There are certain social crises, catastrophic in nature, that have impact upon marriage and the family. Adjustment difficulties are greater during times of crisis than at other times for the reason that changes then are more sudden and more extensive; catastrophe confronts the family with problems of great magnitude which call for immediate adjustment and for which its members are frequently unprepared. To be discussed here is depression.
Depression
The business cycle, involving as it does periodic fluctuations between prosperity and depression, seems to be a characteristic of modern industrialized society. It may be that someday science will have developed far enough to permit control of these economic irregularities but it hasn't done that yet. Business depressions are always disorganizing to society, the great one starting in 1929 and extending through the early thirties having been particularly so. What are their effects upon the family?
First of all, we can note relationships between depression and certain statistical rates. (1) In times of depression the marriage rate goes down. This is particularly true of the middle and upper classes, and its reason is the expense of marriage, plus a desire to maintain previous standards of living. With the poor, however, including those on relief, depression seems to make very little difference in the rate at which they marry. As society starts its upward swing toward prosperity, the marriage rate increases rapidly as if to make up for lost time. (2) The divorce rate during depression is likewise low, and, as with the marriage rate, it picks up again when prosperity shows itself. Studies reveal, however, that more years of married life are lost through delayed marriage in a depression than are gained through delayed divorce. In both cases the phenomenon is merely, or largely, one of postponement and the reason is economic. Depression does not remove the causes of divorce, in other words, but simply delays it because of the expense involved. (3) Similar in behavior to both the marriage and divorce rates during depression is the birth rate; it is low while the depression lasts, but climbs rapidly as the cycle pulls the other way. Reasons are fewer marriages and an attempt to maintain the traditional living standard by saving the expense that additional children at that time would involve. (4) Depression also affects sex practices outside of marriage. Illegitimacy increases considerably, which suggests an increase in premarital relations as a substitute, probably, for marriage. Commercialized prostitution, on the other hand, actually declines during times of depression. It is commercialized, and, like most other businesses, must suffer when money is scarce.
While depression may have some effects that might occasionally be beneficial to a family, such as checking the trend toward extreme individualism by forcing the family to assume greater responsibility for its members, it is mostly disorganizing. Here are some of the reasons and ways: (1) It increases illicit sex behavior, as indicated above, which in turn weakens or undermines the very foundations of a happy home life both for the present and the future. (2) It requires that the family lower its sights or in other ways adjust its economic way of life. Loss of employment or decrease of income will usually mean curtailed expenditures. Plans for a new car or for a child's education may have to be abandoned. It may even be necessary to change the place of residence and to live under crowded and substandard conditions. This causes nervousness and irritability, especially when privacy is lacking, such as when two or more families move in together. (3) It leads to tensions and conflicts of one sort or another. Worry over where the next dollar is coming from, humiliation and shame at the loss of status or the necessity of accepting relief, the sense of failure and inadequacy, fear of the future, all tend to disorganize. As a result, the nerves of family members are on edge and quarreling is frequent. Discontent, rebellion, and an increase of delinquency and crime often result. (4) It disrupts the roles and blocks the goals of various family members, thus making for frustration and despair. Though the father could in no way change the situation, he may be blamed by other family members for not having work and be humiliated because of it. The son, who normally would find employment and settle down in marriage, now finds these avenues blocked and himself forced to a period of idleness.
In general, depression is hardest on the middle-class families of America. Except when the rich lose nearly everything, they are not so reduced in wealth but what they can draw upon savings and continue with a level of living not much different from before. The poor are accustomed to low standards anyway. But the middle class is laid low by depression and the emotional stresses that accompany its readjustment are not very easy to take.
Marriage relationship today, husbands and wives
There are a great many contradictions within our culture which reflect upon personality and upon family behavior. Modern life is complex, fast-moving, and transitional. There have been innovations coming in so fast and with such magnitude that certain cultural segments remain undigested and society suffers from a "stomach-ache." Values are in conflict. Not only are cultural contradictions analogous to those within the individual, Bain believes, but they are actually productive of personality difficulties. This means that psychiatry may not be able to get very far in its work with individuals until a societal mental hygiene has been developed; personality integration is to a large extent dependent upon cultural consistency.
The confusion in our culture on sex is notorious. There is scarcely any official recognition of the reproductive system by church, school, or home. Birth control is widely condemned but more widely practiced. Venereal disease is still more of a moral than medical problem. The "double standard" still flourishes. Sex-attitudes oscillate from the "romantic-holy" to the "prosaic-evil." We eulogize sex and love in the abstract, but there is a great deal of furtiveness, shame, and sense of sin connected with the facts and acts of sex.
We glorify parenthood, but provide little education for prospective parents. Declining birth rate, child care outside the home, and technological specialism have largely defunctionalized woman. Monogamous marriage is our ideal, but infidelity, marital maladjustment, and divorce abound. Marriage and divorce laws are anarchic and are frequently violated with impunity. Legal grounds for divorce are seldom the "real" reasons and the courts wink at collusion.
Our reliance upon mother love and maternal "instinct" results in personality distortions of both parents and children. If we would, we could cut maternal and infant death rates in half. We still control children by fear and force, but many parents, fearful of Freudian complexes and repressions, abjure all discipline and control. This is the age of the child, but we still have child labor, malnutrition, remediable defects, and preventable diseases. We have school health examinations but little treatment. We "love" children too much and too little; frequently the same child is a victim of this emotional polarity, indulged and frightened in almost the same breath.
These contradictions of culture cause disturbances in both the individual and the marriage relationship. Personality integration is made more difficult because of the confusion that exists within and among various groups and ideologies to which the individual is exposed. Marriage solidarity is less easily attained than in cultures that are more consistent because of the greater likelihood of role conflicts. In simpler societies, where culture is more ordered and integrated, there is greater likelihood that husband and wife would see alike and accept the marital roles that the culture prescribes for them. But in modern American society, which is highly complex and unsettled, there is a wide and changing variety of permissible roles for the mates. Some of these patterns are on the way out, others are coming in; some are held to by certain families and groups but are not universal. It should be clear, therefore, that our culture is imposing a number of conflicts upon the marriage relationship; today, husbands and wives are less likely to agree concerning family roles than was true in other times and places. Tensions and frictions over such questions as who is to be boss, are wives to work, how large is the family to be, and what philosophy of discipline is to be used, must inevitably be greater in a culture that is full of unorganized roles and values.
The confusion in our culture on sex is notorious. There is scarcely any official recognition of the reproductive system by church, school, or home. Birth control is widely condemned but more widely practiced. Venereal disease is still more of a moral than medical problem. The "double standard" still flourishes. Sex-attitudes oscillate from the "romantic-holy" to the "prosaic-evil." We eulogize sex and love in the abstract, but there is a great deal of furtiveness, shame, and sense of sin connected with the facts and acts of sex.
We glorify parenthood, but provide little education for prospective parents. Declining birth rate, child care outside the home, and technological specialism have largely defunctionalized woman. Monogamous marriage is our ideal, but infidelity, marital maladjustment, and divorce abound. Marriage and divorce laws are anarchic and are frequently violated with impunity. Legal grounds for divorce are seldom the "real" reasons and the courts wink at collusion.
Our reliance upon mother love and maternal "instinct" results in personality distortions of both parents and children. If we would, we could cut maternal and infant death rates in half. We still control children by fear and force, but many parents, fearful of Freudian complexes and repressions, abjure all discipline and control. This is the age of the child, but we still have child labor, malnutrition, remediable defects, and preventable diseases. We have school health examinations but little treatment. We "love" children too much and too little; frequently the same child is a victim of this emotional polarity, indulged and frightened in almost the same breath.
These contradictions of culture cause disturbances in both the individual and the marriage relationship. Personality integration is made more difficult because of the confusion that exists within and among various groups and ideologies to which the individual is exposed. Marriage solidarity is less easily attained than in cultures that are more consistent because of the greater likelihood of role conflicts. In simpler societies, where culture is more ordered and integrated, there is greater likelihood that husband and wife would see alike and accept the marital roles that the culture prescribes for them. But in modern American society, which is highly complex and unsettled, there is a wide and changing variety of permissible roles for the mates. Some of these patterns are on the way out, others are coming in; some are held to by certain families and groups but are not universal. It should be clear, therefore, that our culture is imposing a number of conflicts upon the marriage relationship; today, husbands and wives are less likely to agree concerning family roles than was true in other times and places. Tensions and frictions over such questions as who is to be boss, are wives to work, how large is the family to be, and what philosophy of discipline is to be used, must inevitably be greater in a culture that is full of unorganized roles and values.
The patriarchal pattern of family organization
Historically considered, the patriarchal pattern of family organization was most common, but lately this has been giving way and a newer equalitarian or democratic type is emerging. Patriarchal families are those in which the authority of the husband and father is supreme; wife and children alike obey him as their lord and master. In some societies, such as the early Roman, this power of the male family head went so far as to permit him to beat, torture, or even take the life of a wife or child. Usually, however, it did not go this far, and in many cases control was mixed with genuine affection. Yet, by the very nature of the system, it was autocratic. The newer individualism of our day is changing all this; democracy in the home is struggling to supplant autocracy, consideration is taking the place of patriarchal dictation.
Though the end in view seems highly desirable, the processes required for attaining it are somewhat disturbing. Transitions are always disorganizing, and what has happened here is that patriarchal sanctions have in some cases been released before democratic patterns and procedures within the family have been adequately established to take their place. Then, too, love is always harder to apply than force, real democracy more difficult than autocracy. But, to us, the results seem worth the effort required.
One aspect of this emerging democracy in family relationships is a new set of conflicts between male and female. The traditional roles are being disturbed: woman is becoming emancipated from the lowly status that has been hers, with few exceptions, throughout the ages; man's ego and assumed superiority are being challenged, forcing him to "move over"; the sexes are coming to be more nearly equal in opportunity. This is as it should be in a democracy; but the process is disorganizing nevertheless. For example, woman sometimes mistakes license for freedom, and identity for equality, with the result that her emancipation may mean the loss of both femininity and virtue. Furthermore, with the traditional roles upset, and without new ones of a democratic nature yet established, she and man are both left confused and are thus forced with the necessity of maneuvering with each other for personal advantage or for the establishment of new roles that can be accepted and understood. More of this in a later chapter. Here it can be observed that sex equality, while likely beneficial as an end result, is disorganizing as a process.
Another disquieting, though promising, aspect of individualism in family relationships is the independence of youth. Children in the home, school, and community are less manageable than formerly. Though disturbing to the elders, this tendency toward self-assertion, unless entirely undisciplined and irresponsible, may be the spark of initiative that is needed for the full realization of personality. Modern youth, as a rule, cannot be frightened or beaten into submission. Nor should they be. It is within the folkways of this age that young people are to be more aggressive and more inclined to resist arbitrary authority than formerly. It is only when undirected or perverted that this becomes a problem. Democracy means freedom, and freedom without confusion or license requires great effort. In the home, as in the nation, freedom ought to be capitalized upon for the benefit of progress, never suppressed for the sake of expediency in control.
Familism, then, has been yielding to individualism. It seems probable that both extremes are undesirable, that the most healthy condition for family survival and personality realization is where both family and individuality are valued, but each in balance with the other. Individualism has brought problems which challenge the family. Properly met, however, these can prove to be opportunities, extending toward increasingly higher levels of adjustment.
Though the end in view seems highly desirable, the processes required for attaining it are somewhat disturbing. Transitions are always disorganizing, and what has happened here is that patriarchal sanctions have in some cases been released before democratic patterns and procedures within the family have been adequately established to take their place. Then, too, love is always harder to apply than force, real democracy more difficult than autocracy. But, to us, the results seem worth the effort required.
One aspect of this emerging democracy in family relationships is a new set of conflicts between male and female. The traditional roles are being disturbed: woman is becoming emancipated from the lowly status that has been hers, with few exceptions, throughout the ages; man's ego and assumed superiority are being challenged, forcing him to "move over"; the sexes are coming to be more nearly equal in opportunity. This is as it should be in a democracy; but the process is disorganizing nevertheless. For example, woman sometimes mistakes license for freedom, and identity for equality, with the result that her emancipation may mean the loss of both femininity and virtue. Furthermore, with the traditional roles upset, and without new ones of a democratic nature yet established, she and man are both left confused and are thus forced with the necessity of maneuvering with each other for personal advantage or for the establishment of new roles that can be accepted and understood. More of this in a later chapter. Here it can be observed that sex equality, while likely beneficial as an end result, is disorganizing as a process.
Another disquieting, though promising, aspect of individualism in family relationships is the independence of youth. Children in the home, school, and community are less manageable than formerly. Though disturbing to the elders, this tendency toward self-assertion, unless entirely undisciplined and irresponsible, may be the spark of initiative that is needed for the full realization of personality. Modern youth, as a rule, cannot be frightened or beaten into submission. Nor should they be. It is within the folkways of this age that young people are to be more aggressive and more inclined to resist arbitrary authority than formerly. It is only when undirected or perverted that this becomes a problem. Democracy means freedom, and freedom without confusion or license requires great effort. In the home, as in the nation, freedom ought to be capitalized upon for the benefit of progress, never suppressed for the sake of expediency in control.
Familism, then, has been yielding to individualism. It seems probable that both extremes are undesirable, that the most healthy condition for family survival and personality realization is where both family and individuality are valued, but each in balance with the other. Individualism has brought problems which challenge the family. Properly met, however, these can prove to be opportunities, extending toward increasingly higher levels of adjustment.
Factors unifying the family
In the past the important factors unifying the family have been external, formal, and authoritarian, as the law, the mores, public opinion, tradition, the authority of the family head, rigid discipline, and elaborate ritual. At present, in the new emerging form of the companionship family, its unity inheres less and less in community pressures and more and more in such interpersonal relations as the mutual affection, the sympathetic understanding, and the comradeship of its members.
Though affection and companionship are highly important family functions, they are sometimes difficult to attain, and especially to retain, when other functions are lacking. It is not so easy now for the family to succeed as in a day when it had more to do and when necessity, tradition, and community pressure gave it more support. To give but one example, a wife in colonial times would ordinarily think twice before seeking a divorce, for marriage to her meant economic security. Now, however, the wife is often as well prepared for the making of a living as is her husband, and fear of financial dependency is no longer such a deterrent. Furthermore, divorce is more widely accepted today. We are not suggesting that the family be strengthened by reloading it with its earlier functions, however, or by surrounding it with restrictions. Even if desirable, such a course would be possible only if there could be a complete cultural reversal away from technology; this seems neither desirable nor practical.
Certain functions, domestic in origin, require more ample space or special facilities; these should be taken out of the house even further than they are today: childbirth and infectious illnesses, weddings and funerals, need their communal buildings.
With the return of entertainment to the house, through the phonograph, the radio and the motion picture--with the near prospect of television--the modern house has gained in recreational facilities what it lost through the disappearance of many of the earlier household industries. The radio and the telephone, moreover, have made the house no less a center of communication than was the old market-place. So if certain functions have diminished, others have gained.
It may well be that the family will gain by the interchange, after becoming adjusted to the difference. Certain it is that many of the drudgeries are being taken out of the home, thus leaving more time for companionable experiences. We can expect further developments along this line, not only in laborsaving devices within the home, but in special services from the outside--hospitals, laundries, bakeries, precooked-food dispensaries, dishwashing establishments, nursery schools, diaper services, and the like. With less drudgery involved in housework, more cultural and recreational conveniences within the home, and more time for members to be together, family life ought to find new meaning and strength. The newer emphasis is upon satisfying personal needs of family members; once burdened down with the necessity of producing goods, families can now turn attention to developing personalities. Unless, or until, the companionship element is made to fill the gap left by other departing functions, however, the family will remain weakened by the loss.
Though affection and companionship are highly important family functions, they are sometimes difficult to attain, and especially to retain, when other functions are lacking. It is not so easy now for the family to succeed as in a day when it had more to do and when necessity, tradition, and community pressure gave it more support. To give but one example, a wife in colonial times would ordinarily think twice before seeking a divorce, for marriage to her meant economic security. Now, however, the wife is often as well prepared for the making of a living as is her husband, and fear of financial dependency is no longer such a deterrent. Furthermore, divorce is more widely accepted today. We are not suggesting that the family be strengthened by reloading it with its earlier functions, however, or by surrounding it with restrictions. Even if desirable, such a course would be possible only if there could be a complete cultural reversal away from technology; this seems neither desirable nor practical.
Certain functions, domestic in origin, require more ample space or special facilities; these should be taken out of the house even further than they are today: childbirth and infectious illnesses, weddings and funerals, need their communal buildings.
With the return of entertainment to the house, through the phonograph, the radio and the motion picture--with the near prospect of television--the modern house has gained in recreational facilities what it lost through the disappearance of many of the earlier household industries. The radio and the telephone, moreover, have made the house no less a center of communication than was the old market-place. So if certain functions have diminished, others have gained.
It may well be that the family will gain by the interchange, after becoming adjusted to the difference. Certain it is that many of the drudgeries are being taken out of the home, thus leaving more time for companionable experiences. We can expect further developments along this line, not only in laborsaving devices within the home, but in special services from the outside--hospitals, laundries, bakeries, precooked-food dispensaries, dishwashing establishments, nursery schools, diaper services, and the like. With less drudgery involved in housework, more cultural and recreational conveniences within the home, and more time for members to be together, family life ought to find new meaning and strength. The newer emphasis is upon satisfying personal needs of family members; once burdened down with the necessity of producing goods, families can now turn attention to developing personalities. Unless, or until, the companionship element is made to fill the gap left by other departing functions, however, the family will remain weakened by the loss.
From Familism to Individualism
Population changes are being paralleled by functional shifts within society, which are likewise reflecting themselves upon the family. Most important of these is the rise of individualism.
Familism might be defined as the opposite of individualism; it is a form of social organization in which all primary interests and values focus about the family rather than the person. Early societies were like that, as are also some of the more agricultural ones today. Under such a system kinship bonds are strong and interpersonal loyalties among family members are great. The emphasis, in familistic societies, is always upon group solidarity, never upon individual prerogatives. Child discipline is relatively easy, therefore, and divorce between mates exceptionally rare.
Mechanization and urbanization have tended to make difficult the familistic way of life. Factory work usually takes people outside of homes. Specialization decreases the number of interests that people have in common. New vistas are opened up and many start to chafe under the old restraints. Thus it is that, with the Industrial Revolution, came a new and growing emphasis upon the rights and powers of the individual. There came to be a cult of individualism, as a matter of fact, which found its political expression in democracy, its economic expression in laissez faire, and its philosophical expression in various theories of progress. While technological specialization has practically eliminated economic self-sufficiency, and in that sense made people more dependent upon society, it has made them more individualistic so far as the family is concerned.
In familistic cultures the family is strong because it is central in society and is consequently given a large number of useful functions to perform. In individualistic cultures, on the other hand, the family is made weaker by reason of its not being accorded such a central position and of its having been robbed of many of its original functions. The modern family, by coming into competition with newer secular agencies, has had to give up many of the tasks that it formerly performed. The educational function has been taken over largely by the schools, and, while there are advantages in the greater efficiency that has resulted, it is unfortunate that in many homes there is now felt little or no responsibility for child teaching. The religious function has been almost completely given over to the churches or thrown out entirely. This is unfortunate also, for the interrelationship between religion and character is well established, and the home has proved to be one of the best places for both to be promoted. The recreational function has been usurped by commercial agencies to such an extent that it has become common thought that to have a good time one must go out of the home and spend money. A countertrend, however, is home recreation built around movie, radio, and television sets. The governmental or protective function has been passed on to the state for the most part; in fact, the state now will even protect a child against its parents when they are overly neglectful or abusive. The economic function has also been largely removed from the home. The consumption of economic goods is still there, to be sure, although not so much as formerly. Income and production, however, have been highly individualized, as is shown by the fact that each adult family member will usually have his own job and separate source of income, and also that such businesses as dry cleaning, laundering, and baking are increasing in volume much more rapidly than the population, proving that some activities are actually leaving the home. With the decreasing birth rate it becomes evident that the reproductive function of the family is at least suffering a decline and in an increasingly large number of cases it has left completely. All in all, there isn't much left to hold many modern families together.
The affectional function, that which serves the sexual and emotional needs of husband and wife, is about all there is for many present-day families to stand upon. This puts considerable strain on affection alone, and where the pressure becomes great, marriage bonds sometimes break.
Familism might be defined as the opposite of individualism; it is a form of social organization in which all primary interests and values focus about the family rather than the person. Early societies were like that, as are also some of the more agricultural ones today. Under such a system kinship bonds are strong and interpersonal loyalties among family members are great. The emphasis, in familistic societies, is always upon group solidarity, never upon individual prerogatives. Child discipline is relatively easy, therefore, and divorce between mates exceptionally rare.
Mechanization and urbanization have tended to make difficult the familistic way of life. Factory work usually takes people outside of homes. Specialization decreases the number of interests that people have in common. New vistas are opened up and many start to chafe under the old restraints. Thus it is that, with the Industrial Revolution, came a new and growing emphasis upon the rights and powers of the individual. There came to be a cult of individualism, as a matter of fact, which found its political expression in democracy, its economic expression in laissez faire, and its philosophical expression in various theories of progress. While technological specialization has practically eliminated economic self-sufficiency, and in that sense made people more dependent upon society, it has made them more individualistic so far as the family is concerned.
In familistic cultures the family is strong because it is central in society and is consequently given a large number of useful functions to perform. In individualistic cultures, on the other hand, the family is made weaker by reason of its not being accorded such a central position and of its having been robbed of many of its original functions. The modern family, by coming into competition with newer secular agencies, has had to give up many of the tasks that it formerly performed. The educational function has been taken over largely by the schools, and, while there are advantages in the greater efficiency that has resulted, it is unfortunate that in many homes there is now felt little or no responsibility for child teaching. The religious function has been almost completely given over to the churches or thrown out entirely. This is unfortunate also, for the interrelationship between religion and character is well established, and the home has proved to be one of the best places for both to be promoted. The recreational function has been usurped by commercial agencies to such an extent that it has become common thought that to have a good time one must go out of the home and spend money. A countertrend, however, is home recreation built around movie, radio, and television sets. The governmental or protective function has been passed on to the state for the most part; in fact, the state now will even protect a child against its parents when they are overly neglectful or abusive. The economic function has also been largely removed from the home. The consumption of economic goods is still there, to be sure, although not so much as formerly. Income and production, however, have been highly individualized, as is shown by the fact that each adult family member will usually have his own job and separate source of income, and also that such businesses as dry cleaning, laundering, and baking are increasing in volume much more rapidly than the population, proving that some activities are actually leaving the home. With the decreasing birth rate it becomes evident that the reproductive function of the family is at least suffering a decline and in an increasingly large number of cases it has left completely. All in all, there isn't much left to hold many modern families together.
The affectional function, that which serves the sexual and emotional needs of husband and wife, is about all there is for many present-day families to stand upon. This puts considerable strain on affection alone, and where the pressure becomes great, marriage bonds sometimes break.
Mobility of population, characteristic of an urban
The machine age has brought with it a great many social innovations. One change has had to do with the ecology of populations, their spatial distributions and movements in relation to resources and culture. Another has had to do with the natural increase of populations, the balance of births over deaths. We shall be interested to see how each of these factors has reflected itself upon the family pattern.
Urbanization has been an inevitable concomitant of the industrial revolution. Production by power machinery brought about the factory system which in turn required that large numbers of workers live close to the plants where they were employed. Not only was the city, in this way, made necessary by the machine age, but it was made possible as well; for without modern methods of transportation, communication, sanitation, and the like no large metropolitan center could long survive. So rapid has been the urbanward trend in this country that at the present time approximately three fifths of the entire population live in cities (centers of 2,500 or over). A bare century ago it was less than one fifth.
As America has moved from a predominantly agricultural to a predominantly industrialized economy, from a rural to an urban nation, it has seen its family structure grow weaker and weaker. There are reasons for this. Life in the city is complex, and its tempo rapid; apartment dwellings there are small and crowded; people's nerves are irritated by the noise, crowding, and speed around them; anonymity furnishes greater opportunity for infidelity; children often are in the way and are not wanted. City life is not as conducive to healthy marriage relationships as is the more natural and quiet life of the country, and as a result more city families are broken by divorce, desertion, and separation.
Mobility of population is another characteristic of an urban, industrial, secular society, and it, too, is having an unstabilizing influence upon the family. Where a family group transplants itself from one culture to another, whether this be from Europe to America, rural to urban, or any other change that involves a fundamental gap in types of culture or shift in types of association, there is often a period of disorganization sufficient in duration and intensity to have lasting effects. This is because of the conflict between cultures and the disequal rates with which family members assimilate or absorb the new.
Urbanization and mobility are only two aspects of population change, the recent accentuation of which has had a disorganizing effect upon marriage and family life. Another is the trend toward childlessness, which is a common accompaniment of these other two. The crowding of cities and the constant movement of peoples both add to the expense and inconvenience of rearing children. Contraception, a technological product of the industrial age, has made possible family limitation on a mass scale. The death rate has been going down, too, though recently not so rapidly as has the birth rate, with the net effect being a decline in size of family and an increase in number of childless marriages. It is important for present purposes, however, to observe that divorce and childlessness have been increasing together. Approximately two thirds of all divorces take place with childless couples, and while childlessness is in some cases a result of incompatibility, it is undoubtedly in other cases a cause. Children, when present in the family, often seem to supply a common focus of attention, interaction, and affection for parents, and in this way they help to cement the marriage relationship. It seems logical, then, that at least part of the explanation for the advancing divorce rate is to be found in the lowering birth rate.
Urbanization has been an inevitable concomitant of the industrial revolution. Production by power machinery brought about the factory system which in turn required that large numbers of workers live close to the plants where they were employed. Not only was the city, in this way, made necessary by the machine age, but it was made possible as well; for without modern methods of transportation, communication, sanitation, and the like no large metropolitan center could long survive. So rapid has been the urbanward trend in this country that at the present time approximately three fifths of the entire population live in cities (centers of 2,500 or over). A bare century ago it was less than one fifth.
As America has moved from a predominantly agricultural to a predominantly industrialized economy, from a rural to an urban nation, it has seen its family structure grow weaker and weaker. There are reasons for this. Life in the city is complex, and its tempo rapid; apartment dwellings there are small and crowded; people's nerves are irritated by the noise, crowding, and speed around them; anonymity furnishes greater opportunity for infidelity; children often are in the way and are not wanted. City life is not as conducive to healthy marriage relationships as is the more natural and quiet life of the country, and as a result more city families are broken by divorce, desertion, and separation.
Mobility of population is another characteristic of an urban, industrial, secular society, and it, too, is having an unstabilizing influence upon the family. Where a family group transplants itself from one culture to another, whether this be from Europe to America, rural to urban, or any other change that involves a fundamental gap in types of culture or shift in types of association, there is often a period of disorganization sufficient in duration and intensity to have lasting effects. This is because of the conflict between cultures and the disequal rates with which family members assimilate or absorb the new.
Urbanization and mobility are only two aspects of population change, the recent accentuation of which has had a disorganizing effect upon marriage and family life. Another is the trend toward childlessness, which is a common accompaniment of these other two. The crowding of cities and the constant movement of peoples both add to the expense and inconvenience of rearing children. Contraception, a technological product of the industrial age, has made possible family limitation on a mass scale. The death rate has been going down, too, though recently not so rapidly as has the birth rate, with the net effect being a decline in size of family and an increase in number of childless marriages. It is important for present purposes, however, to observe that divorce and childlessness have been increasing together. Approximately two thirds of all divorces take place with childless couples, and while childlessness is in some cases a result of incompatibility, it is undoubtedly in other cases a cause. Children, when present in the family, often seem to supply a common focus of attention, interaction, and affection for parents, and in this way they help to cement the marriage relationship. It seems logical, then, that at least part of the explanation for the advancing divorce rate is to be found in the lowering birth rate.
Cha-no-Yu & Zen
Of all the aspects of contemporary Japanese culture, the one which is most directly an expression of Zen ideals is cha-no-yu, or the tea ceremony, as it is known in the West. Originally practiced by monks in Zen temples, it has become for the most part a polite accomplishment for well-brought-up, traditional girls, but it still retains much of the Zen spirit, although those practicing it may be completely unaware of this debt. In fact the spirit of chano-yu, referred to as teaism by the late-nineteenth-century author Okakura in his Book of Tea, has so permeated the aesthetic culture of Japan that hardly any phase of Japanese life is unaffected by the peculiar kind of sensibility which is embodied in its tradition. Simplicity, restraint, and naturalness, combined with a love for the rustic and the homely, have become so integral a part of their heritage that the Japanese no longer think of these qualities as being especially Zen or specifically associated with the tea ceremony.Although cha-no-yu as it exists today was developed by the Japanese, the habit of drinking tea was introduced from China by Zen monks who used it during their meditation as a stimulant to help keep them awake. The ritual drinking of tea, forgotten today in China, not only persists as cha-no-yu in Japan but shows an unexpected vitality in face of the Western that has made such inroads on Japanese culture. In fact, it might be said that as a counterreaction to the Westernization of the postwar period, cha-no-yu has had a certain revival both as a protest against foreign influence and as a reaffirmation of the national heritage.
Although the earliest record of tea drinking in Japan goes back to the Nara period in the eighth century, when the Emperor Shomu invited one hundred Buddhist monks to take tea in his palace, it was not until the Kamakura period that it became at all widespread. The monks of the Five Great Temples of the Zen sect brought tea seeds back from China, and growing tea plants became popular in the Uji district not far from Kyoto, a region which to this day is famous for the quality of its tea. The Zen teacher Eisai ( 1141-1215) is said to have been responsible for making tea popular in Japan by pointing out its beneficial effects in curing a variety of diseases.
The ritual drinking of tea, introduced by the Zen priest Dai-o in 1267, did not become important in Japanese culture until the Muromachi period when, under the Zen master Ikkyu ( 1394-1481) and especially his pupil Shuko ( 1422-1502), tea drinking was developed into an elaborate cult. Shuko taught the art of tea to the Ashikaga shogun Yoshimasa ( 1435-90), who became an enthusiastic chajin, or tea man. To this day the villa (known as the Togudo) in which he celebrated cha-no-yu is preserved on the grounds of the Ginkaku-ji, or Silver Pavilion, in the northeastern outskirts of Kyoto, where Yoshimasa lived. Its tearoom (called the Dojinsai), which was the model for all later tearooms or chashitsu, was designed during the late fifteenth century by Shuko for Yoshimasa to practice cha-no-yu with his friends. So popular did the ceremony become that cha-no-yu parties were held at all hours of the day and night, and the taste of the tea devotees became so influential that the whole period might be said to reflect the spirit of cha-no-yu.
If Shuko was the founder of cha-no-yu, it was Rikyu, another Zen priest, who brought the ceremony to perfection. While the cha-no-yu parties of the Ashikaga shoguns had reflected the court life of the period, Sen-no-Rikyu ( 1521-91) emphasized simplicity and economy. A thatched hut in a garden seemed to him a more desirable setting than a palace, and ordinary utensils, often of a kind used by peasants, appealed to him more than the splendid porcelains and lacquers used by the Ashikaga rulers. To this day tea masters are influenced by Rikyu, and it is his teaching which is considered the orthodox one. The most important modern schools, such as the Omote-Senke-ryu and the Ura-Senke-ryu, were found by his great-grandsons and are based on the canons he taught. Rikyu prescribed not just the form of the ceremony itself but the kind of utensil to be used, the design of the tearoom, and the type of garden surrounding the teahouse. To say that Rikyu was the most influential Japanese tea master is to understate his importance, for his ideas left a permanent mark on Japanese culture.
Black blues singers Bessie Smith
Black blues singers emerged in the early twentieth century as popular and powerful celebrities. They were urban, secular singers who turned their rich experiences into social lessons for their audiences. They were usually bolder than white women singers. Performing before exclusively black audiences, they discussed sexual disappointments and the failures of love with great candor. Ida Cox, the "Uncrowned Queen of the Blues," and Ma Rainey, the "Mother of the Blues," established the style that would be used, with spectacular success, by Bessie Smith, the "Empress of the Blues."
Smith was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and grew up in poverty. Untrained, she just began singing and at the age of 19, joined a traveling tent show to get out of Chattanooga. 2 She wrote most of the lyrics of her songs and eventually formed her own musical troupe. In 1923 she made her first recording for Columbia Records, "Tain't Nobody's Business If I Do." The double meaning of the words and the silky voice of the singer made the record a big hit. Her second record, "Down Hearted Blues," sold 780,000 copies in less than six months. Although the song was ostensibly a lament, she asserted that she had control of her world. Another hit song was called "You Gotta Give Me Some."
The blues sung by Bessie Smith could be sad or self-mocking, selfindulgent or assertive. Smith was a large woman, five feet nine inches tall and weighing over 200 pounds, but she moved gracefully across a stage. She was known to be hard drinking, frequently unhappy over her failed love affairs, and sometimes violent. In fact, her personal life, known to her fans, was often the source for her new songs. Music historian Donald Bogle noted that Smith"hit anybody who annoyed her or messed with her man or woman." 3 In the mid-1920s, at the height of her career, she earned $2,500 a week touring the black nightclubs of the South. From 1923 to 1929, her records sold between 5 and 10 million copies. Smith's interpretation of lyrics was dramatically effective, and the sound of her voice, smooth, melodic, and strong, made her a very popular entertainer.
A Time magazine writer later described Bessie Smith's interpretation of the blues as "a womanly wail that somehow remained proud of its woe." 4 The word "blues" appeared in the title of many of her songs: "Graveyard Dream Blues," "Any Woman's Blues," "Work House Blues," "St. Louis Blues," "Empty Bed Blues," and "House Rent Blues." But as she sang of empty bed blues, she also smiled at the woman's inevitable need for the irresponsible male and mused at the pleasures of sleeping alone occasionally. In the early 1930s, the records of Smith lost their popularity and her career waned. Things began improving a few years later, only to be ended tragically when she was killed in a car accident in 1937 near Clarksdale, Mississippi.
Smith was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and grew up in poverty. Untrained, she just began singing and at the age of 19, joined a traveling tent show to get out of Chattanooga. 2 She wrote most of the lyrics of her songs and eventually formed her own musical troupe. In 1923 she made her first recording for Columbia Records, "Tain't Nobody's Business If I Do." The double meaning of the words and the silky voice of the singer made the record a big hit. Her second record, "Down Hearted Blues," sold 780,000 copies in less than six months. Although the song was ostensibly a lament, she asserted that she had control of her world. Another hit song was called "You Gotta Give Me Some."
The blues sung by Bessie Smith could be sad or self-mocking, selfindulgent or assertive. Smith was a large woman, five feet nine inches tall and weighing over 200 pounds, but she moved gracefully across a stage. She was known to be hard drinking, frequently unhappy over her failed love affairs, and sometimes violent. In fact, her personal life, known to her fans, was often the source for her new songs. Music historian Donald Bogle noted that Smith"hit anybody who annoyed her or messed with her man or woman." 3 In the mid-1920s, at the height of her career, she earned $2,500 a week touring the black nightclubs of the South. From 1923 to 1929, her records sold between 5 and 10 million copies. Smith's interpretation of lyrics was dramatically effective, and the sound of her voice, smooth, melodic, and strong, made her a very popular entertainer.
A Time magazine writer later described Bessie Smith's interpretation of the blues as "a womanly wail that somehow remained proud of its woe." 4 The word "blues" appeared in the title of many of her songs: "Graveyard Dream Blues," "Any Woman's Blues," "Work House Blues," "St. Louis Blues," "Empty Bed Blues," and "House Rent Blues." But as she sang of empty bed blues, she also smiled at the woman's inevitable need for the irresponsible male and mused at the pleasures of sleeping alone occasionally. In the early 1930s, the records of Smith lost their popularity and her career waned. Things began improving a few years later, only to be ended tragically when she was killed in a car accident in 1937 near Clarksdale, Mississippi.
Marie-Thérèse Eyquem French women’s sport
The determined and clear soul of Marie-Thérèse Eyquem was readily apparent in her broad-shouldered body, solid yet graced with fine features. As is the case with many others, one had to search beyond the overall impression with her. When she stood up, her poised figure showed muscular legs slightly apart, her head, full of confidence
and held up high. She was a creative woman in the full sense of the term. Always standing by her convictions to the end, she was at the same time tolerance personnified, and proof of this was in the vast gamut of faithful friends she had. She was always willing to take up a cause provided there was building to be done or a concerted effort was required. There were four parallel paths in Marie-Therèse Eyquem’s life. She was indeed a great lady who, in her own way, made a mark in her time, never to be forgotten. Firstly at the Ministry of Youth, and Sports where she made her whole career. She was an Inspector
General there from 1961 onwards, Loyally, openly, and never wavering in her principles, she militated in the opposition as from 1958. These activities prevented her from really taking French women’s sport into her hands. Her dream was to transform it into an autonomous institution with a new organisation and roots extending deep throughout France. Loyalty : this might have been her motto. An illustration of such constancy was her long collaboration with François Mitterand to whom she always remained close. At her death she was National Secretary of the Socialist Party. She took perhaps the greatest pride in assuming the office of Assistant Mayor in her home town of La Teste-de-Buch in the department of Gironde.
Marie-Thérèse liked to recall that her surname was the same as that of Montaigne whose descendent she was. In her scholarship, equanimity, sense of moderation and articulateness, her outlook on life reflected that of the great author’s. The third facet of this determined woman who never married : feminism. She devoted herself tirelessly to this cause throughout her life and for ten years, ending in 1972, presided over the Women’s Democratic Movement. Lastly there was Marie-Thérèse Eyquem the writer. She published many works easily identifiable by their conciseness, rapidity and simplicity of style, and expressions always hitting their mark. Her play “Jeunes filles au soleil” about the Grande Mademoiselle wilt be read and re-read. As for her monumental “Pierre de Coubertin ou l’Epopée Olympique” of which there are already many translations, it represents a universally appreciated working tool for those committed to the sports movement.
I see her now once again, with her colourful manner of speaking, the rugged body of a former gymnast, the statue-like face, prominent cheekbones, and perfect straight nose, stressing the points she would make with her pretty little hand which clutched a pipe. Her voice was unforgettable, splendid and ominous, capable both of crashing like thunder or softly rocking like a cello. Reminiscent of Joan of Arc, Marie-Thérèse’s brown hair was tinged with a grey quite becoming her face. She pierced you with her china-blue eyes. Mr. Geoffroy de Navacelle. Pierre de Coubertin’s great-nephew and one of her very good friends, saw her not long before her death. “She had grown terribly thin, but her voice, her extraordinary took and her poise were still within her.” I was worried about her. Her last letter reached me just as she was about to leave us. She tried to be reassuring : “Yes, she was recovering well from her operation. She was expecting me during my next visit to Paris.”
and held up high. She was a creative woman in the full sense of the term. Always standing by her convictions to the end, she was at the same time tolerance personnified, and proof of this was in the vast gamut of faithful friends she had. She was always willing to take up a cause provided there was building to be done or a concerted effort was required. There were four parallel paths in Marie-Therèse Eyquem’s life. She was indeed a great lady who, in her own way, made a mark in her time, never to be forgotten. Firstly at the Ministry of Youth, and Sports where she made her whole career. She was an Inspector
General there from 1961 onwards, Loyally, openly, and never wavering in her principles, she militated in the opposition as from 1958. These activities prevented her from really taking French women’s sport into her hands. Her dream was to transform it into an autonomous institution with a new organisation and roots extending deep throughout France. Loyalty : this might have been her motto. An illustration of such constancy was her long collaboration with François Mitterand to whom she always remained close. At her death she was National Secretary of the Socialist Party. She took perhaps the greatest pride in assuming the office of Assistant Mayor in her home town of La Teste-de-Buch in the department of Gironde.
Marie-Thérèse liked to recall that her surname was the same as that of Montaigne whose descendent she was. In her scholarship, equanimity, sense of moderation and articulateness, her outlook on life reflected that of the great author’s. The third facet of this determined woman who never married : feminism. She devoted herself tirelessly to this cause throughout her life and for ten years, ending in 1972, presided over the Women’s Democratic Movement. Lastly there was Marie-Thérèse Eyquem the writer. She published many works easily identifiable by their conciseness, rapidity and simplicity of style, and expressions always hitting their mark. Her play “Jeunes filles au soleil” about the Grande Mademoiselle wilt be read and re-read. As for her monumental “Pierre de Coubertin ou l’Epopée Olympique” of which there are already many translations, it represents a universally appreciated working tool for those committed to the sports movement.
I see her now once again, with her colourful manner of speaking, the rugged body of a former gymnast, the statue-like face, prominent cheekbones, and perfect straight nose, stressing the points she would make with her pretty little hand which clutched a pipe. Her voice was unforgettable, splendid and ominous, capable both of crashing like thunder or softly rocking like a cello. Reminiscent of Joan of Arc, Marie-Thérèse’s brown hair was tinged with a grey quite becoming her face. She pierced you with her china-blue eyes. Mr. Geoffroy de Navacelle. Pierre de Coubertin’s great-nephew and one of her very good friends, saw her not long before her death. “She had grown terribly thin, but her voice, her extraordinary took and her poise were still within her.” I was worried about her. Her last letter reached me just as she was about to leave us. She tried to be reassuring : “Yes, she was recovering well from her operation. She was expecting me during my next visit to Paris.”
Jennifer Lopez Personal Quotes
"I thought she'd offer me some sympathy. Instead, she said, 'Don't you ever call me crying again! You wanted to be in this business, so you better toughen up!' And I did." - to Redbook magazine August 1999, on the lesson in tough love she got from her mother.
"You laugh it off, you get upset for a little while, you're human and you let it go." - on the "outrageous" tabloid stories she hears about herself, at a press conference to discuss her movie, The Cell (2000) in August 2000
"This film certainly is not meant for the girls who sing along with my songs" (about The Cell (2000))
"I was always a singer and a dancer, and I always wanted to be an actress. For me, it's all just one thing."
"Nail Polish" (upon being asked what she got on her SAT's)
"When I'm not prepared, which is almost never." -when asked if she ever feels insecure
"I don't really check out other people's butts."
"I'm not mad about my ankles - they're too skinny."
"We've all had a love of our life and failed love affairs. I'm just the biggest romantic - it's really sad. I tell people that, but nobody listens."
"I've always had a huge fear of dying or becoming ill. The thing I'm most afraid of, though, is being alone, which I think a lot of performers fear. It's why we seek the limelight - so we're not alone, were adored. Were loved, so people want to be around us. The fear of being alone drives my life."
In every movie they want you to look as thin as you can look. In Selena, it was the other way around: "How can we shoot her butt so it looks like Selena's?"
I only do what my gut tells me to. I think it's smart to listen to other people's advice, but at the end of the day, you're the only one who can tell you what's right for you.
If you focus on the money, you're not going to get anywhere. You can want to be successful, but at the end of the day, if money is your motivation, if that's how shallow your outlook is on life, then you're going to be such an empty person. Because there's nothing driving you from the inside -- there's no passion...
My mom always told me that if you work hard, you can achieve anything. And it's true. It's one of the truest things ever.
I think crossroads come at many times during your life. Up to this point, I've had several. You get to a certain point in your life and you're like, Am I supposed to be doing this? And it's usually in the face of some failure - something that didn't work out the way you wanted it to. And you're faced with a decision: Do I keep trying to do this or do I give up?
"Beauty is only skin deep. I think what's really important is finding a balance of mind, body and spirit. Somebody said to me not too long ago, 'Until you're twenty, you have the face you are born with, and after that you have the face you deserve', and I really loved that - the idea that you wear who you are on your face."
"If you kiss on the first date and it's not right, then there will be no second date. Sometimes it's better to hold out and not kiss for a long time. I am a strong believer in kissing being very intimate, and the minute you kiss, the floodgates open for everything else."
"I was in third grade when Rapper's Delight changed my life. But when I came home, my mother would be listening to Celia Cruz, Tito Puente, Diana Ross. I want to include all those elements in my music."
"I didn't expect it to happen like this, wrapping one film and flying out to do a new one the next day. But I'm fresh enough and ambitious enough to stay up all night for the sake of a job. I'm not gonna take it easy. I want to do so much more when I'm getting these great opportunities."
"I'm trying to get the focus back on what I do as an artist, not what I do at home."
"It was all a bit mad. For a girl like me, wearing gorgeous clothes and having all this attention was amazing. It was like being a princess. But it didn't take me long to realise that that sort of fame can be scary. The more the circus builds up around you, the more you start to lose all those intentions that get you there in the first place. I was always about being a good performer and working hard, doing movies, making music, but that started to get lost in all that crazy stuff."
"I throw myself into love because I believe in it, but when things don't work you have to take responsibility. You all know things have gone wrong for me. Everybody has laughed, everybody has had a knock at me. It hurts, it always does. There have been times when I didn't want to be me any more. From the outside looking in, it may have appeared that it was a glamorous exciting life, but I would have swapped places with anybody. It really did start to get to me and the easy thing to do would be to walk away."
"I'm not J.Lo, she's not a real person. She was just a bit of fun that got really crazy. I've never been anyone but Jennifer. I was going to call the album Call Me Jennifer because that would be my way of saying goodbye to the whole J.Lo thing. But Rebirth is perfect because it means so much more."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)