|
Dr. Allan C. Carlson is one of the leading experts on family
and marriage in the United States. Currently, he is the President of the Howard
Center for Family, Religion & Society and a Director of the Family in America
Studies Center. He is also Editor of the journal, The Family in America. He
earned his Ph.D. in Modern European History and is the author of numerous books
such as Family Questions: Reflections on the American Social Crisis, The Swedish
Experiment in Family Politics: The Myrdals and the Interwar Population Crisis,
From Cottage to Work Station: The Family's Search for Social Harmony in the
Industrial Age, Family and Community in the Shaping of the American Identity,
and Society, Family, Person. His latest work is The Natural Family: A Manifesto
and was co-written with Paul T. Mero. (Book Link:
http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Family)
BC:
First off, let me ask about your manifesto itself. The language is
colored by phrases such as “we affirm” and “we will transform” but how can you,
I or any other citizen defy the wishes and laws of the Leviathan in this area?
Isn’t what “Senators Kennedy and Senator Biden affirm” most important?
Dr. Allan Carlson:
We have to recognize that the family is something older,
more natural, and innate than government. Yes, the government can persecute and
undermine the family in the short-term, but, in the long run, it will triumph as
it is the more enduring institution. In the manifesto our assertions and
arguments are defined within the context of human nature and our history.
Governments come and go as the Nazis did, and as communism basically has but, in
the long run, the family will always be victorious. As G.K. Chesterton argued,
the family is the one truly anarchical institution. He used this term in the
positive sense as the family existed prior to the state and functions
independent of it.
BC:
Why does mass schooling equate with a decline in fertility? Wasn’t it put
into place before the baby boom of the fifties and the Second World War?
Dr. Allan Carlson:
The assertion in the book comes from the work of
demographer John C. Caldwell. By examining evidence in Australia he came to the
strong conclusion that mass schooling is one of the major forces behind a
decline in societal fertility rates. The public schools separate children from
their families, and they transfer moral authority from the state to the family.
The state then becomes the architect of a child’s future. The Caldwell thesis
also shows a close correlation in the United States between public schooling and
declining fertility. With the baby boom, yes there was a brief surge in the
birthrate but that was a product both of good social policy and the unique
psychology of those people who came of age during the Great Depression and the
Second World War. It was a unique phenomenon in American life and was a
fascinating era but did not last. After the 1960s, our society resumed its
previous course.
BC:
Why is it, for those unfamiliar with your book, that no country holding
individualism to be its strongest value can survive? I mean, of course,
individualism within limits such as by the type we have in the United States.
Dr. Allan Carlson:
It ultimately relates to what is the fundamental unit in
human society which is the family and not the individual. Individualism is an
expression of the selfish ego; a reflection of the radically autonomous person
which leaves no room for the family and the corresponding virtues of society. My
co-author and I disagree with the conclusion that self-interest has been the
deciding force in human affairs. It isn’t but altruism and the willingness to
create a family and rear children is. The family provides citizens with a
commitment to the future, and a method to overcome the troubles and pains that
come from raising children. The society which celebrates the individual over the
family is a society in decay—it is overwhelmed by aggressive selfishness.
BC:
You restate part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
reads, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence,” which is a most noble sentiment, but couldn’t
one make a convincing argument that the United States government currently
interferes in our privacy to a massive degree (particularly in regards to
marriage)?
Dr. Allan Carlson:
I think there has been a change in the laws over the
course of the past few decades and it’s been a negative development. This has
paved the way for government’s invasion of the home. We have seen, particularly
in domestic violence laws and child custody decisions, laws which have harmed
the family. Remember that fewer cases of abuse occur in married homes for all
concerned, and by this I mean for women, men and children. If the government
really was serious about helping its citizens then it would put all of its
energy into strengthening the natural family which would be best for everyone.
Due to the influence of feminism and socialism, the government has set up laws
that view parents as being the problem, but regardless, just because it happened
it does not diminish the deeper truth which is that the family is a positive
influence upon society.
An important question to ask here is why do we have marriage? Why of all
possible relationships is the heterosexual relationship between man and woman
the only one that the state is interested in? Property concerns originate any
time a child appears and the state has a huge interest in the offspring of
marriages. Children are the citizens of the future and are the future. Without
procreation the state would not be involved at all. So yes, producing children
is the most important purpose behind marriage. Even in our age, the child’s
greatest chance of being happy and healthy is to be raised by two natural
parents; having a mother and a father increase the chances of a child’s success
dramatically. Ideally, that’s why government gets involved. They should
encourage reproduction. That’s what a wise state would do and such a government
would be a limited one. The state must protect the home as a healthy society is
built upon healthy homes.
BC:
It seems to me that men face far more risks in marriage than do women—a
biased court system, legal concepts like “equitable paternity” and marital rape,
and severe punishment for those males who get divorced—so, given the nature of
our misandric society—why isn’t cohabitation a better decision for men than
marriage?
Dr. Allan Carlson:
Well, I won’t say that it is because ultimately
cohabitation is a wrong and immoral choice, but, for the reasons you just cited,
it may have certain advantages. The key though is for us to change the laws to
benefit marriage and the family. Men and women should be equal in the eyes of
the law, but family autonomy must be taken into account. There are important
differences between the sexes which have to be acknowledged in our law and
public policy. People do things differently and they do different things well.
Unfortunately, the law has become corrupted so we must restore its legitimacy.
BC:
You argue that socialism gains greatly from the denigration of the
family. I agree but don’t you find it ironic that so many women, even
traditional women, vote for candidates who promise more and more government
despite its eroding the foundation of marriage?
Dr. Allan Carlson:
Well, the socialist movement plays very effectively on a
deep historical problem that many do not recognize. Changes brought about by the
industrial revolution have forever complicated family life and the rearing of
children. This was a radically new change based on our history before 1800 when
the majority of people worked and lived in the same place during their lifespan.
Now that’s changed completely. Who will take care of the children is an
important question in our times. Socialism promises a solution to the problem on
everyone’s mind. It tells people that the state will ease their burden and take
over childrearing and this appeals to many women and some men as well. Of course
the joke here, the supreme irony, is that in Scandinavia feminism turned this
into a very odd development. Women’s work became socialized and transferred to
the state. The government then took on the traditional function of the home and
family with the state providing child care. Then women, in turn, rejected the
private sector and largely took jobs within the government. They continued to do
what has traditionally been women’s work except now they provide child care for
other people’s children. Their role has not changed but now they’re married to
the state.
BC:
I noticed that you mentioned body dimorphism in relation to the sexes in
Chapter 2 which brings me to ask, what is your position on evolutionary
psychology? Would you agree that there is a biological basis for human behavior?
Dr. Allan Carlson:
Yes, there is a biological basis for human behavior, but
what I find so fascinating is not the differences between the creationist and
the social-biological views but, rather, the similarities between them. What’s
so striking is the way in which they agree with one another. The Biblical view
can be found in Genesis I and II where it states that man needs woman, a
helpmate, and that together they should become fruitful, multiply and inherit
the earth. Well, most of what you need to know about marriage is right there in
Genesis. The paleo-anthropologists astonishingly tell the same story. C. Owen
Lovejoy writing in the journal Science argued that from the very moment humans
emerged on the African savannah the pairing off of males and females emerged as
a unique feature of the species and provided the basis for our success. What
distinguishes humans from other creatures is our long-term monogamous
relationships which focus upon childrearing. A commitment to this bond and
marriage is what has given us an edge in regards to the other species. It
defines us. Both accounts show that marriage is not an arbitrary construct but
instead our defining characteristic.
BC:
I’m assuming that most readers are unfamiliar with your book, so would
you please clarify your position on gay marriage? What do you make of the theory
that it will result in the decline of heterosexual marriage due to its
alienation of straight men?
Dr. Allan Carlson:
I think that’s a probable consequence but back up here a
little bit. The problem with marriage today isn’t just gay marriage. The problem
we face is a revolution in marriage law that’s been going on for three or four
decades. Radicals want to deinstitutionalize marriage. They want to take the
marriage contract and strip it of its contractual language. Marriage is far
weaker today than any business contract as one party can easily get out of it
and there’s no recourse for the party who wishes to maintain it. Look at
illegitimacy, a term that used to be well-known, now out-of-wedlock births are
treated no differently than legitimate ones. This has been a revolution in the
law. Gay marriage comes in at the end of this long process. Nowadays marriage
carries few obligations and has more penalties than it does obligations. There
are a few benefits as well such as health care and social security advantages
which, understandably, are very attractive to gay couples. The thing is though
that if all we do is stop gay marriage then we won’t be doing very much to
revitalize marriage itself and preserve it as the core unit of society.
BC: I liked a phrase you had very much, “the violence of androgyny.” You
define it as the negation of woman and man. How would you respond to those who
claim that androgyny is the basis of equality due to each sex acting just like
the other?
Dr. Allan Carlson:
Those people have grossly misunderstood the meaning of
equality. The nature of equality is to set up a legal system allowing men to be
men and women to be women. The sexes should be able to fulfill their biological
destiny as a marital pair. It comes down to another saying of G.K. Chesterton’s
in which he describes a human being as a quadruped with four legs in two
different bodies. This is based on the biblical message of two becoming one
flesh. That’s the nature of our species. Androgyny denies our complementary
nature. Men and women differ biologically in matters of human reproduction so
the law must protect and cherish those differences.
BC:
Thank you very much for your time, Dr. Carlson.
Bernard Chapin
BernardChapin.com
Biography - Bernard Chapin is the author of Women: Theory and Practice and
Escape from Gangsta Island. He can be contacted at
veritaseducation@gmail.com.
Copyright © 2008 by Bernard Chapin All Rights Reserved.
| 
