Anglican Mainstream

By Michael Nazir Ali, CEN

The inaugural speech by Dr Katherine Rake, the new Chief Executive of the Family and Parenting Institute, has been widely reported in the Press last week. It is another glaring example of how the liberal elite give in cravenly to ‘trends’ in society which they themselves have helped to create. Dr Rake’s speech rehearses the usual litany of such trends: marriage rates are at an historic low, cohabitation, as a life-style, is set to rise, the role of fathers is becoming marginal and divorce is now common.

But then the trends which have been noticed are endorsed and it is proposed to build social policy on them.

The tendency has been, first of all, to form public opinion, for example, by claiming repeatedly that all forms of ‘family’ are equally good for children. ‘Soft research’, through focus groups and surveys, then discovers, unsurprisingly, that this is what the public is beginning to believe. That is used, in turn, to bolster the validity of the claim and to use it in the delivery of policy, services and so on. Can this liberal merry-go-round ever be stopped?

Against this kind of continual social experimentation, what is real experience of people and hard research actually telling us? The Schools Marriage Project, for instance, which encourages young people to think seriously about relationships, has discovered overwhelmingly high levels of support for marriage among young people and the desire for themselves to be married some day. The question to ask here is: what are the pressures from the culture, the media and their own peer group which make it difficult for the young to attain their ideal and to remain satisfied with transient relationships and sexual relationships without commitment? It is by developing respect for the other person, never using them merely as a means of satisfying our own appetites, and emphasising the value of commitment that will lead not only to happier and more integrated young people but to a society that is more stable and more at ease with itself. We have to ask how such an understanding is being promoted in our schools?

Only 10 years ago, long-term and cross-cultural research at Cambridge University showed that parents and children are at the heart of family structure and social organisation. This is, in fact, what the term ‘nuclear’ means. It does not, or should not, mean isolated groups of parents and their children but parents and children standing at the centre of the wider kinship group and, indeed, of the wider community. It is, of course, very welcome for aunts and uncles, grandparents and others to help in the upbringing of children, but this cannot replace the role of the parents and their relationship with their children. Sad to say, in less than 10 years this thorough research was overturned in Cambridge itself with the fashionable claim being made that a father’s presence is in no way essential to the wellbeing of a child. Really? Let us look at the hard evidence.

Leading psychiatrists in the USA, such as Dr James Herzog, and a whole raft of university research, both here and in North America, reveal what we know already deep down in our hearts, that children bond with their parents in a unique way which is important for their all-round development. It has been shown that this is particularly true of the need boys have for a close relationship with their father. The CIVITAS think tank has provided a detailed study of the personal and social problems which can arise when such bonding is absent or disrupted.

None of this should detract from the heroic way in which those left to be single parents bring up their children. Nor should we ever forget the sacrificial contribution made by grandparents and other family members in bringing up children, especially at a time of family disruption through bereavement, desertion or divorce. Such sacrifice should not, however, be taken for granted in the development of family policy. Everything should be done, rather, to help fathers, in particular, to remain engaged with their children.

We should resist the temptation to refer to trends in society as if they were irreversible and we had no choice but to formulate strategies for families and children in the light of them. This smacks very much of self-fulfilling prophecy and will lead to even more irresponsibility among those parents who are only too willing to ‘palm off’ care of their children on to society or grandparents or other relatives. We should do everything to make sure that parents accept primary responsibility in the care of their children, whatever assistance they may receive from others.

Rather than simply noting and endorsing current trends, Dr Rake should have considered some of the proposals in Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice’s report Every Family Matters. These mention, for example, thorough marriage preparation. At the moment, the churches lead in this area and much can be learned from them. They also suggest ways in which family conflict can be addressed and resolved but, most importantly, they call for marriage, once again, to be recognised as unique both in terms of law and of the tax and benefits system.

For centuries this country had a public understanding of marriage based on the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer. It has been eroded over the last several years and has now all but disappeared. It needs to be reaffirmed robustly. The due rights and obligations of all should be recognised but the support of marriage through the legal and tax system is vital for social well being.

Voluntary, as well as government-funded, agencies do an immense amount of good work on the ground, and this should be better recognised and supported. It is impossible to set out concisely the vast range of frontline work done by bodies like Sure Start and the great, but painstaking, educational programme of agencies like CARE. Let us use them to strengthen marriage and families.

There is a need to lead rather than just to follow whatever is happening. Politicians should lead in this area. Iain Duncan Smith has set a good example. Will others follow? There is no need to claim special virtue in order to do this. We can all acknowledge our shortcomings and failure but we should be able to commend what is good for society as a whole. The voice of the Church, and of its leaders, has been little heard in this debate. Let us hear them, loudly and clearly, arguing for the abiding importance of marriage and family, especially as we approach the family-festival of Christmas.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.