Post-modern Theology. New York: Simon and Schuster.

D’Antonio, W. V. 1983. “Family Life, Religion, and Societal Values and Structures.” Pp. 81–108 in W. V. D’Antonio and J. Aldous (eds.), Families and Religions: Conflict and Change in Modern Society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

D’Antonio, W. F., and J. Aldous (eds.) 1983. Families and Religions: Conflict and Change in Modern Society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Hadden, J. K. 1983. “Televangelism and the Mobilization of a New Christian Right Family Policy.” Pp. 247–66 in W. V. D’Antonio and J. Aldous (eds.), Families and Religions: Conflict and Change in Modern Society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hargrove, B. 1983a. “The Church, the Family, and the Modernization Process.” Pp. 21–48 in W. V. D’Antonio and J. Aldous (eds.), Families and Religions: Conflict and Change in Modern Society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hargrove, B. 1983b. “Family in the White American Protestant Experience.” Pp. 113–40 in W. V. D’Antonio and J. Aldous (eds.), Families and Religions: Conflict and Change in Modern Society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hindson, E. 1978. Formula for a Successful Family (3 cassette tapes). Liberty Family Seminar Series 2. Lynchburg, VA: Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Kuhn, T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

LaHaye, T. 1982. The Battle for the Family. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell.

LaHaye, T., and B. LaHaye. 1978. Spirit-Controlled Family Living. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell.

Marsden, G. 1983. “Preachers of Paradox: The Religious New Right in Historical Perspective.” Pp. 150–68 in M. Douglas and S. Tipton (eds.), Religion and America: Spirituality in a Secular Age. Boston: Beacon.

Scanzoni, J. 1983. Shaping Tomorrow’s Family: Theory and Policy for the 21st Century. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Suppe, F. 1977. Structure of Scientific Theories (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Swidler, A. 1980. “Love and Adulthood in American Culture.” Pp. 120–47 in N. Smelser and E. Erickson (eds.), Themes of Work and Love in Adulthood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Thomas, D. 1983. “Family in the Mormon Experience.” Pp. 167–288 in W. V. D’Antonio and J. Aldous (eds.), Families and Religions: Conflict and Change in Modern Society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Thomas, D., and J. Wilcox. 1987. “The Rise of Family Theory: An Historical and Critical Analysis.” Pp. 81–102 in M. B. Sussman and S. K. Steinmetz (eds.), Handbook of Marriage and the Family. New York: Plenum Press.

Warner, R. 1979. “Theoretical Barriers to the Understanding of Evangelical Christianity.” Sociological Analysis 40: 1–9.

Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society (Vol. 1). (Ed. by G. Ross, with C. Wittich.) Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Yankelovich, D. 1981. New Rules: Searching for Self-Fulfillment in a World Turned Upside-Down. New York: Random House.

Contact the RSC

185 Heber J. Grant Building Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 801-422-6975

Helpful Links

Religious Education

BYU Studies

Maxwell Institute

Articulos en español

Artigos em português

Connect with Us

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

148. New Right Views on Family Diversity

Description.

This Sociology Factsheet: • Defines what is meant by the term diversity. • Identifies the growth of new right ideas. • Explores the causes of the decline in nuclear families.

Download Type

.PDF (pdf) 1.072 MB

Publication Date

Issn / isbn.

ISSN: 1351-5136

Copyright Disclaimer

The materials published on this website are protected by the Copyright Act of 1988. No part of our online resources may be reproduced or reused for any commercial purpose, or transmitted, in any other form or by any other means, without the prior permission of Curriculum Press Ltd.

Similar Resources

What our customers say, find exactly what you’re looking for..

• Popular Searches
• A Level Media Studies
• A Level Sociology

Work with us

Get in touch.

• © 2024 Curriculum Press
• | Terms & Conditions
• | Privacy & Cookies |
• Website MadeByShape

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

• Study Notes

New Right Views on Education

Last updated 17 May 2019

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

As is often the case, the New Right have a similar perspective on education to functionalists. However, they tend to think that contemporary state education fails to perform the role it should perform because of centralised state control and policies that seek to standardise and improve equality.

REVISION AIDS ON EDUCATION (AQA)

Education Revision Flashcards for AQA A-Level Sociology

Printed Resource

Education Revision Guide for AQA A-Level Sociology

They argue that for education to be properly meritocratic in the way described by Davis and Moore, it needs to be more competitive, more about choice and winning and losing and less about collaboration and fairness. They would point to the idea of sports’ days where everyone gets a prize and argue that this approach fails to provide people with the drive and ambition to achieve in today’s society. For the New Right, there should be competition within schools, competition between schools and as well as socialising pupils with the skills to prosper in a market economy, this will also drive up educational standards too, as schools try to attract customers (parents) with impressive results. Chubb and Moe, for instance, argued that the reason private schools (in the USA) performed better than schools in the public sector was because the schools were answerable to paying parents. The more the education system could follow this model, the better they would become. This clearly has an impact on educational policies .

Furthermore, New Right sociologists agree that education should impart shared values but again are concerned about the way this happens in practice. They argue that in the 1960s and 1970s, schools came to be dominated by local education authorities that might have values that differ from the value consensus. For example, the New Right was concerned that children educated in local authorities that had very left-wing councils might learn history that was not sufficiently patriotic (and therefore did not pass on the shared values of all working for common goals as described by Durkheim) or there might be radical ideas about gender or sexual orientation that would not reflect the views of the children’s parents. Again, if education could be reorganised in such a way as to put the parents in control (to create a parentocracy ) then the value consensus would be set by the parents, and not by politicians who were often far from the mainstream.

• Neoliberalism (Education)
• Parentocracy

You might also like

The price of benefits.

21st February 2017

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do: The Divorce Hotel

2nd March 2017

Using Trump to Help Explore the New Right

4th April 2017

Using Trump to Help Explore Postmodernism

6th April 2017

Battling Discrimination as a Single Parent

27th March 2017

Just the Facts

16th May 2017

Example Answer for Question 1 Paper 1: AS Sociology, June 2017 (AQA)

Exam Support

Example Answer for Question 2 Paper 1: AS Sociology, June 2017 (AQA)

Our subjects.

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

• Revision Resources
• Learning sociology starts here!!!
• Sociology revision books
• Answering Exam Questions

New right views of the family – revision notes

The new right don’t like lone parent families because…

Lone parenting:

• causes an excessive dependency on state welfare due causing lone mothers to be ‘married to the state
• undermines the sexual division of labour which gives each parent a dedicated role to fulfill – expressive and instrumental, which lone parenting is unable to do
• it  also caused the absence of the male whose instrumental role was that of breadwinner, disciplinarian and role model
• according to Charles Murray led to the growth in fatherless families and the subsequent ill-discipline of their children drew them into a life of crime

Increase in divorce:

• causes the devaluation of marriage as an institution undermining the inherent strengths of the nuclear family, leading to fragmented families and dysfunctional families such as lone parent families

Cohabitation:

• causes the breakdown of traditional family values of loyalty, commitment and self-reliance which ultimately undermines the inherent value of the nuclear family which is built on stability and commitment

Continues…

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.com

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

Follow me on Twitter

• sociologytwynham.files.wo…
• amazon.co.uk/Just-Like-Gi…
• amazon.co.uk/Sociology-Re…

Blog at WordPress.com.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar
• Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Our Cookie Policy

• International

Witness testimony in Trump's hush money trial wraps for the day

From CNN's Kara Scannell, Lauren Del Valle, Jeremy Herb and Sabrina Souza in the courthouse

Witnesses walk through how bills were paid at Trump Org. Here’s what happened in court and why it matters

From CNN's Elise Hammond

In the hush money trial against the former president, prosecutors called two witnesses Monday who worked in accounting in the Trump Organization: Jeffrey McConney , a former Trump Org. controller, and Deborah Tarasoff , an accounts payable supervisor.

McConney walked the jury through the paper trail that showed how executives organized and paid back Michael Cohen for the money he sent to Stormy Daniels’ attorney. This is important because at the heart of the trial — the falsification of business records — are the payments to Cohen, which were listed as retainer fees.

Tarasoff described in more detail how checks were paid at the organization and when Trump’s approval was needed for payments.

Here’s what happened in court today:

Jeffrey McConney

• McConney testified that he had a conversation with Allen Weisselberg , former chief financial officer of the Trump Org., about a need to “reimburse” Cohen . McConney then showed jurors 12 checks, each for $35,000 , that were paid to Cohen in 2017. Cohen sent invoices for those checks and asked that the payments be listed as part of a “retainer agreement.” As previous testimony in the trial revealed, there was no actual retainer for Cohen.
• McConney also explained to the jury why Cohen was paid $420,000 in all and how each check was cut, first from Trump's revocable trust and then from his personal account .
• The jury also saw business records relating to the payment to Cohen that are tied to several of the 34 falsifying business records charges against Trump. The records show several rows and columns organized to record the payments.
• On cross-examination, Trump attorney Emil Bove questioned McConney about his knowledge of Trump's role in these payments. "President Trump did not ask you to do any of the things you described?" Bove asked. "He did not," McConney testified. He said he was told to do this work by Weisselberg. McConney also said he did not know if Cohen did legal work for Trump in 2017.

Deborah Tarasoff

• As accounts payable supervisor, Tarasoff said she would get an approved invoice , enter it into the system, cut the check and get it signed. Tarasoff testified that Trump or his sons needed to approve invoices of more than $10,000 and Trump was the only person who authorized checks from his personal account , including during his presidency.
• Tarasoff said Trump would sign the checks by hand. She said they were signed in black Sharpie . Tarasoff said Trump did not always sign the checks, even when Weisselberg approved them. He would “write 'void' and send it back,” she noted.
• Before Trump was president, Tarasoff testified that she “ would cut the check , put it with the backup and bring it over to Rhona (Graff) who would bring it in to Mr. Trump to sign,” referring to Trump’s former longtime assistant. The invoices and the checks were stapled together, she said, with the check on top of the invoice. When Trump became president, Tarasoff said they would mail checks to the White House .
• The jury was shown the voucher form that said "retainer" in the description line that Tarasoff said she obtained from the invoice. Tarasoff also confirmed each of the $35,000 checks with Trump’s signature were sent to Cohen.
• On cross-examination, she acknowledged that she was not present for conversations between Trump and Weisselberg about the payments. She also said she worked with Trump's children Eric, Don Jr. and Ivanka Trump, over the years. Tarasoff still works for Trump Org., which means she works for Eric Trump, who was also in the courtroom today.

What’s next: Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass estimated they still need about two weeks from tomorrow to make their case. He stresses that's a very rough estimate. The defense will also get an opportunity to call its witnesses after that if they choose.

Gag order hearing: Judge Juan Merchan  found Trump in contempt  for violating the gag order again, specifically concerning comments he made about the makeup of the jury in this case. Prosecutors had alleged Trump violated the gag order on four separate occasions . The judge ruled that the three other comments did not violate the order. "Going forward this court will have to consider a jail sanction," Merchan said, noting the $1,000 fine is not stopping him, but he told Trump “incarceration is truly a last resort .”

Remember: Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business record s. Each criminal charge relates to a specific entry among the business records of the Trump Organization, according to the indictment . Prosecutors allege that Trump allegedly disguised the transaction to Daniels as a legal payment and falsified business records numerous times to “promote his candidacy” in the 2016 election.

Prosecutors roughly estimate they need about two more weeks to make their case

Judge Juan Merchan asks the prosecution how they're doing on timing for making their case.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says they're doing "well," but estimates they still need about two weeks from tomorrow. He stresses that's a very rough estimate.

Trump tapped defense attorney Todd Blanche's arm as Steinglass made the estimation.

What Deborah Tarasoff said in just over an hour of testimony

From CNN's Kara Scannell, Lauren del Valle, Jeremy Herb and Sabrina Souza

Deborah Tarasoff, an employee in the Trump Organization’s accounting department, testified for just over an hour Monday about the check-writing process at the company.

Tarasoff helped arrange the 12 checks for $35,000, each signed by Donald Trump and sent to former attorney Michael Cohen in 2017 as reimbursement for the $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

She testified that after 2015 any invoice over $10,000 had to be approved by Trump or one of his sons. When she created the checks, Trump would sign them, she testified — or, if he disapproved, he would write “void” on them, she said.

"If he didn’t want to sign it, he didn’t sign it," she said. She knew he was the one signing them because, "It was signed in Sharpie and it was black and that’s what he uses."

She testified she had no decision-making authority but followed instructions, including getting invoices approved, entering them into the system, cutting the checks and getting them signed.

On cross-examination, she acknowledged that she was not present for conversations between Trump and former Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg about the payments.

Judge tells jury they'll wrap up early today

"Jurors we're going to stop a little bit early today," Judge Juan Merchan tells the jury.

The jurors are now leaving.

Tarasoff is off the stand

Trump attorney Todd Blanche just wrapped up his cross-examination of Deborah Tarasoff.

There won't be a redirect, and Tarasoff is off the stand

Tarasoff says she doesn't know what happened to Cohen checks after they were mailed but they returned signed

Trump attorney Todd Blanche also noted that Deborah Tarasoff was not present for conversations between former Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg and Donald Trump.

"When Mr. Weisselberg on some of the emails or Mr. McConney told you to go ahead and pay it, generate a check, you didn’t get permission from President Trump himself, correct?" Blanche said.

"Correct," she said.

She clarified with Blanche that all the checks to Michael Cohen shown in court were signed and that she doesn't know what happened with the checks after she mailed them to the White House.

But she did receive them back in the mail signed.

Blanche follows up with more questions about invoices

Attorney Todd Blanche is asking Deborah Tarasoff if Trump was focused on getting ready to be president during the start of 2017.

"I think so," Tarasoff replies.

Blanche follows up and asks whether the requests to pay for invoices "happens all the time?" Yes, Tarasoff says.

Blanche is trying to rehabilitate earlier testimony from Tarasoff that Trump would sometimes void checks for invoices he didn't want to pay. "If he didn’t want to sign it, he didn’t sign it," she testified earlier.

Tarasoff says Trump Org. is family-run and says she's worked with Don Jr., Eric and Ivanka Trump

Deborah Tarasoff confirms to defense attorney Todd Blanche that the Trump Organization is a family-run business. She says she has worked with Trump's children Eric, Don Jr. and Ivanka Trump over the years.

Trump is fully turned 90 degrees in his chair while Tarasoff is testifying. His arm is over the back of the chair, and he's facing toward Tarasoff.

Prosecutors have finished their questioning of Tarasoff

Prosecutors have wrapped up their questioning of Deborah Tarasoff. Trump attorney Todd Blanche is now starting his cross-examination for the defense.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Protesters and the President

Over the past week, thousands of students protesting the war in gaza have been arrested..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From “New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

Free, free, Palestine!

Free, free Palestine!

Free, free, free Palestine!

Over the past week, what had begun as a smattering of pro-Palestinian protests on America’s college campuses exploded into a nationwide movement —

United, we’ll never be defeated!

— as students at dozens of universities held demonstrations, set up encampments, and at times seized academic buildings.

[PROTESTERS CLAMORING]:

response, administrators at many of those colleges decided to crack down —

Do not throw things at our officers. We will use chemical munitions that include gas.

— calling in local police to carry out mass detentions and arrests. From Arizona State —

In the name of the state of Arizona, I declare this gathering to be a violation of —

— to the University of Georgia —

— to City College of New York.

[PROTESTERS CHANTING, “BACK OFF”]:

As of Thursday, police had arrested 2,000 students on more than 40 campuses. A situation so startling that President Biden could no longer ignore it.

Look, it’s basically a matter of fairness. It’s a matter of what’s right. There’s the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos.

Today, my colleagues Jonathan Wolfe and Peter Baker on a history-making week. It’s Friday, May 3.

Jonathan, as this tumultuous week on college campuses comes to an end, it feels like the most extraordinary scenes played out on the campus of the University of California Los Angeles, where you have been reporting. What is the story of how that protest started and ultimately became so explosive?

So late last week, pro-Palestinian protesters set up an encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles.

From the river to the sea!

Palestine will be free!

Palestine —

It was right in front of Royce Hall, which I don’t know if you are familiar with UCLA, but it’s a very famous, red brick building. It’s on all the brochures. And there was two things that stood out about this encampment. And the first thing was that they barricaded the encampment.

The encampment, complete with tents and barricades, has been set up in the middle of the Westwood campus. The protesters demand —

They have metal grates. They had wooden pallets. And they separated themselves from the campus.

This is kind of interesting. There are controlling access, as we’ve been talking about. They are trying to control who is allowed in, who is allowed out.

They sort of policed the area. So they only would let people that were part of their community, they said, inside.

I’m a UCLA student. I deserve to go here. We paid tuition. This is our school. And they’re not letting me walk in. Why can’t I go? Will you let me go in?

We’re not engaging with that.

Then you can move. Will you move?

And the second thing that stood out about this camp was that it immediately attracted pro-Israel counterprotesters.

And what did the leadership of UCLA say about all of this, the encampment and these counterprotesters?

So the University of California’s approach was pretty unique. They had a really hands-off approach. And they allowed the pro-Palestinian protesters to set up an encampment. They allowed the counterprotesters to happen. I mean, this is a public university, so anyone who wants to can just enter the campus.

So when do things start to escalate?

So there were definitely fights and scuffles through the weekend. But a turning point was really Sunday —

[SINGING IN HEBREW]:

— when this group called the Israeli American Council, they’re a nonprofit organization, organized a rally on campus. The Israeli American Council has really been against these pro-Palestinian protests. They say that they’re antisemitic. So this nonprofit group sets up a stage with a screen really just a few yards from the pro-Palestinian encampment.

We are grateful that this past Friday, the University of California, stated that they will continue to oppose any calls for boycott and divestment from Israel!

[PROTESTERS CHEERING]

And they host speakers and they held prayers.

Jewish students, you’re not alone! Oh, you’re not alone! We are right here with you! And we’re right here with you in until —

[WORDLESS SINGING]:

And then lots of other people start showing up. And the proximity between protesters and counterprotesters and even some agitators, makes it really clear that something was about to happen.

And what was that? What ended up happening?

On Monday night, a group of about 60 counterprotesters tried to breach the encampment there. And the campus police had to break it up. And things escalated again on Tuesday.

They stormed the barricades and it’s a complete riot.

[PROTESTER SHOUTING]:

Put it down! Put it down! Put it down!

I went to report on what happened just a few hours after it ended.

And I spoke to a lot of protesters. And I met one demonstrator, Marie.

Yeah, my first name is Marie. M-A-R-I-E. Last name, Salem.

And Marie described what happened.

So can you just tell me a little bit about what happened last night?

Last night, we were approached by over a hundred counterprotesters who were very mobilized and ready to break into camp. They proceeded to try to breach our barricades extremely violently.

Marie said it started getting out of hand when counterprotesters started setting off fireworks towards the camp.

They had bear spray. They had Mace. They were throwing wood and spears. Throwing water bottles, continuing fireworks.

So she said that they were terrified. It was just all hands on deck. Everyone was guarding the barricades.

Every time someone experienced the bear spray or Mace or was hit and bleeding, we had some medics in the front line. And then we had people —

And they said that they were just trying to take care of people who were injured.

I mean, at any given moment, there was 5 to 10 people being treated.

So what she described to me sounded more like a battlefield than a college campus.

And it was just a complete terror and complete abandonment of the university, as we also watched private security watch this the entire time on the stairs. And some LAPD were stationed about a football field length back from these counterprotesters, and did not make a single arrest, did not attempt to stop any violence, did not attempt to get in between the two groups. No attempt.

I should say, I spoke to a state authorities and eyewitnesses and they confirmed Marie’s account about what happened that night, both in terms of the violence that took place at the encampment and how law enforcement responded. So in the end, people ended up fighting for hours before the police intervened.

[SOMBER MUSIC]

So in her mind, UCLA’s hands-off approach, which seemed to have prevailed throughout this entire period, ends up being way too hands off in a moment when students were in jeopardy.

That’s right. And so at this point, the protesters in the encampment started preparing for two possibilities. One was that this group of counterprotesters would return and attack them. And the second one was that the police would come and try to break up this encampment.

So they started building up the barricades. They start reinforcing them with wood. And during the day, hundreds of people came and brought them supplies. They brought food.

They brought helmets, goggles, earplugs, saline solution, all sorts of things these people could use to defend themselves. And so they’re really getting ready to burrow in. And in the end, it was the police who came.

[PROTESTERS SHOUTING]:

So Wednesday at 7:00 PM, they made an announcement on top of Royce Hall, which overlooks the encampment —

— administrative criminal actions up to and including arrest. Please leave the area immediately.

And they told people in the encampment that they needed to leave or face arrest.

[DRUM BEATING]: [PROTESTERS CHANTING]

And so as night falls, they put on all this gear that they’ve been collecting, the goggles, the masks and the earplugs, and they wait for the police.

[DRUM BEATING]:

And so the police arrive and station themselves right in front of the encampment. And then at a certain point, they storm the back stairs of the encampment.

[PROTESTERS CHANTING]:

And this is the stairs that the protesters have been using to enter and exit the camp. And they set up a line. And the protesters do this really surprising thing.

The people united!

They open up umbrellas. They have these strobe lights. And they’re flashing them at the police, who just slowly back out of the camp.

[PROTESTERS CHEERING]:

And so at this point, they’re feeling really great. They’re like, we did it. We pushed them out of their camp. And when the cops try to push again on those same set of stairs —

[PROTESTER SHOUTS]:

Hold your ground!

— the protesters organized themselves with all these shields that they had built earlier. And they go and confront them. And so there’s this moment where the police are trying to push up the stairs. And the protesters are literally pushing them back.

Push them back! Push them back!

Push them back!

And at a certain point, dozens of the police officers who were there, basically just turn around and leave.

So how does this eventually come to an end?

So at a certain point, the police push in again. Most of the conflict is centered at the front of these barricades. And the police just start tearing them apart.

[METAL CLANGING]

[CLAMORING]

They removed the front barricade. And in its place is this group of protesters who have linked arms and they’re hanging on to each other. And the police are trying to pull protesters one by one away from this group.

He’s just a student! Back off!

But they’re having a really hard time because there’s so many protesters. And they’re all just hanging on to each other.

We’re moving back now.

So at a certain point, one of the police officers started firing something into the crowd. We don’t exactly know what it was. But it really spooked the protesters.

Stop shooting at kids! Fuck you! Fuck them!

They started falling back. Everyone was really scared. The protesters were yelling, don’t shoot us. And at that point, the police just stormed the camp.

Get back. Get back.

Back up now!

And so after about four hours of this, the police pushed the protesters out of the encampment. They had arrested about 200 protesters. And this was finally over.

And I’m just curious, Jonathan, because you’re standing right there, you are bearing witness to this all, what you were thinking, what your impressions of this were.

I mean, I was stunned. These are mostly teenagers. This is a college campus, an institution of higher learning. And what I saw in front of me looked like a war zone.

[TENSE MUSIC]

The massive barricade, the police coming in with riot gear, and all this violence was happening in front of these red brick buildings that are famous for symbolizing a really open college campus. And everything about it was just totally surreal.

Well, Jonathan, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Thanks, Michael.

We’ll be right back.

Peter, around 10:00 AM on Thursday morning as the smoke is literally still clearing at the University of California Los Angeles, you get word that President Biden is going to speak.

Right, exactly. It wasn’t on his public schedule. He was about to head to Andrews Air Force base in order to take a trip. And then suddenly, we got the notice that he was going to be addressing the cameras in the Roosevelt Room.

They didn’t tell us what he was going to talk about. But it was pretty clear, I think. Everybody understood that it was going to be about these campus protests, about the growing violence and the clashes with police, and the arrests that the entire country had been watching on TV every night for the past week, and I think that we were watching just that morning with UCLA. And it reached the point where he just had to say something.

And why, in his estimation and those of his advisors, was this the moment that Biden had to say something?

Well, it kind of reached a boiling point. It kind of reached the impression of a national crisis. And you expect to hear your president address it in this kind of a moment, particularly because it’s about his own policy. His policy toward Israel is at the heart of these protests. And he was getting a lot of grief. He was getting a lot of grief from Republicans who were chiding him for not speaking out personally. He hadn’t said anything in about 10 days.

He’s getting a lot of pressure from Democrats, too, who wanted him to come out and be more forceful. It wasn’t enough, in their view, to leave it to his spokespeople to say something. Moderate Democrats felt he needed to come out and take some leadership on this.

And so at the appointed moment, Peter, what does Biden actually say in the Roosevelt Room of the White House?

Good morning.

Before I head to North Carolina, I wanted to speak for a few moments about what’s going on, on our college campuses here.

Well, it comes in the Roosevelt Room and he talks to the camera. And he talks about the two clashing imperatives of American principle.

The first is the right to free speech and for people to peacefully assemble and make their voices heard. The second is the rule of law. Both must be upheld.

One is freedom of speech. The other is the rule of law.

In fact, peaceful protest is in the best tradition of how Americans respond to consequential issues. But, but, neither are we a lawless country.

In other words, what he’s saying is, yes, I support the right of these protesters to come out and object to even my own policy, in effect, is what he’s saying. But it shouldn’t trail into violence.

Destroying property is not a peaceful protest. It’s against the law. Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses —

It shouldn’t trail into taking over buildings and obstructing students from going to class or canceling their graduations.

Threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear in people is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law.

And he leans very heavily into this idea that what he’s seeing these days goes beyond the line.

I understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions. In America, we respect the right and protect the right for them to express that. But it doesn’t mean anything goes.

It has crossed into harassment and expressions of hate in a way that goes against the national character.

As president, I will always defend free speech. And I will always be just as strong and standing up for the rule of law. That’s my responsibility to you, the American people, and my obligation to the Constitution. Thank you very much.

Right, as I watched the speech, I heard his overriding message to basically be, I, the president of the United States, am drawing a line. These protests and counterprotests, the seizing and defacing of campus buildings, class disruption, all of it, name calling, it’s getting out of hand. That there’s a right way to do this. And what I’m seeing is the wrong way to do it and it has to stop.

That’s exactly right. And as he’s wrapping up, reporters, of course, ask questions. And the first question is —

Mr. President, have the protests forced you to reconsider any of the policies with regard to the region?

— will this change your policy toward the war in Gaza? Which, of course, is exactly what the protesters want. That’s the point.

And he basically says —

— no. Just one word, no.

Right. And that felt kind of important, as brief and fleeting as it was, because at the end of the day, what he’s saying to these protesters is, I’m not going to do what you want. And basically, your protests are never going to work. I’m not going to change the US’s involvement in this war.

Yeah, that’s exactly right. He is saying, I’m not going to be swayed by angry people in the streets. I’m going to do what I think is right when it comes to foreign policy. Now, what he thinks is that they’re not giving him enough credit for trying to achieve what they want, which is an end of the war.

He has been pressuring Israel and Hamas to come to a deal for a ceasefire that will, hopefully, in his view, would then lead to a more enduring end of hostilities. But, of course, this deal hasn’t gone anywhere. Hamas, in particular, seems to be resisting it. And so the president is left with a policy of arming Israel without having found a way yet to stop the war.

Right. I wonder, though, Peter, if we’re being honest, don’t these protests, despite what Biden is saying there, inevitably exert a kind of power over him? Becoming one of many pressures, but a pressure nonetheless that does influence how he thinks about these moments. I mean, here he is at the White House devoting an entire conversation to the nation to these campus protests.

Well, look, he knows this feeds into the political environment in which he’s running for re-election, in which he basically has people who otherwise might be his supporters on the left disenchanted with him. And he knows that there’s a cost to be paid. And that certainly, obviously, is in his head as he’s thinking about what to do.

But I think his view of the war is changing by the day for all sorts of reasons. And most of them having to do with realities on the ground. He has decided that Israel has gone far enough, if not too far, in the way it has conducted this operation in Gaza.

He is upset about the humanitarian crisis there. And he’s looking for a way to wrap all this up into a move that would move to peacemaking, beginning to get the region to a different stage, maybe have a deal with the Saudis to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for some sort of a two-state solution that would eventually resolve the Palestinian issue at its core.

So I think it’s probably fair to say that the protests won’t move him in an immediate kind of sense. But they obviously play into the larger zeitgeist of the moment. And I also think it’s important to know who Joe Biden is at heart.

Explain that.

He’s not drawn to activism. He was around in 1968, the last time we saw this major conflagration at Columbia University, for instance. At the time, Joe Biden was a law student in Syracuse, about 250 miles away. And he was an institutionalist even then.

He was just focused on his studies. He was about to graduate. He was thinking about the law career. And he didn’t really have much of an affinity, I think, for his fellow students of that era, for their activist way of looking at things.

He tells a story in his memoir about walking down a street in Syracuse one day to go to the pizza shop with some friends. And they walk by the administration building. And they see people hanging out of the windows. They’re hanging SDS banners. That’s the Students for a Democratic Society, which was one of the big activist groups of the era.

And he says, they were taking over the building. And we looked up and said, look at those assholes. That’s how far apart from the antiwar movement I was. That’s him writing in his memoir.

So to a young Joe Biden, those who devote their time and their energy to protesting the war are, I don’t need to repeat the word twice, but they’re losers. They’re not worth his time.

Well, I think it’s the tactics they’re using more than the goals that he disagreed with. He would tell you he disagreed with the Vietnam War. He was for civil rights. But he thought that taking over a building was performative, was all about getting attention, and that there was a better way, in his view, to do it.

He was somebody who wanted to work inside the system. He said in an interview quite a few years back, he says, look, I was wearing sports coats in that era. He saw himself becoming part of the system, not somebody trying to tear it down.

And so how should we think about that Joe Biden, when we think about this Joe Biden? I mean, the Joe Biden who, as a young man, looked upon antiwar protesters with disdain and the one who is now president and his very own policies have inspired such ferocious campus protests?

Yeah, that Joe Biden, the 1968 Joe Biden, he could just throw on a sports coat, go to the pizza shop with his friends, make fun of the activists and call them names, and then that’s it. They didn’t have to affect his life. But that’s not what 2024 Joe Biden can do.

Now, wherever he goes, he’s dogged by this. He goes to speeches and people are shouting at him, Genocide Joe! Genocide Joe! He is the target of the same kind of a movement that he disdained in 1968. And so as much as he would like to ignore it or move on or focus on other things, I think this has become a defining image of his year and one of the defining images, perhaps, of his presidency. And 2024 Joe Biden can’t simply ignore it.

Well, Peter, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

Here’s what else you need to know today. During testimony on Thursday in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, jurors heard a recording secretly made by Trump’s former fixer, Michael Cohen, in which Trump discusses a deal to buy a woman’s silence. In the recording, Trump asks Cohen about how one payment made by Trump to a woman named Karen McDougal would be financed. The recording could complicate efforts by Trump’s lawyers to distance him from the hush money deals at the center of the trial.

A final thing to know, tomorrow morning, we’ll be sending you the latest episode from our colleagues over at “The Interview.” This week, David Marchese talks with comedy star Marlon Wayans about his new stand-up special.

It’s a high that you get when you don’t know if this joke that I’m about to say is going to offend everybody. Are they going to walk out? Are they going to boo me? Are they going to hate this. And then you tell it, and everybody cracks up and you’re like, woo.

Today’s episode was produced by Diana Nguyen, Luke Vander Ploeg, Alexandra Leigh Young, Nina Feldman, and Carlos Prieto. It was edited by Lisa Chow and Michael Benoist. It contains original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.

• May 9, 2024   •   34:42 One Strongman, One Billion Voters, and the Future of India
• May 8, 2024   •   28:28 A Plan to Remake the Middle East
• May 7, 2024   •   27:43 How Changing Ocean Temperatures Could Upend Life on Earth
• May 6, 2024   •   29:23 R.F.K. Jr.’s Battle to Get on the Ballot
• May 3, 2024   •   25:33 The Protesters and the President
• May 2, 2024   •   29:13 Biden Loosens Up on Weed
• May 1, 2024   •   35:16 The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court
• April 30, 2024   •   27:40 The Secret Push That Could Ban TikTok
• April 29, 2024   •   47:53 Trump 2.0: What a Second Trump Presidency Would Bring
• April 26, 2024   •   21:50 Harvey Weinstein Conviction Thrown Out
• April 25, 2024   •   40:33 The Crackdown on Student Protesters
• April 24, 2024   •   32:18 Is $60 Billion Enough to Save Ukraine?

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Jonathan Wolfe and Peter Baker

Produced by Diana Nguyen ,  Luke Vander Ploeg ,  Alexandra Leigh Young ,  Nina Feldman and Carlos Prieto

Edited by Lisa Chow and Michael Benoist

Original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

Warning: this episode contains strong language.

Over the past week, students at dozens of universities held demonstrations, set up encampments and, at times, seized academic buildings. In response, administrators at many of those colleges decided to crack down and called in the local police to detain and arrest demonstrators.

As of Thursday, the police had arrested 2,000 people across more than 40 campuses, a situation so startling that President Biden could no longer ignore it.

Jonathan Wolfe, who has been covering the student protests for The Times, and Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent, discuss the history-making week.

On today’s episode

Jonathan Wolfe , a senior staff editor on the newsletters team at The New York Times.

Peter Baker , the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times covering President Biden and his administration.

Background reading

As crews cleared the remnants of an encampment at U.C.L.A., students and faculty members wondered how the university could have handled protests over the war in Gaza so badly .

Biden denounced violence on campus , breaking his silence after a rash of arrests.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Jonathan Wolfe is a senior staff editor on the newsletters team at The Times. More about Jonathan Wolfe

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The Times. He has covered the last five presidents and sometimes writes analytical pieces that place presidents and their administrations in a larger context and historical framework. More about Peter Baker

Luke Vander Ploeg is a senior producer on “The Daily” and a reporter for the National Desk covering the Midwest. More about Luke Vander Ploeg

Advertisement

Jailed leader of Greece's far-right Golden Dawn released on parole

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Additional reporting by Yannis Souliotis, editing by Deepa Babington

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Somalia's government has requested the termination of a U.N. political mission that has advised it on peace-building, security reforms and democracy for over a decade, according to a letter the foreign minister wrote to the Security Council.

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Evaluate the view that the growth of family diversity has led to a decline in the nuclear family (20)

An example of a top band answer (17/20) to a possible question on the AQA’s 7192/2 topics in sociology paper (families option, section A)

Last Updated on June 11, 2018 by Karl Thompson

This is an example of a 17/20 top band answer to the above question, as marked by the AQA.

In the pictures below, I’ve highlighted all of the candidate’s evaluations in red to show you the balance of knowledge and evaluation required to get into the top mark band!

This is also a good example of a borderline Band 4-Band 5 answer… it just wants a little more evaluation to go up even higher.

The mark scheme (top two bands)

Student’s Response (concepts highlighted in blue, evaluation in burnt orange)

NB It’s the same response all the way through, I’ve just repeated the title on the two pages!

KT’s commentary

This is a bit of a bizarre essay, but this is a good example of how to answer it.

Without the final paragraph it would be floundering down in the middle mark band!

AQA specimen material 2016

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading