In
order for us to preserve an institution vital to
our civilization, it is essential that we
recognize the immense benefits of traditional,
monogamous, intact families, formed by marriage
between one man and one woman.
When compared to
alternative arrangements such as single-parent
households, impermanent relationships, and
government welfare, the traditional family
offers a series of definite economic advantages
that enable its members to lead the most
productive, prosperous, and fulfilling lives.
The
advantages of the traditional family do not necessarily stem from
any kind of biological links among the family’s
members - though such links often exist and the
family makes it easier for them to be
established. Rather, these advantages can be
found in any relationship where a man and a
woman decide to stay together
permanently
and
are fundamentally civil and decent to
each other. These advantages also reflect on the
upbringing of any children in the family –
irrespective of whether they are biologically
related to the parents or adopted.
This
is far from an exhaustive list of the benefits
that a family provides – but it does discuss
some of the frequently overlooked ways in which
the traditional family enables human
flourishing.
1. Division of Labor.
If the family is sufficiently strong and the
chances are high that the underlying marriage
will last in perpetuity, it becomes possible for
both the husband and the wife to reap the
advantages of specialization in the activities
at which they are best.
With specialization,
each partner is able to devote a greater portion
of his or her time and effort to the activities
in which he or she has an advantage over the
other, and their total productivity is greater
than would occur if both partners engaged in an
equal share of each activity.
The form which
this specialization assumes need not be the same
across all families; each family ought to have
the liberty and privacy to decide on which
members will perform which tasks. But the very
possibility
of such specialization can only exist
in a long-term monogamous relationship, where
each partner can rely on the arrangement’s
long-term continuation.
After all, if there is a
chance that the relationship will soon end, then
it is not advantageous for each party to
specialize in any set of activities. Rather, it
will be in the interest of each partner to try
to do
everything, because he or she will
have
to do everything if the relationship is
dissolved. Thus, even the
possibility
of easy divorce and easy breakup of
the family diminishes the tremendous gains that
could be achieved from division of labor and
specialization.
A single parent
raising children may be well-intentioned and
earnestly seek the child’s benefit. But having
to perform
all the tasks required to properly
maintain a household and bring up good human
beings is a colossal effort – too much to ask of
any one person. Thus, the single parent, despite
his or her best efforts, is likely to fall short
in some dimensions of his or her tasks. He or
she might try to compensate for this by sending
the children to day care or hiring babysitters –
yet both of these are far inferior substitutes
to the affection and devotion that only a
long-term parent can provide.
If
government
provides money or services to a
single parent on welfare, this presents a great
disincentive for the parent to improve his or
her own ability to take care of the household
and children. After all, if the parent will
receive handouts
irrespective of
what he or she does, the importance
of the parent’s active role in the upbringing
process diminishes. Indeed, the parent becomes a
virtual child of the state, and the state comes
to act as the de facto parent over both the
adult and the children of the family.
The male-female
partnership in a family is essential for taking
optimal advantage of specialization. Certain
personality traits and aptitudes are more
often found in one gender than in another – and
these may form the basis for a division of
labor. A growing child needs to benefit from
both maternal and paternal affection;
furthermore, a child of either gender needs to
learn early on how to approach members of both
genders with respect and understanding.
Perhaps
without even intending to, a mother specializes
in helping her children understand and
appreciate women, whereas a father performs a
similar service regarding men. Although it is
not inevitable, it is all too easy for children
who did not have the benefits of being brought
up by both a mother and a father to form
mistaken notions about one of the genders and
thus to mistreat its members later in life.
2. Material Security for Children.
The traditional family enables
children to grow up in an environment of greater
material security and comfort than any other
arrangement. Each child benefits from either the
income of two parents or – if one parent stays
at home – from the income of one parent and the
extensive work of the other in maintaining a
household. A child who is raised by only one
parent benefits from less than half of the
material resources, in terms of income and
labor, that a traditional family provides –
less
than half, since the advantages of the division
of labor are foregone.
Children have the
greatest need of material security while they
are still growing and developing their talents –
and nothing facilitates this as well as
two
adults working within or outside the home to
ensure that their children do not endure the
lack of the most fundamental necessities. The
permanent family makes it possible for children
to make a smooth transition between dependency
and autonomous living – since two parents can
more readily support a child up until the point
he or she starts earning a sufficient
independent income. Thus, children raised in a
traditional family will less often need to go
into debt early in life and will have the
benefit of experiencing a similar standard of
living in their twenties as they had in their
early years.
3. Security for
Old Age and Infirmity.
Government
welfare and pension programs function miserably
when compared to families in terms of providing
care for individuals who become weakened or
incapacitated due to old age and illness.
Indeed, these governmental programs have
unfortunately somewhat supplanted the family’s
crucial role in this respect – leading to
greater suffering for the old and the sick.
Unlike even
well-meaning government bureaucrats, members of
a family know their own relatives extremely well
and are aware of the best way to accommodate
their needs. Instead of getting
one-size-fits-all treatment from the government,
a retired, ill, or disabled individual can
receive highly personalized care from family
members. Instead of government bureaucrats
deciding how much taxpayer money to give for
each person’s medical care, family members – who
virtually always have more information on hand
about the specific case in question – can decide
how to spend their own money to achieve the most
beneficial results.
Furthermore, a
specialized focus in this area leads to a higher
quality of care for everyone. Each family will
specialize in caring for the dependents in it,
instead of everybody trying in vain to take care
of everybody else’s dependents via the
government. It is impossible for any human being
to grasp the unique needs and preferences of
millions of people – but it is quite possible
for a few people to take good care of one or two
others.
Those who oppose
the primacy of the traditional family often
attempt to characterize this institution as
simply a matter of subjective preference. They
do not consider the tremendous material benefits
offered by the traditional family to functional
adults as well as to the young, the aged, and
the sick. The debate over the merits of the
family is not just a question of morality; it
has prosperity and productivity on one side and
unnecessary human suffering on the other.
Why
Families Make Sense