You’re right. You did ask a question. So switch every time I say “you” to something like “folks.” We’ve gotten to a place ideologically where we’ve in effect taken the discussion about social justice and about ameliorating suffering due to the lack of resources off of the table, and replaced it with discussions of individual initiative and family formation. The line about the nuclear family predates moynihan but attains a certain force with him. It isn’t that black families are being shredded by structural factors, it is that their very structure (as they rely upon a single mother) is uncivilized and backwards.

I don’t buy this. I believe that the central family unit is whatever individuals CHOOSE that unit to be. Now “choose” here doesn’t mean that everything is everything, and that every sister who wants a husband can just choose that to be their reality and it’ll OCCUR. But it does mean that instead of taking a single mother with two kids and saying “we need to get you a husband so those kids can get better” we need to be saying “let’s see what you need in the way of resources so you can take care of your kids better and give them a better future.” I don’t think that the answer in this circumstance is ‘a father’, but rather ’stuff.’

Clearly, a family without a father is diminished, both socially and economically, but it’s just as clear that a father who himself doesn’t have access to social and economic resources can’t materially improve the situation of his family.

I disagree. It is diminished IF EVERYTHING ELSE IS CONTROLLED FOR. And not even then. Clearly a family without resources is diminished. But families without fathers exist and actually thrive. Because to be honest, some fathers don’t need to see their children.

For example, let me pose this question to you, a question which I’ve had to grapple with myself. Let’s say a father has the opportunity to earn an enormous amount of money for himself by taking an very dangerous (and legal) job. The amount of money he could earn would probably make them financially stable for at least a decade. But he may not ever come home. Do you do it, for the sake of your family? Or do you decide that no amount of money is worth leaving your wife and kids behind?

I do it, if the job is something I am qualified to do.

Finally:

This is an issue with both personal and economic dimensions, and we have to grapple fully with both in order to come up with sound solutions.

For me this is a public policy issue. We’re talking about literally millions upon millions of families. The personal has a place, in organizing folks to understand their circumstances. But we shouldn’t be legislating what the correct family structure looks like.

but what you seem to be saying is that two parents with low resources are better than one parent with massive resources

Doc, I asked a question, I didn’t make an assertion. For the record, my take on the matter is that you’re presenting a false dichotomy. We don’t have to choose between addressing the absence of fathers or providing families with economic resources. Clearly, we have to do both at the same time. Clearly, a family without a father is diminished, both socially and economically, but it’s just as clear that a father who himself doesn’t have access to social and economic resources can’t materially improve the situation of his family. However I don’t think material prosperity is the sole criteria by which to evaluate the benefit of a father in the home. For example, let me pose this question to you, a question which I’ve had to grapple with myself. Let’s say a father has the opportunity to earn an enormous amount of money for himself by taking an very dangerous (and legal) job. The amount of money he could earn would probably make them financially stable for at least a decade. But he may not ever come home. Do you do it, for the sake of your family? Or do you decide that no amount of money is worth leaving your wife and kids behind? I think most folks in a loving family would decide that no matter how much they have to scrap and scrape, having dad around is worth more than any amount of “resources”. So, I have to disagree with your assertion that one parent with massive resources is necessarily better than two parents with low resources. This is an issue with both personal and economic dimensions, and we have to grapple fully with both in order to come up with sound solutions.

if everything else is equal…it is clear which parents have the best ability to provide for their children.

if we then change the demographics of the families. both families have the SAME level of resources, but one is one-parent (doesn’t matter what the gender is), and one is two-parent (doesn’t matter what the genders are). i think it is clear here as well.

but what you seem to be saying is that two parents with low resources are better than one parent with massive resources.

when you compare “moral” and “mental” stuff to real resources–to money, to education–you are making psychic resources the equivalent of physical resources. and because the central issue is poverty, the only reason i can provide for why you’d make this move, is ideology. the common sense narrative is that “two parent families work better.” when the answer is really “families with resources work better”. so instead of working for the proxy–getting that extra parent in–why don’t we just go for the resources?

because we aren’t socialized to look for systemic solutions to these types of problems. in most other industrialized nations, no one would try to go after ‘deadbeat dads’ at least not without first making sure the mother is taken care of. whether this means getting 6 months paid leave for childcare, or whatever is required.

Phillip Jackson

As far as the second question I’m going to throw out some issues.
1. I’ve no problem here, though I’d ask what “embracing education” means (and also why hasn’t this happened if indeed this HASN’T happened).
2. I’d rather have people exposed to a range of folks than not, but what is the empirical relationship between “positive role models” and economic advancement?
3. This isn’t short term…and given that it isn’t short term I’d focus more on the stable environment (which entails RESOURCES) than I would on fathers.
4. Agreed, unless this is a call for religion.
5. Agreed, but this isn’t short term, and requires systemic change.

Long Term

1. Agreed (strongly).

I’d toss the rest, as they work on the assumption that black people have cultural deficits that are either as significant as the resource deficits or perhaps CAUSE the resource deficits.

Check out the Fourth Season of The Wire (now on dvd) if you want to see what types of damage are being visited upon black boys and girls in k-12 education. This stuff isn’t cultural at all….

Where should I look for good stats on all these issues? In particular, what is the fraction of American-born blacks that graduate highschool, end up in prison, graduate college, etc.? My understanding is that these numbers are pretty grim, but I’m curious where I’d get accurate numbers, rather than numbers that don’t correct for stuff that’s obvious to experts but not to amateurs like me.

I guess I’m curious why you thought the prescriptions were bad. The obvious problem I saw was that they were a wishlist of things we mostly don’t know how to do. I mean, it would surely be better if most kids were born to married mothers and were raised by two parents, it would be wonderful if we could close the achievement gap, etc. But we don’t know how to do that, at least based on what we’ve managed so far.