Stance for the Family—Fall 2010

Stance

For the Family Winter 2010

Stance For the Family

Fall 2010

© 2010 All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America by the Brigham Young University Press.

Cover artwork “Patterns” and back cover artwork “Sea of Sleep” courtesy of Rose Doll.

Stance is published semiannually. The contents represent the opinions and beliefs of the authors and not necessarily those of the editors, staff, advisors, Brigham Young University, or its sponsoring institution, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While the editors and staff have checked the contents for accuracy, responsibility remains with the authors for content and sources cited within.

A number of articles included in this issue were originally presented at the Stand for the Family Student Symposium and were first published by the Ruth Institute on their website. These articles have been reprinted by permission of the Ruth Institute.

Current students are invited to submit manuscripts as well as any questions or comments via e-mail at sftfjournal@gmail.com.

Abandoning Marriage 5 Bill Duncan, PhD To My Friend Struggling with Pornography Addiction 13 Adam Galovan Beautiful Child 23 Laura S. Nava Adolescent Attachment and its Potential 25 Compensating Mechanism Sage Erickson Come Listen to the Story 33 Joshua Cox Kiss the Cook 37 Judy Ou Marriage is Ordained of God 43 Amanda Moncur Leading Causes of Sibling Rivalry and Familiar Resilience 49 Timothy Phoenix Oblad Family Centered 55 Aubrianna Critchfield Media, Sedentary Behavior and Children’s Health 59 Brian Spencer Family Traditions 63 Sabrina Huyett Timing Divorce to Benefit Children 69 Amber Hooper Strengthening Marriage 75 Nicole Kay Exploring Family Values in a Christmas Carol 79 Janna Barker

From the Editor It has been an exciting first year for Stance: For the Family. With our second edition, we again strived to present a variety of topics on the family. We begin with Dr. Bill Duncan’s insights on the crisis of society’s abandonment of marriage. We have a letter written with love to a friend struggling with pornography addiction. Other topics include adolescent attachment, sibling rivalry, and timing divorce to benefit children.

We also attempt to depict the brighter side of the family. At the heart of our journal is a short collection of family traditions. We also have a poem titled “Beautiful Child”

by Laura S. Nava. Joshua Cox created a simplified version of his composition “Come Listen to the Story.”

The front and back cover display the beautiful artwork of Rose Doll. We also feature stunning photography from Aubrianna Critchfield. We end our issue with Jana Barker’s exploration of family values in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. We hope you find this issue both entertaining and enlightening. Please share it with your friends and family.

Jonathan J. Reddoch Editor-in-Chief

“Flight”

by Rose Doll

Stance For the Family

Academic Advisor Dr. Monte Swain Art Director Katie Nelson Designer Karen Gwilliam Production Director Kirsten Osmani Senior Editors Sara D. Smith Sarah Owen Elyse Harris

Executive Editor Jacquelyn Slade Editor-in-Chief Jonathan J. Reddoch Assistant Managing Editor Jessica Garlick Associate Editors Rachel Mahrt Courtney Manwaring Kelsi Walbeck Copyeditor Claire Ford

Assistant Editors Rachel Bailey Whitney Olsen Dellory Matthews Alyse Smith

Abandoning Marriage

by Bill Duncan, PhD

The law does not merely reflect reality; it also creates reality. For instance, the law might change to treat cohabitation as just one more relationship option.

Or it might redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. Or it might treat marriage as a contract terminable at will. Each of those legal changes would create cultural changes because they send messages about what society does and does not value. The incentives for individuals to make certain choices would be influenced by these legal changes. The changes can even put some ideas and opinions beyond the pale for sophisticated society.

Imagine the institution of marriage as a tower made of blocks. The individual blocks represent the laws and cultural practices that accompany the ideal. What difference will it make to remove these blocks? Some near the top can be removed without having any or very little effect on the integrity of the structure. In a similar way, some laws of marriage and social attitudes about it have changed without doing much to harm the institution. Various patterns of property ownership between spouses or expectations of the role extended families play in selecting a spouse can and have changed without modifying the unique social contribution marriage makes. By contrast, as we approach the bottom of the tower and begin to remove some foundational blocks, the whole tower becomes more likely to topple. These foundational blocks are the core social purposes of marriage; the shared understandings that, if forgotten or directly obscured or repudiated, will make marriage mean either something very different or nothing at all—the tower will crumble.

There are three core aspects of marriage that make this important: permanence (the idea that marriage is not a fleeting commitment but a lifelong or 1

greater bond), uniqueness or exclusivity (our recognition that marriage is not just another kind of relationship akin to a standard form of corporation among other possible forms), and complementarity (our deep, cross-cultural understanding that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and all that flows from that understanding). If our legal and cultural understanding of marriage begins to exclude these core ideas by redefining marriage to mean something entirely different, the institution will not be the same. It won’t change just for some people who find the new understanding more conducive: it will change for everyone.

Elizabeth Genovese has explained, “The escalating failure of marriage since the 1960s may fairly be told as the story of the betrayal of children.”1 In other words, as the venerable institution of marriage crumbles, children, the people it was erected to shelter and protect, will experience increasing vulnerability. I would like to explain how legal changes to our understanding of marriage have put children and their rightful expectations at risk, and how deepening these changes by de-institutionalizing marriage altogether constitutes an abandonment of the trust we owe them. In other words, by abandoning marriage, we abandon children.

No-Fault Divorce Until the late 1960s, the divorce laws of all the states required courts to find “fault” with one or both spouses before granting a divorce. The grounds for such a finding included things like adultery, abuse, or abandonment. In other words, the law treated divorce as a weighty decision and signaled a preference for stability and continuity in marriage. This understanding was swept away by the “no-fault” divorce revolution inaugurated in California in 1969. The California law removed findings of fault from divorce cases entirely. In the next two decades, virtually every state enacted similar laws—either by prohibiting judges from considering whether either party was at fault or by adding new grounds for divorce that had nothing to do with wrongdoing (e.g. irreconcilable differences). The new no-fault ground quickly became the default option.

This vast legal change was not caused by a groundswell of public opinion, but rather was adopted by legislators with very little public debate. It had been framed merely as a procedural alteration—as if there were a finite demand for divorce that would be unaffected by the law’s treatment of the matter. Maggie Gallagher explains, “In a single generation, marriage has been demoted from a covenant, to a contract, to a private wish in which caveat emptor [buyer beware] is the prevailing legal rule.”2 At least that was the theory. Reality is much different. Professor Carl Schneider explained that current divorce law is easy to summarize: “The law of divorce is this: if you would like a divorce, you may have one.”3 Thus, the 2­

Stance: For the Family

conclusion of Dr. Allen and Maggie Gallagher should come as no surprise: “the best evidence suggests no-fault divorce increases the divorce rate on the order of 10 percent.”4 Rather than merely reflect shifting social attitudes, the legal revolution that is no-fault divorce has altered attitudes. “The no-fault divorce revolution may have been meant to help a small number of persistently unhappy or unhealthy marriages, but the legal changes it created have significantly weakened the institution not only for those who would have been inclined to divorce under the old fault regime, but for everyone.”5 Everyone who marries under the no-fault regime must look at marriage differently. They have to take into account the instability of marriage around them. This is particularly true for the increasing numbers of those with divorced parents.

The increased instability in marriage ushered in by the no-fault revolution has been particularly unsettling for children. The promoters of no-fault have suggested that children would experience a trickle-down benefit from their parents’ divorce: if the parents are happy, the children will be happy. Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked out that way. There is an overwhelming body of social science evidence showing that children living with both parents experience definite advantages in academic success,6 access to economic resources,7 decreased likelihood of being abused,8 decreased criminality and drug use,9 good physical and mental health,10 decreased promiscuity and cohabitation,11 and increased success in their own marriages.12 Social science research also shows that “divorce itself causes social, emotional, and academic problems for children.”13 It fosters an environment conducive to future problems because “divorce is not a single event.”14 Divorce is likely to lead to the introduction of a stepparent in a child’s life or to other kinds of instability. This process is likely to repeat as second marriages are more likely to end in divorce. Divorce also heightens the risk of emotional and financial problems for children. For instance, divorce is particularly harmful to the bond between children and their fathers since “fathers are particularly likely to become distant after a divorce.”15 In financial terms, child support is no substitute because, in Maggie Gallagher’s words, the law cannot “compel the kind of enormous sacrifices from working overtime, taking a second job, or mortgaging the house to pay for college that married fathers routinely make for their children, but which divorced or unmarried fathers seldom do.”16 Cohabitation Perhaps the most significant social change related to marriage in past decades is the increasing prevalence of cohabitation. In contrast to the no-fault revolution, cohabitation is not a legal change but a cultural change to which the law has recently started responding. Thus, in an effort to accommodate the surge in non-marital cohabitation, the law has begun to treat marriage Abandoning Marriage

3

as only one of a menu of legal relationship options. Five states (California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington) have created alternative legal statuses that give benefits of marriage to cohabiting same-sex couples, and in two cases, also to opposite-sex couples. At the local level, many municipalities provide some recognition of domestic partnerships, which include sameand opposite-sex couples.17 The prestigious American Law Institute has even recommended that all states create a new legal domestic partner status for “two persons of the same or opposite-sex, not married to one another, who for a significant period of time share a primary residence and a life together as a couple”18 even if one of the partners is married to someone else or if they are related to each other. Seventeen states have court decisions that provide some recognition of express or implied contracts between unmarried cohabitants.19 Like other cultural and legal changes to marriage, the growing acceptance and practice of family life has increased options for many adults. For children, not so much.

One scholar said, “Cohabiting unions with children present are arguably one of the fastest-growing family forms in the United States.”20 The prospects of these children are sobering. Children in cohabiting households receive lower levels of support from their mothers and fathers,21 are more likely to experience poverty and receive public assistance,22 and are at heightened risk of academic failure and behavioral problems.23 Most tragic is the substantially heightened risk of abuse for children in cohabiting households.24 Cohabiting households are also marked by substantial instability, meaning that children in such households are likely to experience significant changes in household arrangements, including periods of time spent with only one parent and with stepparents or partners of their mother or father.25 A recent study from England reports the median length of cohabitation is 23 months.26 Some of these relationships end with marriage but “prior cohabitation with a spouse is associated with a 60 percent higher risk of divorce.”27 The study notes that having a child seems to make the couple more likely to separate than to marry. The odds of a cohabiting couple remaining together until their first child is sixteen is 7 percent if they do not marry and 17 percent if they do marry.28 Despite all this, a significant number of states allow cohabiting partners of a child’s parent to seek visitation of a child and cohabitation is rarely treated as a bar to adoption.

Same-sex Marriage No-fault divorce and cohabitation can still coexist with the ideal of a married mother and father for every child; however, the most recent proposal 4­

Stance: For the Family

to redefine marriage involves a full repudiation of the ideal and is, in fact, an effort to root out the ideal as a norm.

The laws defining marriage as the union of a man and woman “serve to channel potentially procreative relationships into a social institution that provide[s] cultural—and sometimes legal—norms, such as responsibility and fidelity, that were understood to be beneficial or even essential for children who would be born to the married couple. Husbands and wives who could not have children could still contribute to this societal goal because they could provide a mother and father for children deprived of ties to their own biological parents [otherwise known as adoption]. Additionally, their faithfulness to one another kept them from creating children in less stable or impermanent couplings likely to result in children who were fatherless or motherless.”29 These marriage norms must necessarily change when marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples. For instance, when Maine’s legislature enacted a new definition of marriage as the union of any two people, it also struck out the official purpose statement in the previous marriage law.30 The now deleted provision read as follows: The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society. The State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.31 By contrast, same-sex marriage endorses that men and women—mothers and fathers—are interchangeable. Indeed, a recent poll in Massachusetts disclosed that “support for the idea that the ideal is a married mother and father [for children] dropped from 84 percent to 76 percent” from 2004 to 2009.32 The Iowa Supreme Court summarily rejected the child-centered understanding of marriage, saying that “the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents” and that “the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”33 What does this bode for children? A relatively small number of children are likely to be directly affected by being raised in same-sex marriage homes, but the effect of the repudiation of the ideal setting for children will be unlimited. We do not now have long-term studies of children raised from birth by same-sex couples compared to those raised by married mothers and fathers and almost no data at all about children raised by male couples. However, is there any reason to believe that when our laws specifically disavow the idea that children need a mother and father that the well-being of children in our society will be unaffected? Given the outcomes of our experience with Abandoning Marriage

5

divorce and cohabitation, do we really need to launch a massive social experiment, with children as the test subjects, to learn the hard way that the ideal is an ideal for a reason?

Again, the law both creates and reflects reality. While a child-centered marriage will, of course, not be the reality for every individual, we owe it to future generations to defend in our laws the ideal that each child should be able to know and be raised by his or her own mother and father whenever that is possible and by a close substitute when that ideal is not possible. The structure of marriage has been weakened it is true, but it is not too late to shore it up and perhaps even to reassert ideals in danger of being removed. Such a noble cause is worthy of our best efforts.

Endnotes 1. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Marriage: The Dream That Refuses to Die 53 (2008).

2. Maggie Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing 1996), 146-147.

3. Carl E. Schnieder, “The Future of Law, Religion and Marriage,” lecture at Emory University, October 25, 2007 at http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=5186.

4. Douglas W. Allen & Maggie Gallagher, “Does Divorce Law Affect the Divorce Rate?”, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy Research Brief No. 1, July 2007.

5. William C. Duncan, “Does the Family Have a Future?” North Dakota Law Review 83(2007): 1287.

6. Cf. Carl L. Bankston III and Min Zhou, “Social Capital as Process: The Meanings and Problems of a Theoretical Metaphor,” Sociological Inquiry 72(2002): 285-317; Cheryl Buehler and Kay Pasley, “Family Boundary Ambiguity, Marital Status, and Child Adjustment,” Journal of Early Adolescence 20(2000): 281-308; Ross Macmillan and John Hagan, “Violence in the Transition to Adulthood: Adolescent Victimization, Education, and Socioeconomic Attainment in Later Life,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 (2004): 127-158; Timothy J. Biblarz and Greg Gottainer, “Family Structure and Children’s Success: A Comparison of Widowed and Divorced Single-Mother Families,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62(2000): 533-548.

7. Cf. Martha N. Ozawa and Yongwoo Lee, “The Net Worth of Female-Headed Households: A Comparison to Other Types of Households,” Family Relations 55 (2006): 132-145; Daniel T. Lichter, Deborah Roempke Graefe, and J. Brian Brown, “Is Marriage a Panacea? Union Formation Among Economically Disadvantaged Unwed Mothers,” Social Problems 50(2003): 60-86; American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on the Family, “Family Pediatrics,” Pediatrics 111 Supplement [2003]: 1541-1553.

8. Cf. Frank W. Putman, “Ten-Year Research Update Review: Child Sexual Abuse,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 42[2003]: 269-278; Jocelyn Brown et al., “A Longitudinal Analysis of Risk Factors for Child Maltreatment: Findings of a 17-Year Prospective Study of Officially Recorded and Self-Reported Child Abuse and Neglect,” Child Abuse and Neglect 22(1998): 1065-1078; W. Bradford Wilcox & Jeffrey Dew, “Protectors or Perpetrators?”, Center for Marriage and Families Research Brief No. 7, January 2008, 2.

9. Cf. Inge VanderValk et. al., “Family Structure and Problem Behavior of Adolescents and Young Adults: A Growth-Curve Study,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 34 (2005): 533-546; Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew et al., “The Influence of Father Involvement on Youth Risk Behaviors Among Adolescents: A Comparison of Native-Born and Immigrant Families,” Social Science Research 35 (2006): 181-209; Robert F. Valois et al., “Risk Factors and Behaviors Associated With Adolescent

6­

Stance: For the Family

Violence and Aggression,” American Journal of Health Behavior 26(2002): 454-464,Naomi R. Marmorstein and William G. Iacono, “Longitudinal Follow-up of Adolescents with Late- Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 44 (2005): 1284-1291; George J. Cohen et al., “Helping Children and Families Deal with Divorce and Separation,” Pediatrics 110(2002): 1019-1022; Andres G. Gil, William A. Vega, and R. Jay Turner, “Early and Mid-Adolescence Risk Factors for Later Substance Abuse by African Americans and European Americans,” Public Health Reports 117.S1 (2002): S15-S28; Phyllis L. Ellickson, Steven C. Martino, and Rebecca L. Collins, “Marijuana Use From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: Multiple Developmental Trajectories and Their Associated Outcomes,” Health Psychology 23 (2004): 299-307; Shanta R. Dube et al., “Childhood Abuse, Neglect, and Household Dysfunction and the Risk of Illicit Drug Use: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study,” Pediatrics 111(2003): 564-572.

10. Cf. K.A.S. Wickrama et al., “Linking Early Social Risks to Impaired Physical Health during the Transition to Adulthood,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 44(2003): 61-74; Lisa Laumann-Billings and Robert E. Emery, “Distress among Young Adults From Divorced Families,” Journal of Family Psychology, 14 (2000): 671-687; Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure Transitions and Adolescent Well-Being,” Demography 43 (2006): 447-461; Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., and Julien O. Teitler, “Reconsidering the Effects of Marital Disruption: What Happens to Children of Divorce in Early Adulthood?” Journal of Family Issues 15(1994): 173-190.

11. John S. Santelli, “The Association of Sexual Behaviors With Socioeconomic Status, Family Structure, and Race/Ethnicity Among US Adolescents,” American Journal of Public Health 90(2000): 1582-1587; Dawn M. Upchurch, Lee A. Lillard, and Constantijn W.A. Panis, “Nonmarital Childbearing: Influences of Education, Marriage, and Fertility,” Demography 39(2002): 311-329.

12. Cf. Carole Mulder and Marjorie Lindner Gannoe, “College Students’ Attitudes Toward Divorce Based on Gender, Parental Divorce, and Parental Relationships,” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 31.1/2 (1999): 179-18; Paul R. Amato and Danelle D. DeBoer, “The Transmission of Marital Instability Across Generations: Relationship Skills or Commitment to Marriage?” Journal of Marriage and Family 63(2001): 1038-1051; Jay D. Teachman, “Childhood Living Arrangements and the Intergenerational Transmission of Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 64(2002): 717-729.

13. Brian D’Onofrio, “Divorce, Dads, and the Well-Being of Children” Center for Marriage and Families Research Brief No. 12, July 2008, p. 4.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Maggie Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing 1996), 248.

17. See William C. Duncan, Domestic Partnership Laws in the United States: A Review and Critique 2001 BYU Law Review 961.

18. Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendation § 6.01 (2000).

19. Katherine C. Gordon, The Necessity and Enforcement of Cohabitation Agreements: When Strings Will Attach and How to Prevent Then—A State Survey 37 Brandeis Law Journal 245 (1998).

20. Wendy D. Manning, Childbearing in Cohabiting Unions: Racial and Ethnic Differences, 33 Fam. Plan. Persp. 217 (2001); Wendy D. Manning, Cohabitation, Marriage, and Entry into Motherhood, 57 J. Marriage & Fam. 191, 198 (1995); Robert I. Lerman, Urban Inst., Impacts of Marital Status and Parental Presence on the Material Hardship of Families with Children 13 (2002).

21. Elizabeth Thomson et al., Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs.

Parental Behaviors, 73 Soc. Forces 221, 237 (1994).

22. Peter D. Brandon & Larry Bumpass, Children’s Living Arrangements, Coresidence of Unmarried Fathers, and Welfare Receipt, 22 J. Fam. Issues 3, 13- 14 (2001); Gregory Acs & Sandi Nelson, The Kids Are Alright? Children’s Well-Being and the Rise in Cohabitation, New

Abandoning Marriage

7

Federalism (Urb. Inst., Washington, D.C.), July 2002, at 2; Robert I. Lerman, Urban Inst., How Do Marriage, Cohabitation, and Single Parenthood Affect the Material Hardships of Families With Children? 20 (2002).

23. Wendy D. Manning & Kathleen Lamb, Parental Cohabitation and Adolescent Well-Being (Cir. for Family & Demographic Research, Bowling Green State Univ., Working Paper Series 02-04, 2002), reprinted in Wendy D. Manning & Kathleen Lamb, Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single Parent Families, 65 J. Marriage & Fam. 876 (2003); Rachel Dunifon & Lori Kowaleski-Jones, Who’s In the House? Race Differences in Cohabitation, Single Parenthood, and Child Development, 73 Child Dev. 1249, 1260 (2002); Sandra L. Hofferth & Kermyt G. Anderson, Are All Dads Equal? Biology Versus Marriage as a Basis for Paternal Investment, 65 J. Marriage & Fam. 213, 224-225 (2003).

24. Leslie Margolin, Child Abuse by Mothers’ Boyfriends: Why the Overrepresentation?, 16 Child Abuse & Neglect 541, 548 (1992).

25. R. Kelly Raley & Elizabeth Wildsmith, Univ. of Tex., Cohabitation and Children’s Family Instability 14, reprinted in R. Kelly Raley & Elizabeth Wildsmith, Cohabitation and Children’s Family Instability, J. Marriage & Fam. 210 (2004); Deborah Roempke Graefe & Daniel T. Lichter, Life Course Transitions of American Children: Parental Cohabitation, Marriage, and Single Motherhood, 36 Demography 205 (1999); Wendy D. Manning et al., The Relative Stability of Cohabiting and Marital Unions for Children 15-16 (Ctr. for Family & Demographic Research, Bowling Green State Univ., Working Paper Series 02-18, 2002).

26. John Hayward & Guy Brandon, Cohabitation in the 21st Century (Jubilee Center 2010).

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. William C. Duncan, Marriage on Trial 12 J. Gender, Race & Justice 493, 494 (2009).

30. 2009 Maine LD1020.

31. 19-A Maine Rev. Stat. §650.

32. Maggie Gallagher, Five Years After Goodridge: Gay Marriage Divides Massachusetts Voters (National Organization for Marriage, May 17, 2009) at http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/ apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075189&ct=7000219.

33. Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 899 and note 26 (Iowa 2009).

8­

Stance: For the Family

To My Friend Struggling with Pornography Addiction

by Adam Galovan

I wrote this discussion of pornography addiction as a letter to a hypothetical friend who is struggling to overcome addiction to pornography. I’ve written with the assumption that my friend already knows how the addiction has negatively impacted loved ones and other areas of life, and is sincerely seeking to change. My primary audience is the person trying to overcome pornography addiction; however, family and friends of the pornography user may also find the insights and discussion helpful.

Dear Friend, I am aware of the struggle you have had in trying to overcome your addiction to pornography. I want you to know how much I love you and desperately hope for you to succeed. As you read this letter, I hope you will be able to understand and feel the spirit in which I write it. I want you to know that I love and respect you, but more than anything else, I want you to know how much the Lord loves you. My intent in writing this letter is to help you understand more fully the enemy you face as well as to give you an understanding of the power that exists to help you to change and be made whole.

Spencer W. Kimball, past president of The Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints, counseled people to, like the Savior, “condemn the sin without condemning the individual.” He said that “Jesus saw sin as wrong but also was able to see sin as springing from deep and unmet needs on the part of the sinner.” He challenged us to be willing to “look deeply enough into the lives of others to see the basic causes for their failures and shortcomings.”1 I hope this letter will cause you to look deeply into your own life and understand what has led you and so many others to fall prey to pornography. By referring to the 9

counsel of scripture, Latter-day Saint leaders, and professionals, I will explain how pornography counterfeits intimacy and damages your spirituality. I will also discuss how—on the way to repentance and recovery—you can avoid temptation and seek the Lord’s help.

Dr. Rory Reid, a sexual addictions specialist, provides this definition of pornography: Pornography is any visual or written medium created with the intent to sexually stimulate. If the work was not intended to stimulate but nevertheless causes sexual arousal in an individual, it constitutes pornography for that person. If you find yourself asking whether a work is pornographic, the question itself suggests the material makes you uncomfortable. That should be enough to tell you to avoid it.2

Remember this definition of pornography. Whenever you are tempted to look at or read something because “it’s not that bad,” remember that if you are aroused by it in any way then it is pornography. Recognize it as pornography and stay as far away from it as you can.

One way Satan “pervert[s] the right way of the Lord” (2 Nephi 28:15) is by twisting something sacred into something that is counterfeit and evil. Such is the case with pornography: it counterfeits the sacredness of intimacy. The devil uses pornography to ensnare us by taking our natural, God-given desires and warping and twisting them to suit his purposes. Truly “he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself ” (2 Nephi 2:27) and that he might lead each of us “carefully down to hell” (2 Nephi 28:21).

In 1988, Jeffrey R. Holland, then president of Brigham Young University, taught that physical intimacy shared by a couple symbolizes the “total union” that should exist in marriage—a “union of their hearts, their hopes, their lives, their love, their family, their future, their everything.”3 Furthermore, intimacy symbolizes the uniting of two souls, for the Lord has said that “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” (D&C 88:15; emphasis added).

When you view pornography, you desecrate the purpose for which the Lord gave us sexual feelings. Viewing pornography stimulates feelings where no union or partnership exists—much less the “total union” spoken of by Elder Holland. Sexual union is a special kind of symbol, a sacrament. Pornography puts to shame this sacramental act. As Elder Holland said, procreation is an act “that unites us with God and his limitless powers.” He said that we “will never be more like God at any other time in this life than when [we] are expressing [this] particular power.” Illegitimate stimulation and use of our sexual feelings denies the sacredness of this special, God-given power and the purposes for which it is intended.

The Lord has put certain processes in place so that, when exercised prop10 ­

Stance: For the Family

erly, intimacy will bond spouses together and create increased union in their marriage. In The Drug of the New Millennium, Mark B. Kastleman discusses what these processes are and how they work. Kastleman explains that during sexual intimacy, biological processes in the brain cause spouses to focus more intently on one another. Various hormones heighten awareness of one another, produce pleasurable feelings, increase energy, and enhance memory.

One of the most powerful hormones released during sexual intimacy, oxytocin, produces “an immense neurochemical rush that forges a powerful bond between husband and wife, producing a feeling of oneness, closeness and attachment.”4 Kastleman also notes that this bond creates continued attraction and affection “so that each time we see him or her, our bond is strengthened.”5 The bonds of marriage are further strengthened after sexual intimacy as hormones “bring on deep feelings of calmness, satisfaction and release from stress.”6 Intimacy leaves a couple “feeling deeper love and appreciation, a stronger bonding and attachment, more fulfilled, energized, and positive, and better equipped to work individually and together to succeed in their overall lives and family responsibilities.”7 Kastleman notes that similar physiological processes occur when people view pornography. However, the result is markedly different. As focus increases during arousal, viewers block out thoughts of family, spouse and marriage, faith in God—everything. Rather than sharing intimacy with someone they deeply love, they are left alone, not realizing they have given their heart away.

Without the refining influence of the Spirit and true, Godly love that leads to tenderness in marital intimacy, pornography viewers are left to purely physical and hormonal influences. The hormones that heighten focus on their spouse during marital intimacy instead increase focus on the pornographic images.

Memory is increased, and the images are burned into their minds. Hormones flood the body with energy and exhilaration. They lose track of time and may escape for hours. When arousal reaches its climax, the neurochemical oxytocin produces an intense feeling of bonding and acceptance and dulls feelings of stress and pain. However, this false intimacy does not last and pornography viewers are left with a feeling of lonely emptiness8 —a feeling that is likely all too familiar to you.

Kastleman also observes that the pornography viewer’s experience is different than true, God-ordained intimacy in other key ways. The pornography viewer experiences a host of other emotions that are not normally felt during the marital intimacy—feelings of guilt, shame, shock, anger, frustration, hopelessness. Such contradictory feelings lead to an even greater release of hormones within the brain. As Kastleman notes, “the entire pornography process is intensified and supercharged, far beyond what sexual arousal alone would accomplish. . . . The human system is not designed to deal with this overTo My Friend

11

whelming level of conflicting stimulation. We have no natural, built-in coping mechanism for it.”9 When pornography viewers come to themselves, they are amazed at how thoughtless they have been. Guilt and shame multiply. They feel despair and hopelessness. To escape, they return to pornography again and again, finding momentary comfort in the neurochemical high. These neurochemicals form addictive bonds that grip the addict with a voracious tenacity. Indeed, pornography addiction affects more areas of the brain than does either methamphetamine or cocaine addiction.10 It is easy to see why is pornography is so addicting. It provides you with an easy high. When you are in situations and experience stress or other similar emotions, your mind naturally searches for a way to relieve that stress and calm yourself. Having experienced the rush of viewing pornography previously, your mind naturally gravitates back to it and you experience intense temptation. To overcome this temptation you must learn to cope with life in healthy ways and manage these times of weakness. If you don’t these moments will be “triggers” to pornography use. Kastleman has named a few of the feelings that can lead to pornography use: being bored, burned-out, lonely, hungry, angry, afraid, stressed, or tired.11 You must learn to manage these and similar emotions. Take care of yourself physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Establish a habit and routine where you regularly take time to nourish yourself in each of these areas. When you are tempted, think about what you are feeling at that time. Are you tired or hungry, lonely or stressed? Acknowledge the feeling and try to understand why you are feeling that way. Then decide what you are going to do about it.

Do you need to take a nap or have a snack? Do you need to talk to someone and feel connected and share your stress? Look for healthy ways to manage these emotions. If you don’t, your brain will default to the “easy” answer and you will have a hard time staying away from pornography.

A friend or loved one, ideally your spouse, can help you. Many therapists have noted the importance of having someone to turn to when overcoming addictive behaviors. Pornography destroys intimacy and feeds off of secrecy and shame. Feeling unworthy of love, you may retreat from those who love you.

Furthermore, as you isolate yourself, your feelings of worthlessness are compounded, reinforcing the addiction cycle. Thus, it is important that you share your burden with someone who loves and cares about you. Intimate sharing of your struggle with someone who is loving and understanding, such as a spouse, will provide you a support system, can build feelings of self-worth, and may short-circuit the addition cycle. Let this person lovingly aid you in facing the stresses of life and help reinforce your habits of self-care.

At first, you may have to set some very strict boundaries as you build the 12 ­

Stance: For the Family

spiritual strength to fight your addiction. You might decide that you will not get online late at night or when you are alone. You might decide to call or talk to someone when you are facing temptation. Another boundary may be to install an internet filter. But remember, no filter is perfect. The only true filter must come from within.

As you have learned, pornography addiction is powerful. You cannot dwell on an impure thought or look at something with the justification that “it’s not that bad” without the risk of succumbing to additional temptation and sliding into the addictive cycle. Flee at the first temptation. Don’t sit and wait for the temptation to leave. It will outlast you. As a practical suggestion, physically change your position. Get up from the computer, or wherever you are, and leave. Take a moment to pray to the Lord and ask for His help. Talk to your spouse, a friend, or a loved one. Remove yourself from the temptation and don’t return until the temptation has gone.

Perhaps the most devastating effect of pornography is the way that it changes who we are and who we are becoming. Pornography destroys the soul and sends its viewers on a downward spiral of shame and addiction. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught that “the Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil acts— what we have done,” but “an acknowledgment of the final effect of our acts and thoughts—what we have become.”12 Seen this way, there are no gray areas because all of our actions and thoughts either lead us to become more like our Heavenly Father or to become less like Him. Any sin, but especially serious sin such as pornography addiction, halts our progress toward becoming who the Lord wants us to become. In fact, such sin reverses our progression toward exaltation and eternal life. Instead of seeing people as Christ does, we view them as objects and focus on ourselves and our carnal desires. Addiction, by its very nature, leads to feelings of hopelessness. Those suffering from addiction often feel as you may have—trapped and unable to overcome your weaknesses. Without hope, your faith in Christ may wane, and you may begin to believe that you cannot be saved. Satan tells addicts that they are not worth saving. He erodes feelings of self-worth and value, leaving addicts shadows of the people they once were. They are left to believe they cannot be saved from the pit they have fallen into.

But I testify that you are of infinite worth. The Lord loves you and He can and will help you if you turn to Him for help in overcoming your addiction.

As President Ezra Taft Benson said: The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in.

The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change To My Friend

13

their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.13 I know that you have a desire to change—and because of that desire, Christ has already begun to change you. But the only way to completely overcome your pornography addiction is to turn your life over to the Lord. He is the only one with enough power to break the addictive cycle of addition and make you clean and whole. Having faith in Christ and His ability to help you is the only way you can overcome the demons of addiction. In the words of the Book of Mormon prophet Alma I plead with you to “awake and arouse your faculties . . . and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you” (Alma 32:27). Begin to exercise “faith unto repentance” (Alma 34:17), and I testify that He will bring peace to your soul.

As you begin to exercise “faith unto repentance,” please know that repentance is not simply about erasing wrong doings; it is about changing who we are and putting ourselves on a course to become more like our Heavenly Father. As we repent and take advantage of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, He will strengthen us and help us become more Christlike.

Sin hurts our spirits. Our mortal bodies sometimes get cuts, scrapes, and bruises. Sometimes we get serious injuries and need to see a doctor or go to a hospital. Similarly, every time we sin, our spirits are injured. These daily, small, spiritual cuts, scrapes, and bruises can be remedied by going to the Lord. More serious sins cause more serious injury to our spirit. In such cases we must go to a Spiritual Doctor—an ecclesiastical leader—to help us heal. Such healing often takes time and stronger spiritual medicine that only an ecclesiastical leader can prescribe. Counsel with a church leader. Share your burden with him. He will lovingly help you come unto Christ, apply the Atonement, and begin the healing process.

Elder Oaks taught that repentance involves more than just being made clean: “We must also be changed from a morally weak person who has sinned into a strong person with the spiritual stature to dwell in the presence of God.”14 If you are to overcome pornography, you will need to be strengthened and fortified until you have developed into a Christlike person who exercises self-restraint and relies on the Lord for help. As you continue to invite the Spirit of the Lord more fully into your life, you will feel an increased strength to resist temptation and a greater desire to follow the Lord in every aspect of your life.15 As you work through the repentance process, there are some important things you should know. First and foremost, you must understand that change is not easy. This thought from C. S. Lewis may be instructive: No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight 14 ­

Stance: For the Family

it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means— the only complete realist.16 More than anyone else, Christ knows what you are going through. He knows the powerful temptations you face. Remember the Lord “will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).

The Lord will provide a way for you to escape. Take it.

It’s important that you take care of yourself spiritually. You must rely on the Lord and his grace. Doing the “small and simple things” (Alma 37:6–7) will add spiritual strength daily and fortify your faith in Christ. President James E. Faust, former member First Presidency, said, “I believe reading the scriptures is the best washing machine for unclean or uncontrolled thoughts.” 17 Regularly reading the scriptures will slowly purge your mind of impure thoughts. Don’t take this important task lightly. As you “feast upon the words of Christ [they] will tell you all things what ye should do” (2 Nephi 32:3), and you will be able to testify that you have heard the voice of the Lord in your life (see D&C 18:34–36). I promise that He will guide you and help you as you turn to Him. As you work through the repentance process, you might be tempted to measure your progress by how well you have avoided pornography, by how long it has been since your last exposure. Do not allow this to be your only measuring stick. As you think about how well you are doing consider how well you are doing at some of the things I’ve mentioned above. How well are you taking care of yourself? Are you filling your life with good and wholesome things? Have you found a healthy way to manage stress? Do you turn to someone when you need support? What boundaries have you established to protect yourself from giving in to temptation? Realize that, having succumbed to pornography, you might always have a weakness toward it. It may be a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Corinthians 12:7) that you must deal with the rest of your life, but remember weakness and temptation are not signs of impurity. Sin turns us away from God while our weaknesses should turn us toward Him. With the Lord’s help, you can overcome your weaknesses and resist any temptation.

The purpose of our lives here on Earth is to help us grow to become like Christ. Everything we experience in this life is part of the eternal, personal curriculum the Lord has developed for us to become more like Him. We can fight against God and complain about how hard we have it, or we can accept what the Lord has asked of us and allow Him to stretch us and help us become who He wants us to be.

Sin and succumbing to any temptation are not part of God’s plan. However, being humble, overcoming our weaknesses, repenting, and casting away the imperfections of our character are. Truly, “it is better to prepare and prevent To My Friend

15

than it is to repair and repent.”18 As you repent and make changes in your life you will also be guarding against future missteps. Please make the needed changes, not only for your own sake, but for the sake of your family, your parents, brothers and sisters, spouse and children.

I know that the Lord desperately wants to bless and help you and your family. As it says many times in the scriptures “his hand is stretched out still.” All you have to do is take it. Even though “his anger kindleth against the wicked, [when] they repent . . . it is turned away, and they are in his favor, and he giveth them life; therefore, weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning” (JST Psalms 30:5; emphasis added). Turn to the Lord and let Him walk with you through the process of repentance and change. I have no doubt that there will be times that He will carry you. “Therefore, be ye strong from henceforth; fear not, for the kingdom is yours” (D&C 38:15). You cannot change the past, but you can change the future. Truly, “what we are is more important than what we have been. And what we can become is more important than what we are.”19 Only look to the past to learn what you need to know to become who the Lord wants you to become now and in the future.

Submit yourself to the Lord and allow Him to change you. Allow Him to enter and change your heart. Pray and ask for His help and guidance. Like the father who sought out the Savior, your prayer may be simple, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief ” (Mark 9:24). Know that the Lord loves you. He can and will help you to change and overcome all of your weaknesses, but you must allow Him to do so. “The submission of one’s will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God’s altar.”20 My hope is the same as that of President Benson, that both you and I will “be convinced that Jesus is the Christ, choose to follow Him, be changed for Him, captained

by Him, consumed in Him, and born again.” 21 May the Lord bless you, my friend, as you seek to live the life He desires for you and your family.

With Love, Your Brother in the Gospel

Endnotes 1. Spencer W. Kimball, “Jesus: The Perfect Leader,” Ensign, August 1979, 5.

2. Rory C. Reid, “The Road Back: Abandoning Pornography,” Ensign, February 2005, 46–51.

3. Jeffrey R. Holland, “Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments,” Brigham Young Univeresity devotional address, January 12, 1988.

4. Mark B. Kastleman, The Drug of the New Millennium (Provo, UT: PowerThink Publishing, 2007), 42.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

16 ­

Stance: For the Family

7. Ibid., 45.

8. Ibid., 48–58.

9. Ibid., 54.

10. Donald L. Hilton Jr., He Restoreth My Soul: Understanding and Breaking the Chemical and Spiritual Chains of Pornography Addiction through the Atonement of Jesus Christ (San Antonio: Forward Press Publishing, 2010).

11. Kastleman, Drug of the New Millennium, 214.

12. Dallin H. Oaks, “The Challenge to Become,” Ensign, November 2000, 32.

13. Ezra Taft Benson, “Born of God,” Ensign, July 1989, 2.

14. Oaks, “Sin and Suffering,” Ensign, July 1992, 70.

15. For a more thorough discussion, See James L. Ferrell, The Peacegiver (Salt Lake City: Shadow Mountain, 2004).

16. C.S. Lewis, Inspirational Writings of C. S. Lewis (New York: Inspirational Press,

1994), 337–38.

17. James E. Faust, “The Power of Self-Mastery,” Ensign, May 2000, 43.

18. Benson, “The Law of Chastity,” New Era, January 1988, 4.

19. Personal communication, Dr. Brent Barlow, School of Family Life, BYU. 20. Neal A. Maxwell, “Swallowed Up in the Will of the Father,” Ensign, November 1995, 21. Benson, “Born of God,”

To My Friend

17

“Endless Pursuit of Sleep”

by Rose Doll

Beautiful Child

by Laura S. Nava O, the hopes and dreams of this young mother!

You were so perfect in my eyes You would be everything that is good and wonderful With every dream attainable and every hope achievable As you were growing, every look, every sound brought such joy My darling baby my hope and my dream Then, Time and Reality marched over us My perfect baby became an imperfect child No playing or pretending; no excitement at parties Only silence or crying What happened to the dreams and hopes for every good thing?

What happened to my darling child?

It has taken me too long to realizeAll that you are and will be are the best I could hope for The reaching of dreams For Lindsey Sue and for all mothers who are or were just like me

19

Adolescent Attachment and its Potential Compensating Mechanisms

by Sage Erickson

U

ntil recently, family researchers have shied away from the chaotic whirlwind of the teenage years, focusing instead on infant and child attachments1 and how they affect adult relationships.2 However, by focusing more on childhood than on the teenage years, researchers have overlooked one of the most tumultuous and developmentally important life stages. Radical changes in the nuclear family, namely the steep rise in divorce, make it even more important to understand the impact of parent-adolescent attachments in addition to research about childhood attachments. Many adolescents with divorced parents can no longer rely on their parents for their firm support base. This recent increase in divorce stretches the murky hole of adolescent security and attachments to frightening proportions. In an effort to fill this chasm and better understand the importance of adolescent attachments, this study examines how attachments during adolescence can fulfill a teen’s need for relationships and belonging. Specifically, I address whether or not a lack of healthy relationships with parents can be sufficiently replaced with peer or romantic partner affiliations. I argue that teens often try to find security in these other individuals; however, these relationships are not adequate compensating mechanisms and have primarily negative consequences.

Attachment John Bowlby is known as the father of attachment theory. His hallmark studies, though published in the 1980s, are still the authority on attachment, with all recent experiments expanding on his work. In order to fully understand 21

how an adolescent-parent relationship affects a teenager, we must first understand Bowlby’s theories.

Bowlby claimed that a child needs a secure attachment to properly develop.3 He explained that attachment is the tendency to make intimate emotional bonds with other human beings. Attachment is an elementary component of human nature that is present in infancy and continues throughout adulthood. Bowlby coined the term “working models” to describe the internalized representations of relationships.4 He argues that a child’s first “working models” of relationships (probably with parents or family members) influence the “working models” of future affiliations (with peers and romantic partners). In that regard, perceptions of one’s initial relationships are developmentally vital.

Hertz-Lazarowitz agrees, explaining that attachment is the pattern or structure for the quality of family life, emotional health, and future relationships.5 Adolescents use different people for various attachment needs. Markiewicz divides adolescent attachment into three categories: proximity-seeking, safe haven, and secure base. In a study of 499 adolescents, Markiewicz found that mothers are used most often for security, friends for a safe haven, and romantic partners for proximity.6 He found that fathers are used the least for all areas of attachment. This study has some valuable implications for whether unhealthy parental attachments can be adequately replaced. It suggests that friends and romantic partners are used for some aspects of attachment, though they may not fill all an adolescent’s needs.

Before we dive into these speculations further, we must establish what happens when secure attachment is missing in an adolescent’s life. Bowlby’s “Strange Situation” experiment delineates how this is illustrated in infants. In his study, parents left their babies in a room with a stranger, and the infants’ reaction when the parents left and returned was visually recorded.7 By analyzing this data, Bowlby named three styles of attachment: secure, anxious, and avoidant. Children with healthy parental relationships form secure attachments, while those without good relationships with their parents form anxious or avoidant attachment styles.8 These unhealthy attachment styles are characterized by clinginess and fear of being left alone (anxious attachment) or untrusting and avoidant behavior (avoidant attachment). Though this experiment measured only infant attachment, the findings build a foundation to our inquiry by illustrating different attachments that an adolescent can have with his or her parents and their effects.

22 ­

Stance: For the Family

Parent-Adolescent Relationships The parent-child relationship is not only the first fundamental relationship, but usually also the most lasting. Consequently, this bond is important to our interpersonal development and arguably changes over time. Roisman contends that children internalize parent-child relationships and carry them into future romantic relationships.9 This argument concurs with Bowlby’s theory of “working models.” However, the correlation between parent-child relationships and future romantic relationships has been explained by further research. Crockett, for example, finds that “the use of discussion to solve conflict mediated the association between adolescent family relationships and the level of connectedness in adult romantic relationships.”10 This assertion brings profound ramifications. If the parent-adolescent relationship, for example, teaches teens conflict resolution skills, then teens without strong attachments could make up the deficiency by learning those skills elsewhere. Such a contestation opens up a whole arena of potential. Could these teenagers learn conflict resolution skills from their peers, close relatives or romantic partners? Or could these principles be mandated through public education and influential teachers? Some support is evident for the later predication,11 but evidence suggesting that adolescentparent relationships can be healthily replaced is still lacking.

Continuing with our investigation, we must decipher what consequences beset a teenager without secure parent-adolescent attachments. Do they all flounder unavoidably? Hertz-Lazarowtiz found that children from divorced families have much lower intimacy rates with their parents, which hinders their ability to develop a healthy internal working model to apply to future relationships.12 These adolescents may develop insecure adult attachments, which leads to a greater likelihood of divorce.13 However, shaky attachments can have more immediate effects as well. Karl Brisch states that adolescents who have bad parental attachments often have addictive relationships that coincide with substance dependency.14 Brisch further asserts that bad parental attachments are associated with truancy, delinquency, and severe psychosomatic illnesses.

In treating adolescents with these problems, Brisch did not encourage adolescents to develop new attachments; instead, he would use therapy to try to heal the adolescent’s current parental relationship. This clinical practice suggests that parent-adolescent relationships cannot be replaced healthily with peers or romantic partners.

Peer Relationships Obviously, adolescents’ relationships with peers are a prominent part of their lives; friends often have great influence over an adolescent. For example, Dhariwal suggests that peer groups indirectly influence a teen’s romantic style in Adolescent Attachment

23

young adulthood.15 Additionally, as previously explained, adolescents use peers most for the “safe haven” function of attachment.16 However, peer connections can be fragile and superficial, causing researchers to wonder whether these attachments can adequately replace a parent-adolescent bond, especially in teens with divorced parents. Hertz-Lazarowitz found that children with divorced parents had weaker attachments to their fathers but did not show higher connection to their mother and peers compared to children with intact families.17 Consequently, children do not make up for a weak relationship with a father by being closer to their mother or peers. Farndale agrees that when adolescents have low connection with their parents, it does not increase their attachment with friends.18 He also contends that children from divorced families have greater social or relationship anxiety, which attests to a lack of secure attachments.

Yet, others oppose these contentions. Ehrenberg found in a qualitative analysis that peer support is a primary help for adolescents whose parents are divorced.19 Additionally, Sullivan’s “substitution model,” claims that “although peer-child relationships at large are independent of parent-child relationships, a child may seek to develop relationships with peers that would compensate for the damaged parent-child relationship.”20 This model is in direct opposition to Bowlby’s attachment theory and Freud’s object-relations theory. In Guttman’s words, “both [Freud’s object-relations theory and Bowlby’s attachment theory] suggest something like a transfer model. That is, a damaged parent-child relationship is transferred to the child’s relationship with others, which in turn results in the child’s retarded ability to form other attachments or close relationships.”21 Joseph Guttman conducted an empirical study to determine which of these theories—either that children can use peer relationships as healthy replacements for secure parental attachments or that they cannot—was correct.

The study was comprised of 120 eleventh graders in Israel, with half having divorced parents. He states that “significant correlations were found between the subjects’ family status and their feeling of being able to share ‘all or most of your secret thoughts and feelings’ with a best friend.”22 He reports that 60 percent of the intact group felt comfortable sharing their feelings with friends compared to 20.8 percent of the divorced group. Ultimately, he concluded that his findings support Freud and Bowlby’s claims. Teens can use peers as a support, but these affiliations are not adequate compensating mechanisms. No support was found for Sullivan’s “substitution theory”; instead, researchers find that when a child has poor relationships with their parents, their peer relationships suffer as well.

24 ­

Stance: For the Family

Romantic Partner Relationships Common sense dictates that romantic relationships have the most promise for being able to compensate for parent-adolescent relationships. This is primarily because the two relationships serve similar attachment needs.23 Christianity supports this as well: a man is commanded to “leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.”24 However, whether this conception holds true for adolescents is apocryphal.

There is ample evidence of adolescents turning to romantic partners for the security they lack with their parents. Markiewicz states that “those insecurely attached to mothers turned to her less and to romantic partners more than did those securely attached.”25 This agrees with his earlier notion that romantic partners are used primarily for proximity as an attachment function.

There is much research describing the negative effects of adolescent romantic relationships. We will look at just a few of the prevalent negative consequences: delinquency, relational aggression, and depression. In his recent research, Lonardo demonstrates that “those with deviant romantic partners are more delinquent than those with more prosocial partners, regardless of parents’ or peers’ behaviors.”26 The essence of his argument is that romantic partners can have a negative effect on adolescents that cannot be mediated by parents. Of course, his argument is only looking at deviant romantic partners, implying that more “prosocial” partners could have a positive effect.

But, conversely, is it likely that adolescents from insecure parental backgrounds will select only good, prosocial partners? Certainly, the question is not what could happen, but what will most likely happen. Thus, it is reasonable to claim that teens with insecure parental attachments who form close romantic attachments have more delinquent behaviors.

Additionally, when adolescents look only to their romantic partners for security, such intimacies can often backfire violently. Linder has found significant correlations between physical aggression in romantic relationships and weak parent-adolescent relations.27 More specifically, Linder asserts that alienation from the mother and lack of communication with the father is associated with romantic relational aggression.28 Linder’s findings suggest that bad parental relationships encourage, or are somehow connected to, relational aggression with one’s romantic partner.

Lastly, turning to romantic partners for an attachment base can result in depression for some teens. Margolese found that romantic partner relationships were more closely associated with depression than father or peer relationships.29 Moreover, he states that “compared to adolescents, working models of self with mother, father, or best friend, [the] model of self with romantic partner was rated as significantly less positive.”30 He avers that poorly Adolescent Attachment

25

attached adolescents suffer from depression because they have fewer coping resources and supportive networks. Assuredly, romantic partner affiliations did not alleviate this problem.

Conclusion Therapists and researchers agree that secure attachment is fundamental to positive relationships. The dynamics in a parent-adolescent bond in particular are essential to the teen’s sense of security and ability to have other healthy relationships. Adolescents can try to use peers and romantic partners to fill their attachment needs, but those secondary relationships do not replace functional parent-adolescent relationships.

The fact that parent-child attachments are irreplaceable should give ample reason to focus efforts on strengthening marriage and minimizing divorce. At present, Healthy Marriage Initiative Programs are struggling because of inconsistent funding. Policy makers have overlooked the unspoken needs of children and adolescents and have instead highlighted parents’ selfish pleas to have freedom in their lives. Political and social leaders should heed the findings of the social science field and the investigative evidence towards the far-reaching benefits of whole, functional families. Surely this research on the indispensable parent-adolescent bond will strengthen the argument to support families nationwide.

Endnotes 1. John Bowlby, Attachment and Loss, vol. 2, Sadness and Depression (New York: Basic Books, 1980).

2. Ellen Behrens, “Relations of Concordant and Discordant Parent-adult Attachment Styles to Adult Psychological and Relationship Adjustment,” Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 59, no. 7 (1999): 3730; Judith Crowell and Everett Waters, “Attachment Representations, Secure Base Behavior, and the Evolution of Adult Relationships: The Stony Brook Adult Relationship Project,” in Attachment from Infancy to Adulthood: The Major Longitudinal Studies, ed. Klaus E. Grossmann, Karin Grossmann, and Everett Waters, (New York: Guilford Publications, 2005), 223-244.

3. John Bowlby, A Secure Base: Parent-child Attachment and Healthy Human Development (New York: Basic Books, 1988).

4. Wyndol Furman and others, “Adolescents’ Working Models and Styles for Relationships with Parents, Friends, and Romantic Partners,” Child Development 73, no. 1 (2002): 241-255.

Bowlby, Attachment and Loss, 1988 5. Rachel L. Hertz-Lazarowitz, Michal Rosenberg, and Joseph Guttmann, “Children of Divorce and Their Intimate Relationships with Parents and Peers,” Youth & Society 21, (1989): 85-104.

6. Dorothy Markiewicz and others, “Developmental Differences in Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Use of Mothers, Fathers, Best Friends, and Romantic Partners to Fulfill Attachment Needs,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 35, no. 1 (2006): 127-140.

7. Bowlby, Attachment and Loss, 1988.

26 ­

Stance: For the Family

Karl Brisch, Treating Attachment Disorders: from Theory to Therapy (New York: Guilford Press 2002).

8. Bowlby, Attachment and Loss, 1988.

9. Glenn I. Roisman and others, “The Coherence of Dyadic Behavior Across Parent–child and Romantic Relationships as Mediated by the Internalized Representation of Experience,” Attachment & Human Development 3, no. 2 (2001): 156-172.

10. Lisa J. Crockett and Brandy A. Randall, “Linking Adolescent Family and Peer Relationships to the Quality of Young Adult Romantic Relationships: The Mediating Role of Conflict Tactics,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 23, no. 5 (2006): 761-780.

11. Sandra V. Sandy, “Conflict Resolution Education in the Schools: ‘Getting There,’” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 19, no. 2 (2001): 237-250.

12. Hertz-Lazarowitz, “Children of Divorce,” 1989.

13. Judith A. Crowell, DominiuqueDominique Treboux, and Susan Brockmeyer, “Parental Divorce and Adult Children’s Attachment Representations and Marital Status,” Attachment & Human Development 11, no. 1 (2009): 87-101.

14. Brisch, Treating Attachment Disorders, 2002.

15. Amrit Dhariwal and others, “Adolescent Peer Relationships and Emerging Adult Romantic Styles: A Longitudinal Study of Youth in an Italian Community,” Journal of Adolescent Research 24, no. 5 (2009): 579-600.

16. Markiewicz, “Developmental Differences,” 2006.

17. Hertz-Lazarowitz, “Children of Divorce,” 1989.

18. Farndale, F., “Anxiety in Adolescents: The Contribution of Parental Divorce, Parental Conflict, and Quality of Attachment to Parents and Peers,” Australian Journal of Psychology 55 (2003): 226.

19. Marion Ehrenberg, “Adolescents in Divorcing Families: Perceptions of What Helps and Hinders,” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 45, no. 3-4 (2006): 69-91.

20. Joseph Guttman, “Adolescents from Divorced Families and Their Best-friend Relationship: A Qualitative Analysis,” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 20, no. 3-4 (1994): 95-110.

21. Guttman, “Adolescents from Divorced Families,” 1993.

22. Ibid.

23. Wyndol Furman, “The emerging field of adolescent romantic relationships,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 11, no. 5 (2002): 177-180.

24. (Genesis 2:24, King James Version).

25. Markiewicz, “Developmental Differences,” 2006.

26. Robert Lonardo and others, “Parents, Friends, and Romantic Partners: Enmeshment in Deviant Networks and Adolescent Delinquency Involvement,” Journal of Youth & Adolescence 38, no. 3(2009): 367-383.

27. Jennifer R. Linder, Nicki R. Crick, and W. Andrew Collins, “Relational aggression and victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associations with perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality,” Social Development 11, no. 1 (2002): 69-86.

28. Linder, “Relational Agression,” 2002.

29. Stephanie K. Margolese, Dorothy Markiewicz, and Anna Beth Doyle, “Attachment to Parents, Best Friend, and Romantic Partner: Predicting Different Pathways to Depression in Adolescence,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 34, no. 6 (2005): 637-650.

30. Ibid.

Adolescent Attachment

27

Come Listen to the Story:

The Idea Started as a Simple Melody

by Joshua Cox

M

usic has been part of my life as long as I can remember. Growing up in the Cox family felt like a constant musical stage. No matter the time of day, there was almost always somebody singing or practicing an instrument in the home. As a family, we performed songs and dances. It wasn’t the easiest bringing everyone together, especially as the older siblings got into high school and all of the extracurricular activities and friends that come with it. My mother was the key element in making music happen in our family. As our family grew closer together through our experiences, music itself was an instrument we used to serve others in our community. As a result, our lives have been enriched and we have something familiar to come back to when we gather.

As for me, piano lessons were endured, but the fruits of practice were always enjoyed. Before piano lessons, I enjoyed making my own masterpieces at the keyboard – the kind only I could understand. Recently I tried to pick up where I left off several years ago composing music.

My family was on a vacation in Hawaii when I began this song. We were staying in a beach house, and I found a keyboard in the garage. In a rush of creativity, I began to pick out a melody on the keys. It wasn’t long before I had the first verse written out in my mind. Christmas was on my mind at the time, hence the Christ-centered theme of the song. I wanted to tell the story of a mother and father telling the story of Jesus’ birth to their children. This was something familiar to me. While music was an integral part of my family life, the very foundation of our family was based in our faith. Everything good in my family has stemmed from the religion we know to be true.

Last New Year’s Eve was the first trial run of this song. My family stood around the piano to sing, and even my mom sang a part. My hope is that this will be a meaningful addition to the longstanding tradition of music and faith in my family.

A great deal of gratitude is felt for the help of good friends and my sister.

The music can be heard at joshsbox.blogspot.com.

Kiss the Cook: Effects of Frequency and Quality of Family Meals on Adolescent Health

by Judy Ou

M

om’s famous apple pie, dad’s secret spaghetti and meatballs, grandma’s favorite chicken recipe, and the smell of Thanksgiving morning. Favorite foods, fun conversation, and family traditions—these are just a few of the memories evoked by family meals. Aside from the lingering memories of childhood favorites and Thanksgiving feasts, regular meals with family members may have greater, unseen impacts on the stomach and the soul. These hidden attributes of the nourishment found at the dinner table are a great opportunity to nurture the physical self and emotional self, especially in children of adolescent age.

Family meals are associated with lower adolescent drug use, depression, and sexual activity. But how many families in the United States actually eat regular meals with their children? According to the 2003 National Survey of Children’s Health, 42 percent of adolescents and 56 percent of children ate a meal with their family six to seven times a week. This statistic is promising, but it says nothing about foods that actually go on the dinner table and what words are spoken around the table. Although regular family meals are related to better adolescent health, new studies suggest that the positive effect of family meals is mediated by more than just the frequency of the meals.

Studies by Boutelle and Rockett support the idea that frequency is not the sole factor in making meals a positive impact on adolescents.1 For example, Boutelle found that the nutritional quality of meals in families that regularly dine together declines as time spent watching television increases.2 Rockett found that adult food preferences play a large part in the nutritional content of family meals.3 Fulkerson also shows that the conversation at family meals 33

impacts adolescent mental health.4 Although these ideas may seem obvious, the underlying principle is that regularity is not a good indicator of quality—there must be more factors adding to or subtracting from the potential positive experience of family meals. To look at this in simpler terms, family dinners can be broken into two parts: the physical nourishment offered at the meals, and the emotional or mental nourishment of the family interaction at mealtime.

Adolescents who eat regular family meals eat more nutritious foods than adolescents that do not. Gillman states that frequent family dinners are associated with markedly higher intakes of vital nutrients—specifically fiber, calcium, folate, iron, vitamin B6, B 12, and vitamin E.5 Families are also more likely to eat the daily recommended five servings of fruits and vegetables and consume fewer junk foods. The intake of fried foods was 33 percent lower, and drinking soda was 27 percent lower in groups that ate family meals.6 These habits may be explained by adolescents eating regularly at home. If middle school and high school aged kids are not at home for dinner, or are not given a prepared meal, the likelihood of them actually making themselves a meal is pretty low. However, fast food restaurants are affordable and easy to find. Additionally, without parents to tell children what to eat, the children have total freedom in their food choices—kids and teens might prefer junk food to mom’s salad.

Food preferences may explain why parental attendance at family meals affects fruit and vegetable intake. Videon and Manning found that parental presence at dinner was associated with greater fruit and vegetable consumption during the meal.7 Despite the beneficial effect parents can have on dinner, one third of adults in the Boutelle study felt that their families were too busy to eat dinner together.8 This could be interpreted in many ways, one such being that the families could be in situations where the parents’ jobs do not permit them to come home for dinner. Another is that caretakers or nannies take care of dinner while the parents are out of the house, and the children do not feel the same accountability if parents are not present. The families could also have older children who can drive and are too busy with after school activities to make it home for dinner.

It turns out that families have a large influence on adolescent nutrition despite lowered attendance to family dinners in late adolescence. Lower participation in family dinners data from the National CSGII shows that adolescents still eat 68 percent of their total meals and 78 percent of their snacks at home.9 If over half of an adolescent’s nutrition is coming from the home, then foods found in the home still impact the nutritional quality of adolescents’ diets. In this case, attendance at the family meal is less important than the foods stored in the home. The types and availability of 34 ­

Stance: For the Family

foods, in this case, is of greater importance than the frequency and attendance at family dinners.

But what are parents in the United States doing to ensure that their children are eating the correct foods? A study by Hanson found that 44.5 percent of parents do not consume the recommended minimum amounts of fruits, and 69.9 percent do not eat the daily recommended minimum amount of vegetables.10 If adults are not eating the fruits and vegetables, what are they eating?

What foods are parents buying and preparing, not just for themselves, but for their children as well?

Television, surprisingly, provides a few answers to these questions. Television viewing—both before and during family meals—is associated with lower nutritional meal quality, indicated by the lowered intake of nutrient rich foods like fruits and vegetables. Adolescents who watch television during meals intake fewer vegetables and calcium-rich foods, and they intake higher amounts of soft drinks.

The types of foods advertised could also play a role. Most foods advertised on television are cheap, prepackaged foods that are generally high in sodium and saturated fat and low in fiber, vitamins, and nutrients. Ironically, the packaged foods claiming to be “vitamin fortified” and “calcium enriched” still have high amounts of sugar and fat which outweighs the negligent benefits of enhancing nutrient-poor foods. The danger here is that the advertisements are so convincing that both adults and children may not realize the impact these advertisements are having on the types of food they crave, buy, and serve to their families.

The lure of these advertised foods could be in the taste and convenience, which stressed parents sometimes succumb to. Although it may take less time to heat a prepackaged meal, the tradeoff for convenience is the physical health of both parents and children. Since adults are more likely to be responsible for food in the home, it is important for parents to think about what their food preferences are, what foods they are buying, and what habits they are passing onto their children Family meals are a great opportunity for social interaction and support.

Eisenberg found that adolescents that dine with their families have fewer depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts than those without regular family meals.11 Regular family meals are also inversely related with adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use.12 The effect of family meals on adolescent mental health can be seen in the frequency of eating disorders. A study by Neumark found that adolescents in homes with frequent family meals are less likely to engage in disordered eating behaviors.13 Only 8.8 percent of girls who report eating three to four family meals a week engage in extreme weight control behaviors. In contrast, Kiss the Cook

35

18.1Â percent of girls that eat one to two family meals per week report extreme weight control habits.

The decreased frequency of weight control habits in adolescent girls with regular family meals could be attributed to the impact of family meals on self-esteem. Fulkerson found that high self-esteem during adolescence was a result of regular family meals during childhood.14 Adolescents who ate regular meals with their families as children were twice as likely to have high self-esteem as adolescents who did not have regular family meals. Adolescents with regular family meals during childhood also displayed 48Â percent less risk for depressive and suicidal behaviors and decreased chances of developing antisocial behaviors, violent behaviors, and binge eating or purging behaviors during adolescence.15 Social interaction during family meals also plays an important role in promoting adolescent health. Family meals that promote family connectedness and a positive mealtime experience have a significant positive association with psychological well-being.16 Family connectedness in the social environment of family meals was also inversely associated with depression and unhealthy weight control behaviors. However, family meals that provide little social bonding, introduce a hostile family environment, or are part of a forced routine may provide few, if any, benefits to adolescents.

Young found that parental supportive behaviors strongly influence adolescent life satisfaction, specifically parental approval, open communication, affection, and responsiveness.17 This translates to open, positive communication at the dinner table. Satisfaction with family life can be found through these supportive behaviors and environments, but perceptions of family support can be lessened by negative family commentary. Weight-based teasing and parental encouragement to diet can undermine the emotional benefits of family meals.

Negative commentary at family meals is also associated with poor indicators of adolescent psychological health.18 High levels of conflict and high levels of criticism are also associated with increased prevalence of eating disorders.19 These points show that the emotional benefits of family meals are attributed more to the quality than the frequency of the social interaction.

The idea that quality is more important than frequency agrees with the Newmark study, which found that priority, not frequency, of family meals was the most beneficial factor in preventing the development of disordered eating behaviors in adolescents.20 Oszadsky found that a forced routine reduces the amount of meaning in family rituals; meaning that all family members need to value family meals in order to reap positive benefits from it.21 If families place a high priority on family meals but are doing so as a form of forced social interaction, the positive effects of family dinners can be reduced substantially.

36 ­

Stance: For the Family

This means that family members (i.e. parents and children) need to choose to attend family meals on their own otherwise the benefits will not be seen.

If family interactions are generally negative, starting a new tradition of positive family meals could be a new beginning. Parents could focus on creating open communication and a positive social environment during mealtime in order to encourage their children to participate. Instead of criticism, the focus of family meals should be on the family’s interactions and on building positive relationships. This positive environment would help bridge the gap between children and parents.

Although it may not be possible to have grandma’s chicken every day, a simple family meal could be a powerful vehicle that increases the physical and emotional health of a family. Teens and children who eat meals with their family are more likely to eat fruits and vegetables. As children grow into adolescents, the family bond formed during family meals could protect against drug use, depression, and eating disorders.

It is unrealistic to expect perfection at every meal, but small steps can be taken to make meals nutritious. Simple additions and substitutions, such as an extra vegetable at dinner, or using low-fat versions of high fat foods, can make a difference. Nutritious meals don’t have to be work intensive. If time is short, parents and children can be involved in food preparation, or meals can be made ahead of time and reheated. The influence of parents on these meals cannot be ignored. Family meals are more than just food and fun; they pass down habits and memories that last a lifetime. It is no wonder that some of the most salient childhood memories take place at family dinners. It is truly a place for families to gather, eat, and feel uplifted.

Endnotes 1. K. Boutelle, et al., “Associations between Perceived Family Meal Environment and Parent Intake of Fruit, Vegetables, and Fat,” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, no. 35 (2003): 24-29. H. Rockett, “Family Dinner: More than Just a Meal,” Journal of American Dietetic Association, no. 107 (2007): 1498-1501.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. J. Fulkerson, et al., “Family Dinner Meal Frequency and Adolescent Development: Relationships with Developmental Assets and High-Risk Behaviors,” no. 39 (2006): 337-345.

5. M. Gillman, et al., “Family Dinner and Diet Quality Among Older Children and Adolescents,” Archives of Family Medicine, no. 9 (2000): 235-240.

6. Ibid.

7. T. Videon, C. Manning, “Influences on Adolescent Eating Patterns: The Importance of Family Meals,” Journal of Adolescent Health, no. 32 (2003): 365-373.

8. K. Boutelle, “Associations Between,” 24-29.

Kiss the Cook

37

9. B. Lin, et al., “America’s Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences,” Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, (1999): 213-242.

10. N. Hanson, et al., “Associations between Parental Report of the Home Food Environment and Adolescent Intake of Fruits, Vegetables, And Dairy Foods,” Public Health Nutrition, no. 8 (2005): 77-85.

11. M. Eisenberg, et al., “Correlations between Family Meals and Psychosocial Well-Being Among Adolescents,” Archive of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, no. 158 (2004): 792-796.

12. Ibid.

13. D. Neumark-Sztainer, et al., “Are Family Meal Patterns Associated with Disordered Eating Behaviors Among Adolescents?” Journal of Adolescent Health, no. 35 (2004): 350-359.

14. J. Fulkerson, “Family Dinner,” 337-345.

15. Ibid.

16. J. Fulkerson, et al., “Correlate of Psychosocial Well-Being Among Overweight Adolescents: The Role of the Family,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, no. 75 (2007): 181-186.

17. M. Young, et al., “The Effect of Parental Supportive Behaviors on Life Satisfaction in Adolescent Offspring,” Journal of Marriage and Family, no. 57 (1995): 813-822.

18. J. Fulkerson, “Correlate of Psychosocial,” 181-186.

19. E. Kog, W. Vandereycken, “Family Interaction in Eating Disorder Patients and Normal Controls,” International Journal of Eating Disorders, no. 8 (1989): 11-23. C. Dare, et al., “Redefining the Psychosomatic Family: Family Process of 26 Eating Disorder Families,” International Journal of Eating Disorders, no. 16 (1994): 211-226.

20. D. Neumark-Sztainer, “Are Family,” 350-359.

21. I. Oszadszky, “Family Ritualitzation of Family Cohesion and Adaptability, and a Measure of Intimate Relationships Outside the Family,” Department of Educational Psychology. University of Manitoba (1998).

38 ­

Stance: For the Family

Marriage is Ordained of God

by Amanda Moncur

I

t is important to look at history in order to understand human identity.

One aspect of human identity that has intrigued humanity for centuries is marriage. It has led many to search for answers in what they believe to be the primary narrative of human origin—the story of the Creation found in the book of Genesis. Because it is one of the oldest literary and sacred texts, the Bible contains definitive insights as to how and why marriage was ordained by God. To understand what the Bible teaches about marriage, I will explore the book of Genesis along with additional insight from literary opinions and scholars and doctrinal insight from both scholars and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. By exploring the parallelisms and metaphors found within the book of Genesis, elements of marriage, namely the necessity of companionship and the sacred purpose of intimacy between a husband and wife, can be illuminated.

Completeness through Companionship After God created Adam, He said, “it is not good that the man should be alone; [therefore] I will make him an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18). This verse teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to God’s plan. Because the Lord states his intention to create a “help meet” for Adam, it seems reasonable that Eve would be created in the following verse, but she is not. Interestingly enough, we read that the Lord decided first to commission all of the animals to come forth, in pairs, to be named by Adam (Genesis 2:19–20). One interpretation of this scripture could be that the Lord was teaching Adam a lesson. As Adam participated in this scene, noting that all of 39

God’s creations consisted of two pairs abiding together, he was being taught the necessity of companionship; note the end of verse 20, “but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” It is only after Adam learns of the contrast between “wholeness and isolation”1 that he ecstatically recognizes Eve as his vital companion: “Now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23).

The book of Genesis not only clarifies the necessity of companionship, but it also provides insight regarding the essential qualities that Adam and Eve, representing all mankind, are to cultivate in their marriage. In the same verse wherein the Lord states that Adam should no longer live alone, “God the evaluator [becomes] God the rectifier:”2 “I will make him an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18, emphasis added). Interestingly, helpmeet is written in this account as two separate words: help and meet. There is great significance in the separation of these words. Since some of the ancient texts in the Bible were originally written in Hebrew, it is essential to learn of the Hebrew etymology of help and meet in order to come to a clearer understanding and possible interpretation of this verse. Help in Hebrew is ezer, and is defined as one corresponding to another, a remedy, or cure.3 We see this contextual form of help written throughout the scriptures, relating to our need to become subordinate to the Savior. In essence, we are saying, “Lord, I only have so much strength; please remedy the portion I lack.” The same symbolism exists within a companionship. When men and women enter a marriage, they are essentially saying and promising to their companion, “I will remedy the 50 percent you cannot; I will aid you when you fall short.” Meet in Hebrew is knegdo, and can be defined as necessary, adequate, equal, or counterpart.4 These words denote that Eve “was not created to be [Adam’s] slave, his drudge; but his corresponding opposite, the complementary hemisphere in the orb of humanity, his alter ego, [or] one like himself.”5 By understanding the etymology of help meet, the relationship between men and women is amplified: they need each other in order to be complete.

Strengthening Our Families: An In-Depth Look at the Proclamation of the Family, a collection of scholarly studies and research exploring The Family: A Proclamation to the World, a document formulated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, summarizes seven benefits marriage offers society.

This list reinforces the aforementioned biblical doctrines: 1. Marriage fosters emotional and physical closeness, which contribute to mental and physical well-being and also encourages healthy behavior.

2. Marriage brings an extended social network of family, church, and community associations.

3. Marriage comes with legal rights, protection, and privileges.

4. Marriage encourages each spouse to develop skills that the other is weak 40 ­

Stance: For the Family

in, creating a profitable “specialization” of labor.

5. Marriage offers respite from the complex, often artificial demands of an external economy, offering a “backstage” where the holistic self is valued.

6. Marriage provides women with substantial economic benefits.

7. Marriage dramatically improves men’s lifestyles and facilitates their achievement in the workplace and community.6 Not only does companionship in a marriage provide emotional and moral support to each spouse, but it also has the capacity of sustaining society and allowing it to function more efficiently. As President David O. McKay said, Marriage is a sacred relationship entered into for purposes that are well recognized—primarily for the rearing of a family. . . . The family assumes supreme importance in the development of the individual and of society. . . . The foundation of society is ordained of God for the building up of permanent homes.7 Families create and raise children, thus building society and allowing it to flourish, sustain itself, and ultimately prosper. Companionship between men and women, since the time of Adam and Eve, was ordained and blessed by God, and is an essential component to our existence.

Unity through Intimacy “God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”8 In the book of Genesis, laws governing the use of procreative powers are given to Adam and Eve. The metaphor of the rib is one of the first examples showing that “the Bible celebrates sex and its proper use, presenting it as God created, God ordained, God blessed.”9 After “the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam . . . he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:21–23). After Adam finds his “help meet,” or, in other words, his equal, the Lord declares to Adam: “therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife” (Genesis 2:24). Looking at this scripture through a literary lens reveals an interesting choice of verbs.

In English, cleave can mean to cut asunder, or to split into two parts.10 For example, the camel’s hoof is split in two parts, so it is known as an animal with a “cloven” foot. However, the original Hebrew word carries the opposite connotation: “to cleave” means to put back together two things that have been separated—to join them so tightly one to another that it is as if there were no original separation. Therefore, the Hebraic translation assumes Adam had something taken away from him, cloven from his side, and thus was no longer Marriage is Ordained of God

41

whole. The only solution for Adam to become whole is by cleaving to the only creation that is truly equal to him—the creation that holds his “missing part”—symbolically represented by the rib taken to create Eve. When a man and woman thus cleave together, or rather cleave back together, they become whole once again. They become one—one in flesh, one in mind, one in spirit. Then and only then can man be fully complete. This is why it is important to celebrate intimacy not only for its procreative purposes, but as something God designed as a way to bind a man and woman together in perfect oneness.

There is another meaning of to cleave worth noting in order to clarify ambiguities regarding intimacy outside of marriage. The account in Genesis presents the idea that oneness and sexual union can only be solidified in marriage between a man and a woman. This is readily seen in the fact that when one enters a marriage, everything that is important to one partner becomes important to his or her “help meet.” Such things as finances, household duties, childcare, recreation, hopes, dreams, aspirations, and even emotions are shared through the commitments made in marital vows. This unity is then symbolically renewed through the act of intimacy. Intimacy becomes the link, the expression, of everything the relationship is founded upon; it becomes the renewal of total union of “their hearts, their hopes, their lives, their love, their family, their future, their everything.. . . Such a total . . . union . . . can only come with the proximity and permanence afforded in a marriage covenant, with the union of all that they possess.”11 There is no way to duplicate this unity outside of marriage, which is why God ordained intimacy as an act only to be employed between husband and wife.

“It is worth one’s while to reread that story [the creation account] familiar though its main points may be, and then to read it again, more carefully . . . [for] two thirds of mankind accepted it as a divinely inspired account of the origin of man.”12 The origin of human identities, namely the function of marriage and the relationship between men and women has intrigued humanity for centuries. The narrative of Adam and Eve found in the book of Genesis, as well as insight from literary scholars and religious leaders, support the claim that God has ordained marriage. The Creation narrative in Genesis harmonizes and expands the identities of companionship, help meet and cleaving; identities that, when understood and adhered to, have the capability of enhancing present marital relationships.

42 ­

Stance: For the Family

Endnotes 1. Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 89.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., 90.

4. Ibid.

5. P. A. Nordell, “Adam’s ‘Help-Meet,’” The Old Testament Student 4, no. 8 (1885): 368.

6. David C. Dollahite, ed., “The Enduring, Happy Marriage: Findings and Implications from Present Research,” in Strengthening Our Families: An In-Depth Look at the Proclamation of the Family (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 2000), 22, box 2.2.

7. “Experiencing Happiness in Marriage,” in Teachings of Presidents of The Church: David O. McKay (Salt Lake City: Intellectual Reserve, 2003), 145–47.

8. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, November 1995, 102.

9. Brent A. Barlow, “They Twain Shall Be One: Thoughts on Intimacy in Marriage,”Ensign, September 1986, 49.

10. Merriam-Webster OnLine, s.v. “cleave,” accessed December 1, 2010, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/cleave.

11. Jeffrey R. Holland, “Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments,” Brigham Young Univeresity devotional address, January 12, 1988.

12. Anna Branson Hillyard, “Concerning Adam and Eve,” The North American Review 212 (1920): 363.

Marriage is Ordained of God

43

Leading Causes of Sibling Rivalry and Familial Resilience

by Timothy Phoenix Oblad

S

ibling rivalry is a real and often unavoidable consequence of sibling interaction, yet we frequently fail to recognize how serious it can be.

Recent studies have found that within family realms, sibling rivalry has the potential to become extremely destructive and negative to those involved.1 Other studies have determined the likely factors that contribute to sibling rivalry are as follows: stressful situations within the family, unequal treatment of children by parents, jealousy between siblings, and the functions of the parents.2 A family’s ability to rise above negative factors from rivalry depends on their knowledge of how to show resilience through parental involvement, sibling interaction, and the ability to overcome nonnormative stressors.3 Sibling rivalries are often caused by stressful situations. Some of these situations include familial health problems, marital issues, or parent-child differential treatment.4 Resiliency—showing resistance to these stressful situations or any type of negative or positive adversity—is a tool that must be developed in order to overcome difficulties within interpersonal relationships. Families with excessive sibling rivalries may not have the resources to overcome these negative effects. Those who fail to recognize and utilize resources are more likely to see conflict continue to rise among siblings during stressful situations.5 However, researcher Michael Rutter of the University of Cambridge suggests that experiencing adversity allows emotional, behavioral, and social resources to be recognized, developed, and enhanced.6 He argues that siblings who challenge or fight each other are providing interactions that allow the family to overcome problems, and develop stronger relationships.7 45

Thus, resiliency is developed either by facing adversity or overcoming stressful situations.

A common factor that leads to stressful situations is the negative emotion caused by sibling rivalry. These negative emotions may be more prominent within certain families, and are especially more likely to happen between siblings with larger age differences—usually three or more years apart. Siblings are also more likely to engage in conflict as their age differences increase. Therefore, children that are one to two years apart are less likely to engage in rivalry.

Feinberg & Hetherington found that siblings who are warm toward each other are more similar in personality, and have more interests in common—both of which lower the risk of rivalry.8 They also explain in their study that environmental and genetic factors are both involved in sibling rivalry outcomes.9 Therefore siblings with greater age differences may need to have an increased amount of resilience to ensure healthy relationships.

Researchers from Child Development journal found that when there is more sibling conflict, parents engage in unequal treatment of their children.10 This study is one of the earliest to find that differential treatment (parents treating siblings unequally)—whether intentional or not—causes negative behavior, such as jealousy, between siblings.11 Jealousy, a non-normative stressor, is often caused by unexpected life events, not usually through everyday occurrences. This most likely occurs when children feel rivalries with their siblings when contending for parental attention and even love. Miller, Volling, and McElwain characterize sibling jealousy as the most powerful type of jealousy, and found it more evident in younger sibling rivalries.12 This is caused in part because of the younger children cannot regulate their emotions as readily, but it is also caused by parents treating their older siblings differently.13 Parents can also affect their children’s emotional regulation in future relationships by the way they respond to their children, making it important for parents to learn how to regulate non-normative stressors. Resilience can be increased in families simply by parents recognizing when jealousy exists between siblings, and using that as an opportunity to explain why they are treating each child differently.

Another important part of understanding sibling rivalry is learning how children react to differential treatments from their parents. Kowal and Kramer found that children perceive differential treatment among siblings, but only react negatively when they do not feel it is justified.14 A study by Volling and Elins on parental favoritism found that both parents are more likely to discipline the older sibling rather than the younger sibling.15 These findings suggest that parents may negatively affect their children by unnecessarily disciplining older siblings, and under-disciplining younger siblings. Consequently, the 46 ­

Stance: For the Family

older sibling feels unjustified which leads to negative emotions, and inevitably sibling conflicts arise.

Parental functioning also plays an important factor in coping with sibling rivalries. A parent’s ability to increase resilience in the family is strongly affected by the amount of rivalry seen in the home.16 When parental functioning decreases, sibling rivalry increases. However, functioning only increases with impartial and equal treatment.17 This shows that the stress of sibling rivalry on parents can inhibit the presence of familial resilience; however, with good parenting skills, family resilience can more easily overcome sibling rivalry.

The level of resilience between siblings depends on how parents treat their children. Volling and Elins found that families are more successful in dealing with rivalry when the father primarily disciplines the older child, and the mother disciplines both siblings equally.18 A father’s equal treatment of siblings during family discussions was also associated with lower sibling conflict levels.19 Finally, children’s emotional ability to combat stressors was increased when both parents worked together in disciplining.20 Their research also suggested that if the mother disciplines the majority of the time, marital conflicts arise which cause maladjustment behaviors in children.21 This shows the importance of a healthy relationship between spouses as a model for their children to witness and follow. Couples who communicate well with each other should therefore be able to show resilience more easily in the face of rivalry because they demonstrate the necessary skills to grow and achieve more positive normative behaviors. Families who desire to show resilience in the face of sibling conflict and rivalry should know how much parental involvement is necessary, and how to allow siblings to mature by learning from their experiences. Kramer and Baron conducted a study that assessed parents who reported sibling rivalry and competition as their highest concern.22 They found that these parents were often unaware of the frequency of sibling rivalry in their homes, and that when parents did know that rivalry was a problem, they were more likely to intercede and decrease sibling rivalry.23 Higher standards of involvement and care developed through training may help parents increase warmth, decrease parental differential treatment, and combat sibling rivalry. Kramer and Radey propose that social skills training can help improve sibling relationships.24 As a result of this training, parents reported children to have decreased rivalry, fewer problematic behaviors, and a reduced power differential between.25 In addition, other research suggests that the more direct involvement there is between parents and children, the less sibling conflict there will be.26 Rustin suggests that siblings play an important role in both rivalry and friendship.27 Siblings in every type of family experience “sibling love…hostility, and destructive competition for [parental attention]” (p. 23).28 Rustin considSibling Rivalry

47

ers these normative stressors.29 Siblings that have rivalries caused by stressors (whether non-normative or normative) can be considered part of normal development. Rustin supports this by defining siblinghood as a precious resource where siblings first make friends and learn several key interactions such as sharing, getting over arguments, and regulating anger.30 Older siblings often regard themselves as a guard or “champion” of their younger siblings (p. 28).31 Younger siblings often see their older siblings as trusted leaders.32 *New family members may create rivalry by dividing their parents’ attention; however, evidence suggests that as families grow together siblings gain partners, and are thus better prepared for intimate relationships in later life.33 They are also provided with opportunities for shared experiences in family ideals, beliefs, and intimacy.

Brody et al. found that less attention is available for other siblings if rivalry is present between these other siblings.34 Resilience may be more difficult to achieve for families who need to adjust due to divorce or parental death. Sibling rivalry may also be more or less intense depending on the relationship adjustments that are made. Relationship adjustments between siblings and parents are non-normative stressors due to disequilibrium in the family environment.

Families who overcome non-normative stressors are more able to show resilience toward sibling conflict. Research shows child-centered management is the most effective way to end rivalry.35 Feinberg & Hetherington also show that larger age differences between siblings increases rivalry.36 As parents teach siblings about resources and emotional regulation, siblings will demonstrate the tools necessary to show resiliency in the face of rivalry.

Rustin has shown that small amounts of rivalry may be normal in families, but when siblings can act as partners and support each other as friends they are more likely to have successful intimate relationships.37 Therefore, they are more likely to model these skills for their children that will prevent sibling rivalry.

Resilience to sibling rivalry can pass continually to each progressing generation. As family beliefs, ideals, and cultural traditions are passed onward, parents can teach their children resilience by ending sibling rivalry early, and demonstrating equal parenting skills. As generations continue and technologies advance, new sources of non-normative stressors arise. Adapting to these different needs will allow increase resilience to sibling rivalry and conflict. Sibling rivalries, if left alone, can potentially be harmful to families and ultimately ruin familial relationships. A family’s ability to fix the problem depends on their ability to show resilience to the negative factors caused by the presence of rivalry. Doing so will lead to more positive interactions and closer, harmonious relationships between siblings and their parents.

48 ­

Stance: For the Family

Endnotes

1. A. Lew & Bettner, B., “Recreating Sibling Relationships in Marriage,” Journal of Individual Psychology, 63 (2007): 339–445.

2. G. H. Brody, Stoneman, Z., McCoy, J. K. & Forehand, R., “Contemporaneous and Longitudinal Associations of Sibling Conflict with Family Relationship Assessments and Family Discussions about Sibling Problems,” Child Development, 63 (1992): 391–400.

3. L. Kramer, Perozynski, L.A., & Chung, T. “Parental Responses to Sibling Conflict: The Effects of Development and Parent Gender,” Child Development, 70 (1999): 1401–14.

4. B. L. Volling & Elins, J. L., “Family Relationships and Children’s Emotional Adjustment as Correlates of Maternal and Paternal Differential Treatment: A Replication with Toddler and Preschool Siblings” Child Development, 69 (1998): 1640–56.

5. M. H. Bellin & Kovacs, P. J., “Fostering Resilience in Siblings of Youths with a Chronic Health Condition: A Review of the Literature,” Journal of Health & Social Work, 3 (2006): 209–216.

6. M. Rutter, “Resilience Reconsidered: Conceptual Considerations, Empirical Findings, and Policy Implications,” Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention (2000): 651–82.

7. Ibid.

8. M. E. Feinberg & Hetherington, E. M., “Sibling Differentiation in Adolescence: Implications for Behavioral Genetic Theory,” Child Development, 6 (2000): 1512–24.

9. Ibid.

10. Brody, et. al, “Contemporaneous,” 391–400 11. Ibid.

12. A. Miller, Volling, B., & McElwain, N., ”Sibling Jealousy in a Triadic Context with Mothers and Fathers,” Journal of Social Development, 9 (2000): 433–57.

13. Ibid.

14. A. Kowal & Kramer, L., “Children’s Understanding of Parental Differential Treatment,” Child Development, 68 (2002): 113–26.

15. Vollings et. al, “Family Relationships,” 1640–56.

16. Brody, et. al, “Contemporaneous,” 391–400 17. Vollings et. al, “Family Relationships,” 1640–56.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. L. Kramer & Baron, L.A., “Parental Perception of Children’s Sibling Relationships,” Family Relations, 44 (1995): 95–113.

23. Ibid 24. L. Kramer & Radey, C., “Improving Sibling Relationships Among Young Children: A Social Skill Training Model,” Family Relations, 46 (2007): 237–337.

25. Ibid 26. S. McHale, Updegraff, K., Tucker, C., & Crouter, A., “Step In or Stay Out? Parents’ Roles in Adolescent Siblings’ Relationships,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 (2008): 746–760.

27. Rustin?

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. ?

34. Brody, et. al, “Contemporaneous,” 391–400 35. ?

36. Feinberg et. al, “Sibling Differentiation,” 1512–24.37. Rustin

Sibling Rivalry

49

Family Centered Photography by Aubrianna Critchfield

Media, Sedentary Behavior, and Children’s Health

by Brian Spencer

R

esearch in prevalent issues in pediatric care shows that the topic of media (in relation to children) seems to trump all others. This issue is visible everywhere and affects families and children here in the United States. The problem is that children spend too much time in front of the TV, on the computer, and playing with video games but not enough time being physically active. Sedentary children receive widespread attention because of health problems that have unmistakable ties to inactivity and over-exposure to media; these problems include asthma, obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. According to a study conducted by researchers from Yale University School of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, and California Pacific Medical Center about the impact of media on children’s health, there is no correlation between increased media exposure and a positive health outcome.

The average child spends forty-five hours per week with media (including TV, video games, movies, music, and the internet). This statistic is put into better perspective when compared to the amount of time kids spend with their parents (17 hours) and at school (30 hours).1 The problem presents itself rather clearly: children are spending more time in front of a TV, computer screen, or with headphones on than their parents spend at full-time jobs.

Of all the studies conducted on the correlation between increased media exposure and health problems from 1980 through 2006, an overwhelming 80Â percent found that increased media exposure was associated with negative health outcomes in children.2 55

One of the largest and most visible health problems associated with sedentary behavior and media exposure is that of obesity. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of over eight thousand children and adolescents between the ages of 2 and 19, 31.9 percent were overweight, 16.3 percent were obese, and 11.3 percent were very obese.3 Although increased media exposure and the inactive behavior that accompanies it are not the only causes of obesity in children, many studies prove these reasons to be the most prevalent cause.

Evidence of health issues is seen not only in the many federal, state, and local programs that exist to help kids get outside and stay physically fit but also in studies which show a strong connection between media, sedentary behavior, and obesity. For example, a study conducted by Klesges of fifteen obese children and sixteen normal-weight children, ages eight to twelve, showed that the metabolic rate in children was lower when watching TV than when at rest.4 According to a study published in the International Journal of Obesity of over seven thousand Canadian children ages seven to eleven, children who watch more than three hours of television a day are 50 percent more likely to be obese than kids who watch fewer than two hours. Furthermore, this study concluded that «more than 60 percent of overweight incidents can be linked to excess TV viewing.”5 These studies clearly show how detrimental excessive media and sedentary behavior can be to the health of a child. Although it is easy to let kids pass time in front of a screen, parents need to consider alternate, more active forms of entertainment.

A second health concern resulting from increased media use, and its associated physical inactivity, is the risk of children developing asthma. A study published in the March 2009 issue of Thorax, an international journal on respiratory medicine, looked at the duration of television viewing in early childhood and whether or not it was associated with the subsequent development of asthma. After monitoring three thousand children from birth to age 11, they determined that “children who watched television for more than 2 hours per day were almost twice as likely to develop asthma by 11.5 years than those watching less than 2 hours TV per day.”6 The relationship between sedentary behavior and the development of asthma is complex, but this study shows one more reason to keep kids active and focused on something besides the TV, internet, or video games.

Studies have also shown links between media exposure, inactivity, and other health problems and health-depleting behaviors. These problems and behaviors include heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, alcohol consumption, and tobacco and drug use. Of the studies conducted between 1980 and 2006 on the correlation between increased media exposure and alcohol and tobacco, 88 percent found that increased media exposure leads to increased tobacco 56 ­

Stance: For the Family

use; 71 percent found an increase in drug use with increased media exposure; 80 percent found that more media led to more alcohol use.7 These results show the powerful influence media can have on children, and that the key to preventing future substance abuse and serious health issues could be as simple as limiting the amount of time kids spend staring at a screen.

The studies and evidence cited above show that media exposure, and its accompanying sedentary behavior, result in health issues for children. The studies also demonstrate a significant increase in a child’s chances of becoming obese, developing asthma, diabetes, heart disease, and even an increase in the probability of them using harmful substances. To prevent these problems from happening, the American Academy of Pediatrics suggests limiting childrens’ media time to no more than one to two hours per day, discouraging TV viewing among children less than two years of age, and encouraging alternative entertainment.8 Children are naturally active and energetic. Therefore, following the guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics will help foster their active tendencies. Ultimately, parents need to lead the fight against excessive media exposure and the sedentary lifestyle that is so prevalent today, thus providing for their children a happier, healthier future.

Endnotes 1. M. Nunez-Smith, et al., “Media and Child and Adolescent Health: A Systematic Review,” Common Sense Media, (2008), http://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/NunezSmith percent20CSM percent20media_review percent20Dec percent204.pdf.

2. Ibid.

3. C. L. Ogden, et al., “High Body Mass Index for Age Among U.S. Children and Adolescents,” Journal of the American Medical Association, no. 299 (2008): 2401-2405.

4. R. C. Klesges, et al., “Effects of Television on Metabolic Rate: Potential Implications for Childhood Obesity,” Pediatrics, no. 91 (1993): 281-286.

5. M. S. Tremblay, J. D. Willms, “Is the Canadian Childhood Obesity Epidemic Related to Physical Inactivity?” International Journal of Obesity, no. 27 (2003): 1100-1105.

6. A. M. Sherriff, et al., “Duration of Television Viewing in Early Childhood is Associated with the Subsequent Development of Asthma,” Thorax (2009).

7. M. Nunez-Smith, “Media and Child.”

8. D. A. Gentile, et al., “Well-Child Visits in the Video Age: Pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Guidelines for Children’s Media Use,” Pediatric, no. 114 (2004): 12351241.

Media and Children’s Health

57

Family Traditions

by Sabrina Huyett

I

t’s December 31, 1999, and I am twelve years old. I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of Y2K, thrilled at the possibilities of what it could bring.

While excited by the novelty of a new millennium, I am comforted by the consistency of family traditions at least as old as I am. It’s New Year’s Eve, so I know my family will soon gather in the kitchen to dip chocolates.

We’ve done it for as long as I can remember. My brothers love the dipped caramels, so they will soon be unwrapping scores of them. My older sister’s favorite is the coconut-centered ones, so she will make that dough, and I will be in charge of the peanut butter centers. We will roll the coconut and peanut butter dough into balls, and then we will gather by the stove and fight to roll balls and caramels in the melting chocolate, each with fork in hand. At midnight we will stand on our porch and bang pots and pans while Dad blows his trumpet.

He only blows it once a year.

Despite its simplicity, this tradition is one of many that bind me to my family. The consistency of celebrating New Year’s Eve the same way, year after year, gives me comfort and security. My family has traditions for many holidays, birthdays, and other special times. These traditions give me a sense of identity: “I am a Huyett, and in my family, we dip chocolates on New Year’s Eve.” The need for family traditions is stronger than ever. Busy schedules keep family members apart. Technology may isolate families even while they are at home. If we are not careful, our family ties will weaken over time. But traditions can continue to unite families, even after children have moved away—as 59

a college student, I still looked forward to celebrating traditions with my family when I went home. We need family traditions to keep family ties strong.

Family traditions are rituals that bind our families together, and they range from simple to complex, from daily to once a year. They build a family identity, tie children to parents, and create fond memories. Children are excited by family traditions, something to look forward to; a constant in a changing world. Parents can pass on values through family traditions; even the simplest of family traditions sends an unspoken message to children that “this activity was important to my parents, so it is to me, too.”

This article is intended to give you some ideas of traditions that you can incorporate in your own family. These traditions were gathered from families throughout the United States. If you like one of the traditions quoted here, feel free to use it, but remember that you do not have to do exactly what the original family did—adapt it to fit your family. Ask your children or siblings which traditions they would like to start. Involving children in the decision-making process gives them ownership of the tradition and ownership in the family unit. This will help them be more excited when carrying out the tradition. Use these ideas from other families as a starting place to building your own traditions and memories.

Traditions On New Year’s Eve, we write predictions about each other anonymously and then read them aloud. Usually people die or experience life changing events in these predictions.

–Benjamin Jensen On Valentine’s Day, we have a competition for the tackiest outfit and car. The winner gets what they want for dinner.

–Linze Struiksma Every holiday, my mother would buy me and all of my brothers matching underpants, socks, and ties for the holidays and we would all wear them to school or church or wherever on that given holiday. Green for St. Patrick’s, red for Valentine’s, flag or striped for Fourth of July, etc. It’s crazy, but somehow unique and fun.

–Jonathan Drysdale The day before St. Patrick’s Day, my kids make a trap to catch a leprechaun.

Somehow, every year the “leprechaun” manages to escape! He leaves behind some gold chocolate coins, though, in his struggle to get free. The kids love it!

–Sarah DeVore 60 ­

Stance: For the Family

We do an elaborate April Fool’s Day dinner. When we started the tradition, we would turn our seats backward and straddle them to eat, but now we sit normally. A “flower arrangement” is in the middle of the table, which is really just a bowl with flour in it. Dinner is “birthday cake,” or meatloaf in the shape of a cake, with mashed potatoes on top as frosting. In our glasses we have blue jello with a few Swedish fish floating in it. Then for dessert we have “hamburgers” with buns made out of Nilla wafers, a mini York peppermint patty for the meat patty, shredded coconut dyed green for lettuce, and frosting dyed red and yellow for ketchup and mustard.

–Alan Hurst I make hot cross buns for Easter. I just started this tradition this year and I like it! The hot cross buns are slightly sweet buns with cinnamon, spices, raisins/ currants, and sometimes candied citrus fruit in them. They have crisscrossed slits in the top where a “cross” is placed. The cross can be made out of pastry, a mixture of water and flour, rice paper, or icing (which I think tastes better). In the UK they are eaten year round, but they are traditionally an Easter food, more specifically for Good Friday, as the cross on top can symbolize the Crucifixion.

–Rachel Cannon Each Mother’s Day, instead of giving presents, we give my mom a letter with our favorite memory with her over the past year. She has all of our letters in a binder and says it is the greatest present she has ever received. Anytime she is having a hard day she will go in and randomly open the binder and read a letter, and she says that without fail, the letters always make her happy.

–Crystal Howarth For Halloween, we do sort of a reverse trick-or-treat. We dress up in crazy costumes and deliver Halloween goodies to our friends and neighbors. We ring the doorbell and yell “tread-or-trick”, hand them the goodies and sprint back to the car and drive away. It is super fun!

–Malorie Lifferth We have a “stretch party” each night for the three days before Thanksgiving.

This means that we eat dinner at a family member’s house. This is to “stretch” our stomachs in preparation for Thanksgiving dinner.

–Lacey Charlesworth

Family Traditions

61

I wrap up all of our Christmas picture books in wrapping paper and each night one of my kids takes a turn picking out and unwrapping a book for us to read.

–Sarah DeVore We make pumpkin bread during the Christmas season. It is really tasty. My dad will make loaves and loaves of it, and then we give a lot of them away as gifts. Here’s the recipe: Grandma Clark’s Pumpkin Bread 3 ½ c flour 3 c sugar 2 tsp baking soda 1 ½ tsp salt 1 tsp cinnamon 1 tsp nutmeg

1 c oil ¾ c water 2 c pumpkin 4 eggs 6 oz chocolate chips

Sift dry ingredients, mix oil, water, eggs, and pumpkin; add to dry ingredi ents, add chocolate chips. Bake in bread pans 350 degrees for forty minutes to an hour.

–Sabrina Huyett On Christmas Eve, my entire extended family on my mom’s side has a big party. The highlight of the evening comes after dinner when we gather around the Christmas tree, which sits in the center of the room. My aunt plays Christmas songs on the piano while we join hands, sing, and dance around the Christmas tree, just like the Whos down in Whoville.

–Mike Lundberg My mom always seems to have a service-oriented Christmas at home. One that we started a few years ago was a service journal. We ask our parents what they want for Christmas and they always say service. So, each family member is to write a service journal where we write down services that we have done throughout the year. When we open our presents on Christmas morning, my mom and even my dad tear up reading about the service that we had rendered throughout the year. We really enjoy this as we get to appreciate our family members more and to see the good in each one of them. I also enjoy it because I feel that it helps us remember the true meaning of Christmas.

–Janae Piercy In my family, one of the best parts about having a birthday is that you get to pick your own birthday song. We still use the words and basic tune of 62 ­

Stance: For the Family

the traditional rendition, but the birthday person chooses the manner in which everyone must sing. We frequently use “Cheerleader,” “Operatic,” “As-fast-as-possible-with-a-HEY!-at-the-end,” and—my personal favorite— “Multicultural,” where everyone sings in a foreign language.

–Rebecca Williams When I was growing up, I got to have a “night out” with either mom or dad every three months. It would have been a lot more often, but there were six kids in my family and two nights out a month were as many as my parents could handle. In January I would go with my mom, then in April I would go with my dad, and so forth. What we did was up to me. We could go to an activity or out to dinner, and then there was always dessert afterwards. We would spend the night talking about what I was up to and doing something I thought was fun. Once I went to my first horror movie with my mom, and another time I convinced my dad to take me to a Star Wars convention. Not every night out was lavish, but every one of them represented the care and sacrifice that my parents had for me.

–Spencer Greenhalgh My dad and I always went on walks on Sundays after church. It was a great time to talk away from the hustle and bustle of our house.

–Kristin Mahoney Mom wrote a parody of a song for each child and sang it to them when they were little.

–Drew Barber I have been impressed when visiting my son’s family. They have five kids, and each of their children has one night during the week to stay up later than the other kids. They choose how to spend their special time with Mom and Dad— playing a game, reading, cooking, etc. The activities the kids choose are quite varied and creative! The other kids cooperate with going to bed on time or they lose their night that week. Genius!

–Susan Whetten Once a quarter (there were seven kids, so it was too hard to do once a month), my mother would call her children each individually into her bedroom and we’d sit on her bed having an M&M interview (AKA: mom & me but there was a big bag of M&M’s there to share) and we discussed our goals, how we were doing on goals we had set in scouting or youth group, our relationship with siblings, anything we’d like to see changed, ideas for family Family Traditions

63

vacations, etc. She made sure we had plenty of M&M’s to take with us when the interview was over.

–Jennifer Demma Every holiday I would arrive home to find a “happy day” card left on my pillow from my mom. It was usually a large index card without lines on it with one side decorated and written “HAPPY DAY,” and the other side would tell what a great son I was and why she was so glad that I was part of her family and thanking me for being so wonderful. Occasionally she’d put one on our pillows when she knew we were having a hard week, or if she was having a hard week. It wasn’t every holiday, but it was a lot of them. I never thought about keeping the notes, but I always thought it was way cool.

–Jonathan Drysdale After Christmas we gather up a bunch of Christmas trees and I spray them with water and make an ice castle play structure for my kids. We gather anywhere from ten to forty-five trees from the neighbors. I take the tramp part off of the trampoline and secure the tree trunks to the metal rim. I put the misting attachment onto the hose, and leave it on all night to spray the trees.

After three really cold nights (it needs to be 15 degrees or below), the trees get so hard that even I can climb on them! Then I place a pallet in the center, to make the base for a cave, and I pile more trees on top. If it’s cold, it’ll stay all winter, and all the neighbor kids love to play on it.

–Kevin Rawle

64 ­

Stance: For the Family

Timing Divorce to Benefit Children

by Amber Hooper

T

he family, the basic unit of American society, has done a complete turnaround in the past sixty years. In the 1950s, the average family included a working father, stay-at-home mother, and two or three children. Around the turn of the century a family might consist of husband and wife, a single mother, divorced parents, adopted or foster children, or even gay parents. Today, nearly half of all United States marriages end in divorce; for every 7.5 people married, 3.6 get divorced.1 In spite of the increased amount of family research studies and family-help government programs, the divorce rate is increasing. With divorce rates on the rise, greater attention has been given to the negative effects of divorce. Thus, research has been conducted to show that it is marital conflict, not the act of divorce, which brings about the negative implications usually associated with divorce.2 Some studies show that the age of children at the time of divorce affects the child’s well-being,3 while others assert that age is not a significant factor.4 It is a common belief that marital breakup is harmful to all involved in the event. However, if immediate divorce becomes crucial for a couple, a few facts must be considered to determine the correct timing. Children will be less negatively impacted by divorce if it takes place in a manner that avoids the most conflict and takes into consideration living arrangements, remarriage, and poverty.

Children of all ages are impacted by divorce. If married couples decide to divorce after they have children, the consequences can be immeasurable. Teenage children of divorced parentsmay have different troubles depending on gender: girls are likely to develop more negative relationships with their ­mothers 65

and devote excessive time to romantic relationships, while boys are likely to act out of turn and drop out of school.5 While this and similar research show divorce as the cause of developmental issues in children, marital conflict that is often present in divorce situations is what produces a negative impact on children.

Divorce seems unavoidable in many families, but the negative effects of divorce on children are not inevitable. Helen Stallman and Matthew Sanders, doctors at The University of Queensland, assert that divorce puts substantial strain on people’s lives. Stallman concludes, “[It is] how smoothly family members make appropriate adjustments and develop a new stable family life” that determine the extent of stressful impact divorce has on a person.6 This smooth transition is usually halted by parental conflict. Harris, Furstenburg, and Marmer stated that “parental conflict is associated with behavior problems and poor adjustment of children in all family types, including those in intact families.”7 Thus, it is parental or marital conflict, not divorce, that determine the proper development of a child. Research shows divorce as the cause of improper child development because divorce is usually associated with parental or marital conflict. Therefore, a child develops best in a home with the least parental or marital conflict.

This does not mean that divorce has no effect on children. On the contrary, divorce severely impacts the relationships between parents and their children.

Hallie Frank, a clinical psychologist, reports that divorce is a leading factor in the deterioration of father-child relationships, especially between girls and their fathers.8 This assertion stems mainly from the idea that, as a result of divorce, most children do not live with or see their fathers often.9 Indeed, the father-child relationship and mother-child relationship are factors that should be considered when judging when to divorce. Amato argues that the offspringparent relationship is one of two factors that contribute to a child’s psychological well-being after divorce and marital discord.10 Milevsky claims that children of divorced parents tend to gain less education and earn less money, agreeing with Amato’s other leading factor for psychological well-being—offspring socioeconomic attainment.11 According to both Amato and Milevsky, it is not just marital conflict that produces psychologically unwell adults. But marital conflict is the predominant factor in determining the psychological well-being of children.

Not all children who come from homes with a lot of conflict will develop problems in adulthood, but many will. One result of parental conflict is a child’s self-blame; the child may feel partially responsible for the marital discord in his or her family. However, Platt, Nalbone, Casanova, and Wetchler (social science professors) found that in adulthood, children who had blamed themselves for the parental conflict in their homes seemed to have developed 66 ­

Stance: For the Family

some kind of coping method that preserved self-esteem. On the other hand, these professors argued that children who felt threatened during parental conflict tended to lack self-esteem and had a negative view of others.12 Therefore, parents considering divorce shouldn’t worry about children blaming themselves but about children becoming part of the parental conflict, developing a low self-esteem, and adopting a negative view of others. Thus, it may be best for parents to divorce when children are young and will experience less conflict.

Children whose parents divorced early on in the child’s life tended to have positive sibling relationships both during childhood and into adulthood.13 However, children whose parents divorced during the child’s later years reported consistently negative feelings during childhood and adulthood toward their siblings.14 There seems to be a correlation between parental conflict in early childhood versus later childhood. Thus, it isn’t divorce that negatively impacts children, but rather the amount of conflict before and after the divorce.

On the other hand, Riggio noted that economically challenged homes (usually single-parent homes) can produce a generally negative quality in sibling relationships as a result of financial stress.15 Therefore, before a potential divorce couple can decide the best time to divorce, the consequences of parental conflict should be compared with other dominating factors associated with divorce.

Although conflict negatively impacts childrens’ psychological well-being, the consequences of such should be weighed with three factors of divorce in mind: living arrangements, remarriage, and income. Divorce does not usually rid a family of conflict. Living arrangements can put a strain on both the parents and the children. Visiting hours (specific, reoccurring times set aside for the non-custodial parent to visit with his or her children after a divorce) are outdated and no longer work well for most American families.16 Mothers receive sole custody 80–85 percent of the time, regardless of the new research about a father’s important contributions.17 Frank discovered that father-child relationships are in danger when a father becomes the non-custodial parent.18 Because the children live with their mothers, mother-child relationships are strengthened.19 The current system for determining visiting hours is seriously flawed because it fails to take into consideration the father-child relationships previous to divorce.20 Adults who suffer from parental conflict before the parents’ divorce tend to have severe conflicts over visiting hours after the divorce.21 Thus, the living arrangements that divorce produces may increase parental conflict and decrease the chances of proper child development.

One of the major adjustments a family has to make in a divorce situation is the transition to a single-parent home. Both fatherhood and motherhood are essential to a child’s proper development. Many would argue that a mother plays a primary role in a child’s rearing, but fathers have been found to add greatly to a child’s intellect and self-esteem.22 Harris, Furstenburg, and Marmer Timing Divorce

67

declare that fatherhood in a child’s adolescence is “a dynamic period for children and their families.”23 In their longitudinal study they discovered that, while young adolescent boys feel more connected with their fathers than young adolescent girls do, both genders seem to have equal involvement with their mothers.24 Children deal with life best when they have both parents but only if there is a low level of conflict between the parents. Therefore, when a couple is considering divorce, they ought to take into account whether or not the level of conflict will increase or decrease as a result of visiting hours and living arrangements after the divorce.

The idea that father-child relationships are in danger of deteriorating because of visiting hours is further inflated in the case of a father’s remarriage. In fact, a father’s remarriage encourages an improved mother-child relationship.25 In a study done by Constance Ahrons, Ph. D., adults were interviewed twenty years after their parents had divorced. A strong correlation was shown between the adult child’s negative response to the father’s remarriage and declaration of negative change in father-child relationships.26 Ahrons also found that children tended to think more negatively about their father’s remarriages if that remarriage occurred in the first year of divorce.27 One possible reason for negative impacts of remarriage might be a decreased amount of time devoted to children by fathers. Because fathers, on average, spend less time with their children than mothers (whether married or divorced), children will naturally devote more time and support to their mothers.28 When a parent remarries, more time that was previously devoted to the child goes to the new spouse. Conflict can increase or decrease in the home after remarriage. Many children tend to have conflict with stepparents at first but seem to accept the situation after a few years.29 However, more children seem to be closer to stepfathers than stepmothers, which may be a result of poor father-child relationships after remarriage.30 The amount of foreseeable conflict in remarriage should be weighed against current parental conflict when a couple is considering divorce.

The last factor, poverty, can be a source of conflict before and after divorce, although it occurs in greater numbers after divorce. The number of children who live in poverty with their mothers only (excluding never-married mothers) is nearly five times the amount of children who live in poverty with both parents.31 Child support plays a substantial role in the occurrence of poverty.

The idea behind child support used to be that the non-residential spouse continued to provide for his or her family just like before the divorce occurred.32 However, those ideas are changing. In a recent Wisconsin court case, Weiler v. Boerner, the court decided to consider a different factor in the calculation of child support: the wife had earned a PhD during her marriage, which they added into her expected income.33 The law no longer seems to support mothers staying at home to raise children but requires them to go to work. On the 68 ­

Stance: For the Family

other hand, Sawhill asserts that women who work are less likely to have children out of wedlock, which means that the welfare program would have fewer children to support if the working mothers were using welfare.34 Regardless of the method used to calculate child support, the non-payment of child support can harm the residential parent and children by bringing them into poverty.35 Issues like proper child development dim in comparison to the results of poverty—hunger and lack of shelter. Therefore, probability of poverty may outweigh the need to consider conflict when deciding the proper time to divorce.

Parental conflict, not divorce, seems to have lasting, negative effects on children. This parental conflict can be found among divorced or married couples. However, parental conflict is more prevalent between potential divorce couples, which causes people to blame children’s issues on divorce instead of conflict. Because of this flaw, the impact of parental conflict on children must be examined before a couple can safely decide the best time for a divorce.

Parental conflict can be a determining factor in the psychological well-being of an adult who experienced such conflict in childhood.36 George Burns said that ­“Happiness is having a large, loving, caring, close-knit family in another city.” All families have conflict, but it is important to make children’s wellbeing a high priority when considering a life-changing event like divorce. The best general time for divorce would be when children are young enough to avoid the most conflict and maintain the best possible sibling and parent-child relationships. However, each family is different, so it is the obligation of the potential divorce parents to compare the amount of conflict with living arrangements, remarriage, and poverty. The decision of timing a divorce must be determined by weighing many factors and determining the best situation for each family.

Endnotes 1. “Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2005,” National Vital Statistics Reports 54, no. 20 (2006): 1–7.

2. H. Frank, “Young adults’ Relationship with Parents and Siblings: The Role of Marital Status, Conflict and Post-Divorce Predictors,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 46, no. 3 (2007): 105–24.

3. H. Riggio, “Relations between Parental Divorce and the Quality of Adult Sibling Relationships,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 36, no. 1/2 (2001): 67–82.

4. Frank, “Young Adults’ Relationship,” 105–24.

6. E. Scabini, “How Do Young Adult Children Deal with Parental Divorce? A Generational Prospect,” Journal of Family Psychotherapy 15, no. 1/2 (2003): 219–33.

7. H. Stallman and M. Sanders, “‘Family Transitions Triple P’: The Theoretical Basis and Development of a Program for Parents Going Through Divorce,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 47, no. 3 (2007): 134.

8. K.M. Harris et al., “Paternal Involvement with Adolescents in Intact Families: The Influence

Timing Divorce

69

of Fathers over the Life Course,” Demography 35, no. 2 (1998): 202.

9. Frank, “Young Adults’ Relationship,” 105–24; P. Amato and J. Sobolewski, “The Effects of Divorce and Marital Discord on Adult Children’s Psychological Well-Being,” American Sociological Review 66, no. 6 (2001): 900–21.

10. H. Riggio, “Parental Marital Conflict and Divorce, Parent-Child Relationships, Social Support, and Relationship Anxiety in Young Adulthood,” Personal Relationships 11 (2004): 99–114.

11. Amato and Sobolewski, “The Effects of Divorce,” 900–21.

12. A. Milevsky, “Perceived Parental Marital Satisfaction and Divorce: Effects on Sibling Relations in Emerging Adults,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, no. 41 (2004): 115–28. Amato and Sobolewski, “The Effects of Divorce,” 900–21.

13. R. Platt, et al., “Parental Conflict and Infidelity as Predictors of Adult Children’s Attachment Style and Infidelity,” The American Journal of Family Therapy 36 (2008): 149-161.

14. Riggio, “Relations between parental,” 67–82.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Frank, “Young Adults’ Relationship,” 105–24.

16. J. Kelly, “Children’s Living Arrangements Following Separation and Divorce: Insights from 17. Empirical and Clinical Research,” Family Process 46, no. 1 (2007): 35–52.

18. Ibid.

19. Frank, “Young Adults’ Relationship,” 105–24.

20. Kelly, “Children’s Living Arrangements,” 35–52.

21. J. Lebow and K. Lekart, “Integrative Family Therapy for High-Conflict Divorce with Disputes over Child Custody and Visitation,” Family Process 46 (2007): 79–91.

22. Harris et al., “Paternal Involvement,” 201–16.

23. Ibid, 201.

24. Ibid.

25. C. Ahrons, “Family Ties After Divorce: Long-Term Implications for Children,” Family Process 46, no. 1 (2007): 53–65.

26. Frank, “Young Adults’ Relationship,” 105–24.

27. Ahrons, “Family Ties,” 53–65.

28. M. Kalmijn, “Gender Differences in the Effects of Divorce, Widowhood, and Remarriage on Intergenerational Support: Does Marriage Protect Fathers?” Social Forces 85, no. 3 (2007): 1079–04.

29. Ahrons, “Family Ties,” 53–65.

30. Ibid.

31. I. Sawhill, “Teenage Sex, Pregnancy, and Non-Marital Births,” Gender Issues 23, no. 4 (2006): 48–59.

32. Ibid.

33. L. Prokof ’Eva and M. Valetas, “Fathers and Their Children,” Russian Education and Society 45. no. 7 (2003): 85–93.

34. “Fairshare Cases: Miscellany,” American Journal of Family Law 20, no. 4 (2007): 266–67.

35. Prokof ’Eva and Valetas, “Fathers,” 85–93.

36. Amato and Sobolewski, “The Effects of Divorce,” 900–21.

70 ­

Stance: For the Family

Strengthening Marriage: Some Unconventional Recommendations

by Nicole Kay

O

ver the last sixty years, there have been astounding changes to marriage and family life in the United States. Cohabitation is at an all-time high, preceding over half of all first marriages.1 According to the U.S. Census, in 1950 less than 5 percent of children were born out of wedlock and over 40 percent of all children born to unmarried parents.2 In 1960, 73 percent of all adults over eighteen were married. In 2009 only 52 percent of adults were married, the lowest in recorded history.3 Another first for the United States is single never-married adults now outnumbering adults that are married or have ever been married.4 The divorce rate is higher in the United States than anywhere in the world, with approximately a 50 percent expectancy that a marriage will end in divorce.5 Marriages are also forming later than ever, with the average age of first marriage rising to over twenty-eight for men and twenty-six for women.6 These escalating trends cause great distress and greater instability to the children of these unions and unhappiness to their parents.7 The dissolution of the institution of marriage is one of our greatest social problems, yet the culture of individualism (which places the individual before other groups such as family or society) is continually reinforced, even by well-meaning parties who suggest solutions to this gaping social problem. I believe that individualism has been inst­itutionalized in America on a broad scale, and that it competes with the institution of marriage. Therefore, to strengthen marriage we must address the problem of individualism on a sociological level by creating a counter-culture of marriage.

In her book, Marriage in a Culture of Divorce, Karla Hackstaff asserts that the traditional American cultural model of marriage was based on three 71

cultural norms: 1) marriage was assumed to be a part of life for every adult, 2) marriage was forever, and 3) that divorce was a last resort.8 This was the “traditional” model of the American family sixty years ago, thriving in a robust culture of marriage. However, Hackstaff argues that individualism is currently the social norm and marriage, which is as one of many personal lifestyle choices, is optional and lasts only as long as it meets personal needs. Thus, I believe that society considers divorce to be a common and accepted way to end marriage.9 Hackstaff and most conservative scholars primarily attribute this retreat from marriage to individualism and the social devaluation of marriage.

While individualism explains much of the damage to the institution of marriage, studies do not empirically support the idea that marriage is not valued by the majority of Americans. In fact, most studies reveal that Americans expect and hope to marry, value marriage as a life-long institution, and even over-idealize the marriage relationship.10 Yet, how can the majority of Americans still deeply value the sanctity of marriage, while nearly half of all marriages continue to end in divorce?

In The Marriage Go Round, Andrew Cherlin explains that American behavior is largely shaped and dictated by the culture.11 Currently, our culture is contending with two competing cultural ideals concerning marriage: relationalism, where the relationship is the ultimate measure of success, and ­individualism, where individual satisfaction is the ultimate measure of success. What is intriguing about our culture is that these ideas coexist in our minds without us consciously realizing the mutually exclusive nature of them. Culture—meaning the collective norms, ideas, and values of a large group of people—can shape and guide much of human behavior.

Individualism seems to dominate the cultural script in America and shape many aspects of behavior toward happiness. Yet, Americans also value selflessness and the work that is necessary to make a relationship successful. According to individualism, a relationship should be evaluated for personal benefit and enjoyment and if found to be unsatisfying it should be terminated. Welcome to the demise of any long-term relationship in America.

There is no simple solution for creating cultural change. Deeply rooted ideas and habits must be addressed and challenged; then change can happen on a broad scale. Creating a marriage culture means creating a society where human relationships trump personal interests. Thus, it could be helpful for people to have exposure to group projects and collaborative efforts at a young age. Encouraging and modeling more group and community endeavors with educational, state, and community resources may send the message that teamwork and relational endeavors are important. Children who understand relationship skills might be more likely to practice these models throughout their lives. The kind of commitment that is needed to make a marriage survive 72 ­

Stance: For the Family

could be influenced by habits formed in childhood. Yet, relational behavior (concern and commitment to others above self ) runs almost entirely counter to the possible prevailing culture of individualism. If relational behavior is not practiced throughout life to counterbalance the fierce competition of 足individualism, then the default in intimate relationships could end up as the good of self above the good of others.

Perhaps creating cohorts in schools where children remain with the same peers throughout the school year could help children to adopt a sense of community and commitment. Starting from a young age children should have opportunities to commit to relationships or programs for a long-term period. Group and team centered experiences should be emphasized through education in recreation and in communities. Another way to model relational behavior is in a community setting. Communities foster relational behavior by encouraging groups of unrelated and often dissimilar interests to combine and find compromises. If young adults were raised in a place with a sense of community and responsibility, they may acquire relationship skills that transfer into their adult lives and relationships. Without a sense of community or obligation to those in close proximity, a lack of awareness and commitment to future communities and individuals may be perpetuated.

If individuals group settings they may have greater chances of feeling commitment as they approach marriage. The community model fits well with kinship models. This kind of community and kinship setting could reinforce relational behaviors on a daily basis.

Additionally, civic behaviors would be very effective in encouraging people to think outside of the self and become aware of others. An emphasis on civic engagement, such as researching issues and voting, could easily be modeled in a high school political science or history class. Additionally, projects that require students to think about social problems from a broad perspective might also raise awareness of how individual behavior can contribute to a social problem and how the individual is part of a whole; thus combatting individualism.

While strengthening family and marriage may seem overwhelming, subtle changes can happen over time with pressure from the marriage movement and increasing voices proclaiming the merits of marriage. As awareness rises behavior may change, but even with direct interventions it could take society decades to change. If the institution of marriage is being challenged by cultural forces, then we should find and enforce adequate solutions. These solutions can include a focus on relational behaviors at home, school, work, communities and society. Advocates for a marriage culture should continue to emphasize the importance of reducing individualistic behaviors in human relationships and consistently engage marriage strengthening behaviors.

Strengthening Marriage

73

Endnotes 1. Andrew Cherlin, The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and Family in America Today (New York: Random House, 2009).

2. US Census Bureau, 2008, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm.

3. US Census Bureau Data, American Community Survey, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB 20001424052748703882404575519871444705214.html.

4. Ibid.

5. Cherlin, Marriage.

6. US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2010.

7. Mona Charen, “Non-Marriage, Not Markets,” National Review Online, October 1, 2010, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248411/it%E2%80%99s-marriage-rate-stupid-monacharen.

8. Karla B. Hackstaff, Marriage in a Culture of Divorce (Philadelphia, PN: Temple University Press, 1999).

9. Ibid.

10. National Marriage Project,“Who Wants to Marry a Soulmate?” State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America, 2001, http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/ SOOU2001.pdf.

11. Cherlin, Marriage.

74 ­

Stance: For the Family

Exploring Family Values in A Christmas Carol

by Janna Barker

“N

o wonder he’s such a grouch,” I thought. “He doesn’t even have any kids!” As I sat in the theatre during the intermission of a stage rendition of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, I started to make a connection about Scrooge’s grumpiness that I had never made before. Scrooge, as we know him, was indeed a “squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint . . . and solitary as an oyster.”1 But what really made him that way? Was it really just the love of money that made him a “covetous old sinner”? Is it impossible to love money and love people too? His unhappiness and hate had to be more than love of lucre; there had to be something lacking at the roots of his relationships that caused Scrooge’s failures with others.

I began to examine Scrooge a bit more. He lived alone. He worked almost alone. He had no wife, no children. So, I thought, these must be the missing links. Perhaps it isn’t just a focus on wealth that turns us into Scrooges, but a detachment and alienation from family. Everything in the play seems to point to this conclusion: Dickens’s deliberate focus on the family starts to become clearer as Dickens juxtaposes Scrooge’s solitary existence with the ideal of the Cratchitt home and Freddie’s marriage. This demonstrates that the story is just as much about family as it is about greed. In fact, the perpetuation of greed and hard-heartedness seems to be caused by the lack of familial connection in Scrooge’s life. Scrooge gradually lost all connection to family as he grew up. His mother died giving birth and his father sent Ebenezer off to school, leaving him forgotten and alone during the holidays. The one person Scrooge felt had shown him real love, his sister Fran, died in early adulthood. Scrooge *silhouette courtesy of fundraw.com

75

was left without a family support group on which to lean or learn. He wasn’t required to provide for anyone. He didn’t have to watch his words or mind his manners because no one was there to enforce it. He secluded himself more and more and gradually detached himself from family and its possibilities. But this detachment did not stop at family. As the years passed, Scrooge distanced himself from all others around him, essentially distancing himself from the greater human family. It took Scrooge three ghostly visits for him to realize all that he’d been missing. But, an even more haunting realization came to my mind—the thought that modern society, which is constantly removing, rejecting, redefining, and diluting the family—may require a wake-up call much more severe, and much more frightening, than three harmless Christmas Eve spirits.

As I examined Scrooge again, I noticed the pivotal choice that sent him to an anti-family and, as a result, anti-society existence. Scrooge could choose family by taking Belle as his wife or he could choose self by forsaking family and choosing worldly gain: “‘You fear the world too much,’ [Belle] answered gently. ‘I have seen your nobler aspirations fall off one by one, until the master-passion, Gain, engrosses you. Have I not?’

‘What then?’ [Scrooge] retorted. ‘Even if I have grown so much wiser, what then? I am not changed towards you.’

She shook her head.

‘Am I?’”2 With his question (“Am I?”), Scrooge exhibits that he is unaware of his own self-centeredness. Belle attempts to describe to Scrooge what his character has become in his selfish pursuits, but Scrooge rejects this criticism, and by doing so, rejects his would-be bride. Had Scrooge been more sensitive to Belle’s criticism, he would have seen that self-awareness comes by those who help other discover a better existence and more fulfilling relationships. But because he continued pursuing his own interests and rejected her and her criticism he lost that opportunity. Marriage partners offer their spouses the opportunity to become aware of the things they need to improve as well as things that they are doing well. A marriage relationship provides a mirror with which an individual can see who he or she is becoming—how he or she is acting, responding, speaking, listening, giving, or not giving. This happens through constant feedback from one’s spouse. Belle provides an example of this marital role: “You are changed,” she says honestly. She tells Scrooge of his “altered spirit” and his “changed nature.” Unfortunately, Scrooge turned away from this “mirror,” not believing what Belle was exposing to him, thereby forfeiting an invaluable marital companion who could have helped him succeed in his other human relationships.

76 ­ Stance: For the Family

Scrooge rejects family life as a young adult, and continues to reject it as he ages. Accompanied by the Ghost of Christmas Future, Scrooge feels the heavy effect of this rejection in the scene that follows his refusal of Belle several years later. It’s a warm, lovely scene “full of comfort.”3 There is a beautiful, young girl with her mother, a woman whom Scrooge recognizes—Belle. The young girl is her daughter. They sit near a fire, and the “mother and daughter [laugh] heartily”4 and enjoy the company of other children around them. The scene is interrupted by the arrival of the father entering the room. The children run eagerly to greet him. They “hold on tight by his cravat, hug him round the neck, pommel his back, and kick his legs in irrepressible affection.” Is this ideal enough? But what of Scrooge? He sees it all: “And now Scrooge looked on more attentively than ever, when the master of the house, having his daughter leaning fondly on him, sat down with her and her mother at his own fireside; and when he thought that such another creature, quite as graceful and as full of promise, might have called him father, and been a spring-time in the haggard winter of his life, his sight grew very dim indeed.”5 He could have created a home for wife and children, but he pushed all this away. And now he did not know the gentle touch of a wife or a child nor did he have such companionship. He knew only himself, which led him to act in appalling ways towards others. He was mean and cross and stingy. He saw no need to give to others or to help others. Had Scrooge changed his decision and chosen family, we would see a very different Scrooge. He would have married Belle. He would have had children and a home. He would have learned to have a loving family relationship with a wife and children. He would have known the hardships of mankind, and would have known the work of the home. He would have felt sympathy and compassion. He would have offered money to the gentleman collecting donations for charity at the beginning of the story. By surrounding himself with a family, Scrooge would have been able to shed his own ignorance, and come to understand his interactions with others, and their perceptions of him. Scrooge would have had the life described in Belle’s future.

But, we do not know that Scrooge. We know the Scrooge who “[sits] alone.

Quite alone in the world.”6 Fortunately, we know that not all of Scrooge’s chances are lost. Though he doesn’t have a family of his own, the three ghosts provide him with the insight necessary in helping him decide to take on the role of Tiny Tim’s father. He becomes a changed person towards society, but surely Scrooge’s route was not the easiest.

As the play came to a close, I began to see how the family plays a role in changing an individual from being self-centered and self-absorbed to an outward-looking and collaborative coexisting member of society. With Scrooge representing the self-centered and self-absorbed “individual,” we saw the Family Values in a Christmas Carol

77

h­ arrowing experience he had to undergo in order to get a second chance at living as a member of society. Wouldn’t it have been easier for Scrooge make the decision of family before it was almost too late rather than forge the perils of the ghostly lessons?

The example given by Dickens is a perfect example of what life could be like for an individual when there is a complete rejection of the family. We see in Scrooge an individual who has never been able to achieve the transition from individual to society. As an individual, you don’t need to care for, acknowledge, help, or listen to anyone else around you. You are sovereign and autonomous and your existence is completely self-contained. However, when we bring an individual into society, there is suddenly a clash of interests. An individual—a selfish being—cannot resist society where there is cooperation and mutual assistance. The transitional element of the family is necessary. Foregoing the family makes the journey from an individual to society difficult and perilous. Scrooge is stretched and tried and scolded and shocked into submission of his individuality.

Essentially, Dickens demonstrates how one can change from their harsh and stingy nature to becoming a happy and giving member of society when there is an element of home and family. He also provides an equally important warning—if you push away family, you will lose your self-awareness and your sensitivity to others, and become lost in the world of “society.”

A Christmas Carol serves as a reminder to our society and our generation that if the family is pushed aside and replaced, we will be destined to become like Scrooge. Our modern society offers countless distractions, and the media has effectively worked family out of the forefront of our hearts and minds. The family is the essential ingredient in creating contributors to society because it teaches selflessness, self-awareness, and sacrifice, skills and mindsets that can then be applied in bettering the greater human community. We must put the family first before we find ourselves awakened, not by three harmless ghosts on Christmas Eve, but by the unfortunate reality of social failure.

Endnotes 1. Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol (New York: Dover Publications, 1991), 2.

2. Ibid., 27.

3. Ibid., 29.

4. Ibid., 29–30.

5. Ibid., 30.

6. Ibid.

78 ­ Stance: For the Family

Stance: For the Family was created to encourage students from all disciplines to research and write about the institution of marriage and family. Stance emphasizes the impact that marriage and family have on society, and increase awareness of current issues affecting the family.