Sarah, great article.
I'd also add to the above the distinction between social cultures that absolutely do not want to change away from the designated rules, and those who figure out "the heck, if something comes up we'll figure something else out.'
tsz, yes, absolutely. As a futurist, I'm really interested in exactly that question -- what makes some cultures readily amenable to change, and others so resistant that they'll die rather than consider it?
One of the givens in this discussion is that agrarian societies are generally far more change-averse than industrial ones. NCFs came about in the first place because people had to choose between relying on the old family network, or being free to go where they had to to maximize their own economic potential, in the hope of greater gains. Over time, those of us on the modernist side expanded our sense of trust beyond the clan, and to the larger society. We met strangers, saw the world, learned to rely on ourselves. All of these things made us less dependent on the clan, and more able to function well in the modern economy. They also made us much, much more comfortable with change.
Heck, if something comes up, we'll figure something else out. We've done it before. We'll manage this, too.
Traditional families don't trust anyone outside clan, church, and community. And that makes it very hard for them to process change more generally -- which is why (as I argue fairly often) they're the biggest threat to our ability to deal with big problems like global heating. The more change comes to them, the harder they dig in and resist. The clan is the only stability they have -- and the more they're forced to rely on it, the more fiercely they will defend it.
That's why it's critical that we learn to talk to these people, and get them to trust our ability to lead them through change. Muder's point is that it's not hard to win them over: they're looking for a very specific kind of leadership; and at this point, it's exactly the same thing we're looking for as well.
OTOH: If we fail to address their concerns at the root level, the resistance they could put up to our efforts to deal with our current lineup of problems could literally cost us the planet. So there's a lot at stake here.
This doesn't correlate strongly with voting behavior or patterns at all. I'm sorry but this is the sort of stuff that will just reinforce a rightwing narrative. One kind of family where the people need eachother and another kind where they don't? Suburban and upper income people vote Republican because? The South continues to vote for the same type of politician over and over again because?
This goes beyond family structure. This goes to the cultural values bound to race, religion and the distribution of power. The politically represented right(consisting of almost all Republican politicians and some Democrats) want races separate, religion mandatory, and power at the top. The politically represented left (consisting of a small number of Democrats mostly) want races somewhat together "diversity", religion to be of free choice, and power to reside still mostly at the top.
According to this model the predictable behavior of family organization will affect voting. But this is a fallacy. The voters will often choose issues that come as personal importance to them individually, not necessarily as a group. The rise of Republican dominance (now trashed to oblivion, though their issues are still on the front burner) accompanied a time of major apathy. The low-information and vanity voter ruled the day and the issues were trivial when opposed to national trade and economic policy which weren't even discussed.
This argument even contradicts itself in saying that the substance of the policy doesn't matter as much as the tribal affiliation. I could insist that wide open spaces also causes a large amount of Republican-voting though the culture of isolation, the strong amount of conformity due to the inexistence of an escape, and the low amount of book learnin'.
Tell me a better reason why people vote against their economic interest for a surveillance state and I'll listen.
Wengler, did you actually read the whole article at the link? Because you've gone off in several directions here, all based on assumptions that aren't warranted by what either Muder or I actually wrote.
Most importantly: Muder made the point, which I reiterated, that the Democrats have historically done a great job of talking to inherited commitment families. He goes on to discuss as some length how they went Republican. It wasn't inevitable, and it can be undone.
Also: you seem to be conflating this group with authoritarians (who do in fact want hierarchy). And that conflation isn't borne out by history.
Chip Berlet will tell you (at some length, sigh) that you have to be very very careful when talking about the various right-wing factions. There are many of them, and each has its own little foibles. You can't always extrapolate data from one and apply it to all of them (though, Chip says, pollsters often do and then end up running off the rails).
The thing I like about Muder's model is that the inherited obligation family stretches across a wide range of right-wing groups (and quite a few left-wing ones, too). It's one of the better universals out there; and it offers some well-considered ways to attack the problem.
Mrs. Robinson,
I went back and read Muder's article and it left several impressions. It is certainly interesting but I can't really ascertain its value as a tool to defeat rightwing theocratic politics. However, I can connect something very closely to this analysis that can connect to what I was talking about before. And that is the changing of the traditional black family.
I think we all know here that race and class are the two most important overriding issues in this country when discussing the core of how this society is organized and how power is distributed. What has always struck me is the amount of fear that rightwing fundamentalist revolutionaries pump into their rhetoric. Everything is a war, a fight, a triumphant struggle with the outside forces of evil and Satan with his many ways to tempt us into sin. But they still need concrete examples of said destruction. And more often than not of course urban black people get to be cast in the starring role.
This is a part of new southern fundamentalism that I have first hand knowledge about. Though I still don't subscribe wholly to Muder's dichotomy or more likely its utility in framing political debate, I believe that rightwingers use the stereotype of the urban black family of a single mother with 4 or 5 children with different fathers as the big billboard for what leftist or liberal positions in this country will lead everyone too. Remember, for most homogenous white communities their only reference to black people is what they see on TV. This example is very powerful to them of a community that embraces liberal standards and is destroyed by it(conveniently forgetting about other aspects of history and society).
As far as rightwing groups and their various proclivities, the ones that I really look out for are the unrestricted dominionists. The religious right is a great racket for businessmen to exploit and enrich themselves on, but the true dominionist who is interested only in power and uses money as a way to get is what I watch out for. Unfortunately Erik Prince, the head of the largest mercenary army in the world is one such person I would classify in this way.
Sara, your thread, links, and source articles are a wonderous follow up to Jesse's.
This is where it's at, folks. This is our lives, our pasts, our presents, our future's.
This is where it's at.
'Kin Brilliant, and greatly appreciated by This Larue.
GNB done took me to a new level with this all. Thanks.
Well done.
Doug does give off those considered quasi-ministerial vibes, but he's in fact in the laity. The UUs have a tradition of lay-led services (especially in fellowships, and also in many congregations during the ministers' summer break).
- friend of Doug since, oh, 1989. Not that I'm counting.
Hmm. Wonder where I got the idea he was a minister?
I know about the lay-led services, having done eight or ten of them myself over the past three years. (My sermons are (one by one) going up at Street Prophets as I find them...)
Welcome back Sara -- How did finals go?
It's interesting to hear your take on this article, with your background. I read it when it was published in the World.
I don't know enough people who are in Inherited Obligation Families to know if this rings true -- my family was certainly more of a negotiated commitment family. Most of the people we hung out with when I was a kid were non-relatives we called "aunt" and "uncle" and "cousins". Except for my favorite aunt -- but even she doesn't count in this really because she and my mother were close friends long before mother met her friend's brother and married him....
But I wonder if any of this is genetic, since my sister tends to the inherited obligation type? She was adopted.
I usually have a pretty good idea of how I did, but this semester I really have no clue. Am guessing A- in Futures Research and who the hell knows in Social Change. New teacher -- no real clue about how hard she grades.
I'll know Tuesday.
Altemeyer says you can tell the high-RWA kids in the sandbox -- they're wired that way. I don't know how much correlation there is between high-RWA and IOFs, but it seems plausible that some people have a stronger response to environmental sources of fear than others, and hanging tight with your posse would be one way of coping with that.
My family's a weird hybrid. It's a blended family, and seems to break right along the blend line. My dad's family is very deeply IOF. My mom's is in the middle -- strong commitments to blood, but also to those who get adopted in. (You can join their clan, but you can never leave it.) My steps are much more NCFs, and hang considerably more loosely. As big as the extended family is, that's probably necessary for sanity.
Personally, I'm pretty strongly IOF for a liberal, especially where the parents are concerned. (My sibs can mostly take care of themselves, though I've got a niece I keep a close eye out for.) Mr. R and I both have a peculiar sense of family duty -- when the shit hits the fan, we're the ones everybody calls.
Not always fun, as Muder says, and often thankless. But we wouldn't have it any other way.
Takes me a bit to wrap my mind around this.
The family I grew up in was neither an IOF nor an NCF. It was a TMDF - Transmissible Mental Disease Family. If you've been in one of these, you know what that's like. It took me half a century to finally get shut of it. So my lack of later direct experience with either IOFs or NCFs is a pretty easy corollary.
Okay, I'm an idiot.
Great post, Sara. And great comments. And until the right neurons fired 45 seconds ago, I didn't realize that you wrote both. Worse still, I've enjoyed your stuff form months, and didn't figure it out.
A side question, have you looked at the role of terror in this IOF stuff? John Judis did fascinating piece for The New Republic, Death Grip, that takes a swipe at how people construct their identities in view of fear of mortality. It seems to me this meshes well with your post, and Lackoff's idea.
Mrs Robinson,
I believe that in structural anthropology societies that resist change are called synchronic, those that are open to it are called diachronic. I think there is scholarship on the subject.
Sarah,
Very good work. I think that after you add a little Calvinism or Puritanism into the IOF side of the equation, we begin to see that the degree of intransigence is deeper than anticipated - especially since Calvinism is a religious system custom made for the emergence of capitalism, with some even insisting it enabled the emergence of capitalism because it was the first Christian denomination to "legalize" usury.
Adult relationships are negotiated to be mutually acceptable. Although traditional forms of relationship have stood the test of time and contain much folk wisdom, people are not free to amend them as needed.
I'm probably going to get reprimanded for posting this in the comments, but as long as we're having this discussion, I just thought I'd put up a link to this little parody of Christmas in the red states:
http://www.toonedin.com/movies/
W...eTrashXmas.html
{/obligatorily slaps self on wrist for being snotty blue-state cultural elitist}
humm, odd my family and my wifes family both tends towards the IOF side of things (family looks out for family, and in the end we are all we have vs the world type of view point) but both familes are extreemly liberal (only one conservitive inlaw with 6 sibilings on her side. my whole family is liberal progressives.)
I don't think IOF, NCF decides your leanings, and both types of families will show up on both sides of the isle.
apfiany time, i done figured it out.
every day at lunch I paly verious board or card games (anyhtign that fits into an hour) with a large group (mostly guys, we try to brign in mroe women but not many seem interested).
you have two basic groups of players. those that will help others out and work together at winning the game. and those that will paly for themsleves adn win on there own (even in a team type of game).
teh second group rearly wins (on occasion when they get sick of group 1 winning they will act as a mob but even that dosn't allways work). so the indviduals in group two tend to accapt early on that they wont win and start playing to make sure that they are not the first loser. even if their actions are not in their best interest, or do anythign to move the game forward. It quickly dosn't matter to them. they dont' care if they win as long as you lose before them.
that is what we are dealign with. that is who the fundimentlaists are . these are foljks that strongly beleive in predestination, they feel that your place on earth is a reflection of your palce in heaven. they where not born to greatness so they have excpted that they will never rise above their station in life (that predestination thing again) instead of even tryuing to better them selves they will work to make sure you fail first.
Think about that, and relise what implacations that has towards our current globla crises. sure we may distroy humanity due to global warming but the fundimentlaists will fight any action we take to stop it as they wnat to make sure we fail. same with civli rights (sure im a dirt farmer but at least im not gay/black/jewish).
they will act agensit their best interestbecause they see you in a position to "win" (win what im not sure) they will haply lose as long as you lose first.
What a great analysis. It brings up two thoughts for me.
First, check out what Darcy Burner has to say in the earlier post:
There are five basic principles that form the basis for every political decision I'll make:
1. Government should treat everyone fairly.
2. Hard work should be rewarded.
3. Government should stay out of people's private lives.
4. We should keep our promises.
5. We should take care of our children, and leave them a better world than the one we found.
In my opinion, she has nailed it, she is doing a bang-up job of expressing NCF values in an IOF language.
Also, something that might not be obvious to people who don't come from an IOF background is exactly how unconditional that world is. This is deeply comforting to the people who live in it. If you are a member of an IOF family, all the support, loyalty and yes, even love that flows your way comes not because of anything you do or don't do, but simply because of who you are.
And the reverse of this is, when people from an IOF background contemplate life in a NCF world, it looks like a barren desert to them. They are thinking, "what if I had to earn the love of my spouse/children/parents? What if it was not automatic? Could I even do it? What if I couldn't do it? I would be all alone. Better to stay here, where maybe they only love me because they have to, but at least they do."
only one principle needs to be remembered. the goverment servers teh popuklace nto teh otehr way around. the president is not our boss, he is not elevated above teh common man. he is the servant of teh common man.
Good to have you back!
Reading this reminded me immediately of the amazing Frontline series that aired last year, Country Boys.
It followed two teens from an alternative high school deep in Appalachia. It showed how extended family could be saviors for a child when the parents failed miserably. But it also rawly depicted how the demand that "family comes first," can trap generations into ignorance and poverty. One of the boys can't take advantage of opportunities because his mother needs his disability check to provide for his younger siblings. He loses out on schoolwork and misses graduating with his class because he is needed to move his mother into a new house.
The Network of Obligation as a social model may indeed be rich and rewarding for many, but it can also doom its members. It's like homeschooling - it might be the best possible education for a child or it can certainly be the worst. I often wonder what will happen when the homeschool generation grows up and is able to tell their stories. (Personal interest here - one of the homeschooling pioneers from the 70s is a man whose marriage proposal my mother turned down.)
You can watch the whole thing online, and I strongly recommend it for the insight into the intersection of poverty, religion and dysfunctional families.
Link to Country Boys PBS website
Altemeyer says you can tell the high-RWA kids in the sandbox -- they're wired that way. I don't know how much correlation there is between high-RWA and IOFs, but it seems plausible that some people have a stronger response to environmental sources of fear than others, and hanging tight with your posse would be one way of coping with that.
when people escape from right-wing fundamentalism, do they also escape from being RWA? do the outgrow it? or just transfer loyalties?
Commenting by HaloScan
