|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this article by Palermo and Simpson was to outline their view that the dissolution of the family was the basic root to societal violence. Psychoanalytic and Judeo-Christian perspectives were utilized.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors provided a non-experimental discussion and a review of the relevant literature.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The authors discussed the history of the family in the context of its patriarchal structure and its function in society. The authors contended that during the time of early civilizations, the primary function of the family was to endorse and maintain stability, order, and defense under the strict rules of the father and the State. They argued that, during the Medieval period, the church then supported and encouraged the nuclear family concept and its function as the primary protector of children. The authors believed that the once united and stable Judeo-Christian family, predominant in western society, had been uprooted by many changes; socioeconomic, social, and religious (e.g., religious affiliation decline). The authors held the opinion that the family's vital function was to provide society with social and moral values and roles. Since the family was a basic and fundamental component of a society's culture, the authors argued that it also heavily influenced the debasing of a culture.
The authors also discussed sociological arguments. They quoted Scott and Scott (1983), who had stated that although trust, affection, individuality, and drive were basic psychological elements of a surviving group, a good genetic/psychogenetic pool, private spaces for spouses, and family myths which afforded symbols, structure and values were also considered imperative. The authors claimed that many factors contributed to social confusion and thoughtless, careless, living. These were believed to be the insatiable search for new solutions to life's difficulties, religious secularization, the inward/outward migration of workers, job loss anxiety, inability to find work, and an emphasis on individuality and striving for hedonistic goals. It was argued that family communication break down, caused by a devotion to individual needs and sociocultural changes, led to family structural changes, or the loss of the family altogether. Census Bureau statistics were provided by the authors. They found that: 50% of marriages end in divorce; 25% of U.S. citizens over 18 years old have never married; 25.9% of married couples have children less then 18 years old; 29.4% of married couples have no children; 25.05% of U.S. citizens lived alone; 4.7% lived with others who were unrelated. The authors claimed that the emptiness and frustration caused by the pursuit of personal autonomy in the present day family provided a foundation for aggressive behavior by individuals in the family. It was contended that town planning of modern cities no longer accommodated a public square and meeting place. Parks were argued to be no longer accessible because of increasing violence, and shopping malls built for consumerism only, were said to have replaced them. The authors stated that this, along with electronic telecommunication, had facilitated the alienation and void experienced by many individuals in today's society.
The authors asserted that the non-traditional family (e.g., single parented, mother only, divorced/separated), so common today, was the cause for the lack of skills in children and adolescents since these children were without adequate role models. The authors argued that black, male children were at greatest risk because an increasing number were being raised by women/mothers only, supposedly making them unable to successfully transit from boyhood to manhood. Further, the authors stated that the elderly were no longer respected or appreciated as providers of values and meaning in life. It was argued that freedom and individualism had endowed society with extremes in egocentrism and had contributed to nuclear family degeneration. That rapid and drastic societal changes in the past few decades have created chaos, lack of direction and insecurity for people was also discussed. These changes were acknowledged as contributing to drugs and motiveless, incomprehensible, crime.
The authors contended that the disruption of the family was generating a nonfunctioning society. The authors reported that individuals direct themselves towards the continuously changing goals and manufactured goods that society incessantly produces for them. The frustration that comes from a meaningless society was said to cause confusion, uncertainty, and hostility which, the authors contended, were expressed in the family. The authors idealized that families be caring, sharing, loving, that members be selfless and aware of other members needs. Healthy families were said to result in healthy citizenry. The authors argued that since Americans were overachievers, with an insatiable need for advancing themselves, they produced a society of workaholics. Although the authors remarked that some working class women were working out of necessity, they were reported to be choosing work at the expense of the family; they were claimed to be absent when the family needed them for its functioning, structure, and nurturance. This was said to result in the development of a hostile people. The authors contended that children without parental presence may feel robbed of affection, may feel secondary to their parents societal position, may grow up without a concept of human warmth and spontaneity, and may be drawn into crime.
The authors stated that fundamental cultural standards were generally preserved through the family; via moral education and socialization processes. The authors claimed that while the family was supposed to be the retreat from the outside world in which individuals find a place to relax and be protected, today's family was said to no longer afford those things.
The authors stated that an increasingly technological society had resulted in a perfunctory style of living by its members. "Messy urban realities" were argued to be the origin of profound discontent for many people. The malaise of society was said to most probably generate defiance, frustration and violence in the family and in our communities. The authors argued that a paucity of parental guidance and a lack of morality advocation were the major contributors to violence in homes and communities.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors stated that the family needed to be reabsorbed into a contemporary and functional structure. They also argued that in order to stabilize society, the family needed to establish and maintain high moral values. The authors called on sociologists, educational and religious leaders, politicians and parents to assist in halting the decline of the family. It was recommended that: 1) welfare structures not be able to legislate that fathers be refused access to the home; 2) additional births currently rewarded with extra societal benefits not be encouraged; 3) hope for employment and self-sufficiency not be abandoned; 4) organized religion become more involved as leaders in such a movement; and 5) social-environmental, and human-ecological strategies be implemented at the levels of individuals and families "at risk".
EVALUATION:
The authors have provided an argument for the need for society to recognize the value of the family in the overall direction of society. The family, and the values instilled in the family, were deemed to be the major contributors to societal violence. However, the authors provided no empirical evidence in support of these claims. Statistics presented were obtained from the Census Bureau and were concerned with rates of marriage, divorce, birth, and the population's living arrangements. Although these showed that there has been a decline in some arrangements and an increase in others, no empirical evidence for how these statistical outcomes were connected with societal violence was provided. As a consequence of the above, the reader is cautioned in drawing any conclusions from the authors' arguments, that the dissolution of the family is at the root of violence, since the assertions made are limited by the type of research that was undertaken.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Violence Causes
Adult Violence
Juvenile Violence
Family Ideology
Family Relations
Family Environment
Adult Offender
Juvenile Offender
Literature Review
Religious Beliefs
Socioeconomic Factors
Sociocultural Factors
Family Structure
Parent Child Relations
Violence Risk Factors
Violence Protective Factors
Family Risk Factors
Family Protective Factors
03-05
Language: en |