Zimerman Family Civilization Zimmermann

8/18/2019 Zimerman Family Civilization Zimmermann

1/7

!"# %&'()* +&,-'(#,'# ),. /"# 0)1(*234/"&56-78 +)5*# +9 :(11#51),%&45'#8!"# 31#5('), ;&45,)* &< %&'(&*&=2> ?&*9 @A> B&9 C 6B&D9> EFGH7> II9 AHCJAHKL4M*(-"#. M28 The University of Chicago Press%/)M*# NOP8http://www.jstor.org/stable/27710723''#--#.8 AHQERQARER ES8RG

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2771072?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2771072?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/7

THE SOCIAL CONSCIENCE AND THE FAMILY'

CARLE C. ZIMMERMAN

ABSTRACT

Facing crises like those of the present, neither the Greek nor the Roman civilization was able to survive.The modern Western world, unlike its cultural predecessors, has developed the essentials of a system offamilial values and preserved them despite their detachment from the real situation. If the family is to en-dure, the literate minority must assume responsibility for inculcating family doctrine in the social conscienceof the masses.

The Western family is rapidly approach-ing its third violent crisis. The climax willbe reached before the end of this century.It will be reflected in extremely high ratesof all the symptoms of family decay-divorce, childlessness, disloyalty of familymembers to each other, and the unwilling-ness of many persons to burden them-selves with families. Even heterosexualityitself will be challenged. This developmentof antifamilism will be associated with achanged system of social relations in whichmore and more human behavior will bebased on willed contract, compulsion, andtemporary selfish interest rather than onfamily feeling and the voluntary willingness

of persons to carry on their daily socialduties.

This crisis will be the third such mani-festation of mass disregard of the family inWestern society. The first occurred be-tween 450 and 250 B.C. in Greece and thesecond among our Roman forebears betweenA.D. 3oo and 550. Many thoughtful persons,surveying the present development, havebeen led to ask the question whether fami-lism can persist. Is familism worth while?

Does the family system have within itselfrecuperative forces to help combat thepresent widespread antagonism to it? Cer-tain despondent persons today openly ques-tion the desirability of bringing children ntothis "brave new world." Others dream of aworld such as that depicted by AldousHuxley in which the necessary children willbe incubated and brooded like poultry. A

few, an increasingly smaller few, shut them-selves up in the world of the family, hopingthat this system which has always func-tioned in the past will continue to do so.Often unthanked and even "persecuted" bythe world at large, these few carry on theburdens of civilization. These have thehostages to fortune, as Bacon said, and arenot, like the others, free and mobile persons.

I have chosen to examine the "con-science" of the Western world to learnwhether our previous experience with massfamily disruption can tell us anything of theprobability of a revival of familistic faith.Has there been an evolution of moral andsocial doctrine sufficient to meet the forces

attacking the family?The term "social conscience" is being

used here in the sense illustrated by J. H.Breasted in his Dawn of Conscience. Whenabsolute and universal standards of rightand wrong about the family become ac-cepted, and the people come to believe thatthese rules and standards of behavior areimmortal and the basic requisite of civiliza-tion, we have a period of conscience and canspeak of the "dawn of conscience."

We can note, first of all, that highercivilization has been associated with thebroad acceptance of systems of family faith.The rites of Confucianism, a familial moralsystem, marked the advent of the FarEastern peoples into civilization. Sincethen, regardless of the minor fluctuationsin Chinese cultures, the cultivation of thefamily and high civilization have clung to-gether. The same may also be said of theHindu peoples since Valmiki's Ramayana.

They have seemed to achieve and retain a

I This is a summary f several hapters f a forth-coming book, The Failure of the Family, to be pub-

lished in I947. Little or no documentation s used.263


3/7

264 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

position in higher civilization because ofthe concurrent emergence of their greatcivilizations and a clear-cut and, thus far,

inextinguishable familial doctrine. Some-what similar developments appear to havetaken place in the Near East among themany different mixtures of civilizationsbounded on the west by the Egyptians andon the east by the Persians. All these groupshave had a highly developed conception ofuniversal family mores.

As a matter of fact, familial conscienceand that which we call modern civilization(of the last five thousand years) have been

connected closely in a causal sense. Similar-ly, deviants and retrogressions in civiliza-tion have been associated with the disrup-tion of the family.

THE PROBLEM

The problem is to find out if the socialconscience regarding the family in Westernsociety has evolved or developed and if, al-lowing for temporary fluctuations, this de-velopment or evolution has been progres-

sive. This is different from the question ofthe evolution of the family itself. It couldalso allow for great periods of deviation offact from ideal. For instance, from thesixth to the ninth centuries of our era theideal of family life in the social consciencewas the domestic type picture in the writ-ings of Augustine. According o his codifica-tion of the moral and social ideal, husbandand wife, parent and child, were one. Butover and above the domestic institution allmen were brothers. In spite of this ideal, weknow the peoples were actually ruled byclan or kin organizations larger than thedomestic family; and the unity of spouses,of parents and their children, depended al-most entirely, when publicly challenged,upon whether this unity served the clans.

We also notice the opposite situation to-day. Despite the present "moral idealiza-tion" of the family, a few dollars and theabsence of protest will sever almost anyfamily unit on the grounds of any one ofmany real or fictitious allegations.

What we are examining here is not thefamily itself but the virility of its moralideal. We are trying to determine whetherthere will be a resurgence of an effectivemoralor social conscience with regard to thepresent decay of the family.

LACK OF FAMILY CONSCIENCE AMONG

THE GREEKS

When we speak of historical memory,Western life begins with the Greeks. Thus,it is of critical importance to this -analysisto examine Greek society in an effort tolearn whether there developed in it a per-

manent moral conscience regarding familylife. The answer is not difficult to find be-cause the vital documents necessary in de-picting family conditions among the Greeksare available today for the full course of thatcivilization-from Homer to the cynicalsatirist Lucian of Samosata.

From about 450 to 250 B.C. the Greekfamily system decayed, at first graduallyand then, as in modern times, with greatrapidity. What attitude was taken toward

this decay by the more thoughtful amongthe Greeks?The Greeks noted the decay of their fam-

ily system but apparently did not under-stand its seriousness. With but 'few excep-tions, the leaders who observed this decayparticipated in it themselves. The seriousPlato worried about it and tried to plan anideal society in which it could be prevented.Aristophanes, he dramatist, displayed theirdegeneracy n front of the people as much inremonstrance as for entertainment. He evenappears in character in one of his plays topoint out that he had not, unlike most, beenseducing young boys. Except for a few-Polybius, for example-all the prominentGreeks participated in the national riot.Isaeus, the legalist, made the breakup of thefamily an argument to win suit over posses-sion of property by his clients. Demosthenesused the family situation of his time as ameans of defending male prostitution simplybecause the accused, whom he was defend-ing, was one of his political colleagues.


4/7

THE SOCIAL CONSCIENCE AND THE FAMILY 265

Fundamentally, from the time of Pericles tothat of Plutarch-a five-hundred-year pe-riod from 450 B.C. to A.D. ioo-no note-worthy defender of the family appearedamong the public figures of Greece. Theirsole contribution to Western family con-science was merely that of observing theirexperience and recording ts disastrous con-sequences.

THE HIGHER ROMAN CONSCIENCE

The Roman world wondered why it hadbecome dominant over the Mediterraneanin the face of the older, richer, more civi-

lized, and theoretically stronger cultures ofGreece and North Africa. The answer wasgiven them by Polybius, born a Greek butadopted as a Roman. Following the histori-cal tradition of Herodotus, Thucydides, andXenophon, and having immersed himself inthe logic of the "causal" analysis of Platoand Aristotle, he wrote a sociological historywhich has had a profound influence onWestern civilization. Polybius described thedecay of family life among the Greeks and

attributed the supremacy of Rome to itsstrong familial system leading to a finecommonwealth and to unselfish devotion topublic affairs. It was indeed Polybius whofixed the belief in Western society that thepreservation of the family is the first pre-requisite to the continuation of a civiliza-tion.

This idea seems to have found acceptancein Rome. Thus, family sociology was one ofthe earliest of the special social sciences in

Western civilization. It was preceded, infact, only by history and the general com-bination of the social sciences in the Pla-tonic and Aristotelian schools. We no longerhave the earliest books, although we knowthe names of many of the authors, the lawsor reforms they proposed, and the actionsand beliefs concerning he family of some oftheir prominent followers, such as JuliusCaesar, the dictator, and Augustus, the firstRoman emperor (Suetonius Augustus xxxix,Dio Cassius Roman History lvi).

Thus, when the Roman family began to

decay-as it did rapidly in the civil warsbefore the Empire, during the first centurypreceding the birth of Christ-the Romanfamily conscience, in contrast to the Greek,had noted the symptoms of this decline,diagnosed its causes and results as well asits meaning for their great civilization, andsuggested a remedial program. This was theso-called Julian legislation, a series of pro-found modifications of the Roman socialsystem, seeking to preserve, protect, pro-mote, and extend marriages, parenthood,childbearing, and family life in general.The measures require a large volume for ex-

planation and elucidation. Fundamentally,their aim was to make the Romans keep thefamily by requiring marriage, parenthood,and family life as first requisites to social,legal, political, and other success in the Em-pire.

During the first hundred and fifty yearsthe Julian reforms were ruthlessly enforced,often to the discomfort of the leisure classwho wanted to avoid family ties and to letthe common people be the proles, or child-

bearers. When these measures, because ofthe lack of a sound educational and propa-ganda system as well as for other reasons,proved unpopular with the masses, theywere found incapable of enforcement. TheRoman family system finally wilted, just asours is doing now, with identical symptomsand the same inevitable social conse-quences.

The Christians, who had become thedominant force in the Empire after A.D. 300,

felt that the cult of the family should resultfrom religious persuasion. Many of themwere also convinced during the next twocenturies that the world was too frightfuland cruel to survive. Judgment day, theywere certain, was soon coming Penaltiesagainst celibates and childless persons didnot fit into their scheme because many ofthem wanted to turn completely away frdma life of the senses and to devote themselvesentirely to asceticism. Consequently, theyrepealed the Julian legislation between A.D.325 and 350.


5/7


THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE

The Christians, however, soon were notsatisfied to leave the family entirely to ex-

hortation. Scarcely twenty-five years afterpenalties against celibacy and childlessnesshad been removed from Roman legislation,the early leaders, under the guidance ofBasil, began an elaborate series of privatelegislation against neglect of the family.These regulations differed from the Julianlaws in that they were enforced by thechurch, applied only to members, and weremore extensive than any single system ofpenalties under Roman law. The family

code of Basil dealt with every action-abortion, desertion, abandonment of chil-dren, adultery, sexual irregularities of alltypes (sodomy, homosexuality, bestiality),mistreatment of marriage partners, dis-respect to parents, neglect of children-which the religious leaders considered "un-familistic" or sinful.

Later many of these family regulationscodified by Basil were taken up by the em-perors and made into public law. Generally

the emperors were more strict and severethan the church and inflicted whipping,castration, or the death penalty for flagrantabuses. (The description of the treatment oftwo alleged adulterers in the first letter ofJerome makes one cringe.) This was con-trary to Christian ideas. Christians wantedlighter punishments which gave the individ-ual a chance to repent, reform, and be par-doned. One of the influences of the churchon later Roman law was to lighten itsseverity.

However, all these reforms could notseem to hold the family together sufficientlyto preserve the civilization.2 After the sackof Rome in A.D. 4IO and the writing of TheCity of God by Augustine in 427, things ap-peared to become worse and worse. By thetime we get a new and clear picture ofEuropean society3 the Romans are largelyunder barbarian tribal rule with a family

organization and law much cruder than anyenvisioned either by the church or by theRoman emperors. The society still had the

ideal of the Christian family, that of mar-riage with proles, ides, and sacramentum sthe normal state for the adult. This waslaunched into the Middle Ages by the lastof the early Church Fathers, Isadore ofSeville. By the time of Gregory of Toursmurder had no penalty if the victim had leftno family to avenge him.

This situation lasted for many centuries,sometimes getting better and sometimesworse. In the meantime, the social con-science of the Middle Ages envisioned thedomestic family anticipated by Augustine,Isadore, and Thomas Aquinas. Graduallythe ideal became more and more the realityuntil, for several centuries, irst Western andthen Eastern Europe became increasinglydomesticated. The development of socialconscience regarding the family and itsfixation in Western tradition was amazing.To read modern works on the "mind of theMiddle Ages," one would think that therewere no family problems then. To read thediscussions of problems in canon law, onewould think there was nothing else butfamily life in the Middle Ages.4

THE MODERN CONSCIENCE

Ever since the Reformation and at anincreasing rate, the modern individualisticor atomistic family has replaced the do-mestic family which dominated Western Eu-rope from the twelfth century on. The ques-tion is whether this has been a change in the

actual family, in the ideal of the social con-science, or in both. In the leaders of thismodern change the reality has moved fromthe ideal, as happened in the Middle Ages,only in an opposite direction. The ideal orsocial conscience regarding the family isstill with us, largely unchanged from itscodification by the Christian philosophers nlate Roman days.

Space is not available here to give in de-tail all the different schools of thought fromSee Augustine, City of God; Salvian, On the

Government of God.3 Gregory of Tours, History.

4See the sponsalia controversy regarding mar-riage from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries.


6/7

THE SOCIAL CONSCIENCE AND THE FAMILY 267

the leaders of the Reformation through theeighteenth-century rationalists and thenineteenth-century evolutionary philoso-phers to the modern family sociologists.However, all of them have paid sinceretributes to the ethical ideal of the family.In this respect the modern change differsdistinctly from the earlier crises in Greeceand Rome. The Greeks recognized thebreakup of their family system and seemedto think that the new "unfamilistic" systemwas "better" than the old. This is typicallysuggested in the case Against Neaera, inwhich Demosthenes congratulates the for-tunate Greeks for having at least twoheterosexual alternatives to supplementchild-bearing. The Romans recognized thebreakup of their family system, but theynever claimed that the family was gettingbetter. Rather, they seemed to feel thatnewcomers n the Empire would furnish themanpower, whereas the Roman would enjoyhimself without the difficulties of family life.This is most typically illustrated by state-ments of Plutarch on the ludicrousness ofparenthood among the Romans, by thesixth satire of Juvenal, and by the attitudesof the wealthy Romans described in detailby Ammianus Marcellinus.

In the modern period the breakup of thefamily system has thus far been accom-panied by a psychological reaction entirelynew for Western society. It is being achievedby secrecy and fiction, false hypotheses,misinterpretation of history, and exagger-ated piety, seemingly on the theory thatbeyond us, as an external and constraining

social force, there is a permanent system ofsocial values which must not knowingly beviolated.

Modern man marries, divorces, and re-marries ad infinitum. He seeks to secure anethical sanction (church wedding) for eachnew liaison. This is announced as the perfectand ideal achievement to last unto eternity.In Greece such a person would have had onemarriage if it suited his fortune or if, per-chance, he might have had a temporary

wish for children. His other arrangements(with ketaerae, meretrices, or homosexuals)

would have been arranged publicly, merelyas conveniences, and without the slightestpretext that he was thereby "improving hefamily." In Rome, the same personmighthave followed several courses: He (i) mighthave followed the Greek pattern, (2) re-mained an avowed celibate with changingliaisons, or (3) married or remarried withinthe loose concubinatus orm which was pure-ly private and involved no ethical or socialsanction. At least, he would have made noboasts that he was improving himself, mar-riage, or the family by his constantly chang-ing sexual arrangements. This is a simplifiedstatement of the situation, neglecting sev-eral amenities to the public forced by theJulian legislation, but it is a true picture.No Roman has left a record in which heclaimed the next marriage would be the"ideal" and final culmination of conjugalhappiness.

A pat illustration of this is found in therejoicing at the end of a war in modern so-ciety, as contrasted with the Greek custom.Today we rejoice at the reuniting of families(although we know intellectually that manyreunite only as an interlude before breakingup again). Compare this with a similar pe-riod in Greek ociety as depicted by Aristoph-anes in his comedy The Acharnians, whichenabled the young author to win the highestprize at the Lenaean festival at Athens in425 B.C. The Greeks depicted by him werepleased, not to be reunited husband andwife, parent and child, but rather to worshipPhales again:

Companion of the orgies of Bacchus,Night reveler,God of adultery and pederasty,[Whom]I have not been able to invokeThese past six years [11.255-65].

By that time the family system of themasses of Greeks was broken and there wasno such thing as a family conscience left.5

5 Those who do not accept this can find muchshocking reading in The Complete Greek Drama, ed.W. J. Oates and Eug6ne O'Neill, Jr. (2 vols.; NewYork: Random House, I938).


7/7


There is no space to illustrate this further,but a comparison of marriage attitudes ofall social classes today indicates that the

modern breakup of the family is an actualityachieved by fictional misrepresentationwhich has left the original values largelyunimpaired.

THE FUTURE OF THE FAMILY

The future of the family in our society isas yet unclear. On the one hand, we mustrecognize that in reality our system is ap-proaching a crisis. Only twice in all humanhistory, once in Greece and once in Rome,

has a large family system approached a de-velopmental extreme as violent as ours. Atcertain periods Greek and Roman de-moralization was more advanced than ourown, but in a short space of time we shallresemble them at their worst. On the otherhand, while their demoralization was asimple extrovert thing, ours is hidden andintrovert.

However, modern society has still pre-served the essentials of a system of family

values. Previous history of Western societyhas shown that this system has evolved of

itself despite the difficulties of making itgenerally acceptable to the public.

The acceptance of these values by the

public, once it has become used to its tem-porary freedom from them, seems to havehinged upon two social phenomena: (i) thecapacity and (2) the ability of a literateminority by leadership and teaching to re-inculcate family values among the masses.

These two phenomena can occur in mod-ern society. But we shall have to erect amuch more sophisticated and honest familysociology than has existed since Voltaire'sEncyclopedie.

The future of the family and of manyof the important aspects of modern civiliza-tion hinges upon whether these two ideaswill develop among the literate minority.On the one hand, considering the tremen-dous changes they will mean in thinking, Ishould hesitate to say that these will be car-ried out. On the other hand, considering heextreme seriousness of the problem, I shouldhesitate to say that they will not be de-veloped.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Documents

Zimerman Family Civilization Zimmermann