Coming Apart

NY times book review

Coming Apart

A Book Review 

In his book Coming Apart, Charles Murray evaluates the separation of the upper and lower classes in America. He compares and illustrates the changes in American life between November 21^st 1963 and today’s (2010) America. In this book review I will highlight his main points and relate these things to family processes.

The Upper Class

Narrow Elite: top influential people in the nation: lawyers, judges who shape laws, news, Hollywood, top academics, politicians (a few 100 or 10 thousand people, top 1% of Americans).

Broad Elite: top influential people in cities/regions, top 5% most successful people in America: military, business management, same list as narrow elite. 69% married, age 25+

The elite classes are ISOLATED from and ignorant about mainstream America geographically, economically, educationally, and culturally, politically.

“Good things [are] happening to the cognitive elite that are not open to the rest of America” –Charles Murray Coming Apart page 34

Residential Sorting

“The upper class live in a world far removed from ordinary America”

–Charles Murray Coming Apart page 91

·      Super zips- extremely rich neighborhoods

·      “Attraction to elite-ness” pg. 85

·      Upper class in isolation and ignorance

Q: Why did the upper class become less similar to the middle class?

1.     Market Value of Brains – intellectual capital in the marketplace became more valuable. “All the benefits of economic growth from 1970 – 2010 went to people in the upper half of the income distribution” –Charles Murray Coming Apart page 50

2.     College Sorting – 59% of Tier 1 college attendees came from families in the top quartile. The applicant pool is biased, especially toward those from the Northeast private schools. There is NOT FAIR OPPORTNITY for poor smart kids as there is for rich smart kids. (See page 59)

3.     Homogamy – Kids are smart because their parents are smart. Rich smart kids marry other rich smart kids.

Positive Changes Since 1963

The upper class is credited with economic growth and improved standard of living. Upgrade of cognitive talent resulted in better products, medicine, innovation, globalization and more.

The upper class is a culture, removed from everyone else; its not just money, its congregations of talented people controlling our country (see page 123).

The New Lower Class

The 1960’s counter youth culture revolution was the beginning of endless change in America. In the 1960’s industriousness, honesty (low crime), marriage, religiosity, and virtue were common across the country (see page 135-136). Now all these variables are up in the air for the lower class. One could cite many social and political problems today, but the mere fact that these problems have arose is a sign that America is changing. “The fact that we are changing the constitution means America is changing” –Charles Murray Coming Apart page 50. On page 143 Murray sites founders who taught that our constitution was made only for moral and religious people.

To better illustrate the differences between the upper and lower classes, Murray creates two representational towns: Belmont for the upper class and Fishtown for the lower class. The trends he presents for each city represents the reality of each class across America. He examines and compares four “Founding Virtues” of America: industriousness, Honesty, Marriage, and Religiosity. I will try to highlight the main trends in each category, but if you’re looking to get a more holistic picture, glance through the graphs in chapters 8-11. Look at the drastic changes in Fishtown! This chart I made is based on my reading of the graphs, so the numbers aren’t exact.

Keep in mind that this chart is not real data- just an “at-a-glance” summary of the charts in the book. To sum up, here are the basic trends:

Lower Class in America: less marriage, more divorce, more non-marital child bearing, more unemployment, less people working full time, more arrests (for violent and property crimes), more in prison, less religiosity, less church attendance, more secular. The size of the white new lower class has doubled since 1960.

Lower class Americans don’t work or don’t have consistent jobs, have children but don’t get married, and live in dangerous communities where everyone is isolated from everyone.

Upper Class in America: slightly less marriage, lots of stable, two parent households, a tiny bit more unemployment, but lots of stable jobs, lots of working hours, practically no crime, and less arrests for property crime, more secularism and less church attendance—but not as drastic as the lower class.

Upper class Americans are still getting married, have good jobs, and associate with other people with families and economic stability.

Bottom line: THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT AMERICAS

“Marriage has become the fault line dividing American classes.” –Charles Murray Coming Apart page 153

Why does it matter?

“The trends signify damage to the heart of American community and the ways in which the great majority of Americans pursue satisfying lives. Many of the best and most exceptional qualities of American cultures cannot survive unless the trends are reversed.”

–Charles Murray Coming Apart page 239

Community life, associations and neighborliness, and helping one another were common in urban and rural areas alike. The poor and the rich used to know each other. There has been a decline in social capital by civil disengagement. Voting and social trust are down, and it’s the worst among those in the lower class.

Aristotle said: “Happiness consists of lasting and justified satisfaction with life as a whole.” In chapter 15, Murray argues that things that bring true satisfaction must be important to the individual; he must put forth effort; and he must be able to take credit for the success. Responsibility for satisfaction is essential. The “stuff of life” in which one could find satisfaction is family, vocation, community, and faith. These four elements have greatly diminished among American poor. “Everything that makes America exceptional will have disappeared” if things continue in the direction they are going.

“WE ARE DIVISIBLE in terms of class, not race.”

“The alternative to the Europe Syndrome is to say that your life can have transcendent meaning if it is spent doing important things—raising a family, supporting yourself, being a good friend and a good neighbor, learning what you can do well and then doing it as well as you possibly can. Providing the best possible framework for doing those things is what the American project is all about. What I say that the American project is in danger, that’s the nature of the loss I have in mind: the loss of the framework through which people can best pursue happiness” (pg. 288).

“America’s creative minority has turned into a dominant minority” (pg 291). We know this because of the upper class’s stand is “non-judgmentalism” instead of teaching and sharing their values, or “what works” with the lower class.

Murray comments on the Government’s ineffectiveness to help strengthen families and alleviate poverty. “The family has responsibility for doing important things that wont get done unless the family does them. When the government tries to do these things, families and communities disintegrate.” (pg. 286) “Taking the trouble out of life strips people of major ways in which human beings look back on their lives and say, ‘I made a difference’” (Murray pg. 287). “They (those who run this country) will have to acknowledge that the traditional family plays a special, indispensable role in human flourishing and that social policy must be based on that truth” (Murray pg. 304). “The United States is one of the richest countries on earth. Most Americans make enough money for themselves and their families that the entire welfare state could be dismantled tomorrow and they would do just fine. And yet, in 2002, as I was writing In Our Hands the federal government alone spent about $1.5 trillion in transfer payments, including Social Security, Medicare, and all forms of corporate welfare.  The states spent another few hundred billion dollars in transfer payments. And yet we still have millions of people in need. That’s what I mean by ridiculous. How, in a country where most people don’t need a penny of income transfers to begin with, can we spend $1.5 trillion dollars on income transfers and still have material want?” (Murray pg. 307) “We have been the product of the cultural capital bequeathed to us by the system the founders laid down: a system that says people must be free to live life as they see fit and to be responsible for the consequences of their actions; that it is not the government’s job to protect people from themselves; that it is not the government’s job to stage-manage how people interact with one another. Discard that system that created the cultural capital, and the qualities we have loved about Americans will go away” (Murray pg. 309).

“How much do you value what has made America exceptional, and what are you willing to do to preserve it?” (Murray pg. 309)

“What it comes down to is that America’s new upper class must once again fall in love with what makes America different. The drift away from those qualities...is going to be stopped only when we are all talking again about why America is exceptional and why it is so important that America remain exceptional” (Murray pg. 310).

As you can see from these excerpts, Murray raised a powerful argument about class schism in America and calls for everyone, especially the influential people at the top, to reflect on what kind of country we really want to live in and what we need to do to change it. 

New ways to strengthen your family!

Last semester I took the most amazing class at BYU. Dr. Randal Day lead us in soul searching discussions about important topics that make or break families. The next 8 posts or so are the things I've learned.

I would love to sit down with you and talk together about any of these principles. I have learned so much, and I am sure I can learn from you too. I think discussing how to apply these principles in our own lives helps too.

Here are the references I used:

REFERENCES

Acock, Alan & Day, Randal D. (2013). Marital Well-Being and Religiousness as Mediated by Relational Virtue and Equality. Journal of Marriage and Family 75:164-177

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review Of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370

Barber, Brian K., & Buehler, Cheryl. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(2), 433-441.

Bartle-Haring, S., Younkin, F. L., & Day, R. D. (2012). Family distance regulation and school engagement in middle-school-aged children. Family Relations, 61, 192-206.

Burr, W., Marks, L., & Day, R. (2012). Sacred Matters: Religion and Spirituality in Families. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Eldridge, K. A., Sevier, M., Jones, J., Atkins, D. C., & Christensen, A. (2007). Demand-withdraw communication in severely distressed, moderately distressed, and nondistressed couples: Rigidity and polarity during relationship and personal problem discussions. Journal Of Family Psychology, 21(2), 218-226.

El-Sheikh, M., & Erath, S. A. (2011). Family conflict, autonomic nervous system functioning, and child adaptation: State of the science and future directions. Development and Psychopathology, 23(2), 703-721.

Fiese, B. H., & Tomcho, T. J. (2001). Finding meaning in religious practices: The relation between religious holiday rituals and marital satisfaction. Journal Of Family Psychology, 15(4), 597-609.

Gordon, K., Hughes, F. M., Tomcik, N. D., Dixon, L. J., & Litzinger, S. C. (2009). Widening spheres of impact: The role of forgiveness in marital and family functioning. Journal Of Family Psychology, 23(1), 1-13.

Gordon, A. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2012). To have and to hold: Gratitude promotes relationship maintenance in intimate bonds. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 103(2), 257-274.

Marks, L. D. (2004). Sacred practices in highly religious families: Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and Muslim perspectives. Family Process, 43(2), 217-231. 

McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 82(1), 112-127.

Papp, L. M., Kouros, C. D., & Cummings, E. (2009). Demand-withdraw patterns in marital conflict in the home. Personal Relationships, 16(2), 285-300.

Porges, S. W. (2011). Neuroception: A subconscious system for detecting threat and safety. The Polyvagal Theory (pp. 11-19). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Stanley, S. M., Whitton, S. W., Sadberry, S., Clements, M. L., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sacrifice as a Predictor of Marital Outcomes. Family Process, 45(3), 289-303.

DISTANCE REGULATION

Cohesion. Cohesion is all about healthy families and positive, supportive interaction. Barber, Brian, & Buehler (2001) describe family cohesion as “shared affection, support, helpfulness, and caring among family members” (Barber et al., 2001, paragraph #2). When couples have an abundance of these positive characteristics in their marriages, they are more satisfied with their relationship and have healthy family functioning, like meeting goals and avoiding conflict. Cohesion does not mean fusion or loss of individuality. “For effective family functioning, it is believed that distance regulation needs to provide experiences of both intimacy and individuality” (Bartle-Haring, Younkin & Day 2012, page 2). In table 1 you can see the positive correlation between healthy relationships and high cohesion.

Enmeshment. Enmeshment is not just extreme cohesion, it is a measure of completely different characteristics of relationships. Table 1 also shows the negative correlation between enmeshment and healthy family functioning. Barber et al. (2001) describe enmeshment as “family patterns that facilitate psychological and emotional fusion among family members, potentially inhibiting the individuation process and the development and maintenance of psychosocial maturity” (page 1). In other words, enmeshment is coercion, control, constraint, manipulation, intrusion, and fusion. It is too much involvement and forbiddance of individuation or open communication. This lack of boundaries is harmful because family members will internalize or externalize this unhealthy interaction which often transforms into problematic behaviors like aggression or depression.

RITUALS IN FAMILY LIFE

Religiosity helps. Fiese and Tomcho (2001) hypothesized that religiosity increases marital satisfaction not because of the rituals themselves, but because of the meaning and connection the context of the rituals provides. Their excellent study concluded, “that religion is related to marital satisfaction through the meaning created in shared rituals” (Fiese et al., 2001). Empty rituals, or going through the motions, wouldn’t increase marital satisfaction because it would be void of meaning and lack connection, which is a very different scenario than a couple engaged in a ritual that is meaningful to both of them  and increase unity as they share in the ritual. 

Rituals defined. Fiese et al. (2001) defined rituals repetitive patterned interactions that are shared by two or more individuals and that have special meaning to the participants.” Examples of rituals might be having breakfast for dinner every Christmas Eve with the whole family or reading the New Testament together every Easter.  Rituals could also include couple prayer before bed every night or attending church every Sunday as a family.

The more meaning that is attached to the ritual, the higher the benefits related to marital satisfaction (Fiese et al., 2001).  Proximal variables are the actual activities themselves like family scripture study or church attendance. These activities are more closely correlated to positive benefits. Distal variables are more removed, like influence from rituals in each spouse’s family of origin. These distal variables still have an effect on the amount of meaning in rituals, but less so than current practices. In the Marks (2004) article, he discussed the results of interviews about meaning in religious practices in families. He gave some background statistics about how prominent religion is in American homes. He cites that religious beleifs, practices, and community have been correlated with “higher marital quality, stability, and satisfaction”(Marks, 2004). He also cites research hat says “religious activity may contribute to intimacy and commitment in marriage.)” The point of Marks’ article is to explore the reasons behind these correlations.

Rituals with meaning. Fiese & Tomcho (2001) described how rituals have two components: routines and meaning. The routine is the repeated action or roles consistently kept, and meaning can range from expectations for attendance, level of importance, symbolism, and “commitment to continue into the future and to the next generation” (Fiese et al., 2001). Fiese et al. (2001) explain that meaningful rituals, like a couple praying together, will only increase marital satisfaction and other positive affect, like a couple staying together if they have three key elements:

“affirmation of relationship.” This means important members of the family must be accounted for and participate together; it helps members feel valued and needed.

“connection of behaviors and values.” This aspect connects to the every day living aspect of rituals, like adding meaning to family values.

“the symbolic aspect.” This aspect obviously includes the symbols associated with the ritual, especially religious symbols. Christmas dinner, for example, would be special because it is tied to the birth of the Savior. 

Benefits. The most interesting part of Marks’ (2004) research was the list of why couples engage in religious rituals. Some thing include to teach their children their faith, to encourage family unity and order, to build connection and history, to better handle stress and tribulation, to encourage kindness, gratitude and other virtues, and to connect to God. Couples also reported many benefits: repose, regular schedule, high quality of life, stronger marriage, and peace (Marks, 2004). Other results Marks (2004) reported were being consistent in practice with things parents teach their children. It makes sense that this result would strengthen families, because it fosters trust and reliability in parent-child and spousal relationships. Some participants reported that they participated in religious activities just to be together. The families reported that rituals usually had deep meaning that would sort of ground them in life.

see earlier post for references

SACRIFICE AND COMMITMENT

Definitions. Sacrifice is foregoing personal interest for the sake of relationship (Stanley, Whitton, Sadberry, Clements, and Markman, 2006). The Latin root of the word sacrifice helps define the word further: “Sacer means holy, consecrated, sacred, or dedicated to divinity… facere means making, taking action, composing, or creating… sacrificium… then is to make something sacred or holy” (Burr et al., 2012, p. 11).  This definition is a little bit different than altruism, which is selfless consideration for the welfare of others. Usually sacrifice and altruism go hand in hand, but sacrifice emphasizing making a simple action sacred, not only foregoing with altruistic intentions.

Secular sacrifice and needs. In today’s economy-based society, people often view sacrifice as an exchange. If a spouse’s first priority is self-interest, he or she will expect something in return for foregoing personal needs. Adopting an “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” attitude will not yield as many positive results in marriage as altruistic sacrifice. While couples should seek to sacrifice selflessly, they need to realize that it is ok to have personal needs and to expect your spouse to meet them. Altruistic sacrifice is something you do because the relationship is sacred to you, not because you ignore your own needs.

Positive outcomes of sacrifice. Every time a spouse sacrifices for the relationship, it is like making a deposit in a bank account. Eventually that relationship will be rich with positive marital outcomes. Burr et al. (2012) enumerates that frequent sacrifice creates a safe atmosphere of trust between spouses brings satisfaction and commitment. Even in cases of one-sided giving, there is often an internal reward- not our motivation, but a good reward from heaven- build relationship with self- becoming a better person and that is satisfactory.

Transformative effect. Burr et al. (2012) point out that when one partner sacrifices, he or she communicates powerful symbols of love, selflessness, reliability, and devotion. When a partner is the recipient of sacrifice, they see devotion from their partner, and are inclined to reciprocate, which will increase devotion, which will increase sacrifice. This creates a positive cycle full of marital satisfaction. Additionally, the more an individual sacrifices for the relationship, the less concerned he becomes about himself, and the more invested and committed he is in the relationship. The more committed one feels in a relationship, the more likely he is to sacrifice.

I also want to testify that as we sacrifice for the good of our families we will come closer to our Savior who sacrificed for us. 

see references in earlier post

GRATITUDE

Attributional theory. McCullough, Emmons, and Tsang (2002) define gratitude a attributing one’s happiness to someone or something else, other than one’s self. They also discuss how gratitude can be part of a person’s disposition or it can be learned like a skill. Some people attribute their good fortune to God. Attributing happiness to God or to your spouse yields similar positive results.

Improved well being in marriage. The research on gratitude is clear, the more one feels and expresses gratitude, the higher his sense of well being and happiness. Gordon (2012) studied the positives aspects of gratitude to marriage and reported that closeness and satisfaction increase, normal relationship challenges are lessened or softened, and trust and care is built.  McCullough et al. (2002) point out that when couples express sincere gratitude they also report positive effects in all aspects of life including emotional, social, relational, and spiritual life. Their studies show that people who are grateful also have high levels of happiness, vitality, optimism, hope, and satisfaction. Making a conscious effort to feel and express gratitude will bring many of these positive emotions into a marriage, which will increase marital satisfaction and also fortify couples against hard times.

Beware of self-serving gratitude. Expressing gratitude must be altruistic to have the positive effects. If, for example, a wife only ever expresses gratitude with the intent of getting her husband to do something in return, the husband would feel used and the wife wouldn’t feel satisfied. While its true that often gratitude elicits reciprocation of service or gratitude, if that is one’s motivation for being grateful, he or she wont experience the positive results of true gratitude.

How to become more grateful. Couples can try keeping a grateful journal where they write down a list of 10 things they are thankful for every day, or they can tell each other why they were grateful for each other that day every night before bed. They might also try saying gratitude prayers to God, or writing thank you notes spontaneously.

see references in earlier post