Admit It: We're A Decadent People
If you have not yet read Ross Douthat's column about how we need more babies, you really should. In Douthatian fashion, it dealt with how policies might encourage family formation and then ended on this note:
Beneath these policy debates, though, lie cultural forces that no legislator can really hope to change. The retreat from child rearing is, at some level, a symptom of late-modern exhaustion — a decadence that first arose in the West but now haunts rich societies around the globe. It’s a spirit that privileges the present over the future, chooses stagnation over innovation, prefers what already exists over what might be. It embraces the comforts and pleasures of modernity, while shrugging off the basic sacrifices that built our civilization in the first place.
Such decadence need not be permanent, but neither can it be undone by political willpower alone. It can only be reversed by the slow accumulation of individual choices, which is how all social and cultural recoveries are ultimately made.
Now, this seemed pretty straightforward to me. But boy, did it set off some liberals. There were better responses than this absolutely unhinged one from a woman who it is reasonable to suspect is having imaginary conversations with a doctor. It's just unbridled emotional overload. Douthat responds to some of his critics and it's also well worth a read. The thing that bothered so many readers was his contention that we are decadent. Part of Douthat's response:
After all, if children are not the only good in human life, they do seem like a fairly important one, no? Maybe even, dare one say, an essential one, at least in some quantity, if the pursuit of the wider array of human goods is to continue beyond our own life cycle? Or to put it another way, if we have moral obligations to future, as-yet-unborn generations, as almost everyone seems to agree, surely those duties have to include some obligation for somebody to bring those generations into existence in the first place — to imitate the sacrifices that our parents made, and give another generation the chances that we’ve had? And if that basic obligation exists in some form, then surely there comes a point when a culture in which it’s crowded out by other goals, other pursuits and yes, other pleasures can be aptly described as … what’s the word I’m looking for … decadent?
If you are a true misanthrope, a radical environmentalist, or a partisan of voluntary human extinction, then of course you can feel free to answer “no” to these questions. But readers who consider themselves humanists should consider: Is there any population better situated to bestow fulfilling, flourishing, opportunity-rich lives on future generations than the inhabitants of rich democracies? Yes, those opportunities can be bestowed in part through generous immigration policies, but why not go for the direct path as well as the bank-shot? (Especially since historically speaking, shrinking, aging societies tend to have more trouble assimilating large immigrant inflows than countries like, well, the relatively fecund United States.) Is replacement-level fertility really so much to ask, morally speaking, of people graced with wealth and entertainments and diversions beyond the dreams of any previous generation? If conspicuous consumption is morally dubious when it substitutes for sacrifices on behalf of strangers, as most good progressives seem to think, why isn’t it morally dubious when it substitutes for the more intimate form of sacrifice that made all of our lives possible in the first place?
Likewise for readers who regard any talk about the moral weight of reproductive choices as a subtle attempt to reimpose the patriarchy: Can it really be that having achieved so much independence and autonomy and professional success, today’s Western women have no moral interest in seeing that as many women are born into the possibility of similar opportunities tomorrow? Is the feminist revolution such a fragile thing that it requires outright population decline to fulfill its goals, and is female advancement really incompatible with the goal of a modestly above-replacement birthrate? Indeed, isn’t it just possible that a modern culture that celebrated the moral component of childrearing more fully would end up serving certain feminist ends, rather than undermining them — by making public policy more friendly to work-life balance, by putting more cultural pressure on men to be involved fathers rather than slackers and deadbeat dads, and so on?
How denigrating the practice of childrearing is viewed as a feminist triumph is beyond me.
But why can't we admit that our lack of childbearing is due to luxurious self-indulgence? Seems to me that even for those who support our current self-centered way of life, this is viewed as a feature rather than a bug of our birth control culture. Why do we have to pretend otherwise?
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
I think suicidal or insane more than decadent. Consider this statement by the woman.
I guess it is not the meek who will inherit the Earth, but the ants and cockroaches.
Jul '11
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
I wonder about this but see it in a different light.
Asians tend to think in terms of clans, families, and in multiple generations. Asians (yes, I consider myself one) immigrate here and work very hard so not they, but their children could do well.
This used to be true of European immigrants as well till about two generations ago.
There is a government vs. individual angle but it's more than self indulgence (imo). All people have the need to make their community better. Lefties do this by improving Sierra Club or the Government. Right wingers (some) and earlier generations did it by improving their families, their clans.
If you divorce the family part from the communal equation, then there is no urgency to create, grow and nurture a family. Then children are merely a form of "experience tourism" through the journey of life.
Mar '12
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
Since we are inventing new forms of "family life" based on new visions of "marriage," in an era of contraception, abortion and (dare one say it) infanticide (Obama in Illinois; Singer at Harvard), it would appear that human life is itself no longer sacrosanct, let alone desirable.
The good news is that there are people who hold the older form of family life, centered on the old idea of marriage, who desire children for the good that children are. Such people exist even in the west (Europe, North America) although I doubt enough of them exist to make up for the necessary 2.11 children per married couple merely to maintain the current population.
We have six. We would have had more, certainly had no practices that would have prevented more, but they did not come. We really liked being with our children, watching them grow up, caring for them, enjoying them, encouraging them, and occasionally defending them from hostile forces.
Sep '12
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
I like that natalism is getting more play nowadays. I've commented on similar earlier posts, so I'll try not to repete myself. For so long, people have made kids out to be a chore and barely worth it. Oftentimes in a joking matter, but I think it takes its toll over the course of our youth. Our wealth should mean we can have more, not less, kids.
The good news is that, despite the rabid reaction by some, even many people on the left are receptive to more natalist policies, like the $4000 per child non-refundable tax credit I mentioned before. So this is something that I hope continues to get more play in the future. I think it's time for another baby boom with personal fulfillment as the incentive.
Apr '11
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
Man, that was an amazing article by Sarah Sentilles. I love the fragile planet bit at the end. I can't imagine being a proud parent to such self-deluded offspring.
But I feel the most telling line of the whole piece is when she talks of "discovering" her husband. As if he's a buried artifact where abouts unknown. No, many men have discovered her and her ilk already, and they have decided she is most unfit to bring home to mother. Sure, maybe for a Friday night, but not breeding material. In a few years we will see the other pen a piece that so many of her compatriots have; the "I wish I took time to have children" piece.
However until we see this, any man (as illustrated by her disdain for the doctor) best steer clear. Specifically, if she end up as a professor. This attitude most assuredly would be reflected in her grading policy. Men F Wemon A. Mothers Double F!
Feb '12
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
I recall a certain window sticker with two main situations portrayed. One in which the Mother and Father are accompanied by a large sack of cash, and the other in which the Mother and Father are accompanied by 2-3 children.
If the former isn't decadence, and the latter not a noble sacrifice, then I don't know what would pass for either.
Jun '11
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
Children of Men looks more and more like prophecy.
May '10
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
"Why do we have to pretend otherwise?"
"We" don't. Folks who are living in a fantasy land do. Sadly, that's a majority of the country, based on recent election results.
May '10
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
Another thought: the people who refrain from having kids are, in many ways, being rational. Socialist societies discourage reproduction in a variety of ways, from reducing incomes and making children harder to afford to raising the cost of children in manifold ways.
Fortunately the situation is self-resolving... Darwin will take care it.
Mar '11
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
Decadence indeed. We chose decadence over our previous moral code. The practical effects of this is that we're choosing iPads and Xboxes over marriage and babies.
May '10
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
Michael Hinton, we've already had the Baby Boom with personal fulfillment as the objective. I'm one of them. IMO, it didn't work out all that great. Selfishness as a Prime Directive seems.....lacking.
Aug '12
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
"Why do we have to pretend otherwise?"
Because to face it would harsh our mellow.
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
Target-rich as that article was, this sums up much of the progressive rhetoric nicely: extrapolate things that aren't being said, then pivot to catastrophe:
I won't, thanks. It also goes without saying that Douthat is a racist and misogynist, too.
The author, BTW, has a masters in divinity from Harvard. Her bio: "Sarah writes, teaches, and speaks about how to create a more just and life-giving world." Well, the right kind of life. Birds 'n' stuff.
Jun '11
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
I made the mildest of references to there being another side to this on another thread, and got a gentle Ricochet style smackdown for it, but I don't learn so here goes: A woman who chooses to have no children, or only one or two, because she wants the satisfaction, status, or financial security of a job should not in my opinion be vilified. It is a real problem, and it probably accounts for most of the birthrate drop. Persuading more women to choose to stay home is good, but is the Ricochet consensus really that employed mothers (or women of childbearing age) are "decadent"? Do I misunderstand something?
Edited on December 5, 2012 at 7:53pmJun '11
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
Hi Jojo, even we Ricocheteers can talk past each other.
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
I think you might be. We're talking about cultural values and incentives rather than blanket accusations. We're not vilifying anyone but, rather, discussing our values. And since the author of this post is an employed woman of childbearing age, we can probably assume that this discussion is not about smearing them.
Apr '12
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
To answer one of your questions, Mollie, "freeing" women from childbearing has long been a feminist ideal. Margaret Sanger had strong convictions about this, and on some level it's pretty easy to understand. Children are burdensome, no doubt! One obvious way to free up time and resources for women's quest for self-actualization is to sweep the kids out of the picture. And once birth control and abortion is readily available, it's nice and convenient for many people (from deadbeat don't-wannabe-fathers to employers to landlords) to see the *having* of children as a personal lifestyle choice, which is to say, not something anyone else is obliged to celebrate or support. It becomes something of a vicious cycle.
Jun '11
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
We're talking about cultural values and incentives rather than blanket accusations. We're not vilifying anyone but, rather, discussing our values. And since the author of this post is an employed woman of childbearing age, we can probably assume that this discussion is not about smearing them. · 3 minutes ago
I do know you are in that category, and despite knowing that, I still got the impression I described. All's I know is what I read.......
Jun '11
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
I will concede that the woman in the link responding to Douthat is, if not decadent, at least a flaming idiot.
Sep '12
Re: Admit It: We're A Decadent People
@Tom Lindholtz
I'm tired of people assuming when one suggests it may be more convincing if we changed the rhetoric to incorporate more of the positive "selfish" reasons for having kids, that one is declaring those reasons should be the main or only ones.
No, I'm stating that people mainly hear that kids are a pain: too expensive, too time-consuming, and too disruptive. If we stop talking about kids as being stinky life-destroyers, and back off on all the assumed devotion one must bestow in order to be a good parent, that maybe we'll push more people to take the plunge and have another child.
There's a difference between only having kids for "selfish" reasons and being constantly reminded of the many positive aspects that balance out the work.
If people have more kids because they make them happy, how is it a bad thing? Must one also subscribe to sacrificing one's life at the alter of child-rearing, or else they're not doing it for the "right" reasons?
Edited on December 5, 2012 at 9:37pm