Last week, fellow columnist Ryan Gorman wrote an article where he proposed eliminating traditional family structures in America in order to eradicate inequality. Although Gorman clearly did a great deal of research on the topic and brings up some interesting points, his argument is entirely faulty. Gorman states, “the driving force of American plight is not the free market, nor is it the clash of regional values or the structure of our quasi-federal government; it is the American family — the culture of decentralized guardianship that necessarily breeds context-based inequalities.” However, Gorman completely ignores the positive social, cultural and behavioral effects that parental nurture has on children. Moreover, if a plan like Gorman’s became law in the U.S., citizens would be discouraged from having children because they would be unable to take an active role in their upbringing.
Gorman’s plan would completely cut out the positive effects of parental nurture from an emotional standpoint. His argument focuses on the economic downsides to a traditional family structure, ignoring the positives related to personalized nurture. Researchers have found that parental nurture can be one of the most positive contributions a parent can give to their child’s development. The relationship that is forged between parent and child helps children build positive social and behavioral skills and Gorman’s idea disregards this. Gorman proposes a cold, bureaucratic system where parents are separated from their children and kids are raised in the public sphere. Not only would this plan be nearly impossible to carry out, but it also removes the positive aspects of raising a child, namely personal warmth, that contribute to growth. Poor nurturance from a young age can lead to negative behavioral issues later in life.
Additionally, Gorman ignores the cultural implications of his own plan. Each child is raised in an environment that is shaped by his or her family history and culture. Gorman views this as a manner by which inequality is created, due to historic economic advantages and disadvantages. However, this has also lead to the cultural diversity that we currently celebrate in America. Gorman uses the phrase, “contextual sameness,” to describe his plan, which suggests that a homogenous population would be preferable in all realms, not just economically. Though Gorman believes that this sameness would be a solution to economic issues, it would be a detriment to cultural diversity. Cultural stories are passed down through the family tree and without traditional family structures, this rich tradition would die out.
Gorman believes that parents would volunteer to be a part of a social experiment of this nature but it would likely be a hard sell. Additionally, if the U.S. government mandated that parents were no longer allowed to raise their own children, many adults would probably choose to not have children. Though every man and woman has their own motivations for choosing to have children, they ultimately consider that, if they decide to have kids, they will raise them. A radical shift in attitude would have to occur to convince many parents to give up their children to the state. There is a reason that our structure is referred to as “traditional family.” Bringing up your own children when you have planned to start a family is an American tradition and there would have to be a considerable amount of trust between the state and the people for citizens to even consider giving up their children. Overall, Gorman’s plan represents what, ideally, might be a utopia for some, but pointedly neglects the negative aspects of raising children communally. American traditional family structures have positive effects of both children and parents and breaking up those structures is not the way to completely eliminate inequality.
Carly Mulvihill is the Opinion senior associate for the Cavalier Daily. She may be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
