Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
1. Marriage and the arrival of children
You fall in love. You fall in love with this one particular person. You desire
to be with them, and if you are lucky, they desire to be with you. The
desire that brought you together can also keep you together. The desire
of men for women and women for men can turn into an unlimited, life-
long mutual-giving. If men and women desire and love each other enough
to marry, it is because they understand their marriage as a both a one-
time and an ongoing gift. Having given yourself to this one person, there
is then nothing else that you can give in the same way to anyone else. It
is the possibility of giving our lives to something specific, and thus the
dignity of taking the risk that we might be throwing them away, that
makes it possible for us this marriage to hold. Each covenant of mutual
service and subordination is a permanent gift of two persons, one to
another. Because it contains this element of venture this covenanted form
of love secures that this relationship is based in freedom.
Marriage is public. It exists for the sake of those outside it as well as for
those within it. These two persons do not marry themselves, but are
married by those who act for the entire society when, following the forms
given in law, they pronounce these two persons married. This marriage is
brought into existence by the public event, constituted by the
confirmation given by the witness of that public. The witnessing public
stands surety for this marriage. It is to see that if one party defaults on
the contract, he or she bears the consequences of its breach, as they do
for any other breach of contract. Having married them, according to the
contract enacted in these forms, neither this society nor its
representatives can change this contract. It has merely been witness to
2
and as far as possible guarantor of the contract of these persons each to
the other.
The society that concedes that humans may be covenanted beings will
understand that marriage is distinct from every other form of relationship.
Marriage serves the bearing of children. In order that there be children,
and that those children become adults, a society must value the
institutions that secures the conditions which encourage children and
which enable children to become mature persons. For the sake of the
children who will allowed to develop into persons through it, and therefore
for the sake of the production of new generations and thus for its own
continuation generation by generation through time, society must honour
marriage. The society that does not like the idea of specific permanent
interpersonal relationships minimises the distinction between those who
are dedicated to the creation of the next generation, and those who are
not. The family is the ‘best means we have yet discovered for nurturing
future generations’.1 Marriage is the best means of securing for the long-
term the love that, by sustaining the family, serves children, the view
given its first extended articulation by St Augustine.2 A marriage is not
simply the expression of the love of these two people. Marriage is distinct
from love. It is not dependent on the feelings of these two for one another
at any one time but is the vehicle that enables them to survive the
vagaries of love, to control and master their feelings and through doing
so, to grow.
1
Jonathan Sachs Faith in the Future: The ecology of hope and the restoration of
family and faith (1997) p.23
2
Charles Reid ‘The Augustinian Goods of Marriage’
3
To escape the compelling immediacy of the present, it is necessary to
lock in the future, by means of ‘commitment technologies’. These are
costly. As an array of internal disciplines they take time to build up by
means of education and experience. 3
3
Avner Offer The Challenge of Affluence (Oxford University Press) p. 73-4
4
Janet E. Smith
5
Jennifer Roback Morse Love and Economics
4
‘It is not only possible but highly plausible that many Western European
Christians did not just stop having children and families because they
became secular. At least some of the time, the record suggests, they
also became secular because they stopped having children and families.’
6
Young couples decide to start a family. They will provide for that family
together, and grow in emotional maturity as they do so. That emotional
security secures the family and is passed on to their children who will later
display the same emotional maturity that will sustain their own
relationships. The ability to sustain relationships has to be learned, and
the family is the place in which that learning takes place.
Where there is enough incentive to stick with our partners and children,
because we realise the economic and emotional consequences of not
doing so, we grow as persons and come through our difficulties. Marriage
generates high morale and when morale is high more marriages take
place. Marriages create social capital, and economies depend on it.
6
Mary Eberstadt ‘How the West Really Lost God: A New Look at Secularization’,
Policy Review 143, June/July 2007
7
Alice Rossi & Peter Rossi Of Human Bonding: Parent-Child Relations across the
Life Course (New York: Aldine Transaction, 1990) p. 491
8
Viviana Zelizer The Purchase of Intimacy p. 298
5
‘Because the family is the primary producer of our workforce and of
our citizenry, stress on the family constitutes what is arguably the
single greatest imminent threat to the American standard of living.’9
9
Shirley Burggraf The Feminine Economy and Economic man (Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley 1997) p. xi
10
Viviana Zelizer The Purchase of Intimacy p. 286
11
John D. Mueller Redeeming Economics
6
share of the food and of the attention and opportunity to report back on
the days’ events. The family has to hear and respond to each member,
and the youngest members can re-enact some part of the day’s activities
in play.
The home is our first place of work. The first work is to bring up a family,
for bringing up children is work, though it is accompanied by its own
reward. Work may start in the kitchen, with cooking, clearing and
cleaning. It may continue in the allotment or garden, with looking after
the pets or animals, at the workbench in the garage, or in whatever place
can be found to make experiment with hammer and nails, making models,
mending the bike or tinkering with the car. With the family children can
explore and learn the value of their own town, countryside, and wider
geography. They can take the place in which they grow up as a good place
which they can own for themselves and so that they will be well defended
against the suggestion in their teenage years that the good life can only
be found elsewhere.
Work develops persons. Within the household we can learn how to work
and how best to employ ourselves. The economy is about the growth of
man and so about self-realisation at work. Work is not merely a means to
an entirely unrelated goal. There is a dignity and even a joy in it. It is part
of the integrity of the person and of the family; it can be satisfying in
itself. Work brings motivation and purpose, and so relates to the concepts
of love and gift. We can reckon what we do, our skills, as distinctive to
ourselves, our ends and persons.
7
market, and even in those who are not yet born. Our family teaches us
why we should keep our promises.
The present state of the economy depends on the future state of the
economy. All present economic figures tell us about the past, but their
significance for the future, for the economy is always anticipating what is
coming up. We identify trends in order to draw conclusions from them
about the future. Economic data tells us what has happened to indicate
the range of possible paths, weighted for probability, in order suggest an
answer to the implicit question of how to prepare for what is going to
happen in the future.
We need young workers to enter the economy and start paying their taxes
and pension contributions in order that we can take something out of that
economy in the form of pensions. But for the last half-century our
‘economic’ rationality and corresponding social policy have been
undermining the production of children. We are unwilling to do the work
we consider menial and amongst the most menial is the work of bearing
and bringing up children. One result is that the population of young people
who are to be our future economic agents is falling.
12
Avner Offer The Challenge of Affluence (Oxford University Press) p.84
13
Allan Carlson ‘Love is not enough: towards the recovery of a family economics’,
in Fractured Generations: Crafting a Family Policy for Twenty-First Century
America (Transaction Publications 2005)
8
on 2012. All economic calculation is about estimating the future in order
to decide where to put our economic effort now.
After looking at Asian peasant life, John Caldwell concluded that ‘the main
purpose of the family was to work hard on the farm, to maximise the
amount of food that could be produced, and, if possible, to acquire more
land.’15
Robert Netting believes that the family still does this intense economic
and relational work, and that we should consider it an efficient economic
unit. It is not at all obvious that we have superseded the family house
that was in earlier centuries, or still is in ‘under-developed’ parts of the
world our primary economic unit. Netting believes that the subsistence-
model of the family may turn out to be more resilient than any other
economic form to future economic disruption. He suggest that there is
nothing inevitable about the removal of agricultural production from small
households, and that industrial-scale agriculture may not be more
efficient, but rather ‘be a prescription for extensive, declining production,
higher energy costs, more risk and volatility and environmental
degradation.’
The family is not only ‘relationally’ and socially efficient, but economically
and environmentally too.
14
Gary S. Becker A Treatise on the Family p. 303.
15
John C. Caldwell and Bruce Caldwell Demographic Transition Theory (Springer
2006) p. 4
16
Robert M. Netting ‘Smallholders, Households, freeholders: Why the Family
Farm works well worldwide’ in Richard R. Wilk The Household Economy (Boulder
Westview 1989) p.228.
9
Yet for a couple of centuries the market has been seeping into the
domestic household. Its functions have dwindled to a fraction of what they
were, so a married household is now seldom an explicitly economic unity.
The home became the place where less and less happened, as it functions
and the education and even finally the nurture of children was delegated
and farmed out.17
Marriages fail to take place, while those who marry late have fewer
children. Those with fewer children discover that it is not easy to stick
with this decision to give themselves to this one man or woman, year
after year. Children represent reasons to stay in a marriage and more
children represent more reasons.21 The family gives you motives to leave
the household every morning and to meet other persons in the
marketplace in order to gather the material and social resources that your
family needs, and reasons to come home again. The family gives you
reasons to discover that maturity which enables extended self-giving
without recognition. Those who never start a family have no occasion to
leave adolescence behind. As the proportion of marriages drops, a whole
society becomes a set of de-motivated individuals.
17
Allan Carlson
18
Wendell Berry ‘Sex, the Economy, Freedom & Community’
19
Allan Carlson ‘Love is not enough: towards the recovery of a family economics
(Witherspoon lecture – www.frc.org)
20
Leon R. Kass, "The End of Courtship," in The Public Interest, 126:39-63, Winter,
1997
21
Janet E. Smith
10
We are offered a more urgent love and more instant gratification than the
other members of our family or neighbourhood can provide. The members
of our family compete with the entertainment industries for our love.
Under affluence, novelty tends to produce a bias short-term rewards,
towards individualism, hedonism, narcissism and disorientation. 22
The moment we believe that we are not loved or not satisfied by those
who love us, we become consumers and the things that we are prepared
to work for, the house and car, become substitute children, parents,
partners and friends.
A new legal regime allows spouses to dismiss one another from their
responsibilities. The no-fault divorce and prenuptial agreement reduce the
degree to which a marriage is worth having, and the commitment of that
couple to making their marriage work. When a marriage breaks up the
personal is replaced by the impersonal and institutional, for another
partner steps in to provide the missing long-term relationship.
11
and hands-on contribution is not required. Married couples seem no longer
confident enough in their own love to let their covenant hold them
together, take them to work for each other or to receive with contentment
whatever the other brings.
Our taxation policy assumes that living alone is the norm, and living with
your spouse and children the exception. So we have promoted singleness
over life together in the covenant which we can enter freely, and so we
have become dependents and employees of that other covenant that we
have not entered freely, the state. When marriage is no longer regarded
as social capital its connection to the economy is lost.
Individuals or persons?
When society does not understand the concept of covenant, or more
generally that some things are good even though we have been given
them rather than willed them for ourselves, that society will assume that
humans are individuals rather than persons, solely single and only
occasionally and voluntarily dual and plural beings. The government of the
society without covenant will insist that we are primarily individuals, and
that its duty is to rescue us from the inevitable fallout of the covenants we
occasionally attempt for ourselves. Such governments assume that living
alone is the norm, and living with your spouse and children the exception:
their policies will moreover make this normative. But the state that tries
to take over the functions of the family takes on an impossible burden. It
will not be able to prevent itself from constructing a welfare state that
attempts that not only to compensate for the failure of family but which
ensures that families will fail.
12
‘patriarchal’ domination can only another form of domination, only
nominally gentler because identifiable with a set of ‘non-male’
characteristics; the pursuit of a less masculine and hierarchical culture
remains a game of power.
Then the state will by legislation mediate between men and women,
attempting to hold them apart. This is the result of defining them as
fundamental sole and individual, rather than covenantal beings. Then
every gain by one side is a loss for the other, and every gain must be
wrested from the other side. When conflict between the sexes is inherent
with our account of humanity, we create a role for the state to restrain
this conflict. But an account of men and women in which nature creates
an antagonism is deeply troubling.
Love, giving and charity are essential to the Christian conception of the
economy. God has given us all things; we may therefore live to give. The
primary act of giving yourself is the foundation of all subsequent
‘economic’ activity. The household is the first economy, and the source of
all public service that makes up civil society, which makes a national
culture that is conducive to living well and which commands our loyalty.
The household is the source of all the enterprises that make up the
market, from which we may receive some of the material by which we
may live well. The Church suggests that since the market cannot provide
the entirety of our needs, it should not attempt to provide what
households may provide for themselves and it should not become the
dominant form of the public square. We are called to provide for one
another, for what we provide is relationships offered in love and service.
We do so from our own resources, that which we call our ‘property’. I hold
property in order that I have something to give, and so something to
bring to the common good. ‘All goods are intended for the common good;
the common good is not cared for adequately without particular agents to
assume their own particular responsibilities.’24 The dimensions of this
giving can never be immediately or entirely explicit.
23
Jean Bethke Elshtain Public Man, Private Woman p. 349
24
Oliver O'Donovan Ways Of Judgment p. 278.
13
The modern economy intends to make each act and service entirely
explicit. In the modern economy we refer to work that is paid as
‘employment’; our work is instantly acknowledged and rewarded by that
currency of recognition that we know as money. But not all labour can
receive wages or any other form of public acknowledgement: not all
human effort can be denominated by money or drawn into the formal and
monetised economy. Not everything can be denominated or receive
instantaneous acknowledgement; not everything can be paid, for not
everything is recognisable for what it is now. Christians suggest that work
may be valuable regardless of whether it receives explicit, and thus
financial, reward. There is only freedom of action, initiative and risk-taking
and room for interpretation because some part of our effort does not
receive recognition and reward.
Two apparently opposite movements have reduced the realm for the work
explicitly motivated by love. The monetised economy has inveigled its way
into the household and family; the realm of calculation and instant return
has squeezed the little economy of love and self-gift. The other movement
is that the realm of the household, the inner realm, has become the
discourse that dominates the public sphere. But the internal realm has
shrunk from the realm of the family to the preferences of the individual,
so becoming the discourse of individual preferences, with a consequent
relativism, so that we have no means of holding one another to account.
The modern economy tells us that we go to work because we have to. The
brutal givenness of the world necessitates work. But Christians suggest
that we also go to work because are willing to. We work in freedom, as
well as by necessity, and Christians propose, necessity is not more
fundamental than freedom. We may truthfully describe the human
economy in terms of freedom, of self-giving and love, and that this
description is as valid as that other description, offered by modern
economics, that refers to the compulsion of nature.
Charity
14
We can begin our consideration of charity by contrasting two definitions of
poverty. Poverty means first a lack of material resources, and then all
sorts of other resources and the opportunities that come with them.
Christians also understand poverty in this way as material poverty, and
add that material poverty prevents you from acting for yourself and for
others. But the Christians also operate another understanding of poverty,
which we could call ‘poverty of spirit’ which describes the life lived without
the experience of having been forgiven that allows us to forgive. This
twofold understanding of poverty leads Christians to understand that all
humans are poor, but it is merely that some are so in a material and
therefore more obvious sense, others in a hidden (because concealed and
denied) sense. It says that the materially rich may be poor, and even that
they may be more poor. It says that those who are poor may also be ‘rich
in spirit’, and indeed that being ‘rich in spirit’ is consequent on a particular
reception of material poverty, that material poverty may be the prelude or
opportunity for becoming ‘rich in spirit’.
Christians thank the poor for being the opportunity and means whereby
we can show thanks and give thanks to God. When this acknowledgement
is made, the poor are not trapped into any form of dependency by the
receipt of such charity. What they receive they owe not to the most
immediate giver. It is even a Christian gift to open yourself and become
vulnerable enough to receive gifts, and so make it possible for others to
make their first foray into giving.
Christians receive the charity of God. But that we receive the charity of
God in the act of thankfulness. This act of thankfulness is inseparable
from the act of passing it on. So we thank those to whom we may give,
for in giving to them we are able to acknowledge that we are ourselves
beggars, in receipt of the charity of God.
15
exercised by all, through our representatives, for all gifts are aspects of
the communion and love that holds us together as one.
Charity, and thus love, is fundamental. Love is without limit, but it may be
denominated, so that it is merely unlimited but also specific and limited. It
is the infinite generosity of God that we live in a bounded world which is
therefore a finite economy, in which we have to decide between
alternative uses of the same resource, and thus have to decide whom to
give this or that resource to. Distribution is perhaps the first economic act,
on which all other more explicitly economic decisions rest. We decide who
can make best use of this finite resource that we have to give, and this is
our own act of responsibility. This means that we have responsibility, and
responsibility makes us responsible, people who are judges, and who
judge for one another for a good that we share with them.
What we give many not be money. It take the form of time spent talking
and listening, eating together, taking their children out in order give that
parent the opportunity to do something else. Through these encounters
their morale may be raised higher than it could have been through a
financial gift. Loneliness is not solved by money. We give them our time
and there is a resulting increase in human dignity, and so they are
confident to start doing the same thing themselves. We give them
something of ourselves: person to person relationship is the basic form of
giving, the lack of which is the true poverty, and which flows of money
can only conceal from us. The giver is rewarded by this encounter as will
as the recipient, and through this act of giving the rich Christian learned
that they are a recipient of the grace of God. Christians do not want
opportunities to give and to receive from one another to be reduced.
When they see a need their first response is not to ask why the state has
not stepped in, for as soon as it does there is no need for individual givers
and receivers, and no opportunity for the personal growth that results.
The Christian faith regards caring as intrinsically rewarding, for through
caring that receives no recognition is an isolating and demoralising,
through caring we may grow in character and become mature persons.
Perhaps Christians have to withdraw from involvement in state welfarism
and support first their own from their own resources, and then whoever
else comes to them.
We can ask whether giving this particular person what they ask will help
not only this person but also all the others who see this act. We can
16
balance mercy to this person with mercy to all others, that is, with justice.
It may not be a mercy to all others to give this individual what they want,
if it creates additional expectations. The aim of charity is to enable its
recipient to cease to be a burden, to be productive, so that they can be
generous to other and carry the burdens of yet others.
The Christian Church is witness to the charity and grace of God, and all
Christian charity is an expression of this grace received. But in United
Kingdom the state now insists on providing an alternative definition.
According to the Charities Act (??) Church bodies in the UK have to
demonstrate that they meet the definition of charity given in the Act.
Charities may not use their own judgment to decide who they should
employ, for equality legislation has removed that power of discretion, so
religious bodies or religious foundations may not refuse employment on
25
Roger Scruton ‘The Journey Home’, Intercollegiate Review Spring 2009
17
the grounds that this person does not have enough in common with that
institution’s aims.
The formal economy of the market is not the whole economy of human
interaction. All human activity is based in the human self-giving which is
itself based in the self-giving of God. Not all labour can be paid or
recognised in wages. Not everything can be made explicit. Not everything
can be denominated in money, and so be ‘paid’. We cannot have our
reward made explicit entirely in this life. If we were instantly recognised
and rewarded for everything we do, there would be no freedom of action,
no risk, no room for interpretation.
When we insist that the only economy is the formal and monetised
economy, we dismantle the social capital on which the transmission of the
economy from one generation to another depends. The formal economy,
and money, can only denominate what is of penultimate value. What is of
ultimate value is persons. They are the one product without which the
economy will not continue. Our goods and services are of value as they
serve the long-term production and formation of human persons. They
26
Luke Bretherton Christianity and Contemporary Politics: The Conditions and
Possibilites of Faithful Witness (Wiley-Blackwell 2010)
18
have value as we use them to denominate the process of becoming
human. Thus when mothers are encouraged to ‘go back to work’ there is a
decline in social capital, from which all economic motivations are derived.
The household and the market are two sides of one economy. The human
economy consists of these two economies that meet and serve one
another.
Old people lend to young people. We have lots of old people who want to
lend to young people, but we do not have lots of young people. We have a
growing shortfall of young people, and this is the reason why we are
experiencing a banking crisis and why, if the crisis goes away this time, it
19
will assuredly come back again. Now since this conclusion may seem
completely implausible at first hearing, I will take a little time to set it out.
Let us start by looking at the housing market. As house prices rose up we
felt prosperous and confident to borrow, so we have been on a long
shopping binge, that has seemed to grow our economy. We did not ask
whether house prices could continue to rise. They could not do so, for
there are more people in their seventies trying to sell houses than there
are people in their thirties trying to buy them. If there are fewer young
people to sell them to than older people trying to sell them house values
will fall. The security against which we have all felt confident to borrow is
gone and our shopping spree is over. House prices have been fuelling the
whole economy, but houses only represent an asset of rising value when
there are young people to buy them. When today’s thirty year olds are
seventy, there will be still fewer people to sell those houses to, for today’s
thirty-year olds are not having enough children to replace today’s seventy
year olds.
27
John C. Caldwell & Bruce Caldwell Demographic Transition Theory (Springer
2006) p. 373
20
Other societies may be confident of our society and our economy to the
extent that we acknowledge and understand the qualities that made this
society good and this economy powerful and do so by not disavowing
those qualities or those generations. We will deal with this in more detail
in Chapter 4.
If we do not believe in ourselves and in all the virtues and practices which
have built our common (economic) life, why, our overseas investors may
ask, should they? By running down the social capital generated by the
covenant of marriage, have become so disassociated from one another
that we don’t know how to pay for, or support financially, someone we
love? Have we become so disassociated even from our own bodies that we
despise manual work and don't know how to wield a broom, let alone a
spanner? Our overseas investors will let us know. If we think it clever to
short-cut on the truth, which is what these instruments of financial
leverage and securitisation amount to, those who once thought Britain
and London a reliable and virtuous place may simply go elsewhere, and
our vaulted financial creativity, without financial self-control, will have
ended the whole game. Overseas investors may decide that in these last
decades we have simply been prettifying our national temple so that the
UK economy has simply become a dolls house. It is time to receive our
correction from the global economy.
28
Steven W. Mosher (Population Research Institute - www.pop.org) Kasun The
War against Population, Conelly Fatal Misconception.
21
Behind every economic crisis is a crisis of morale. Have we become the
society that individually none of us believe in? We have assumed that the
economy is an independent mechanism with no connection to any other
factors, in particular those social factors that I have linked to covenant, to
confidence and to the readiness of this society to create another
generation and so to continue. We have not made the connection between
economy and morale, and so we been taken by surprise by this financial
crisis.
The society that will not work and serve will not reproduce or persist. We
have lurched into crisis because both the free market has over-valued our
generation, and itself, and the state has over-estimated this present
generation, and over-extended itself.
22
each day’s bread. We must talk about culture because we are embodied
persons, who can receive their recognition and renewal only from other
persons, which is to say from humans formed by the culture by which
they can give each other such recognition. Thus these two discourses, of
economy and culture, may be distinguished, so that each does its proper
work in its own vocabulary, but they may not be separated. Man may
regard himself as unity of person and body, live well before his
contemporaries by referring to the covenant from which his hope is
sourced.
We have said that the household is the first economy, and the source of
all the motivation and the public service that makes up the second
economy of the market. The Church says that there are limits to the
responsibilities we can devolve without losing our integrity as independent
agents. Governments cannot provide for us what we are called to provide
for one another, for what we have to provide is simply relationship – or
love. This primary economic act of giving yourself is the foundation of all
subsequent ‘economic’ activity.
Marriage is already an act of public responsibility, first for the children that
emerge from it, but also because the husband and wife are very much
23
less likely to call upon the wider community, through claiming state
benefits, to support them. Patricia Morgan provides a succinct summary:
‘As individuals are disconnected from family, friends, neighbours,
churches, clubs, associations and community networks, social capital is
destroyed, trust evaporates, despoliation and predation spread. These
developments are not simply fortuitous or accidental, but are being
created by government policies that are altering our demographics:
policies that have progressively eradicated the links that bound families
together and communities together, out of indifference or even hostility
to human collaboration, by ignorance or design, these are subverting the
formation of enduring bonds and furthering social dislocation.’29
All human life and civilisation is about learning to defer, that is, to balance
the taking of pleasure with the deferral of pleasure, between having some
now and knowing that there is more to come, so that pleasure is not
merely fleeting and ‘physical’ but also social and lasting. So in order to be
public actors we have to be able to wait and not to resent those who have
what we do not. We cannot be completely compensated for what we have
undertaken or foregone. We may serve one another, acting generously
adult to child, husband to wife, or adult to elderly parent.
Every society has to give its respect to families because only families
produce new generations. The state cannot do so. Society has to give its
public acknowledgement, even express gratitude to, the parents who
bring up children. No children – no society. If society wants to continue it
has to allow those who want to be parents to get on with it. And it has to
allow them to get married, and so enter a covenant unlike any other.
Marriage is time-proven means by which children appear and are brought
up, and so by which society can continue. When the two you disappear off
into your public sphere, you can cordially invite all the rest of society to
make itself scarce, for you are engaged in something that is only for the
two of you to know about. But because the result of this secret moment is
that children appear, society must intend to stand guarantor for this
covenant, put its protection around the privacy and dignity of this
moment, and so secure the institution which ensures its own continuation
[Farrow Nation of Bastards]. Without that private and exclusive moment
between these two persons, there will be no children and society. Every
member of society needs the birth of child who in twenty years time will
be in the job market and paying the taxes and insurance contributions
which will be paying your pension. The society that belittles and the state
that dissolves this covenant is demolishing the social capital that alone
can give us economic prosperity.
We said that the entertainment industries are the first universal mediator
that open a wedge in the family. The corporations create the ‘needs’ and
the monetary economy takes over the functions of the family. When the
unity of the family is dissolved by those desires, the state moves in to
meet those ‘needs’.
29
Patricia Morgan The War between the State and the Family: How Government
divides and impoverishes p. 15
24
Over many decades commerce has outbid the mutual service of husbands
and wives, and so monetised the provision that belonged to family life.
Then whenever husbands or wives can no longer pay the market price for
such services, the state steps in to provide for the need that the market
has created. We have outsourced so many of the functions of the family,
but the economy that tries to take over these functions takes on an
impossible burden. No economy can sustain itself by paying some people
to dig holes and others to fill them in again, for the worth of our total
economic output must also depend on what we can sell to other
economies. Since these holes are being dug in the social capital gathered
over centuries, no amount of welfare spending in one generation can
repair or compensate for this moral-ecological disaster. Social capital is
money in the bank, but as soon as it is cashed into explicit money to
compensate for love not given or received, it is gone. Our needs are non-
finite, insatiable, until they are satisfied by love: love is personal and
regards each of us as irreplaceable. When everything is denominated in
terms of money, we cannot know whether to enter services on the debit
or credit side, with the result that money itself suffers a crisis.
Torrent of desire
Businesses may contribute first to their own continuation, there a concern
with profit, and then and thus to wider and more of the common good.
Businesses may promote the common good. But they may equally pursue
that obstruct the common good. Business gets in the way of these two
persons, providing each of them with a myriad reasons for delaying
meeting and staying with the others. It sends each of a stream of
diversions and distractions that hold them up from getting into bed,
forming and sustaining one household. The goods and commodities are
substitute-children. And we have reduced children to goods and
commodities that will alter our public profile, as though our immediate
peers at the office were the true judges of the worth of our children, or of
the (added-value) worth that our children will bring us. Our goods are
there to raise our profile and visibility.
Our society has convinced its men and women into pouring so much of
their effort into clambering up the mortgage ladder that they have been
too busy to have children. Having brought the house, we furnish it with
everything that the advertisers tell us to, as though it were some helpless
dependent of ours. We did this because everyone else was doing so and
we didn't want to be left behind.
‘As incomes rose and consumption increased, more income flowed into
positional income. With rising inequality and stagnant productivity, for
most people rising incomes could only be earned by the family as a
whole (and women in particular) working longer for wages. The price of
positional goods responded.’ 30
There was more to buy. Since we had to compete with everyone else for
these goods, both of us had to go out to work in order to afford them.
This house needs us both to service it, making it scarcely possible for us
30
Offer The Challenge of Affluence p. 361
25
to have time off for children. If we are going to have child, one of us has
to compromise on career.
With more to sacrifice and less security, women had fewer children
and had them later. A minority sought escape by ‘downshifting’.
Individually women appeared (on average) to be satisfied the with
bargain, but for society as a whole there are fewer children to replace
aging generations, and a large crisis of dependency in the making.’ 31
Though we bought the house in which to put the children, our little
temples are empty. House and car have become replacement children, the
only things that we are prepared to work for. We have allowed this vast
consumerist display to be taken much too earnestly. We have become
bewitched by novelty. ‘The flow of novelty and innovation undermines
existing conventions, habits, and institutions of commitment. It reinforces
a bias for the short-term.’32
If they cannot resist the torrent of desires that pour in from the
entertainment industries, family members cease to sacrifice individual
desires for family cohesion and are unable to work for one another or
welcome one another’s service. As the family breaks up, the state is there
to provide for each of the individual pieces that have been created. We no
longer need of one another because the state follows the private sector in
to provide each ‘need’ so that it never becomes articulated as the need of
one person for another. The result is that each individual is married to the
state. The state has become the universal mediator, driven to smooth out
all inequalities and with them all the complementarities, by which we need
one another. The state cannot love. But it may exhaust our national
economic resources in compensating for the love that we no longer give.
The State
The state is that set of public servants who intend to serve society by
safeguarding whatever is necessary to its future. The state exists to
protect the economy of the household, and protect and honour the
original event of self-giving that brings the household into being. Marriage
keeps people out of dependency more than any other institution. Nothing
can substitute for it, but everything the state does is a compensation for
it. Where there is not a prejudgment, literally a prejudice, in favour of
marriage, the working of the mechanism goes into reverse. Far from
safeguarding the family and the social capital it generates, the effect of
31
Offer The Challenge of Affluence p. 362
32
Offer The Challenge of Affluence p. 358
33
David Willets The Pinch
26
the state’s interventions is to promote singleness over the covenant of
two persons.
Any government wants to encourage all those initiatives that make up civil
society, but it does not know how to stop itself from hearing everything as
a plea for its closer involvement.
‘The ministerial civil service state had dislodged civic plurality whose
foundations lay in Christian notions of individual responsibility.’ 34
All this represents a very low view of man. The language of sin has not
disappeared with the secularisation, but rather in the language of guilt
and blame it has begun to get out of control. It is creating the sense that
we are all so fallen that no relationship of ours can last, or even that
every relationship is so intrinsically exploitative that none should be
allowed to last. The public budget is employed to leach away at marriage,
the one institution that is more basic than the state, in order to promote
singleness over all the covenants of which society and the economy is
made up. The state has paradoxically begun to work towards the
dissolution of civil society.
Neither the economy nor the state is able to produce children, or motivate
people to have children and bring them up. David Coleman suggests that
child allowances had no positive fertility effect; provision of free day care
to working mothers was proving counter-productive, since it required the
employment of still more women, raising the total ‘cost’ of children.36 This
covenanted entity, the family, alone contains reasons why a man and
woman should subordinate themselves to this new generation, and so it
alone produces new generations and safeguards that society’s future. If
business and state do not deliberately set out to support the family,
conscious of that the family is a fundamental good, they begin to militate
against the family and so against the production of children. We said that
utilitarian economics is in denial about history: it proves to be in denial
about the source of the future as a result. Considered alone, apart from
34
Frank Prochaska Christianity and Social Service in Modern Britain: The
Disinherited Spirit p. 150.
35
David Green We Are (Nearly) All Victims Now.
36
David Coleman
27
their responsibility to this covenanted entity, economy and state can only
throttle the future and so bring themselves into crisis.
But in compensating for marriage’s failures, the state has determined that
there is no difference between married and non-married, that is, between
relationships that intend permanence and those that do not. It is
attempting to obliterate the differentiations and asymmetries between the
covenants that ensure our future and those that do not. To suggest that
relationships which do not produce children are equivalent to relationships
that do is not only an untruth, but it has costly economic consequences.
When the state does not give fiscal protection to marriage, the confidence
that enables us to start families, and other more explicitly economic
initiatives, disappears. If the state taxes small businesses as though they
were big business, confidence to start businesses and employ people also
disappears. The need to comply with government demands means that
larger (and older) businesses are able to crowd out newer, smaller ones,
with the result that the economy is dominated by large corporations, and
37
Robert George ‘What Marriage and what it isn't’ First Things July 2009
28
capital has less and less relationship to social capital and the practices of
civil society.
We struggle with one another by claiming that we are the underdog. But
all this has become so attenuated and so effeminised that we are
perpetuating avoiding confrontation and upset, always identified new
categories of person who may be offended that we can no longer say no
to our children. The result is that we have achieved an entirely sclerotic
society in which no one may (widening consensus is seeking permission
from ever widening circles of people and demonstrating that you have
done so by keeping records and so by completing forms into which all
details of all relationships are entered so we have to support ever great
numbers of people to police what we are doing with the result that we
have stasis.
29
Demography
One fundamental factor for any economy is demography. For decades it
has been a given that the populations of Britain and the world are
growing. It is now clear that this is not the case. No declining population
ever had a growing economy. In Europe growth is over, and in Russia and
Eastern Europe, population is already falling back. A population does not
fall back smoothly and gently, for markets magnify these falls so that its
economy suffers a series of crashes. As our population contracts we are
compensating by importing people from other economies.38
These present financial tremors should warn us that we may not glide
gracefully down from a higher to lower population, or from higher growth
to lower. We may experience these two forms of descent as a series of
shocks.
Why are we willing to separate ourselves from our families, first from our
own parents and their generation, and then from our own children and
their generation? Are we making ourselves into a one-generation
phenomenon?
7. Social Capital
Culture as source of future
In this chapter I have started to suggest that the family is the place where
we learn all the virtues that make us confident economic agents and out-
going members of our society. These are intangible assets. We could say
38
John C. Caldwell and Bruce Caldwell Demographic Transition Theory (Springer
2006) p. 12. The Industrial system does not need marriage, families virginity
legitimate births or even reproduction. If the birth rate falls too low then
immigrants can replace the native-born.
39
David Coleman
40
Rhacel Parrenas The Force of Domesticity: Filipina Migrants and Globalization
(NYU 2008) discusses ‘patriarchary and neoliberalism in the globalisation of
care’. p. 16 The increasing migration flow of care workers in globalisation and in
the international transfer of reproductive labor from richer to poorer women in
the global economy speaks not only of disparate interest for women but also of
direct relationships of inequality between them.
30
that they are illiquid assets, but as we shall see in the next chapter, they
may be made liquid and spent, after which they are no longer available as
the springs of our motivations. We need a clear realm in which we are
motivated by our particular loves, that is, by the love of those very
particular persons who make up our family. It is only our family, our
parents and our children and grand-children, that draw our attention and
effort beyond ourselves and so make us persons whose orientation is to
more than the single forty-year event of their own career, more even
more than the eighty-year event of their own life-span. It is our family
that makes each of us more than a one-generation phenomenon. We are
engaged in the economy for the notional forty years of our career, but
before, after and of course during that career, we are committed to the
domestic household. When no employer will have us, the family is still
there, or may still be there if we allow it to be. We cannot therefore
assimilate and absorb the family economy into the formal economy.
The distinction between these two economies of family and market is itself
sourced in the difference between men and women. Since men and
women are different and need each other, the household and market are
distinct and need each other. Humanity is not homogenous: if there were
one unisex human being, it would have no need or desire or interest in
any other human being. Thus there would be no need to out into public
square in order to discover that other human being. This fundamental,
biologically-enabled, difference gives rise to the mutuality and
complementarity of these two spheres. The difference between these two
economies is dependent (1) on the given (natural, and good) distinction
between men and women, and on the gracious discipling which can take
us towards that communion in which human differences and uniquenesses
are affirmed, redeemed, and established.
Every attempt to diminish the duality of human being as man and woman
only serves to reproduce that duality in the form of the Individual and the
Collective, the individual and the State. Then the Individual becomes the
god to whom all society has to serve and the State becomes the god
whom ever individual has to serve and work for. So we are each of us at
once god and slave, master and servant, consumer and employee.
31
together in that lasting way that is secured by a marriage. If society does
not recognise the household as the source of the next generation, there is
no incentive to start one. If society does not recognise and commend new
households and all other forms of public initiative- and risk-taking, there
will be fewer of them. If no one can take a loss, no one will take a risk,
and the result is the stagnation of our inflated social economy. Only our
own freely-entered covenants can give us the motivation to take
initiatives. Since we are not free in relationship to it, the state cannot
motivate us to anything.
The society that does not acknowledge this elementary principle of self-
government does not allow its government to remain within its own
proper limits. Then we are likely to push government beyond its mandate.
If we cannot say ‘no’ to ourselves we do not know how to accept a ‘no’
from any other authority. Each interest group claims to be needy and
neglected: it claims its subsidy and bailout, and no one appears on behalf
of the state to be anyone strong enough to resist. As often as we go to
the government we extend and over-extend the powers of government,
and reduce its real authority and legitimacy, and push government and
society as a whole a little further towards political paralysis and economic
bankruptcy.
32
The Church is the community in which all are bound, and so the
community which generates trust. The Church is the place of self-giving
without calculation of return and so it is community which indulges in risk-
taking. When we disregard Christian discipleship, and the community of
the Church that forms us in that discipleship, we have a state that has no
way of reigning itself in. It cannot help stepping in to take responsibility,
and so rendering all of us less able to help one another more locally.
The society that cannot restrain its demands has created the over-
extended state. We have colluded in the general sense that people are
victims and that we are individually powerless to change anything. We can
only change anything by being changed, transformed, by this discipleship.
Christian discipleship converts us from passive consumers, to active
servants, who work and pray. We may exercise our own judgment. We
may decide, for ourselves, and for the benefit of others. We do not need
the government to step in. We do not need funding, or to seek permission
or to establish a consensus. We take the precautions and savings, and
when one of us is hit by trouble everyone provides support. We require
the language of saving, self-restraint and of sacrifice in order to persuade
not to maximise our immediate consumption.
Future orientation
In modern, ‘neoclassical’ economics, bringing up a new generation is
conceptualised as expenditure as though it were an item of personal
consumption. Children are not understood as an investment and capital
cost, made by these two persons for the eventual benefit of all. Discussion
of economic exchange is confined to exchanges within this present
generation.
Yet children must be the first product of any economy and society, while
persons brought to maturity in the virtue and industriousness that has
created that society must be the second product of that economy. This
virtue and industriousness makes each generation ready to enter those
inevitably revolves around the Christian moral and ethical system and its
transformation. We propose that this moral system can be viewed as an excellent
intellectual adaptation to, and buttress of, the traditional family mode of
production in Western Europe. The intergenerational solidarity between members
of the family, so necessary for the smooth operation of such familial economic
units of production, was a central concern of Christian teaching. The paternal
control of this unit was thoroughly legitimated by the prevailing moral code, for
which the Christian churches acted as guardians.’
33
covenants which bring a new generation into existence and then to
maturity. There is a covenant and marriage between this generation and
all possible future generations, between the present and the future, but
only those communities that understand themselves in terms of covenant
are able to say so.
Summary
5. If men and women have a motive to seek one another and having
found, to stay with one another they form a unit and as this unit they are
able to relate in a more generous way to others. To the extent that this
marriage gives them additional motivation, a married member of a
household is able to offer the world something additional.
7. The society that does not respect the difference and complementary
nation of the sexes and give their complementary roles public recognition
34
ceases to comprehend or give its protection to marriages. Marriages will
and fewer of them will start in the first place.
10. We are free to enter unique covenants with particular persons. We can
sustain relationships with particular persons because we are free to give
ourselves, and to receive those who give themselves to us.
12. When they give them explicit acknowledgement, market and state can
support our covenants. When our covenants are denied public recognition,
all specific relationships are dissolved over the long-term and our
motivation to enter them suffers.
13. The distinction between the two economies of household and private
responsibility and initiative (private sector) and public (market and state)
is crucial. Economy and household need each other. The public and
economic sphere without the private and domestic sphere is sterile. The
public sphere cannot make children. The household without the outer
sphere is immature: it cannot turn children into citizens. Without
interaction with many other households in the public sphere and economy,
we cannot become public persons.
14. The monetised economy has encroached on the family and domestic
household. As it does so, the realm of the household starts to dissolve.
16. The society that does not promote the production of children above
any other economic good will suffer declining morale and declining
population. A declining population is reflected in economic crises.
35
18. Those who have no faith in eternity will be unable to take the risk of
making themselves vulnerable enough to come into dependence, financial
and other, on a marriage partner. There is a relationship between
religious faith, readiness to bear children and sustain a family.
21. The two-generation unit (the family) that comprised now and not yet
was the norm. Now the family is a one-generation unit, that is unable to
comprehend or enable what is not yet.
22. We can act for the common good in our commercial relationships. We
can take the initiatives that makes for a healthy market and small
government. Christians produce a distinctive form of public service that
underwrites all other forms of public service and the public square.
23. There are the economies of household and market. And there are the
two economies of primitivism and modernity. Only primitive economies
reproduce.
24. The distinction between the two economies of present (immediate and
finite) and present-and-future (open and infinite) is crucial.
36